The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA DOCUMENTS WAKE County ~RI. No. 90 CVS 4319 In The General Court Of Justice o District ~ Superior Court Division ., I t" J. " \ M . ~i(~, },:-I\~ ~,,-- STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VERS SUBPOENA ERVIN M. ESTES, ET UX, ET AL. G.S. 1 A-l. Rule 45 Pa!!X Requesting SubpoeClfi U State/Plaintiff ~Defendant Name Of Person Subpoenaed T . o Name Of Second Person Subpoenaed Name Of Third Person Subpoenaed o Other (specify) rBss ( Not e: A single subpoena may be used for as many as three persons if all have the same address. If documents are subpoenaed. only one person may be named. ) Alternate Address Telephone No. City. State, Zip T eJephone No. YOU ARE COMMANDED TO: (check all that apply) o appear and testify, in the above entitled action. before the court at the place. date and time indicated below. o produce for the court the following ilems. at the place. date and time indicated below. * This subpoena shall remain in effect for the entire term of trial or until you are released by the court. ame And Location Of Coult Wake County Courthouse Fayetteville Street Mall . . Date To Appear/Produce April 6, 1992 Time ~~ -rOear/Produce Date T e ent~re term eg~nnin 10-8 &JAM DPM o Deputy CSC o Ma istrate Signature ... AOe-G-100 Rev. 7/89 (Please See Reverse Side) AGENDA DOCUMENTS ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED SEACREST BLVD. SCRUB, (CEDAR GROVE SITE) BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA. 09 January 1992 by Donald Richardson, Ph.D. Ecological Consultants, Inc. 5121 Ehrlich Road, Suite 103A Tampa, Florida 33624 r'n'mduction This ecological assessment was prepared to satisfy the environmental requirements as requested by the city of Boynton Beach. Since this project does not meet the requirements of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), no report will be submitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The purpose of this report is to identify the natural flora, fauna, and to identify those portions of the site that may be deemed of significant importance to the city. It is the intent of the client that this property, currently referred to as Seacrest Blvd. Scrub (Cedar Grove), be developed in a manner which would least disturb the environmental aspects of the surrounding areas. Currently, the environmental aspects associated with this site have suffered some disturbance due to several unrelated factors: 1) increased urbanization of surrounding properties, 2) suppression of natural fires, 3) dumping of waste materials by locals, 4) off-road vehicles, and 5) influx of exotic plant species in portions of the site. General Location The Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site is located in Palm Beach County south of the city of Boynton Beach. The site contains about 53.0 acres and is bordered by 31th Street to the north, 34st Street to the south, Seacrest Blvd. to the west and the Florida East Coast tracks to the east. Due to city ordinance, approximately 8.0 acres surrounding the site are currently mowed. The remaining portion of the site (about 45.0 acres) is a mixture of Scrubby Flatwoods, Oak Scrub, Sand Pine Scrub, and Ruderal vegetation. Historical Perspective The Seacrest Blvd. Scrub scrub was formerly part of a large contiguous sand pine scrub forest that extended north and south along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge in Palm Beach County. Elevations within the site range from a high of 25.0 feet msl near Seacrest Blvd. and gradually level off to about 15.0 feet msl near the tracks. Since the entire site is within the old relict dune system, no wetland communities were found. 8 Soils The site can be divided into two major soil types (Figure 1). Pomello fine sand (PhB) - This is a nearly level to gently sloping, moderately well-drained, deep, sandy soil that has a dark, weakly cemented layer below a depth of 30 inches. This soil occurs on low ridges and knolls. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. Under natural conditions, the water table is within 24 to 40 inches for 1 to 4 months during wet periods and below 40 inches the remainder of the year. Permeability is rapid and fertility extremely low. The natural vegetation is slash pine, sand pine, scrub oak, saw palmetto, sand plum, fetterbush, wiregrass and other native grasses. Paola Sand (PcB) - This is a nearly level to sloping, excessively drained, deep, sandy soil, that has a yellowish layer beneath the white subsurface layer. It is commonly found on narrow dune like ridges near the Atlantic coast. The slopes range from 0 to 8 percent. Under natural conditions, the water table is below a depth of 6 feet. Permeability is very rapid and fertility extremely low. The natural vegetation is sand pine and an understory growth of scrub oak, palmetto, and rosemary. Floristic Component Analysis Methods The vegetation of the site was surveyed by establishing a grid of line-transects in an east- west direction over the entire site. All transects were spaced on 15 meter centers in order to adequately sample the entire site. In areas of thick vegetation, transect lines rarely exceeded 5 meter intervals. All plant species encountered along each transect were recorded by area to determine species richness. The generalized location of all protected species were recorded by community type. Plant species were identified with Long and Lakela (1971) and Wunderlin (1980). Results The vegetation of the site is dominated by sand pine scrub, scrubby flatwoods, disturbed oak scrub and ruderal vegetation. The margins of the site have been periodically m9wed and are dominated by ruderal species with scattered pioneer scrub species. OAK SCRUB The western 22.7 acres of the sand pine scrub (Figure 2) have been severely disturbed in the past. Conversation with local residents indicates that this area must have been disturbed prior to 1950. This area is dominated by scattered sand live oak thickets that are overgrown with love vine (Cassytha filiformis), wild grape (Vitis munsoniana), and rosary pea (Abrus precatorius). Only a few sand pine (Pinus clausa) occur in this portion of the site with some minor evidence of past logging. Slash pine (Pinus elliottii) is widely scattered in the disturbed areas between the sand live oak thickets and become more numerous in the central portion of the site. Numerous slash pine seedlings were observed scattered throughout the ground cover layer in areas devoid of an overstory of oak or vines. Several large clumps of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) form small islands that are often covered with love vine and wild grape. Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) is widely scattered in the western portion of the site and also along the disturbed margins. Several large Brazilian pepper thickets occur along the western edge of the site in areas that were severely disturbed or were used as local dump sites. The shrub layer is dominated by scrub palmetto (Sabal etonia). Several thousand individuals were observed in the disturbed areas at much greater densities than found in other scrubs throughout the region or state. Other shrubs include Palafoxia feayi, isolated sand live oak (Quercus geminata), pawpaw (Asimina reticulata), and jointweed (Polygonella polygama). In comparison with other scrubs, the shrub layer in the western portion of the site is sparse and poorly represented for sand pine scrub systems in south Florida. The herbaceous layer includes a wide variety of both endemic scrub species and ruderal associates. The most common include silkgrass (Pityopsis graminifolia), scrub sedge (Rhynchospora megalocarpa), gopher apple (Licania michauxii), Dalea feayi, partridge pea (Cassia chamaecrista), diyflower (Commelina erecta), broomsedge grass (Andropogon virginicus), and natal grass (Rhynchelytrum repens) (Table 1). It appears that most of the disturbance has been concentrated on the areas of highest relief. On the eastern edge of the western section at the 19 foot contour interval, much of the disturbance begins to disappear as evidenced by a partially closed canopy of sand pine and a dense understory of scrub oaks. SCRUBBY FLATWOODS The middle portion of the site from the edge of the western section eastward about 500 feet is probably best described as scrubby flatwoods. The overstory is a mixture of scattered sand pine and numerous slash pine (Pinus elliottii) with a scrub oak understory. The slash pine appear to be mature trees reaching hieghts of over 40 feet. Slash pine regeneration is sparse due to the thick oak understory. The sand pines vary in size from 3-21 inches dbh, reaching heights of about 30 feet In some areas. Sand pine seedlings and small trees are scattered about the oak understory but become concentrated along the open ecotone between the scrubby flatwoods and the western section. Only a few isolated Brazilian pepper occur in this portion of the site. The shrub layer is a dense thicket of sand live oak and myrtle oak (Quercus myrtifolia) with scattered tallowwood (Ximenia americana), scrub palmetto, fetterbush (Lyonia ferruginea), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) and pawpaw (Asimina obovata). In contrast to the western section, the herbaceous layer is sparse and many open, sandy areas occur within the vegetation. Beneath the oaks, scrub sedge (Rhynchospora megalocarpa), gopher apple (Licania michauxii), and numerous sand live oak seedlings can be found. The dominant herbs in the open areas include sand spike moss (Selaginella arenicola), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium solstitiale), Stipulicida setacea, wiregrass (Aristida gyrans), silkgrass (Pityopsis graminifolia), hair sedge (Bulbostylis ciliatifolia), wireweed (Polygonella gracilis), and nut sedge (Cyperus retrorsus). Past disturbance in this portion of the site has been limited to sporadic a\fI1ping and ATV paths by local residents. SAND PINE SCRUB The eastern section of the site is dominated by a sand pine dominated overstory with a dense oak shrub understory in contrast to the scrubby flatwoods section where the oak layer is similar but the overstory is dominated by slash pine. This section of the property is dominated by sand pines that range in size from 2-47 inches dbh. The average age of the mature trees vary between 40-59 years. In some areas, the sand pine form a closed canopy with a sparse oak understory due to the low light levels. Because of the various ages classes within the forest, it appears that fire may have occurred at some point in time prior to 1960. Some of the oldest sand pines have multiple trunks, some with as many as 4 main trunks exceeding 16 inches dbh. The majority of the sand pines have closed cones, however, several old trees have open cones. This may be attributed to old age or cool ground fires, but probably accounts for some of the regeneration of the sand pine within the forest. The shrub layer is varied in the eastern section of the site. Beneath mature sand pine, the oak layer is sparse as many of the trees are heavily laden with air plants (Tillandsia recurvata and Tillandsia utriculata). Here, the oaks range in size from seedlings to just over one meter. In the areas of no sand pine or young trees (3-10 years), the oak layer (Quercus geminata and Quercus myrtifolia) becomes dense and may reach heights of 10-12 feet. Other common associates include scrub palmetto (Sabal etonia), scrub mint (Conradina grandiflora), staggerbush (Lyonia lucida), fetterbush (Lyonia ferruginea), tallowwood (Ximenia americana), Palafoxia feayi, and scattered pawpaw (Asimina obovata). In some areas of dense oaks, schefflera (Brassaia actinophylla) seedlings have become established by growing epiphytically on ball moss. This phenomenon has been observed in other scrubs that occur in residential areas where birds disperse the seeds. The herbaceous layer is sparse and sometimes completely lacking beneath the dense oak layer. Only a few oak seedlings and a thin litter layer are present. Light gaps and sandy areas ", al~ng the margins of the scrub support dayflower (Commelina erecta), silkgrass, nut sedge (Cyperus retrorsus), scrub sedge (Rhynchospora megalocarpa), wild grape (Vitis munsoniana), and many oak and pine seedlings (Table 1). In those areas lacking an oak overstory, the herbaceous components are similar to those found in the scrubby flatwoods. Here, silkgrass, gopher apple, wiregrass, jointweed, hair sedge and sand spike moss are abundant. The margins of the site are dominated by ruderal species with a mixture of pioneer scrub species. The most characteristic plants in the mowed margins of the site include camphorweed (Heterotheca subaxillaris), gopher apple (Licania michauxii), partridge pea (Cassia chamaecrista), southern gaura (Gaura angustifolia), begger ticks (Bidens alba), love vine (Cassytha filiformis), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia humifusa), sandspur (Cenchrus incertus), cottonweed (Froelichia floridana), sand live oak (Quercus geminata), and natal grass (Rhynchelytrum repens). 'fable 1. Checklist of the Vascular flora of the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site. SPECIES COMMON NAME Trees Acacia auriculaeformis Brassaia actinophylla Pinus clausa Pinus elliottii Sabal palmetto Schinus terebinthifolius Earleaf acacia Schefflera Sand pine Slash pine Cabbage palm Brazilian pepper Shrubs Asimina reticulata Asimina obovata Bumelia tenax Ceratiola ericoides Conradina grandiflora Lyonia ferruginea Lyonia lucida Palafoxia feayi Polygonella polygama Quercus myrtifolia Quercus chapmanii Quercus geminata Quercus minima Sabal etonia Serenoa repens Vaccinium myrsinites Ximenia americana PawPaw Pawpaw Tough bumelia Rosemary Scrub mint Fetterbush Staggerbush Palafoxia Jointweed Myrtle oak Chapman's oak Sand live oak Runner oak Scrub palmetto Saw palmetto Huckleberry Tallowwood Herbs Abrus precatorius Aristida stricta Aristida gyrans Balduina angustifolia Bulbostylis ciliatifolia Cassia chamaecrista Cassytha filiformis Catharanthus roseus Cenchrus incertus Cnidoscolus stimulosus Commelina erecta Conyza canadensis Croton glandulosus Cyperus retrorsus Rosary pea Wiregrass Wiregrass Yellow buttons Hair sedge Partridge pea Love vine Periwinkle Sandspur Tread softly Dayflower Dwarf horseweed Scrub croton Nut sedge ~ Herbs Cont. SPECIES COMMON NAME Dalea feayi Eryngium aromaticum Fragrant eryngium Eupatorium capillifolium Dogfennel Euphorbia polyphylla Spurge Eustachys petraea Froelichia floridana Cottonweed Galactia regularis Galactia volubilis Helianthemum nashii Hetherotheca subaxillaris Camphorweed Indigofera caroliniana Lechea deckertii Lechea divaricata Pine pinweed Licania michauxii Gopher apple Lupinus diffusus Blue lupine Opuntia humifusa Prickly pear cactus Panicum maximum Guineagrass Paronychia americana Paspalum setaceum Thin paspalum Physalis viscosa Ground cherry Pityopsis graminifolia Silkgrass Polanisia tenuifolia Polygonella ciliata Wireweed Polygonella gracilis Wireweed Pteridium aquilinum Bracken fern Rhynchelytrum repens Natal grass Rhynchospora megalocarpa Scrub sedge Richardia brasiliensis Selaginella arenicola Sand spike moss Seymeria pectinata Sida cordifolia Sisyrinchium solstitiale Blue-eyed grass Smilax auriculata Sawbriar Sporobolus domingensis Coral dropseed Stillingia sylvatica Queen's delight Stipulicida setacea Tillandsia balbisiana Wild pine Tillandsia fasciculata Cardinal wild pine Tillandsia utriculata Giant wild pine Tillandsia recurvata Ball moss Tillandsia usneoides Spanish moss Trichostema dichotomum Blue-curls II Vitis munsoniana Wild grape POOTECTED PLANT SPECIES There are eight species of plants on the site which have been listed or are under review by state or federal agencies. These include: Scrub mint (Conradina grandiflora) - Endangered, FDA; C2, USFWS. Scrub palmetto (Sabal etonia) - Threatened, FDA. Sand spike moss (Selaginella arenciola) - Threatened, FDA. Giant wild pine (Tillandsia utriculata) - Commer. Exploited, FDA. Cardinal wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata) - Commer. E~ploited, FDA. Wild pine (Tillandsia balbisiana) - Threatened, FDA. Nodding pinweed (Lechea cemua) - Endangered, FDA; C2, USFWS. Pine pinweed (Lechea divaricata) - Endangered, FDA; C2, USFWS. No federally protected plant species were observed on this site during the field study, however, nodding pinweed, pine pinweed, and scrub mint are candidates for federal listing (C2), but for which not enough data exists to support listing. Although Cl and C2 species are not protected under the Endangered Species Act, the USFWS encourages their consideration in environmental planning. Scrub palmetto, sand spike moss, and wild pine are threatened by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDA), but has no real protected status if permission for removal is granted by the owner of the property. The remaining species are commercially exploited and for this reason they have been protected. The exact location of the various plants reflects the ecological preference of the species. Except for wild pines which may occur in a wide variety of habitats (pine flatwoods, sand pine scrub, hardwood swamp, mangrove forest), scrub mint, scrub palmetto, sand spike moss, pine pinweed, and nodding pinweed are endemic to sand pine scrub/scrub oak habitats. Scrub mint usually occurs within stands of scrub oak or on the margins in full sunlight. This species is primarily restricted to the scrubby flatwoods/oak scrub and the v from other interested persons. Even though some of the area appears to be suitable for this species, past disturbance of the ridge system may have contributed to its demise since other populations do exist nearby. Florida scrub lizards prefer open sandy areas to forage for prey items. Maximum population densities occur in rosemary or evergreen oak scrubs without sand pine and in early successional stages (less than 30 years). Its poor ability to disperse across habitat barriers reduces its capacity to colonize isolated patches of suitable habitat, thus requiring contiguous preserve areas of different ages. FLORIDA GOPHER FROG Gopher frogs commonly share the burrows of the gopher tortoise, so that each active and inactive burrow was checked between dusk and midnight over several days. Artificial light was used to visually check the roof of each burrow for the presence of the gopher frog. Mter a thorough examination of active and inactive burrows, no gopher frogs were found on the site. Previous studies indicate that the frog seems to prefer active burrows in close proximity to seasonal ponds which the frogs require for breeding. The lack of standing water in shallow grassy ponds would have contributed to their demise. EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE The eastern Indigo snake is a wide-ranging species which requires a diversity of properly managed habitats to maintain viable populations. Home ranges have been estimated to be 200-300 or more acres of habitat mosaics which include types from xeric uplands to hydric lowlands. Because of their susceptibility to dessication, Indigos are generally associated with gopher tortoise burrows in uplands. Given the small size of the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub scrub and the diverse habitat requirements of D. corais, it is doubtful that viable Indigo populations could persist since the surrounding areas have been developed. Population size of the Indigo snake was determined by visual observations made along each of the transects. No Indigo snakes were observed during the field visits of the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site. 1I^, FLORIDA SCRUB JAY Scrub jays are long-lived birds (10 years or more), sedentary, permanently monogamous residents of oak scrub. They typically nest at the edge of oak thickets, near bare sand. Recent data suggests that scrub jays require dense oak thickets for nesting, plenty of acorns and insects for food, and bare sand for foraging and storing acorns. These requirements are met only in certain types of scrub throughout the state. At the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site, most of the bare sandy areas occur in the southeastern corner of the property. It also appears that fire plays an important role in maintaining the suitability of scrub for scrub jays. In the absence of fire, every 5-10 years, oak scrub will grow to be quite dense and tall which is unsuitable for jay nest sites. Scrub jays were first reported for the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site by Cox (1984). In his survey of the distribution of scrub jays in Palm Beach County, he observed 3 scrub jays in dense 3-6 meter oak scrub on May 8, 1981. He also mentions that 6 birds were observed in November 1980 by J. F. Sandella from the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site. During the 1987 survey of the site, 2 adult birds were observed in the southeast corner of the site on 27 August 1987. About two weeks later (9 September 1987),3 adult birds were observed in the same general location. Since Florida scrub jays have been recently listed as Threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, a more detailed study was initiated to determine how many birds were using the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site, whether the birds were nesting residents, and how much of the site they were utilizing. Therefore, a study was conducted by Mr. Kevin McGowan who is currently studying scrub jay behavior at Archbold Biological Station. Field observations for scrub jay activity at Seacrest Blvd. Scrub were conducted between 14- 17 September 1987 and 11-12 December 1988. Two adult scrub jays (a mated pair) were found utilizing about 6.1 acres of the site for gathering and burying acorns (Figure 3) on both sampling events. In a six hour period, the jays spent less than 5 minutes off the property. They did leave the site during short periods to chase blue jays and bury acorns in adjacent lawns. The results indicate that the scrub jays live entirely on the property but may make occasional forays into the surrounding residential area to forage at feeders or bury acorns. The property was searched for scrub jay nests but only 2 old nests were located. The age of the nests indicate that they were probably made by the pair but no conclusive evidence was found. Nearly 5 years later, a single scrub jay was observed in the same location. No evidence of an extended family group or past nesting was observed during the recent survey of the site. In addition to the 6.1 acres of oak scrub presently used by the jays, other suitable areas for nesting (scrubby flatwoods) occur within the eastern confines of the property, whereas the vegetation of the western section is of poor quality. The vegetation of the extreme eastern section, especially near the tracks, is too dense to support jays at present and would require management for longterm preservation of this species. Most of the vegetation near the tracks could be made suitable if a program of burning and/or mechanical removal of some of the trees and shrubs was initiated. Enough suitable habitat exists on the property to support 1 to 2 groups of jays, however, the probability of successful breeding is low. Predator pressure, especially of very young fledglings, is likely to be high. Pressure is probably highest from domestic cats, and is unlikely to decrease with more development. However, some reproduction is possible, and the site is near enough to other sites with scrub jays that gene flow can occur. At least one pair of scrub jays were found just south of the Boynton Beach water treatment plant (1.1 miles) and at least 5 jays on land 3 miles further north, around NW 17th Ave. during the 1987 study. Dispersal to and from these sites is likely. During the 1987 survey, a local resident on 3404 SE 3 CT, adjacent to the site, indicated that supplemental feeders were utilized by these scrub jays. He recalled that one of the birds was crippled and eventually died, leaving the mate alone for "a long time". However, in mid October, 1987, another jay showed up and presumably mated with the widow(er). This testimony supports ;rcr the fact that other birds do disperse to the site on occasions. This information also supports the previous observations made in August. Of the three birds observed on the 27 of August 1987, two were making "hiccup" vocalizations (given only by female jays in aggressive situations). These observations suggest that the third jay was a female disperser looking for a breeding vacancy and may have been passing through. Three birds have been observed in November and December 1988, but for only short intervals. During the recent survey, a single jay was observed on two different visits to the site, but no mates were noted. The lack of suitable habitat, off-road vehicles, and dumping may preclude longterm use of this site except during periods of low food (acorn) availability . Since critical habitat has been established for nesting pairs by the USFWS, preservation of at least 6.1 acres of the southeastern section of the site would be necessary to support this former jay population. FLORIDA MOUSE The Florida mouse is restricted in its distribution to peninsula Florida. It occurs in well- drained sandy upland habitats, for example, sand pine scrub, longleaf pine-turkey oak sandhills, dry hardwood hammocks, and coastal scrubs. Development pressures on these well-drained lands has prompted the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission to list the Florida mouse as a Species of Special Concern and the USFWS has made this species a candidate for listing (C2), but not enough data is exists at this time to support listing. Historically, the Florida mouse in southeast Florida was limited to sand pine scrub habitats along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. Widespread loss of these habitats within south Florida has prompted special concern for the Florida mouse and the scrub biota in general. Field study of the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site suggests that most of the area might, under certain conditions, support Florida mice. Thus, five trap lines were established that crossed the property from east to west. Each trap line was separated by about 65 meters. Trap stations at aprJfoximately 17 meter intervals were located, flagged, and single Sherman live traps placed in the field along these trap lines. Traps were sheltered from direct sunlight with available plant cover, provided with sunflower seeds, and opened continuously for 3 days. The 1987 trapping effort is summarized below: Trap line Trap nights and sample dates Aug 21 Aug 22 Aug 23 Total 200 18 18 36 400 32 32 32 96 600 32 32 32 96 800 10 21 21 52 1000 25 25 50 Total 74 128 128 330 A single Florida mouse was captured on the third day of trapping and represented a sexually active male with a body mass of 44 grams (Table 2). Two individual cotton rats were captured on three occasions in the weedy, disturbed habitat on the western margin of the site. Spotted skunks were also captured in the Sherman traps. We found no evidence that the skunks killed any Florida mice in the traps. Three large mammal traps were placed in the field to catch animals such as raccoons or opposums that disturb the Sherman traps. Two raccoons were captured in the large mammal traps and released off-site. The general conclusion from the trapping effort at Seacrest Blvd. Scrub based on the 1987 survey is that the Florida mouse population is very small and that small mammals are not very common in this scrub. Many years of experience with trapping small mammals in Florida allows us to conclude that the capture of three rodents a total of four times suggests very low numbers of individuals present. Since the Florida mouse and cotton rat are very easy to capture in Sherman traps, what does the capture of a single Florida mouse mean? It suggests that one or more pairs of mice have been on the site. These mice seldom survive in the field beyond one year. The captured animal appeared to be in complete adult pelage. The very low number of Florida mice at the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub may be explained by the abundance of predators that forage in the nearby urban area as well as on the undeveloped tract. The isolation of Seacrest Blvd. Scrub from other sand pine scrubs suggests that Florida mice are very unlikely to reach the site during the course of normal movements (immigration). The small mammal census is currently scheduled for the 15 January 1992 in order to determine the presence of this species. A relocation program for the Florida mouse will be established prior to construction and during the gopher tortoise relocation effort. Table 2. Trapping results from the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site. Date Trap Station Species 8/21/87 400/2 Cotton rat 400/6 (near) Raccoon 8/22/87 200/3 Cotton rat 400/27 Spotted skunk 600/6 Raccoon 600/26 Spotted skunk 8/23/87 200/3 Cotton rat 400/25 FLORIDA MOUSE 800/5 Spotted skunk COMMON ANIMAL SPECIES The Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site is fairly typical in faunal species richness for this portion of the county. Adjacent development pressures have forced many animals into this area even though the site is somewhat disturbed and of relatively small size. Field census data indicate that birds were the most numerous species at this site. The following species have been observed for this site: MAMMALS Dasypus novemcintus Didelphis virginiana Peromyscus gossypinus Podomys floridanus Procyon lotor Scalopus aquaticus Scuirus carolinensis Sigmodon hispidus Spilogale putorius Sylivilagus floridanus Urocyon cirrereo argentis Armadillo Opossum Cotton mouse Florida mouse Raccoon Eastern mole Grey squirrel Cotton rat Spotted skunk Cottontail rabbit Grey fox AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES Anolis carolinensis Green anole Bufo terrestris Southern toad Bufo quercicus Oak toad Chemidophorus sexlineatus Six-lines racerunner Coluber constrictor Black racer Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise Hyla cinera Green tree frog Micrurus fulvius Coral snake Terropine carolina bauri Florida box turtle BIRDS Aphelocoma coerulescens Buteo jamaicrusis Caprimulgus carolinensis Centurus carolinus Chaetura pelagica Chordeiles minor Colaptes auratus Columbia livia Columbigallina passerina Corvus ossifragus Cyanocitta cristata Dendrocopos pubescens Dendroica discolor Mimus polyglottos Passer domesticus Scrub jay Red-tailed hawk Chuck' -will's-widow Red-bellied woodpecker Chimeny swift Common nighthawk Yellow shafted flicker Rock dove Ground dove Fish crow Blue jay Downy woodpecker Prairie warbler Mockingbird House sparrow BIRDS cont. Pipilio erythophtalmus Polioptila caerulea Quiscalus quiscula Richmondena cardinalis Setophaga ruticilla Sturnus vulgaris Toxostoma rufum Tyrannus tyrannus Zenaidura macroour Towee Blue-gray gnatcatcher Common grackle Cardinal American redstart Starling Brown thrasher Eastern kingbird Mourning dove ....'1 PROTECTED ANIMAL SPECIES There are three animal species that are protected by state or federal agencies on the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site. Thes include: Florida mouse - (Peromyscus floridanus) - Species of Special Concern, FGFWFC; C2, USFWS. Gopher tortoise - (Gopherus polyphemus) - Species of Special Concern, FGFWFC; C2, USFWS. Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens) Threatened, FGFWFC; Threatened, USFWS. Only one of the species (Florida scrub jay) has been listed as Threatened by the USFWS because of habitat loss throughout the state. The remaining two species (Florida mouse, Gopher tortoise) are listed as a candidate for federal listing (C2), but not enough data exists to support listing. Both the Florida mouse and the gopher tortoise are also designated as Species of Special Concern by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDA). The Florida mouse was located in the eastern section of the site about 400 feet west of the tracks. This species is usually found in oak scrubs with minimal disturbance. Gopher tortoise are found scattered throughout the site but are more common in the disturbed areas of the western section. As the habitat matures into canopied scrub (eastern section), gopher tortoise densities decrease. Like many of these early successional species, the Florida scrub jay also prefers the oak scrub with open sandy areas. Most of this habitat is found in the southeastern corner of the site. Relocation of the above species should pose no problem except for the Florida scrub jay. This bird must be retained on the site in suitable habitat since relocation of this species has not been considered in the past. :< I... :) GOPHER TORTOISE Introduction As per the requirements of the city of Boynton Beach, populations of the gopher tortoise were studied for the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site inclusive of the mowed margins of the site. The purpose of this report is to present the finding of the field investigation conducted during September 1987, on the site. A follow-up study was conducted in January, 1992 to determine if the locations or number of individuals had changed appreciably from the original census. Methods Since gopher tortoise are known to inhabit a wide range of habitats, each portion of the scrub and the disturbed margins of the site were systematically surveyed for their presence. Line- transects were established visually every 5 meters for field reconnaissance. Each gopher tortoise burrow encountered along the transect was recorded for location and activity. Active burrows were identified by the presence of tracks, cleared openings or recently excavated soil. Inactive burrows normally showed no present signs of use and were usually laden with leaves and other rubble. Abandoned burrows were often characterized by erosion of the entrance or cave-ins, with no visual signs of activity. Since gopher tortoise utilize more than one burrow, estimates of abundance were based on a multiplier of 0.6 x active and inactive burrows (Auffenberg and Franz 1975). Results A total of 163 burrows were located at the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site. The burrows were distributed as follows: Active 64 (89), Inactive 30 (23), and abandoned 69 (60). The numbers in parenthesis represent 1987 data. Most of the active burrows were restricted to the western and central section of the site or along the disturbed margins were forage grass was abundant. As the total percent cover of herbaceous species decreased toward the mature scrub of the eastern section, so did the number of active gopher tortoise burrows. A more recent survey of the site showed a 1, decrease in the number of active burrows and an increase in the number of inactive and abandoned burrows. This suggests that forage material and habitat quality may be limiting to this population or that poaching may occur infrequently by local residents or kids. Since gopher tortoise use more than one burrow, estimates were based on a multiplier of 0.6 x active and inactive burrows. A total of 94 active and inactive burrows were located on the site. If we assume that the multiplier is an accurate estimate oftortoise populations throughout Florida, 94 burrows represents an estimated population of about 56 tortoise or better than one tortoise per acre. It would seem from this estimate that the population of gopher tortoise for this site far exceeds those reported in the literature. Auffenberg and Iverson (1979) showed that tortoise densities in sand pine scrub appeared to be correlated with grass cover. As percent basal cover of grass decreased, gopher tortoise densities also dropped. More recent data gathered by state biologists have shown that tortoise densities in scrub may average about 0.5 tortoise per acre and rarely exceeds 1 per acre. The fact that this site is now isolated from other natural areas, gopher tortoise populations may be higher due to lack of suitable habitat. What effect this has on the long term viability of the population is not known, however, it does appear that most of the tortoise are large animals that may be on the decline since few small burrows were observed. Due to the large number of gopher tortoise found on the site, it does appear that a relocation plan to move the tortoise off-site must be considered. All tortoise would have to be pulled from the burrows and kept in captivity for a period not to exceed 2-4 weeks depending on the length of time it takes to remove all the animals. All gopher tortoise would be marked, weighed, sexed and finally released to a site with suitable habitat. This portion of the project would . be coordinated with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission as part of the permitting process. PRESERVE DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT The primary objective for this site is to provide for the protection and management of scrub habitat and to ensure the protection of endangered/threatened and species of special concern within the proposed preserve. The location of protected aninal and plant species associated with this site seem to be the direct result of past disturbance caused by mowing, off-road vehicles, dumping and former land clearing in the early 1950's. Most listed/endemic scrub species occur in open, sandy areas that lack competition from other herbaceous or ruderal species. This niche is often provided by small scale disturbances that create suitable habitat for seed germination. This situation exists for nearly 50% of the eastern and central portions of the Seacrest site. Here, past and present disturbance has allowed the colonization of several plant species such as scrub palmetto, sand spike moss, nodding pinweed, and pine pinweed and the utilization by Scrub jays. Without an extensive management program for these disturbed areas, ruderal components will increase at the expense of the endemic scrub species. Therefore, it is proposed that the eastern portion of the site be preserved due to the lack of disturbance and the presence of several champion sand pines. Preservation of suitable habitat to maintain and enhance the present animal and plant populations will require the development of specific management strategies which will continue to provide these attributes, and which will be tailored to the existing conditions of the site. If left unmanaged, the relatively open scrub habitats such as those occupied by tortoises and scrub jays readily will reach heights and canopy closure unsuitable for their inhabitants. The Seacrest scrub site offers an excellent opportunity to use field techniques for enhancing scrub habitat on private lands, thus ensuring its continued survival and importance to wildlife. All existing protected species are currently found within the proposed preserve except for a small population of pine pinweed that occurs along the northern edge of the site. Prescribed burning coupled with mechanical alteration should initiate the germination and survival of listed and early successional scrub species that have been dormant in the soil. Prior to site clearing permits, some alteration of the eastern portion of the site must be achieved in order to provide relocation habitat for listed species. All relocation efforts must be coordinated with the proposed management plan for the preservation area in order to provide reasonable assurance for the longterm survival of these species. .,';S. , SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1). Approximately 43 acres of the site is dominated by native vegetation. Three different phases of sand pine scrub were observed as follows: sand pine scrub (16.5 acres), scrubby flatwoods (8.3 acres), and disturbed oak scrub (18.2 acres). The remaining 8-10 acres is periodically mowed and is dominated by ruderal species. 2). A total of 80 scrub and ruderal plant species and 44 animal species were found on the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site. The site contained eight protected plant species and three protected animal species. 3). The distribution of these protected species seems to be found primarily in scrubby flatwoods and disturbed oak scrub, as densities decrease in the mature scrub near the tracks. The lack of suitable habitat along the tracks is a direct result of fire suppression and the dominance by sand pine and scrub oak. A fire management program would have to be initiated to improve the quality of habitat for both faunal and floral associates. 4). Based on guidelines established by the City of Boynton Beach, for the preservation of native habitat, at least 25% of the site would remain as a natural wildlife preserve. Due to the infrequent utilization of this site by the Florida Scrub Jay, a minimum of 6.1 acres would have to be preserved, however, some off-site relocation would be required for the gopher tortoise. Figure 1. Soils map for tbe Seacrest Scrub Site (Cedar Grove). .---,-----~-~----- ------ ~..-----------_.. suaJ.V pai'\.OW sea.lV pai'\.OW uOl:l~as u.la:lsal1 qnA~S ~eo paqAn~sTa w ~ !"t ::T CIl !"t t1 (\) (\) rt Uo"p;)as an>P1H. spoo~~ela ^qqnA~S w ...... C/l rt CIl !"t t1 (\) (\) rt U01:l~uS Ul.alSea qnA~S aUld pues S>f;)e.lJ. peo.lI1eH ,( gA01D lUP~J) Jl!S qOl;'S lSJJ:mgs ;ll/l lfl!M P~lC!;'OSSU S~d^l UO!lUl~~g ^ 'Z g1Tl~!d; . P^UI ~ScU;)eaS w .J:' I"t ::r' en I"t '1 III III I"t , -~ -" "-- , I '\ \ \ , " , '\ , \ \ \ , \ , I , J Lrf- .-~ ,; , ~ ,.. , ....... .. ('l1?}!q1?Q ~lq!SSOd = >#H ~p~sn 10U 11?1!q1?q ~lqu1!ns = ---- ~A.r01!lJ~1 Auf ~u!lS!xg: = - - -) .( ~^OJD JCP~J) ~l!S qnJ:>S lS~J:>C~S :>l{llC A.101PJ~1 ^Cf qnJ:>S CP!JOld ~u!lS!xg w ..... UI I"t en I"t '1 CD III I"t . f: ~Jll~H ~.-----~-----_.~_._----------"_..~- LOcation map of wild pine (TilIandsia balbisiana). . . . . . . . . . --., , , . -.--, , . '.. , ..-~.. ,., -. . .. .. ... . -- - Lo~ation map of sand spike moss (Selaginella arenicola). . ~ . . . . . .. . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . i- · · . . . . ..- ~ . .' , .... , , , -,-, ,.- , , '... .. .. - .., -... --... . . Location map of cardinal wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata). I . . . . . .. . . .. . , , , .fIII". , . -.... ~., ... .. .. .., -..~. . ........ - ~tion map of sian' wild pine l~ ~. . . . . . .. . .- . . . .. .. . . .- . - ... . . - " . . .. -. - . . . . . . .. . . . .- . . " . .. . . . . .- . . . ,,- ... - .- - .. .. . . .. ... . . . . . . . ,- .. -.. -_.' .. . . .- . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . - .. . . . . . 116' - .,"" -i.~-'" .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . e. . . ... Location map of the Florida mouse (Podomys floridana). ... , , , , . .. -, , , ...--... - - -.. . - - lPC"uon mop of nodding pinweed ~. . .. . .. .. . ... . . . ... .... . .- . . . t'" . .. , . , ... .... ....,- , , , , ..,.._~_. -, ..- . L- r:-' . l.o~ation map of inactive gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . -.., , , ~ . . ---, , '- . ""--~"-'--. . . . . -- . _ Lo~ation map of pine pinweed (Lechea divaricata). . ... . .. . .- . ~~, , " ~--, , , ~- -- ~ .. .. ... - -. ..... . . Locution map of the Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens). ,- . . -. . -. .. . w--- . ~ '::-- , ~-'~ ., - 1987 .-., . . ~ ".. - 1992 LoC"tion ro'l' of scrub paln>etto (~ ~). . . . ... . .- ... . . ... . ....- .. . ... .. .... . . . .- . . . . . - - .. . - . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. ..- -.. .~.. . . -. . .-. . .. .. . . . .. .. .= . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . ". . . . . . ... J <# .. .. . - . . . . .. . . - . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - . .. . . - . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . - . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . ., .- '. .. . ,I. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . -. . ~-. . , .... .... . . . . .. . . .- _..- . . . . . .. . . . . .. . - . .- -.'- , ~ --- . . - . . . . . . .- . . . . . . ~ . . . . . .. . . .. : . . .- .- lf' . , . . . . . . . . . . " . . 1..---- . . . - . ~. LOcation map of abandoned gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. r . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..-~ , , .. . . . . . .".. , . ,.. , ... . 4 -.".,..~.. . -- -..... . , . . . . l . . . . 1J;l"l'tion map of scrub mint (g>nradin~ glandiflo!l\l. . , .. .. .. . , . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . - . . . .. . .' . . . . . . .- . . , .- . . . . - . ... .- . - . . .. . ,- . .. . ~ .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . , .. ... . :' 'I' . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . , ~--.... . . . . ~ , .- .. " . . .- .. . . -- . . . .. . .. 'I. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . .. ~ . . .. .. . . .. . . .... .. ... ." '.' . . .' . -... . .. . . . . . . . .. . . ,tif" . 'I. 'I. - 'I .. t -,' - ...~- . . .. . . . .. 'I. . .. 'I. . .. - ." Location map of active gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows. . . . . . . ,. . . t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . ., . .. . , . . . . . . . . ..- , , , -~~.., . , '- . . . . . . . - . . . --.- - ~ .. ~, .. . --.. . . r CEDAR GROVE PUD - Concurrency Analysis for Neighborhood Parks October 17, 1991 Cedar Grove PUD is located within Park Planning Area #17. According to Table 2, Neighborhood Park Needs Analysis (Recreation and Open Space Support Document, 1989 Comprehensive Plan), and the attached analysis for Planning Area #17, the current (1987) levels of service for Area #17 is 1.20 acres of park space per 1,000 persons, and a 1 mile walking distance. Cedar Grove PUD consists of 234 dwelling units. By applying the persons per dwelling unit factor used by BEBR-2.248-a population of 526 persons is estimated. As the attached analysis indicates, this development, when built-out, would lower the adopted acreage level of service to 1.00 acre per 1,000 persons. The walking distance level of service would not be affected. This impact upon the levels of service within this Planning Area was anticipated. Included within the City'S 1989 Comprehensive Plan are the following two policies which address this specific issue: Policy 5.5.1 - Subsequent to Plan adoption...all residential developments that exceed 100 dwelling units provide a private recreation area, unless however, public parks are located within one-half mile from the project... Policy 5.5.4 - Subsequent to Plan adoption the City shall require the dedication of sufficient land for a neighborhood park site at the time that the following properties are rezoned or platted for residential use:..., S. Seacrest Boulevard, ... To fulfill the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, and specifically to maintain the adopted levels of service for neighborhood parks, a private recreation area shall be provided within the Cedar Grove PUD (design and facilitation to be guided by Policy 5.5.2), and land shall be dedicated for the future development of a public neighborhood park. As indicated in Table 2, both the dedicated park site within the S. Seacrest Boulevard Site (Cedar Grove PUD), and the planned Girl Scout Park will be needed to maintain future levels of service within this park planning area. * BEBR - Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. Tambri, In addition to that referenced in the concurrency analysis, the Support Document also has language that addresses this site. Pg. 44 - #12. S. Seacrest Boulevard Site (2000) This site is planned to be dedicated as a result of the development of a 49-acre site located..... 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..... Also, the last line on page 56 indicates the amount of scrub habitat dedication that can contribute to the park dedication requirement. [i;i~ -cl_. .i. 0- " "'I ...- " rn 5 ;- i." · "'113c ~il!1 ri I~ I.a! I' ....~:-.Q. :s..'" · !;..-~: _::an_ Il~U e."I.~ "'i'" . 0" c '" .. 0-. .~Il:~ 1"...1- i :: ,." .-."'-1 ti~3 ,...1 aiiii [: ~..1 tr3Jii n_5"", !!l 2.i ~ A~" e." . 1._ = ~c3.!=- ."... 1.... ~ S li.::~ .100S. ... ....~ i i":~ . c .. ... E C li~l ; ~ll g ~ c!..!!.. ~Iif~ ;-......r 1:":11 [i!l ~~li l~!i ~~[f al:.i iI~' l: ~I ~;~ ...;-... i i' Ii :",i "'r !; .. il .... -II ~i 1 i c ., - ... !. . I ;: i ... ... .. i 6 fli ! ~ i ~ i! K' ;: r. !6 ja ! ! ~li !i i6 !! lr:i ! ~ ii "~K'li ~ ., - :I ., '" !..:I;:- ..! II" 11 1 ; '1' II" ~l i i II" ~ 1 i II" -... ~ l i~ 1 l _. ... 1 l .i' i I : ~~Z.! .. ... ... Ii ~ .. f i = i~ i c .. ... ;: ~ ." ;: ~ .. .. .. i ~ .. ... ~ l .. ~ ::. ~ ~t :: l ;. t :. ~ ~l " ~ I :. ~ ii ! ~ !! i < ... ~ i c ... ~ i !! i c " ~ i ;< ,.. ~ r .. f i. . i i" . i - . . .. .. '" ~ ... .. :,. - . .... .... . . I .... F ., ~ ~ ~ . . ~ .... , ~ _. 1-", ~~~ , ~N ~ - I :;: ? - . NO. - 0 0 0 Ii 18~ v ..,. 8 ..,. wV '" is ~ ~ ::; ::;; ~ 8 ~ g 8 0 00 0 N '- .... ~ j I 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 I is ... 8 ... 8 w I 8 8 0 8 8 = 8 8 2 . I 8 10 w ... ? :- \II w ? ... \II ... ? ? , is v v .. ~ 0 .. ~ 8 0 I 8 , , 8 v 0 " '" 0 v 0 0 ... - - - - !'" ? '" ... .0 ;: ? '" N .0 - - ... N ~ .- - w ... ~ - ~ 8~S ~ ... ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ;;: ~ s~s ;;: 8 ;;: 8 iS~S "" 0 .0 .... - ~ .... ~ - 0 0 :- 0 0 ? ? 0 ;., is ... 8 w w is ~ 8 '" ... 8 v ... 8 8 "" . I '" ... '" w '" w 0 ? 0 0 0 ? 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? c w 8 8 8 .0 8 8 8 .., 8 8 8 .0 8 6 8 ... '" ... It O' .0 , - - I- - .. ? "'Nt .- ? ~...~ - ? ?~? I~ ? 0 ? .- S ~ " ~~ v S ... ..,. ... '" ... v l!:~~ '" ~ g; 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... - I- w ... ? ... \II N ? N .... ... - 0 ? . 0 ? - , i- 8 0 8 0 O' ~ ... '" S & 8 8 8 O' 8 8 8 ... 0 ... 0 ... ... .. 0 .. 0 ? 0 ~ '" I 8 ~ . 8 , , 8 , I is , 0 0 0 0 I: ... "" .- 0 ? ... :- 0 0 ... 0 0 , '" 8 w 8 "" 8 8 ~ ~ 8 ... , I , I 8 0 w 0 - - j N N .. ? ....... '" ? WN... O' :- :- !" ~ ... ? g .. ~~s ;.- l!S C! ~ S ... ~ ... l!: g; O' ... ! .. '" '" ... ..,. ..,. ..,. 0 .0 .... - .. .. ? ? ? .- ? ? c - ? 0 ? - ? ? ? , w 8 w 8 w f - 8 8 'f. .. 8 'f. :;: 8 ..,. .. 8 8 ..,. '" ~ '" ... - - - -. - - w ... N .- I~ .- ~ 00 '" ... .- t: 00 '" N... ~ != ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ... .. w .. ... '" o ~ C! ... :;:~ o~C! ~ .....,.oC - o~~ ... ..,. 0 w - v 000 ..,. .0 ~ ~ - - ~ .... .. .. 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... 8 8 It '" 8 ~ 8 8 8 .0 8 .0 8 8 8 .0 8 8 N ... IE ... .. - - .. W ? ~ ~ .. ~ ??~ 'fI ~ ~ ... !'" ~ ? :- !'" S ... - IE ~ ...... w g ... :;:~~ g .., ::;: ~ 0 .. ~ .. .. ..,. 0 0 '" It ... 0 ... ~ ~ , 0 0 0 0 ? 0 != 0 ? I~ 0 ? 0 8 8 .0 8 .0 8 .0 8 .., 8 8 .., g 8 8 8 8 ;;: .., .., !- - I .- .- .. I.- - .- I::: .. ~ V N ... ... ? ~ ... w '"' - ... ?' ~ w 8~~ '"' !~ '" ~ ~ ~ .., ... g g; ;:; 8 ... .. iw 0 ... 0 - 0 0 0 - - j :- - .. :-' ... 0 0 ? 0 ? .0 IX ... .. 8 0 8 !: 8 .- 8 c 8 8 8 ~ 8 8 8 ~ 0 .. - - - - c .- ;; N \II .. , o 0 ~.....,. ... - ... ... '" - - C>> 1-.1,...,. , .... ~~8 '" ~ ~ g ... VI 8 ~ is 8 ~ ~ 8 - 8 - g ..,. v 0 ..,. .... - ~ ~ I- !'" ? ? ? ? 0 ? ? 0 N '; ... ... 8 8 #" ... 8 8 I 8 , I 8 , '" ... VI ... 0 0 i ... t ... ... N '" '" ~ ~ ~ #" ~ .. :... '.c '" - '" - " - - .. f .i" '1 ., i "''"4 . . C fr ;:... !.... ~ '" '" co z i '" i 8" ... ., ~ ~ i ." 0 ~ ~ .I '" .- > l .. ., c ... .. '" '" .- ... .- w .- ~ ... VI ;: .- - - ... .- .0 ... 0 '"4 0 !; NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ANALYSI..... PLANNING AREA 4F17 Concurrency Analysis For CEDAR GROVE PUD Proposed No. of Units... 234 Projected Population. . . . 526 Analysis of Level of Service: 1987 10/17/91 1995 2000 2010 Population 4,983 5,509 6,224 6,261 6.289 Population Served by Private Recreation Facilities 1,853 1,853 2,890 2,890 2,890 Population Served only by Public Parks and Facilities 3,130 3,656 3,334 3,371 3.399 Neighborhood Park Acreage (Public) 3.70 3.70 8.70 13.70 13.70 LOS for Acres/1000 2.50 2.50 Population 1. 20 1.00 2.60 ( 4.10 )( 4.00 ) LOS for Maximum Walking Distance (miles) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 Existing and Future Public Parks and Facilities: Fores t Hills 3.7 Girl Scout 5.0 Little League (District) 11 acres S. Seacrest Blvd. Site 5 Total Neighborhood Park Acres 3.7 3.7 (unchanged) 8.7 13.7 13.7 1980 Population Under Age 18. and Percent of Tota1( ): 697 (17) NOTE: -por 1991 population, the 1987 population was used since the 1990 Census includes only year-round residents. In addition no residential development has occurred in this Planning area that would significantly changethe 1987 population. -The population for Cedar Grove pun was estimated using BRBR's ppdu of 2.248. ... e , CEDAR GROVE (revised submittal) P.U.D. REZONING REQUEST The subject site, located in Southern Boynton Beach along the East side of Seacrest Boulevard, is one of few remaining undeveloped tracts in the area. It is situated on the old dune ridge that extends North and South through Palm Beach County. It has been identified by both the City of Boynton Beach and Palm Beach County as an environmentally sensitive site. On site investigations by a number of Agencies and Consultants have identified in detail the tract's physical character. It is because of the site's high elevation, vegetation and sandy well drained soils, that virtually all similarly characterized areas of the County are allready developed. Few, if any, of these developed areas have considered preservation as an element of their development scheme. The present P.U.D. Zoning District is ideal for the Seacrest site. Such things as private streets, flexible lot sizes and clustering of residential densities are a few of it's advantages. Environmental studies have evaluated the tract and defined areas of greatest value or concern as wildlife habitat. Those portions of the land are reflected on the Master Development Plan for preservation and protection. With this land use solution, property will be protected and preserved at little cost to the public. The table below serves as an anal ysis of the proposed plan as compared to present zoning and the present Comprehensive Plan. Designa tion ZONING i1L+ ~(.'t1 R-I-AA/R-2 CaMP _ PLAN C/Y7J5S ~-,'Izt Low 8. Medium P.U.D. AS~ Acres 43.34 8. 10.35 Density 5.4 8. 9.68 43.34 8. 10.35 4.~4 ~ 8. 9.68 53.69 4.36 Units Allowed 234 8. 100 209 8. 100 234 Total Units 334 309 234 Average Density 6.22 5.75 4.36 M ; Y\. Lot A~ C~ :f- ~orm~ 14/5 DO '1,"00 / ,~~f:- /~- b(O 001/71 4-,500 ~ u.Q!o.+f::( ~tL. ______ CEDAR GROVE DESCRIPTION OF HOUSING TYPES The proposed Master Plan for Cedar Grove identifies three housing tracts. The following narrative and table further describes each of these_ SINGLE F AMIL Y HOMES This approximately 15.85 acre tract will contain 79 single family detached living units. Each dwelling will be sold fee simple on it's own lot. Access will be via private streets constructed to City standards, owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association. Lots will average 6000 square feet in size. Homes may not exceed two stories or 35' in height nor have over 35~ lot coverage of building area. Each will have a one or two car enclosed garage. A typical lot la you t with setbacks, etc. is shown on the Master Plan. PATIO HOMES 69 units will be built on this approximately 10.61 acre tract. Each unit will be detached, zero lot line. and sold fee simple on it's own lot. Average lot sizes will be 4500 square feet with each being served by a private street constructed to City standards and owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association. Maximum heights will be 25' and maximum building coverage, 35~. Garages for one or two cars will be provided with each home. Typical lot layouts are shown on the Master Plan. VILLA HOMES This tract of some 11.63 acres will contain 86 living units. Dwellings may be one or two family units sold fee simple. Minimum lot sizes will be in accordance with applicable City Codes. Individual parking will be provided for each living unit. The maximum building height will be 25'. Building lot coverage may not exceed 40~. Access to units will be via private drives and parking tracts constructed to City standards. A typical unit and lot are detailed on the Master Plan. Acres U ni ts Min. Lot Sold As Unit Type Park.ing Max. height Max. coverage SINGLE F AMIL Y 15.85 79 6000 s.!. fee simple detached 1or2 car garage 25' 35~ JULIAN BRYAN & ASSOCIATES revised submittal January 1992 PATIO VILLA 10.61 11.63 69 86 4500 s.f. N/ A fee simple fee simple detached detach./attach. lor2 car gar. varies 25' 25' 35:1 401 , CEDAR GROVE (revised submittal) PROPOSED PROJECT PHASING & BUILD-OUT At this time it is planned that this proposed residential community will be developed in three phases with each phase corresponding to the development tracts shown on the Master Land Use Plan. The following table shows units and type built annually. Tract 1992 1993 1994 1995 VILLA 20 30 25 11 PATIO 0 25 24 20 SINGLE F AMIL Y 0 20 36 23 ------------------------------------------- Total Units/Year 20 75 85 54 POPULA TION PROJECTION/COMPARISON PRESENT ZONING 334 units x 2.3* = 768 persons COMP. PLAN 309 units x 2.3* = 710 persons PROPOSED P.U.D. 234 units x 2.3* = 538 persons * Estimated number of persons per dwelling unit. JULIAN BRYAN & ASSOCIATES revised submittal January 1992 CEDAR GROVE UTILITIES The planned residential community of Cedar Grove is in the service area of the City of Boynton Beach. The City of Boynton Beach will be able to service the project with both potable water and sanitary sewer at the time these services are required. Presently adjacent to this site is a 6" water main on the east side of Seacrest Boulevard, an 8" water main along Southeast 34th Avenue and Southeast 31st Avenue respectively, and an 8" water main on the east side of Old Dixie Highway with 8" connections to Southeast 34th Avenue and Southeast 31st Avenue. These water mains will supply the required amount of flow to service this project. (See enclosed Water Distribution Map). The sanitary sewer collection system currently consists of adjacent gravity sewer which flows through a series of pump stations. These pump stations have the capacity for the projected flows at the time this service is required. The project site is presently zoned in two categories. There is 10.35 acres of R2 zoning and 43.34 acres of R1AA zoning. The current zoning allows for the development of 334 units. The proposed P.U.D. zoning would generate only 234 units. Table A shows the comparison of the demand for water and sewer for the existing zoning and the proposed zoning. As you can see from this table, the proposed zoning creates a 30% reduction in demand flows for water and sewer. TABLE "A" GPD GPD WATER SEWAGE DESCRIPTION DU DEMAND FLOW EXISTING ZONING: R2 10 . 35 AC @ 9.68 DUlAC 100.19 56,300 45,100 R1 43.34 AC @ 5.40 DUlAC 234.04 131,500 105,300 187,800 150,400 PROPOSED ZONING: SF 14.56 AC @ 5.0 DUlAC PH 18.30 AC @ 7.0 DUlAC VIL 5.69 AC @ 6.0 DUlAC 72.00 128.00 34.00 40,500 72,000 19,100 32,400 57,600 15,300 131,600 105,300 BASED ON DESIGN FLOWS FOR THREE (3) BEDROOM UNITS; 562 GALLONS PER DAY WATER DEMAND AND 450 GALLONS PER DAY SEWER DEMAND, AS PER PALM BEACH COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT STANDARDS. ~ ... .... (~,,:"J~, r, ~ - I" p ,~ CIJ- I- ~:,~ <fI< ~ <f) --; ~ ~ . Q-'\,...L. /To' . ~ . o' I.- ~,.' o~ ,O~ . - ."' ';! J I.- ~: 1 GH ,-'J1.S'JOJ'1H1.I..l\ .~, r -. -. ~ I ~' ~ ~ ::g:; ~ 0;; . .~ ~ ~ ::.-~_ ~ ~ _~ I.- tf, ~~. ' ..g -;;:. '- <!. 3';""" :;,:: ". z \.- L .'1 :,'. T13 ~ . ~~ ~ ..' ft ' <1 -../ .::: ~;E ~ :'~ ~,' ~.. 'r I .; _..-::' · (': ~f;.. .~;~"~~ In j I. ~ 'I I'~' i\ ' ,\. .. , '\~'I.bj>< ~ ~'"J .J:(iD.^ooD ,~.y'ro' ~ ~ .J ,l!) I~ <tJ~I~ ~ ~I~' I I- ~ ~ -", ~ 1\3 ~ ~I ~ "i;J[I ~ 7-" ! · ..~ - @ I~I~,) ~ 1 A ~O/.n 1M ~" MS I ( Ci'3 -L...II1 WI \0 II~< iC ~ .. : ;1 · I, : ' Ilr ~I '~;::: ~ I 7 :\1- \ .;[1. 6.' . ',.!; ~l r:' ~ dJ li---G)- ...."- (1)' ,.~I" ;;IV~ . " .~ r;; MS I I : ~~~ - kv 7 / I: J j~~,r,r;.~le' II ,:. '^: ' d:;;::' ~ :,:, I ~ ~3JerGi;!?ii 0'i>)71/ i< \.:\~!I :.1. : :] '~ ) ~I. ;.,' . "i":: I (9'" I . II C) [' s , I ' 'I '/ r' . , r 0 @~i~Eya:.)L' J\,.t.' .:"'GF: I \~ '(:0'.' ~'] , l .... . """'" '-".... - ! [, ,. I ,.. w ; .. _..._- _l 1 . ~ - os: I' ... z/...-4 Z', .. ,<,';-,~ ~ ,/ ..'l~1Jol..:';~ i ',., ~I' L-~:,~ <'> 0: _OONO' .-MiE;"NO,~~~dN)Og &,,\ tr/,~;, .i ~ rL Ii:: {5(:'<lH:J (;> , 4 ------------ j!/ ~- i j i ~'i II ~.,'1 1 I- rJ) ~ 'i .~ , , , ---J.) 1 --- 'J I "1 . - ) ) '- ~':-/ . ~, ",;. 1-- \ , \ I- rJ) 1 I ~ ~ rJ) ~ j. ~ ~ I~ , - ~'21 >-i' .1 ,\1 ll~ If ~ f. f .., r .., ~ ~J C""'") I ~o ,C'" C' @ (~, i \ ,-I \0' 1r0) V .....J ~ CI) "t (J '-.) ~ h.. < ......... ~ ~ ~ J\ ) ~\ ~\ 1\ ) ....\ \ \1, \ \ 1 ~., ..~ ~ Sltl380':l " ~ --~>\"';' ~ ^' '- (~_,\ Q ". ~ 0 \ :;- ~ __d_ '~'l 0:1 I . -Q \' \ '2.' en \ r-- - - f~ I " \ ,,\ ;, -- - I I I. ~- :t: J.f) <-J ~ g; \.,J :t: V) '0 C) " --i ~ ({ tf) () <-J V) C( "-.J ~ ~ I~ I 1 ~ .., 1 ~ ~ .- p 1 .:;;;: ~., " 0J 10 \) '(i) o '> -l co OJ <:!. ~ _.\ ~~ d" ~~ ....-, NOISS1V'I '.. if' . . Ol:! 1"l1H ~",. .~T.' ~ Jl .(l ! -.,. IF' ~ : g .. ~ "; I , . : - ex> t- _ r- I V :N --- . 1 ... I ;r,' Q - ~ ~ ..9-~ . : ~ - ..' 1 . >- l- Z '""""' ----- -, CEDAR GROVE DRAINAGE I SOilS The planned residential community of Cedar Grove lies between Southeast 31st Avenue and Southeast 34th Avenue and is bounded on the west by Seacrest Boulevard and on the east by the FEC Railroad and Old Dixie Highway. The proposed site, 53.7 acres, is vacant land relatively heavy vegetated and varies in elevation from approxima te 35. 0 to 15. 0 N. G. V . D . (see accompanying topographic and boundary survey). The soils encountered within this site are classified as paola Sand (PcB) with a small area of the eastern most portion being pomello Fine Sand (PhB). These soils are sandy soils which are excessively drained and the water table is usually below a depth of 7 feet from the surface. Furthermore, SCS places these types of soils in the hydrological group A which exhibits no flooding and has the least runoff of any soils group. Investigation of the existing developments to the north and south; Sea Ranch Estates, Seacrest Estates, and Gulf Stream Estates, bears out the hydrologically soil capacity. All of these subdivisions founded on the in situ soil have been constructed utilizing a roadside swale with no positive drainage. There was no evidence of any long term ponding on the existing roads at any low points or intersections and despite roadway gradients of two percent (2%) or more, no indication of swale erosion attributable to excessive runoff. Development of Cedar Grove will utilize on site retention in conjunction with roadside swales, grassed swales, surface infiltration, and sub-surface permeability to provide drainage. Currently, the site is shown as a Zone C on the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map (community Panel No. 120196 0003 C revised September 30, 1982). A Zone C is an area of minimal flooding lying outside the Zone B 500 year flood boundary. somH -- ..k? N ~ -f :x ~ < m -l m "JJ :Xl R IOGE--- LA GREENWOO PINE TRE > D~ sw 1 sw 5 , ~ I L ------=::::_~., 11 > ~E 2ND ---J o -~c: SITE (J) -f (J) "., (J) ", ZONE C 1. (J) rrJ U> N fTl -..J N -i CD :r:: l.> -f ~ < ::z: n1 ~ (') -< -i DIXIE '--I I I riJ I I.--.J 1-1 U I I LfJ ZONE B t-- I ~ , I ZONE B --- ... CEDAR GROVE DESCRIPTION OF HOUSING TYPES The proposed Master Plan for Cedar Grove identifies three housing tracts. The following narrative and table further describes each of these. SINGLE F AMIL Y HOMES This approximately 14 acre tract will contain 72 single family detached living units. Each dwelling will be sold fee simple on it's own lot. Access will be via priva~e streets constructed to City standards, owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association. Lots will average 6000 square feet in size. Homes may not exceed two stories or 35' in height nor have over 35Z lot coverage of building area. Each will have a one or two car enclosed garage. PATIO HOMES 34 units will be built on this approximately 4.7 acre tract. Each unit will be detached, zero lot line, and sold fee simple on it's own lot. Average lot sizes will be 4500 square feet with each being served by a private street constructed to City standards and owned and nl.aintained by a Horneowners Association. rv'iaxirnum height5 will be 25' and maximum building coverage, 35:l. Garages for one or two cars will be provided with each horne. VILLA HOMES This tract of S01ne 18.7 acres will contain 128 living units. Dwellings may be one or two farnily units sold fee simple. IYIininl.urn lot sizes will be in accordance with applicable City Codes. Individual parking will be provided for each living unit. The rnaxirnurn building height will be 25'. Building lot coverage may not exc~'ed 40:l. Access to units will be via private drives and parking tracts constructed to Ci ty standards. SINGLE FAMILY Acres Units I\.1in. Lot 14.06 72 6000 s.f. fee simple detachelj 1or2 car garage 25' 35~ Sold As Unit Type Parking Max. height Max. coverage PATIO VILLA 4.68 18.75 34 128 4500 s.f. N/ A fee sirnple fee sirnple detached .jetach./attacJ:1. lor2 car gar. varie-::. 25' 25' 35~ 40~ CEDAR GROVE P.U.D. REZONING REQUEST The subject site, located in Southern Boynton Beach along the East side of Seacrest Boulevard, is one of few remaining undeveloped tracts in the area. It is situated on the old dune ridge that extends North and South through Palrn Beach County. It has been identified by both the City of Boynton Beach and Palm Beach County as an environrnentally sensitive site. On site investigations by a number of Agencies and Consultants have identified in detail the tract's physical character. It is because of the site's high elevation, vegetation and sandy well drained soils, that virtually all similarly characterized areas of the County are allready developed. Few, if any. of these developed areas have considered preservation as an element of their development scherne. The present P.U.D. Zoning District is ideal for the Seacrest site. Such things as private streets, flexible lot sizes and clustering of residential dl::Tlsities are a few of it's advantages. Envil-onrnental studies have evaluated the tract and defined areas of greatest value or concern as wildlife habitat. Those portions of the land are reflect.ed on the l'lIaster De~,,..eloprnent Plan for preservation and protection. With tl-lis land use 501ution, property v..rill be protected and preserved at little cost to the public. The table below ser'V'l-::'S as an analysis of the proposed plan 8.5 conlpared to pn:sent zoning and the present Cornprehensive Plan_ ZOJ\IING COy',/lP. PLAN P.U.D. Designa tion R-I-AA/R-2 Lov..r t. I\/Iediunl. As Shown Acres 43.34 & 10.35 43.34 & 10.35 53.69 Density 5.4 & 9.68 5.4 & 9.68 4.36 Uni ts Allo"\ved 234 t. 100 209 C. 100 234 Total Units ::.34 30Q r)7.'. ~~l~ Average Density , ')') b.~~ 5.75 4.36 CEDAR GROVE PROPOSED PROdECT PHASING & BUILD-OUT At this time it is planned that this proposed residential community will be developed in three phases with each phase corresponding to the development tracts shown on the Master Land Use Plan. The following table shows units and type built annu.ally. Tract 1992 1993 1994 1995 VILLA 20 60 30 18 PA TIO 0 12 16 6 SINGLE F AMIL Y 0 12 36 24 ------------------------------------------- Total units/Year 20 84 82 48 POPULATION PROJECTION/COMPARISON PRESENT ZONING 334 units x 2.3* = 768 persons COMPo PLAN 309 units x 2.3* = 710 persons PROPOSED P. U .D. 234 units x 2.3* = 538 persons 'f( Estirnated nUHlber of persons per d"",elling unit. .. ------------------.-.----...----- D. Colonial Bil-d/fvIi~xatory Bird Inforrnation These have been identified attached. Their roosting area be preserved in it's .natural Plan. ... 1n tbe "Environnlental Assessn"lent" has been identified on l'v1ap E and will state in the propo-se,j Developrnent E. ArchaeologicaVHistorical Features The entire surrounding area has been cornp1etely developed. A review of both City and County records do not reveal any evidence of historical or archaeological sites. F. Geologically Significant Features No geologically significant features exist on thE- site. Please see Soils lVlap and "Environrnental Assessnl.ent". G. Areas of Past or Present Disturbance Please see responses to A and B above. The fact that the site is conl.pletely surrounded by developnl.ent, including the active Florida East Coast Railroad along it '5 East boundary should be:' noted. H. Surrounding Land Uses Lands to the North, West and South are corn.pl~.tejy developed with a cOlTlbination of single family and duplex residences. To the Ea.5: i:. the previously discussed Railro.ad and Dixie Highway. beyond which are a nl.ixture of business uses and n-lobile hornes. The presence of n"1an and hi=:; day to day activities will continuE' to inipact this site. P ART III. Project Design A. Attached is a copy of the proposed De'velopnl.ent Plan for the tract. Levels of detail requested are prernatu!""e at this point in the developrnent !-eview pl-oce-ss. -{ou rnay expect this data concurrent with th/~ Platting and Site Engineering Phase, and shoulej b(~ aw'are that your DepartlY1ent will be an integral part of that activity. B. Presently no site developrnent pern"1its have been issue,j nm- are none pending other than th~::, Zoning Case previously n:'fen:-nced. ----------- -----_._-~--~~---~---_._---_._- PART IV _ Project Operation A. Norrnal site dl2velopm.::.nt activities including sekct cll2'aring and grading rnay be expected. Areas identified for pn~51'::-rvation v..rill be flagged and roped off. T11is locating process will be perforrned ",rith tl-le revie\IV and approval of both City and County personneL The dev.eloprnent will be entirely residential in nature and v.,ri1l not require the US'2 of any subst.ances kno",rn to be l1.arrnful to plants, .2:1.ninlals or llurnans. B. Certain construction equipment may be expected on site. They are propelled by internal conlbustion engines that elnit identifiable .and legal levels of exhaust gases. The handling of fuel~. .~r:d lubricants necessary to service this equiplnent will be carefully n-lonitored to ensure t.heir containment. C. Solid y...'aste collection and rernoval both during developrnent and 1.::-.. ter troIn the n:.;;:,iden t5 'Ni11 b(~ collect.ed and disposed of on a .::.cheduled basis by the n::'sponsible agl2Tlcy. Debris frOlTI cl,::'aring and const1-uction will be rernoved frorn the site by trud:s and no burning will be allovred. D. Soils conditions of thi:::; :::.it.e allov.; for rninimal dl-ainage in1provernents. Soils on th.::' site are eithl2T Porrlello Fine Sand (easterly 11.5 acres) or Paola Sand ("\\lestern 42.2 acres), both or v.;hich have good absorption. For furthe1- detail please see attached ;::l~ainage letter by Carnahan and. A.:::.sociates. PART V_ Project Alternatives A. Aftf:T review of all data described above, thf:' proposed :'v1aster Pla.n shown \0'1215 prepar2<j. That plan preserves approXi1T:.ately tv.,relve acres l-unning generall"y f.J()l-tll/South ttn-ough til.e c<2nter of thE' site. It's location IS as identified in the "Environrnental A5sessment" as Scrub ,_Jay nEsting habitat. Alternativ.::""s beyond this pn~'::;(~r"\n::ltion were not explol-ed. The location of presen..re are.Zt i~i clea1-lv' appropriate. Additional acres of preserve an:: beyone! the requil-ernen ts of CU1Ten t (je'..reloprnen t n:gula tions or the ,:i t ~/ of 3c~ ":/11. tOl-l B,==oac.r1. Sl-lCl t1.id re:; ~_il.a ti)l-"y" agf:'nc ies. desire ::,;~l-[let i-.iir1:~ i t1 ,:,,:'XC<::":.,=, ()f th.:=1t. propo:;ed, it 5hould 50 request (ju!-ing thi'::. ~-evic'"wr p!-ocess. B. The Pl-oposed pre-sel-vation as described above, in concert with relocation, a1-e recornrnended in the "Environn1ental AsseSSlnent" report. This applicant w-ishes to cooperate in every way with this Agency and will be pleased to meet and discuss this proposal as well as any alternatives with you at your convenience. CEDAR GROVE INV ESTrVIENTS Septelnber 20, 1991 Application prepared by: ,JULIAN BRYAN & ASSOCIATES 3191 Leew-ood Terrace L-136 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 407-338-0395 - ------. --.-----.-.-~.,- . ".-- ----___.__ "'-'.'0 ___.__ ~Ift " z~ <> _:13 "C> o:xJ z~ sm III Z. r- ~ en en III en en S III Z -I c..-....-""'....------ _____~____............n- ~- ': Agency Policy Regarding the Preservation of Habitat for Listed Plant and Animal Species. At the proposed Cedar Grove site, several protected plant and animal species were observed. The question concerning this development is whether or not preservation of critical habitat will be enforced which could preclude development of the site based solely on a financial return per acre. I nth e cas e 0 f the pIa n t s p e c i e s, non e 0 f the 3 s pe c i e s (scrub mint, scrub palmetto, and wild pine) have any status with the federal Endangered Species Act of the United States Fish and wildlife Service. Scrub mint is currently under review, but has not been fully considered for inclusion under this program. However, only two of the speCles have been given limited protection by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDA) program. City requirements would force the owner to preserve a small percentage of these species within the land to be preserveci. Currently, a minimum of 25% of th~ site would have to be preserved in some fashion. That means that several small microsites scattered throughout the development could be preserved or one or two larger tracts. Based on the location of the protected plant species, several small or one large tract would provide habitat for these populations. However, animal populations at Cedar Grove dictate that the preserve must be one large tract in order to accommodate a minimum critical population size of the animal inhabitants. Currently, the Florida scrub jay probably poses the grestest risk -. to the owner. This species was currently listed (August 1987) as Endangered by the Endangered Species Act of the USFWS. This means that its habitat (ca. 95% of all scrub in Palm Beach County has been developed since 1975) has been reduced to critical levels or it is threatened biologically. The former is the case with the Florida scrub jay. To date, the United states Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has not suggested critical habitat size for this bird. Based on a 20 year study of this species by Dr. Glen Woolfenden, his data suggests that about 23 acres IS required for a nesting family of scrub jay..s. A family of Jays is defined as the male and female and all sibling offspring that live socially with the parent b i r d s . The f act t hat the U S F W S has not est a b 1 ish ed c r i tic a I habitat is partly because they have no enforcement powers, and that any enforcement would come from local state agencies upon the request of the USFWS. Therefore, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGPWFC) has indicated that a minimum of l0-~0 acres would be required for preservation for a nesting pair of scrub jays. This policy has not been formally adop_ed to my knowledge but it may influence the city's position. The question then becomes how much do ~e inform the agencies as to the status of this bird on the Cedar Grove site. The city may take a recommendation from the owner based on our environmental report or they may wish to call in state and/or federal authorities. Based on my involvement with the city on these matters, they will probably call in all the other agencies for a reco~ffiendation regarding preserve size. Once the agencies " have commented on how much of the site should be preserved, they will t a k ear e c 0 mm end a t ion t 0 co u n c i I . B e c a use t his sit e 1 s primarily sand pine scrub, every issue will be faced with some opposition, either from the city or the Wilderness Island Coalition. At present, the Scrub jays are utilizing 6.1 acres of open scrub o~k habitat in the southeast corner of the property. Since 11.7 acres of scrub must be preserved based on the city's 25% rule, a preserve adjacent to the railroad tracks would preserve only the south east corner of the existing scrub jay territory. 'With proper burning and mechanical manipulation of proposed preserve, this habitat could be made suitable for Scrub Jay's. This would provide usable habitat of sufficient size for long term maintenance of this species. It is possible, that the state could recommend to the city 20 acres for scrub jay habitat, but they would also have to provide a management plan for alteration of the existing scrub areas not used by the resident birds. If this recommendation was found acceptable to the city, it would preclude de/elopment of the site from a financial basis. Other environmental problems concern the relocation of gopher tortoise from Cedar Grove to other suitable sites. This site contains more gopher tortoise (approximately 1.3 per acre) than other larger sites throughout the county. About 10-15 could be preserved on-site, however, the remaining tortoise (ca. 50+) would have to be relocated. Currently, the FGFWFC has a policy for relocation of gopher tortoise from Developments of Regional Impact (DRI), however, this does not apply to this project. The ./ / t"\.FIF':"iCA -:-I()!\! FCiR t"i~ TER~~ 1~1.=;r",,! ()F ~I\r'\/Ir:~(INI\lIE:\IT ALL '( SEI\!SITrv'E ~AI\![J~3 "CEDAR GROVE" PART L Applica tion Form _' Th~ subject t.ract, .contaiping. 53.69 acres, is: locat.ed in thf:. City of Boynton Beach on the East.. side. of Seacrest Boulevard between S.E. 31:st and 34th Avenues. It. 11.as been previously identified as "Seacrest Scrub", site #29, by the PaInl Beach County Depal-tnlent of Environmental Resource I\lianagernent. It has been submitted to the City of Boynton Beach for consideration of Zoning change to Residential Planned Unit Developnl.ent (PUD). Tll.is cllange is being requested by the o'\vners at consid€Table expense in order to utilize a reasonable portion of the property '\vhile sinTultaneously pn?SET\ting those portion=. considen:d rnost sensitive. PART II. Site Conditions .Na.rrative A. Vegetation PIe'ase see attached "EnvironlTH:'nta.l Asse5s:rlent". lv1aps are also enclosed \..vhich furtl-ler identif'.:l 5ite ChaL"icteri.:;,tics. A County Tax I\ilap, 200 sca.le Aeria.l Photograph, I\1a5te!- Plan, Topographic a.nd Tn:<2 Locat.ion Plan, Soils t'lt'lap and Environrnental/Vegetation Plan h.ave been provided. The tract h.~5 been pn:.'v'iouslV identifie.d by" P.,:dni Beacl-l County as "Se.::tcrest Scrub", site #.29. B. Soil Types ~. Conditions Plea<::.e see attached "Environrnental Assessll"lent" and Soils 1\i1ap. The p<2-rirneter (approxirnately 8.00 acres) has been nlo,,-,red periodically at the request of the City. The remainder has experienced fires and tl-le irnpa.cts of dUl1."lping and off-road vehicles from t.irne to tit-ne. I'\Io actual clearing or gniding has o"tl"l'==Tv..'i.::;e occured. C. Identification of Listelj Spi2cies on .:.;it\Z Ple::'1.3e see a. ttacl-le(j "Environrnen tal Assessrnen t" repOI-t. Speci'2s identified ".rill eithel- bl-~ protected on site by rnaintaining existing habi"tat:=; or transportation f:'lsewhen.' to suitable e'nvironnlent::.. '. city would require a recommendation from the FGFWFC on this matter prior to council's approval. If these problems can be resolved with the city, the cost of relocating gopher tortoise must be considered. The current estimate for relocation of a single animal was between $800.00 and $1000.00. This was brought out at the last gopher tortoise council meeting in June 1987. I think that this estimate is over i n f I a t ed . To d ate, reI 0 cat ion 0 f go ph e r tor to i s e v a r i e s fro m $350.00 to $500.00 per animal based on 3 current projects in Palm Beach County. Therefore, the cost to relocate tortoise from the Cedar Grove site would be from $23,450.00 to $33,500.00. If no monitoring would be required, this cost would probably drop to $lB,ee0.0e, depending on state requirements, if any. In conclusion, it is my opinion based on a conversation with Mr. Kevin Hallahan that the city would request a recommendation from the Game Commission and/or the USFWS concerning preservation of scrub jay habitat. What the exact recommmendation would be at this moment is not clear, but it is reasonable to assume that between 10-20 acres would be 12ques~ed for preservation. To d ate, I h a v e not d i s c us s ed the reI 0 cat ion i s sue 0 f the gopher tortoise with the state, but their recomme:1dation may affect obtaining a permit to move the tortoise. ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED CEDAR GROVE DEVELOPMENT, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA. 21 Set pember 1987 by Donald Richardson Ecological Consultants 7301 summerbridge Drive Tampa, Florida 33614 Introduction This ecological assessment was prepared to satisfy the environmental requirements as requested by the city of Boynton Beach. Since this project does not meet the requirements of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), no report will be submitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The purpose of this report is to identify the natural flora, fauna, and to identify those portions of the site that may be deemed of significant importance to the city. It is the intent of Grove Capitol Associates that this proper~y, currently referred to as Cedar Grove, be developed 1n a manner which would least disturb the environmental aspects of t~e surrounding areas. Currently, the environmental 3s:;eCts associated with this site have suffered some disturbance due to several unrelated factors: 1) increased urbanization of surrounding properties, 2) suppreSSIon of natural fires, 3) dumping of waste materials by locals, 4) off-road vehicles, and 5) influx of exotic plant species in portions of the site. General Location The Cedar Grove site is located in Palm Beach County south of the city of Boynton Beach. The site co~tains about 55.4 ac:es and is bordered by 31th Street to the north, 34st Street to the south, Seacrest Blvd. to the .....est and the Florida East Coast tracks to the east. Due to city ordinance, approximately 8.14 acres surrounding the site are currently mowed. The remaining portion of the site (about 47.26 acres) is native scrub vegetation. Historical Perspective The Cedar Grove scrub was formerly part of contiguous sand pine scrub forest that extended north along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge in Palm Beach Elevations within the site range from a high of 25.0 near Seacrest Blvd. and gradually level off to about msl near the tracks. Since the entire site IS within relict dune system, no wetland communities were found. Soils The site can be divided into two major soil types (Figure a large and south County. feet msl 15.0 feet the old 1). Pamella fine sand (PhB) - This IS a nearly level to gently sloping, moderately well-drained, deep, sandy soil that has a dark, weakly cemented layer below a depth of 30 inches. This soil occurs on low ridges and knolls. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. Onder natural conditions, the water table is within 24 to 40 inches for 1 to 4 months during wet periods and below 40 inches the remainder of the year. Permeability IS rapid and fertility extremely low. The natural vegetation is slash pine, sand pine, scrub oak, saw palmetto, sand plum, fetterbush, wiregrass and other native grasses. paola Sand (PcB) This. is a nearly level to sloping, excessively drained, deep, sandy soil, that has a yellowish layer beneath the white subsurface layer. It IS commonly round on narrow dune like ridges near the Atlantic coast. The slopes range from 0 to 8 percent. Under natural conditions, the ',,'ater table is below a depth of 6 feet. Per~epbility is very rapid and Figure 1. Major soil types at the Cedar Grove Site. fertility extremely low. The natural vegetation is sand pine and an understory growth of scrub oak, palmetto, and rosemary. Floristic Component Analysis Methods The vegetation of the site was surveyed by establishing a g rid 0 f' 1 i n e - t ran s e c t sin a n e a s t - we s t d ire c t ion 0 v e r the en t ire site. All transects were spaced on 15 meter centers in order to adequately sample the entire site. In areas of thick vegetation, transect lines rarely exceeded 5 meter intervals. All plant species-encountered along each transect were recorded by area to determine species richness. The generalized location of all protected species were recorded by cOffim~nity type. plant speCIes were identified with Long and Lakela (l97l) and Wunderlin (l980). Results The vegetation of the site is dominated by sand pine scrub, scrubby flatwoods, and disturbed oak scrub. The margins of the site have been periodically mowed and are dominated by ruderal species with scattered pioneer scrub species. The western 22.7 acres of the sand pine scrub (Figure 2) have been severely disturbed in the past. Conversation with local residents indicates that this area must have been disturbed prior to 1950. This area is dominated by scattered sand live oak thickets that are overgrown with love vine (Cassytha filiformis), wild grape (Vitis mU:1soniana), and rosary pea (Abrus precatorius) . Only a few sand pi:1e (pinus clausal occur in this portion of-the site with no evidence of past logging. I Slash pine Figure 2. .., ClI ~ ~ L.l tr.:I L.l <Il C'i Sand Pine Scrub Easte-rn Secti.on Scrubby Flatwoods ~1iddle Section Disturbed Oak Scrub Western Section I \ I !-;0 '''''e d Areas Mo'""ed Ar-eas plant corr~unitiEs associated with Cedar Grove. I oW Cl. a; ~ "-' (f; .= oW ~ M ( pin u s e 11 i 0 t t i i) i s wid e 1 y s cat t ere din the d i s t u r b ed are a s between the sand live oak thickets. Numerous seedlings were observed scattered throughout the ground cover layer. Several large clumps of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) form small islands that are often covered with love vine and wild grape. Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) IS widely scatte:t:ed in the western portion of the site and also along the disturbed margins of the site. Several large Brazilian pepper thickets occur along the western edge of the site in areas that were severely disturbed or were used as local dump sites. The shrub layer is dominated by scrub palmetto (Sabal etonia) . Several thousand individuals were observed 1n the disturbed areas at much greater densities than found in other scrubs throughout the region or state. Other shrubs include Palafoxia feayi, isolated sand live oak (Quercus geminata), pawpaw (Asimina reticulata), and jointweed (Polygonella polygama) . In comparison with other scrubs, the shrub layer 1n the western portion of the site is spars~ and poorly represented for sand pine scrub systems in south Florida. The herbaceous layer includes a wide variety of both endemic scrub species and ruderal associates. The most coml7lon include silkgrass (Pityopsis graminifolia), scrub sedge (Rhynchospora megalocarpa), gopher apple (Licania michauxii), Dalea fe,ayi, par t rid g e pea ( Cas s i a c h a ill a e c r i s t a ), day f 1 0 \0,' e r ( C 0 mm e 1 i n a erecta), broomsedge grass (Andropogon virginicus), and natal grass (?hynchelytrum repens) (Table 1). It appears that most -of the disturbance has been concentrated on the areas of highest relief. On the eastern edge of the western section at the 19 foot contour interval, much of the disturbance begins to disappear as evidenced by a partially closed canopy of sand pine and a dense understory of scrub oaks. The middle portion of the site from the edge of the western section eastward about 500 feet is probably best described as scrubby flatwoods. The overstory is a mixture of scattered sand pine and numerous slash pine (Pinus elliottii) with a scrub oak understory. The slash pine appear to be mature trees reaching hieghts of over 40 feet. Slash pine regeneration IS sparse due to the t~ick oak understory. The sand pines vary In size from 3- 21 inches dbh, reaching heights of about 30 feet In some areas. Sand pine seedlings and small trees are scattered about ~he oak understory but become concentrated along the open ecotone between the scrubby flatwoods and the western section. Only a few isolated Brazilian pepper occur in this portion of the site. The shrub layer is a dense thicket of sand live oak and m y r tIe 0 a k ( Que r c u s m y r t i f 0 1 i a ) wit h 5 cat t ere d tall 0 ww 00 d (Ximenia americana), fetterbush. (Lyonia ferruginea), saw palmetto reDens) . and pawpaw (Asimina obovata). (Serenoa In contrast to the western section, the herbaceous layer IS sparse and many open, sandy areas occur within the vegetation. Beneath the oaks, scrub seage (Rhynchospora megalocarpa), gopher apple (Licania michauxiU, and numerous sand live oak seedlings can be found. The dominant herbs in the open areas include sand spike moss (Selaainella arenicola) -~ blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium sol s tit i ale), w ire g r a s'S ( A r i s t i d a 9 y ran s ) , silkgrass (Pityopsis graminifolia), hair sedge (Bulbostylis ciliatifolia), wireweed ( Pol y 9 one 11 a 9 r a c i 1 is), and nut s ed g e ( C Y per u s r e t r 0 r s us). Pas t disturbance 10 this portion of the site has been limited to sporadic dumping and ATV paths by local residents. The eastern section of the site is dominated by a sand pine dominated overstory with.a dense oak shrub understory in contrast to the'scrubby flatwoods section where the oak layer is similar but the overstory is dominated by slash pine. This section of the property is dominated by sand pInes that range in size from 2-47 inches dbh. The average age of the mature ""trees vary between 40-59 years~ In some areas, the sand pine form a closed canopy with a sparse oak understory due to the low light levels. Because of the various ages classes within the for est , ita p pe a r s t hat fir e may h a v e 0 c cur r ed a t so m e poi n tIn time prior to 1960. Some of the oldest sand pines have multiple trunks, some with as many as 4 main trunks exceeding 16 inches dbb. The majority of the sand pines have closed cones, however, several old trees have open cones. This may be at~ributed to old age or cool ground fires, but probably accounts for some of thL regeneration of the sand pine within the forest. The shrub layer IS varied In the eastern section of the site. Beneath mature sand pine, the oak layer is sparse as many of the trees are teavily laden with air plants (Tillandsia recurvata and Tillandsia utriculata) Here, the oaks range In size from seedlings to just over one meter. In the areas of no sand pi ne or young trees (3-10 years), the oak Quercus myrtifol ia) becomes dense layer and (guer~s may reach geminata and heights of 10-12 feet. Other common associates include scrub palmetto (Sabal etonia), staggerbush (Lyonia lucida), fetterbush (Lyonia ferrug inea), tallowwood (Ximenia americana), palafoxia feayi, and scattered pawpaw (Asimina obovata). den s e 0 a k s, s c h e f fIe r a ( Bra s s a i a act i no p h Y 11 a ) seed 1 i n g s have In some areas of become established by growing epiphytically on ball moss. This phenomenon has been observed in other scrubs that occur In residential areas where birds disperse the seeds. The herbaceous layer IS sparse and sometimes completely lacking beneath the dense oak layer. Only a few oak seedlings and a ~hin litter layer are present. Light gaps and sandy areas along the margins of the scrub support dayflo;.;er (Corr.",elina erecta), nut sedge (Cyperus retrorsus), scrub sedge (R!-lV!1choSu8ra __A_____ megalocarpa), wild grape (Vitis munsoniana), and rr.any cak and pine seedlings (Table 1) In those areas lacking an oak overstory, the herbaceous components are similar to those foend in the scrubby flat'woods. Here, silkgrass, go?her apple, wiregrass, jointweed, hair sedge and sand spike moss are abundant. The margins of the site are dominated by ruderal specIEs with a ~ixture of pio~eer scrub species. The most characteristic plants in the mowed marglns of the site include camphorweed (Heterotheca subaxillaris), gopher apple (Licania ;nichauxii>, partridge pea (Cassia chamaecrista), southern gaura (Gaura anaust i fol ia) , J beg g e r ticks (Bidens alba) , love vine (Cassvtha . -- filiformis), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia humifusa), ~a'1dspur (Cenchrus incertus), cotton.weed (Froelichia floridana), sand 1 ive . oak (Quercus geminata), and natal grass (Rhynchelytrum repens) . Table 1. Checklist of the Vascular flora of the Cedar Grove site. SPECIES Trees Acacia auriculaeformis Brassaia actinophylla pinus clausa pinus elliottii Sabal palmetto schinus terebinthifolius Shrubs Asimina reticulata Asimina obovata Bumelia tenax .Ceratiola ericoides Conradina grandiflora Lyonia ferruginea Lyonia lucida Palafoxia feayi polygonella polygarna Quercus myrtifolia Quercus chaprnanii Quercus geminata Quercus minima Sabal etonia Serenoa repens Vaccinium myrsinites Ximenia americana Herbs Abrus precatorius Aristida stricta F>.ristida gyrans Balduina angustifolia Bulbostylis ciliatifolia Cassia chcmaecrista cassytha filiformis Catharcnthus roseus Cenchrus iucertus cniaoscolus stimulosus C02melina erecta Conyza canadensis Croton glandulosus Cyperus retrorsus Dalea feayi E~yngium aro~aticum Eupatorium capillifolium Euphorbia polyphylla COMMON NAME Earleaf acacia Schefflera Sand pine Slash pine Cabbage palm Brazilian pepper PawPaw Pawpaw Tough bumelia Rosemary Scrub mint Fetterbush Staggerbush ?alafoxia Joint;..:eed Myrtle oak Chapman's oak Sand live oak Runner oak Scrub palmetto Saw palmetto Huckleberry Tallowwood Rosary pea Wiregrass wiregrass Yellow buttons Hair sedge Partridge pea Love vine Periwinkle Sandspur Tread softly Dayflower Dwarf horse'.Jeed Scrub croton Nut sedge Fragrant eryngium Dogfennel Spurge Herbs Cont. SPECIES Eustachys petraea Froelichia floridana Galactia regularis Galactia volubilis Helianthemum nashii Hetherotheca subaxillaris Indigofera caroliniana Lechea deckertii Licania michauxii Lupinus diffusus Opuntia humifusa panicum maximum paronychia americana paspalum setaceum Physalis viscosa .Pityopsis graminifolia polanrsia tenuifolia polygonella ciliata polygonella gracilis pteridium aquilinum Rhynchelytrum repens Rhynchospora megalocarpa Richardia brasiliensis selaginella arenicola Seymeria pectinata Sida cordifolia Sisyrinchium solstitiale Smilax auriculata sporobolus domingensis Stillingia sylvatica Stipulicida setacea Tillandsia utriculata Tillandsia recurvata Vitis munsoniana COMMON NAME Cottonweed Camphorweed Gopher apple Blue lupine Prickly pear cactus Guineagrass Thin paspalum Ground cherry Silkgrass Wireweed Wi reweed Bracken fern Natal grass Scrub sedge Sand spike moss Blue-eyed grass Sa'....briar Coral dropseed Queen's delight Wild;:>ine Ball moss W i 1 d g rape PROTECTED PLANT SPECIES There are three species of plants on the site which have been listed or are under review by state or federal agencies. These include: Scrub mint (Conradina grandiflora) - UR2, USFWS. (Sabal etonia) - Threatened, FDA. (Tillandsia utriculata) - Commercially Exploited, FDA. No federally protected plant species were observed on this site d u r i n g the fie 1 d s t u d y . 0 n 1 yon e 0 f the s pe c i e 5 ( s c rub m i n t ) i s under re.view for federal listing (UR2), but substantial evidence of biological vulnerability is lacking. Scrub palmetto IS Scrub palmetto Wild pine threatened by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consu~er Serv ices (FDA), but has no real protected status if permission for removal is granted by the owner of the property. The re;:naining species (wild pine) is commercially exploited and for this reason it has been protected. The exact location of the various pIa Its reflects the ecological preference of the species. Except for wild pine which may occur in a wide va::: iety ~'f habitats (pine flatwoods, sand pIne scrub, hardwood swamp, mangrove forest), scrub mint and scrub palmetto are endemic to sand pine scrub habitats. Scrub mint usually occurs within stanos of scrub oaks or on the margins in full sunlight. This species is primarily restricted to the scrubby flatwoods and the margins of the eastern section of the property. Scrub palmetto 15 adapted for living in the shrub layer of oak thickets or out in the open in full sunlight. This small endemic palm IS primarily restricted to the western section of the property where it is found in full sunlight, however, a few isolated plants are scattered throughout the dense oak of the scrubby flatwoods and the sand pine scrub of the eastern edge of the property. The relocation success of these species has not been adequately determined, however, the author has been successful in transplanting scrub palmetto and scrub mint. Air plants pose no problem to relocate in the field. FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGES Based on other previous studies of animal populations within sand pine scrub habitats, several protected species were expected =t the Cedar Grove site. These included the gopher tortoise (Go~""'er'-s uol"'u;-;er::~s), Florida scrub lizard \ - t'd '-' . .. (See} o?or~s :--:?_odJ), gopher frog (Rana areolata), eastern Indigo snake (Drvmarchon --"'- corais couperi), Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens), and the Florida mouse (peromyscus flori.da_0u~). Here we report the finding of field investigations conducted In August and Septmenber 1987 for the above list~d species and for other common species observed during field studies of the site. FLORIDA SCRUB LIZARD Since scrub lizards prefer open sandy ar~as within sand pl~e forests, all bare zones were visually checked on several occasions for lizard activity. The est a b 1 ish ed t r a !: see t s }' s t em '''; a 5 a 1 sou s ed for 0 b s e r vat ion 0 f 1 i Z 2: r d act i v i t Y . It 15 also known that the surr~er months are the best time to survey for this ~pecies, a time when lizard activity is high. No Florida scrub lizards ~ere observed within the sand pine , scrub habitat. Even though some of the area appears to be suitable for this species, past disturbance of the ridge system may have contributed to its demise since other populations do exist nearby. Florida scrub lizards prefer open sandy areas to forage for prey items. Maximum population densities occur In rosemary or evergreen oak scrubs without sand pine and In early s u c c e S'S ion a 1 s tag e s ( 1 e s s t h a n 3 0 yea r s) . Its poor a b i lit Y t 0 disperse across habitat barriers reduces its capacity to colonize isolated patches of suitable habitat, thus requiring contiguous preserve areas of different ages. FLORIDk GOPHER FROG Gopher frogs cOffiITIonly share the burrows of the gopher tortoise, so that 23Ch acti'.'e aDd inactive burrow "",as checked between dusk and midnight over several ~ays. Artificial light was used to visually check the roof of each burrow for the presence of the gopher frog. After a thorough eXamination of active and inactive burrows, no gopher frogs were found indicate that the frog seems on the site. Previous studies In close to prefer active burrows proximity to seasonal ponds which the frogs require for breedi~g. The lack of standing '..later in shallow grassy ponds ....'o:..:ld ~.3':e contributed to their demise. EASTERN I~DIGO SNAKE The eastern Indigo snake is a wide-ranging s:pecl02s ',-.:hich requires a diversity of properly managed habitats to maintain viable populations. HODe ranges have been esti~ated to be 200- 300 or more acres of habitat mosaics which include types from xeric uplands to hydric lowlands. Because of their susceptibility to dessication, Indigos are generally associated with gopher tortoise burrows in uplands. Given the small size of the Cedar Grove scrub and the diverse habitat requirements of D. corais, it 1S doubtful that viable Ind.igo populations could persist since the surrounding areas have been developed. Population size of the Indigo snake was determined by visual observations made along each of the transects. No Indigo snakes were observed during the field census of the Cedar Grove site. FLORID~ SCRUB JAY Scrub jays are long-lived birds (10 years or more), sed e n tar y, per Tn an e n t 1 Y IT) C " 0 q a DO U S res ide n t s 0 f 0 a k s c rub. They typically nest at the edge of oak thickets, near bare sand. Recent data suggests that scrub jays require dense oak thickets for nesting, plenty of acorns and insects for food, and bare sand for foraging aDd storing acorns. T~ese requirements are met only in certain types of scrub throughout the state. At the Cedar Grove site, most of the bare sandy areas occur in the southeastern cor~er of the property. It also 3acears that . " fire plays an . . t LT:por-can role in maintaining the suitability of scrub for scrub jays. In the absence of fire, every 5-10 years, oak scrub will grow to be quite dense and tall which 1S unsuitable for jay nest sites. Scrub Jays ....ere first reported for the Cedar Grove site by Cox (1984). In his survey of the distribution of scrub "1 a'J s .J . 1n Pal m Be a c h Co un t y, he 0 b s e r v ed 3 s c rub jay sin den s e 3 - 6 in e t e r oak scrub on May 8, 1981. He also mentions that 6 birds were observed in November 1980 by J. F. Sandella from the Cedar Grove site. During two recent visits to the site, 2 adult birds were observed in the southeast corner of the site on 27 August 1987. About two weeks later (9 September 1987), 3 adult birds were observed in the same general location. Since Florida scrub jays have been recently listed as Endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, a more detailed study was initiated to determine how many birds were using the Cedar Grove site, whether the bi-rds were nesting residents, and how much of the site they were utilizi~g. Therefore, a study was conducted by Mr. Kevin McGowan who is currently studying scrub jay behavior at Archbold Biological Station. Field observations for scrub jay activity at Cedar September 1987. Two adult Grove were conducted between 14-17 scrub Jays (a mated pair) '..lere found utilizing about 6.1 acres of the site for gathering and burying acorns (Figure 3). In a six hour period, the jays spent less than 5 minutes off of the property. They did leave the site during short periods to chase blue Jays and bury acorns in adjacent lawns. The results indicate that the scrub jays live entirely on the property but may make occasional fcrays into the surrou~ding residential area to forage at feeders or bury acorns. The property was searched for scrub jay nests but only 2 old nests were located. The age of the nests indicate that they ~~re probably made by the pair but no conclusive evidence was fOund. Figure 3. \ \ , .. ~ ~ ,. ,~ : I I I , I III /1'1 ~ ,I . I " ... J.j OJ OJ 1-1 J.j CI) I I ( I I , \ \ \ \ \ ... , , , 'I. , J.j II) ...... M \ -- ~ I, -J L ---- seacrest Blvd. Existing Florida Scrub jay territory at Cedar Grove. (--- = existing jay territory; - = suitable habitat not used; ~= possible habitat) In additon to the 6.1 acres of oak scrub presently used by the jays, other suitable areas for nesting (scrubby flatwoods) o c cur wit h i nth e e a s t ern con fin e s 0 f the pro pe r t y ( Fig u r e 3), whereas the vegetation of the western section is of poor quality. The vegetation of the extreme eastern section, especially near the tracks, is too dense to support jays at present. Most of the vegetation near the tracks could be made suitable if a program of burning and/or mechanical removal of some of the trees and shrubs was initiated. Enough suitable habitat exists on the property to support 1 to 2 groups of jays, however, the probability of successful breeding is low. Predator pressure, especially of very young fledglings, IS likely to be high. Pressure is p:obably highest from domestic cats, and is unlikely to decrease with more development. However, some reproduction is possible, and the site is near enough to other sites with scrub jays that gene flow can occur. At least one pair of scrub jays were found just south of the Boynton Beach water treatment plant (l.1 miles) and at least 5 -jays on land 3 miles further north; around ~w 17th Ave. Dispersal to and from these sites is likely. A local resident on 3404 SE 3 CT, adjacent to ...l-~ '- "I:: site, feeds this pair of scrub jays. He recalled that one of the birds ....as crippled and eventually died, leaving the ruate alene for "a long time". i1o'..,iever, cbout a ;:;;::nth ago, another jay showed up and presumably mated with the wioow(er). This testimony sLpports the fact that other birds do disperse to the site on occasions. This information also s~pports the previous observations ~~de in Au g us t . Of t he three bi rds observed on the 27 of Aug us t, two were making "hiccup" vocalizations (given only by female jays 1n aggressive situations). These observations suggest that the third jay was a female disperser looking for a breeding vacancy and may have been passing through. Since critical habitat has not been established by the (J S FW S, p"r e s e r vat ion 0 f a b 0 u t 2 5 % 0 f the sit e ( ca. II. 7 a c res 0 f the eastern section) including the resident scrub jay territory would be necessary to support this pair of birds. FLORIDA MOUSE The' F lor i dam 0 use i s res t r i c t e d 1 nit s d i s t rib uti 0 n to peninsula Florida. It occurs In well-drai:-:ed sandy upland habitats, for exar:;ple, sand plDe scrub, longleaf pine-turkey oak sandhills, dry hardwood hammocks, and coastal scrubs. Development pressures on these well-drained lands has prompted the F lor i d a G am e and F res h Wa t e r F ish Co mm i s s ion to 1 i s t the Florida mouse as a SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN. Historically, the Florida mouse in southeast Florida was 1 i m i t e d to san d pin e s c rub h a bit a t s a 1 0 n g t.1 eAt 1 ant i c Co a s tal Ridge. Widespread loss of these habitats within south Florida has prompted special concern for the Florida mo~se 01Jd the scr~b biota in general. Field study of ~he Cedar Grove site suggests that most of the area might, under certain conditions, support Florida mice. Thus five trap lines were established that crossed the property from east to west. Each trap line was separated by about 65 meters. Trap stations at approximately 17 meter intervals ,,",'ere .located, flagged, and single Sherman live traps placed in the field along these trap lines. Traps were sheltered from direct sunlight with available plant cover, provided with sunflower seeds, and opened continuously for 3 days. The trapping effort is summarized below: 200 400 600 800 1000 Trap nights and sample dates Aug 21 Aug 22 Aug 23 Total 18 18 36 32 32 32 96 32 32 32 96 10 21 21 52 25 25 50 74 128 128 330 Trap line Total A single Florida mouse "Was captured cn t:;e third day of trapping and represented a sexually active male with a body mass of 44 grams (Table 2). Two individual cotton rats were captured on three occasions In the weedy, disturbed habitat on the western margin of the site. S pot t ed sku n k s '.-I ere a 1 so cap t u red 1 nth e Sherman tr aps, We found no evidence that the skunks killed any Florida mice in the traps. Three large mammal traps were placed in the field to catch animals such as raccoons or opposums that disturb the Sherman traps. TwO raccoons were captured In the large ma~~al traps and released off-site. The general conclusion from the trapping effort at Cedar Grove is that the Florida mouse population is very small and that small mammals are also not very common in this scrub. Many years or'experience with trapping small ma~~als in Florida allows us to conclude that the capture of three rodents a total of four tj~es suggests very low numbers of individuals present. Since the Florida mouse and cotton rat are very capture in Sherman traps, what does the capture of Florida mouse mean? It suggests that one or more pairs ea sy to a single of mice have been on the si te in recent months. These mice seldom survive in the field beyond one year. The captured animal appeared to be in complete adult pelage. The very low number of Florida mice at Cedar Grove may be explained by the abundance of predators that forage in the nearby urban area as well as on the undeveloped tract. The .isolation of Cedar Grove from other sand pine scrubs suggests that Florida mice are very unlikely to reach the site during the course of normal movements (irrunigration). Table 2. Trapping results from the Cedar Grove site. Date Trap station Species 8/21/87 400/2 400/6 (near) Cotton rat Raccoon 8/22/87 200/3 400/27 600/6 600/26 200/3 400/25 830/5 Cotton rat Spotted skunk Raccoon Spotted skunk 8/23/87 Cotton rat FLOR I DA :-lOU SE Spotted skunk COMMON ANIMAL SPECIES The Cedar Grove site IS fairly typical in fauna: species richness for this portion of the county. Ad j ace n t de'; e lop men t pressures have forced many animals into this area even t~ough the site IS somewhat disturbed and of relatively small size. Field census data indicate that birds were the most numerous s~ecies at this site. The following species have been observed for this site: MAMMALS Dasypus novemcintus .~ r m ad i 11 0 Dtdelphis vir9ini~~a CFc"surn peromyscus florij2~~s :-'J or i d~ I7iC~Se ?rocyon lotor ? = c C ':: 0 n scuirus caroli~ensis Grey 5Cj~irrel Sigmodon hispidus Cotton rat spilogale putcrius S?ott:ed skt:nk Sylivilagus flori~3nLs Cotton~ail rabbit Urocyon cirrereo arqeOL1S Grey fox '::.:~PH 1:3 I ;..~~S ~?'.~;8 F~:: ::'Y'! L E:S -----..---- ."---- ~~olis c3roli~e~sis Green anole 3uro terrestris Southern toad ;:-:.]fo '=l:..:ercic~s Oak ~ccd Che~nidophor~s s2xli~Eatus Six-li~es racer~~n~r Coluber constrictor Racer G~pnerus pol y P h c: ;~: IJ S GCf',her torto~se ?-1i crurus fulvius Coral , snaKe Terropine carolina bauri BIRDS Aphelocoma coerulescens Bubo virginianus Buteo jamaicrusis Caprimulgus carolinensis Centurus carolinus Chaetura pelagica Chordeiles minor COla;?tes auratus Ceil t.:::-;!:.<: a 1 i -1 i a C~1~~~i~21!i~2 ?~SSerl~a Ccr~~s :~s:::~~~5 CY2Docitta cristata C2~drocapcs pubesc~~s SE~droica c:scolor Dryocopcs pileatu5 Melanerf2s erythrocephalus Mi~us palyglottos ?S3ser ~c:~~5tic~s ? i P i 1 i 0 e::::" ~ ::.:;. ~~ t E ~ ~~ 'J S Polioptila c3Grulea Q~iSC2:~S ~~iscula RichffiC~2~~a ~arji~alis Setophaga Iuticilla S t u r iA U S 4/ ~ 1 '; 3 r i 5 To x 0 s t c';;, a r L: f Gin Florida box turtle Scrub jay Great horned owl Red-tailed hawk Chuck'-will's-widow Red-bellied woodpecker Chimeny swift Ccmmon nighthawk Yellow shafced flicker Rock .:love Ground dove fish crow Blue Jay Downy woodf>2cker prairie 'n1arbler ?ileated 'n1oodpecker Red-headed woodpecker ~..~ 0 c k i !1 9 b i r d r:OL:se S:,:.C r row T 0 .~. e e ,:)l.ue-gra.-:t" . .. ;:1a tca t:..:::;-;er c C ;7'_:7: CJ n s;:..::...: ~~~ 1 e c:3rdi:Jal AI~eric~n r~a5tart Starling 3rown t!::~2:sher Tyrannus tyrannus Zenaidura macroour Eastern kingbird t10urning dove PROTECTED ANIMAL SPECIES There are three animal species that are protected by state or federal agencies on the Cedar Grove site. The sin c 1 .~ C e : Florida mouse - (peromyscus floridanus) - Species of Special Concern, FGFWFC; UR2, USFWS. Gopher tortoise - (Gopherus 20lyphemus) - Species .:;,f Special Concern, FGFWFCi UR2, USFWS. Florida scrub Jay - (Aohelocoma coerulescens coer~lescens)- --"--- .--.- Threatened, FGFWFC; Endangered, USFWS. Only one of the S?2CleS (Florida scrub jay) has bEen listed as ::: ;-;: '" n 9 ere d by U~ e uS i:- '\\' S 1:, 2 C S. use 0 f nab ita t 1 os s t h roc:; h 0 U t t 11 e :::: ... ~ ~ 0- - .... - .... -- . ~ :-; e :- e ;:: .= 1 ;; 1 n 9 two s p e c 1 e s (F lor i c a i'IO U ;;:: e, G c; p her :crtQ~52: . ~ .- - .- - ~ .,;- ~.. r e .: 1 e w for federal listing (.....?2), but substantial evi~ence of biological vulnerability 15 lacking. 30th the Florida r;,ocse and the gopher tortoise are also desisr.ated as Species of Special Concern by the De;..::.rtment of Agriculture and Ccnsc~er SErvices (FDA). The Florida mouse ~dS located in the eastern sec:~on of ~he site about 40C fee~ west of the tracks. This sf:ecies lS csuai:y fOt.:~ld ::..n ::3~ 5C:L.:;S 'roiith I7~i~i~al cisturtance. !:';cphc= tortci=e are IOc.na 5catt-::r2d :.:-~rC',uGhaut the 5i:e .out. =:re r:1::.re cC.:~.~::(::--l the cist~rbed areas of the ~estern section. ;:"5 \:.-.e :-:.a::n::a.t ;::2tl.:reS l::itO C2.~:~:ea s:::;:....:b (2::st'2~n secti::;n), gop!'"'je= tc~rtc.i5e densities dec~~~se. Like ~any of ttese early s~:c0ssjo~al speCIes, the Florida scrcb jay also crefers the oak scrub o,.;ith open so:-:.dy areas. ~1cst of this habitat 15 Lc~~~d In ~~~ sc~tneast2rn corner of the site. Relocation of the above species should pose D:) problem except for the Florida scrub Jay. This bird must be r2~ained on the site in suitable habitat since relocation of this s;2cies has not been considered in the past. GOPHER TORTOISE Introduction As per the requirements of the city of Boyntc!1 Beach, populations of the gopher tortoise were studied for :ne Cedar Grove site inclusive of the mowed margins of the s:te. The purpose of this report is to present the finding of -:he field investigation conducted during August and September, 19S7, on the site. ~'1 et ho d s Since gopher tortoise are Known to inhabit a widE: ~2n':1e of ~3bitats, e~ch portion of the scrub and the disturbed ~~rgins of the site ~ere systE~atically surveyed for their presenc~. :...,... ...::..- t r c ;-J see t 5 ...." ere est a b 1 i .:3 h e d vis u a 11 y eve r y 5 r:; e t e r s : .~) r fie ~ ;~ recooIlaissance. Each gopher tortoise burrow encounte~0d along the t ran s e c t ',/ a 5 r e cor d e d for 1 0 cat ion and act i v i t Y . ;,ctive burroi.'S 'nIere identified by the presence of tracks, clear?d openings or recently excavated soil. I:lacti...'e burro'..;s :<0r::-,311y showed no p~esent signs of use and were us~ally laden ~:th leaves and other rubble. Abando~ed burrc~s were often charac:erized by 2rosion c.f t.;-;e l2ntrcr~ce or cave-ins, ',..jith no V1SLic...;.. 31S~3 ,:.f o c: i v i t 1" . Si~ce gopher tortclse utilize ~ore than v~~ - ..,......." ~., _' ~.... .;.. .;.. w ...... , est i.:'", ate S J f 2b~nd~r~ce \~2~e based cn 3 multiplier of .... - tJ . -: x .~ <.::: 1 .; 2 and inactive burrows (Auff~nb2rg 3nd Franz 1975). ~es~lts ~ ~ tctal of 172 c~:rows ~ere located -~ 0... t1-H2 Cecar ~ :. 1.j \/ G sit e '?igure 4). The burrows WEre distributed as follo~~: Active Tracks . - . . . . . . . I!J. . I!J. I!J. . . . . . It . . It . . . . . . 0 . . . . I) . 0 . . . ZZ A . ~--- 0 . 0 0 . A . A . A . . eo (J II G- o . t r. Go .. .. Q ~ I 0 .'\1 .' . ! '-' . c.. . I> (.. ::.. . - , :... . . ;... - . ,~ . . ~. . . ..:: -. . . " (""'") . . ~ A . . 00 t:. . . . A . . . . . . II . . t:. 0 0 . t. . C . 0 IS C 0 . . . . l) . . . I> . . 0 J:. A ~ . ~ - --~--_._---- ---- 0 . 0 CI . . . C) . 0 . . . e <J . . ~ . .. . . .~ ,0. . I c . I I . A . I a. i . . i 1 , I i l_ ____ ______________________ ______ ______ Fl ~l' ""0 ~ (; 0 p rJ e r tortoise distribt.:t ion at C,=,,j a r Grc\,' . -:;.........'- . ~ a = ~......~ i ve burrow; A. = Inact J...... e our.~__ow; . - ....... ..... c = abanconcd burrow) (89), Inactive (23), and abandoned (613). Most of t'-.e active bur row s we r ere 5 t r i c t ed tot hew est ern s e c t ion 0 f the sit e 0 r along the disturbed margIns were forage grass was abun::::nt. As the total percent cover of herbaceous species decreasej to;..;ard the mature scrub of the eastern section, SO did the .-....:mber of active gopher tortoise burrows. Since gopher tortoise use more than one burrow, '::Stilncit0S \l e r: e 1:; as ed 0 n a m u 1 tip 1 i e r 0 f 13. 6 x act i ve and i n act i ve :' 11 r [O'"J S . A total of 112 active and inactive burro....'s Here locat,:-:: on ,.1-'1:) L . j "- site. If rie assume that the multiplier 1S an accurate esti0Q(e of '.:.or<:oise pcpclations throughout Florida, 112 :;urr'.),:s :ei.-.i?:eS'=~':3 ~ n c s ~ i ::: ~ t ed cO:JL:lat ic)n ~ . of about 67 tortoise :.;: 1) 2 ~'. ~. .2 r 'c '-'0 n c" e ::;rtoise ..- ,....- ~~ ~ ac:-e. It Vloi.1ld s c- ern from this ,~st.;--:.. t hat the PC? u 1 a t ion 0 f go ph e r tor t 0 i s eon t his 5 i t e : 3: ,>>::" S those reported In the literature. ;n.uffenberg and Ive::s:n (197)) , " S~jC'",,~2a that tortoise - . . . cenSltles in sand pine scrub appea: .20 to ;~e .:; 0 r r e 1 ate d ~~ i t h 9 r 5 sse 8 \~ e r . As percent basal cover :)f srcss c2cree.sed, oOC::-:'2:r tClrtoise c2:Jsities also dropped. ~-1 0 r '2 r ", c e !1 t c3ta gattered by sta"Ce oiolog ists have shown -- ... - .. ~_ !J <:] \... -=crtv.:::~e densities in scrub ...ay o,:erase about 0.5 tortoise per ::cre -:::'0 r~:ely EX~=2d5 1 fer acre. m....._ .1 lJe fact that t his sit e is now is 0 l a -:: eo l.rvITI o~:-:e: ;~~~_...:r~l areas, 9 o~::;; e r tcrtols2 pc~ulatio~s ~ay ~e . . . ~;:9r;er dL:e .. - L _ - ~ "~ :-: ,)f s~itoble habitat. ~'\hat effEct ~. . L.r.1S C":e.s on t !-re - - " - - - - ;:j '_ (.:!.... ::t viability of the population is not known, ~o~ever, it d:~s ~~F~ar that ::--'0st of .. . ,-De tortoise are large ar.i::,als that :~3Y - -=> ()!1 '- . t...ne decline since few small burrows were otser~2d. Due tot h e 1 a r g e n u m be r 0 f g 0 ph e r tor t 0 i s e f 0 ''': :". don the site, it does appear that a relocation plan to move th= tortoise off-site must be considered. A", per the pre:=-::=rvation requirements imposed by the city of Boynton Beach, approximately 1 0 - 1 2 a c res 0 f 5 and pin e s c rub may be pre 5 e r v ed . -:-'1is ..-/ou1d accommodate about 10 gopher tortoise, forcing the relr:cation of a~out'57 tortoise. All tortoise would have to be pullcj from the burrows and k.?pt in captivity for a period not to e>:ceed 2-4 ',i<=eks cL:::p,?nding on the l,-,:ngth of time it takes to rc:mc...e all triG a:1irnals. All goph2r tortoise would be marked, weighed, 3~x~d dod fina1}y released to a sIte wi~h suitable habitat. T:-::,S port}\-..n oft h e pro j e c two L: 1 d see .::. 0 r .-.:5 i Z-J ::; : c: 0 :~~ l t r; ~ rJ e F 1 0 r i c :: G .::, r~ e :; rl d =-::-.::.s h "f'; ate r F ish C 0:".:11 ~ S 53 2 C:J a.s ,... ~ VJ.. t fJ e l=- e r :~l i t t i;19 ;:":J ,--;: i2 S S . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1). Approximately 47 acres of the site is dominat€;-d by native vegetation. Three different phases of sand pine scrub were observed as follows: sand plne scrub (16.5 acres), scrubby flatwoods (8.3 acres), and disturbed oak scrub (22.7 acres). The remaining 8.14 acres is periodically mowed and is dominated by . ruderal species. 2). A total of 75 scrub and ruderal plant species c:;d 44 animal species were found on the Cedar Grove site. The site contained three protected plant species (Scrub mint, scrub palmetto,' Wild pine) and three protected animal species (F:'.:Hi,Ja s::: r '.: ~ j 3 y, G c, p!-; e r tor t 0 i 5 e, F lor i d a mo use) . 3}. 7he distribution of these protected species 50~~S to be found primarily 1n scrubby flatwoods and disturbed oak scr~b, as densities decrease in the mature scrub near the tracks. 4). Ba!ed on the habitat requirements of the animal s~ecles on the site, approximately 11.7 acres would have to be preserved to acco~~odate critical population size. However, this wou~d not apply to tbe gopher tortoise since population densities =x~eed rn0re than one tortoise per acre. At least 55 tortoise woulj t3~e to be relocated to some suitable location within the regIon. EXHIBIT "e" STAFF COMMENTS CEDAR GROVE PUD BUILDING DEPARTMENT: See attached memorandum #92--053 FIRE DEPARTMENT: See attached memorandum #92-206 WDC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: See attached memorandum #92-042 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT: See attached memoranda ( 2 ) #92-081 #91-544 POLICE DEPARTMENT: See attached memoranda (2) #92-018 #92-036 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: No conunents PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: See attached memorandum #92-038 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT: See attached memoranda ( 3 ) #92-062 #92-022 #91-461 FORESTER/HORTICULTURIST See attached memoranda (2) #92-049 #92-063 A:STAFFCOM.JM1 BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-053 February 27, 1992 TO: Chris cutro Planning Director FROM: Don Jaeger Building Official RE: TRC COMMENTS CEDAR GROVE PUD - REVISED MASTER PLAN Please be advised of the following Building Department recommendations concerning the above referenced master plan: 1. Dimensions of the typical lots should be shown on the plans. 2. The outline of the buildable area on the typical lot plans should be indicated. 3. Screen enclosure setbacks should meet Appendix A~Zoning, section 11(F). 4. Pool setbacks should comply with Appendix A-Zoning, Section 11(E). 5. The minimum rear set backs for solid roof structures should be uniform. DJ:pm RECEIVED FEB. .... aA , PLANNiNG DEPT. \ - - . CEDGRV.DOC FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-206 WDe TO: CITY PLANNER FROM: WILLIAM D. CAVANAUGH, FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1992 RE: CEDAR GROVE PUD SITE THIS IS A THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S PRIME CONCERN IS WITH ACCESS TO THIS AND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC "BOTTLENECKS" ON SEACREST BOULEVARD AT SITE. SHOULD A RESCUE OR FIRE CALL COME AT THIS TIMEt THERE DISTINCT POSSIBILITY THAT SERVICE WOULD BE SEVERELY DELAYED. WHEN PROBLEMS SUCH AS THOSE ABOVE OCCUR, A SECOND MEANS OF ACCESS INTO THE AREA VIA A PUBLIC ROAD IS MANDATORY. /!Vdd ~ ' WILLIAM D. CAV NAUGHt FIRE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE xc: Chief Allen File cedgrove.wdc pg <..- 1tECE~D "' ~~ q~ ""',....<:'1\. p.lf\NN'I' ' OJ,? ----- ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-042 TO: Christopher Cutro, Director of Planning FROM: Michael E. Kazunas, City Engineer ~<= ~ DATE: February 28, 1992 RE: Technical Review Committee Comments Cedar Grove "Master Plan" (fourth submission) Julian Bryan & Associates This memorandum shall replace Engineering Department Memorandum No. 92-026. 1. Roadway sections shown are not consistant with City Standards. City Standard Drawing flB-91005 attached (Appendix "C", Article X, Section 10J). 2. 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 attachment m .... .. .c .. ... -. -.. .. ". ..- ... :: o. .- ... o .. o . I .. >>.. .. . . c .. . . {4!~S ........ - ~ I; OJ t:J ......... ~ a Q o 2: : CI\ ! ~ ~ i ~ Ul tld~~ , · 0 <: CD ~tJ - ~b <:) )) <:) ~o ~ 1)Ul S ' ~ ~ ~ ~ tn~li ~<! ..... .... 7t "trill ~l1t- ~~ 4~tJ ~..... Ri} ~....~ ~~, ~;'I ~~ 'It. ~~ \It !"l """ ~~g~tlJ ~o() ~~~~~ . Y' ~ t:.! !'111"("'~ ~~~d~~ ~,...~~U\ t; ~ a, :b ).t ~ ~ ~ ~l""~~oS@ iJ~~~Q~~ CIl~~ i~t) ~It'i · III ~~tJ"(\~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !'\ Q)~ ~(;t~~~- ~~,,~~ ~ ~"o ~tj~~ .~ ~ tj ~ ~~ ~~n:!:! ",<~)tr;- ""i ~ " ~ ,... ~ g tJ ~ ~ bt ~.. s'~"~ ~~~ , " h"Q ;:::Oe: ()~n ~"'CI\ ~~~ en .. ~ " g ~. u__ r ~ ~ " ~ '" l;! ~ ...... '::I' .. ..... ... 8t;.. ...... =.A. c...... .~: ...c '::1'''' .. . .. ..I!. ..... . . :0-....... ...0 A..: .... ~o... .g: ...... . 0. .... ...0 ..... ..... ... .. ... '" .:0-. .... .......0 "'.... ~:f c... . . . ..... .. ... .. c .. ;l~ ... II oliO ... .r:r: .CI" .....0. .... i", ~ . .. c... . 0 ..., ... '" ..... =. .. .. . ... "'''' ... ~i .... ... .. o . liDo ... .. . '" 'III'" ..'" ODo 4 c: ... Do" . .. Do" cr'. ...... ... arc: ..... nDo .... n c ... .. . . -.. "'0 . .., Do. . . . .. .. .. . .., dtd "'...." \1 ~: ~ CIt~CI\ ~;..O . w b ....~CI\ "O~ ~~,.. :"'4~,... )> .' o. '.. o 'f. . ..~:~ ~:..r,.;. ~ ... ,.... , !. . . {J::: ;~.:~: .... .. .... . . .. ,; ". , "O'.~ ; ,.,' t', . 0', .; ." '. :.,.: : ~.~.~ . ./.... ~~.':", ;::.~' \ (') ()J ~ _1 (I ~ ~ ~ "'t $ .. . . ..... I ,... '. .. ., '. ~ ~~ () Ot~ ~ , !" '" ~ . w . !'" ~ a Q "'1 "( ~ tll o .~ <: a ~ tb ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a! ~ ~ "b :"1 ... N ... ... :- 0 :' ... . .0 . ~g~SS;6~~...~~~=...~~~~atat~~Q&S~=;!i~~i~= bz. ~.. z~~ez~no~~.zMNN.<.NC"'~"""''''''' ~ =on...M a FI"C~~ ~~= ~a. ~N'" "'=M~"'N ~it8~~gS~: aD~~.S5~sis!~~~0!:sat:=~=: ...~= .Mi=~N ~ C"=N~~~ O.C....M~ MCla.~o ~ ..~o~~on. Mlo~"'~iM ..... B.'~o"'> - ~M ~MM~.... ~~B ~M. ~::I 5S ... ~~ ~=e~~~"'~~n=~~M~ =~. ~e~l!IM.c~c~S2.1. ~ F~. ~oa ~~ ~1Il ~...~Fe'.N..MM.. ~~~~n~.z.lIl~ " =Oat=8i5=~~ ~sWBM.rW...n... =e:~!=8aa:!i~=el~~~I~~il~E~:a:li:H~; I.~~:~~=~.=...~~~::I"'''' i =~ i.C~W."S~'" ~ .t"'!!i.... n" "''''0 =0 &II M = co ."c ...~ n~ o.......~.. Non ~.~.o . .... j!. 0 1Il.~ Z< _ oC"=t g..... . ...~o MnS'=SC6C ~ oC~l!:e"A_ E....~ it..~~:; on" 2M ._ lIlQM~2..~ _M....= ....... M . 0 C~!II1ii I'OIglCJ !:IN... M~M M :5.. ~- ~~ cat-; Ao _ .~.~~ ;~~~ EICJ...cg~.~S lIlat aN~~ C:; Si=~. ~~z is _ M;=. M MMZ AM .;SClO as :!i8 ==s ~s it ~;;. s"r:r:s :;= nM ~ ...i ...at;:u: :;; :: Rg . e=~ i~r;~... at. ~6 ~ --... =6. M ...n= "'~s!~ ; ~I . M. ==g~ gzS g~ ~ ca:;; ~~....... n> ~ ~I'OI ~t"' 0. at nz N~ = I~ no...... S~ F :;~ st"' I~n~ SC~~! .~ ~1CJ~i~ C M I'OIC c~ 0_ .M_ !II<. oC... Nn. a . .... M ~ oz... at" I W N.n ......1'01 =~ ~E~~ I ~:=i S...& ~ g i~5 ~~:; c~ _ ~~ F~c"'=. ~ M M t"' at ~;! ~.~= = .t"'Q~ ~1II~ oC~ ,. gPoi.= ~ N FoC~... ~r:l fP::SC = I ;g. t:~at ;:: ""....:c ros rosx. 5:c o. ros i g;- r-s ~ =~. ~r:; en .. .. .. :- I - I . .. c ; o . . . . 8 . " c .. . " . .. . HEHJRANID{ UTILITIES DEPAR'lMEm' NO. 92 - 081 FR<M: John A. Guidry, utilities Director TO: Chris cutro, Planning Director DATE: February 25, 1992 SUBJECI': Cedar Grove PUn - Fil e no. 654 Revised Plans dated 2/24/92 This Department has no objection to approval of the plans s~tted as part of the applicant's request for rezoning. All ccmnents, however, that reI ate to future site planning and/or utility construction plans remain in effect as condi tions of this approval. Please refer any questions on this matter to Peter Mazzella of this office. JAG/PVM be: Peter Mazzella xc: File RECEIVED rES 26 PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM Utilities #91-544 TO: Christopher Cutro, Planning Director FROM: John A. Guidry, Director of Utilities DATE: October 30, 1991 SUBJECT: TRB Review - Cedar Grove We can approve this project, subject to the following conditions: Show all utility easements. New water mains 6" and larger shall be cleaned with soft-sided swab, prior to testing, two passes. Please affix this note to the construction plans. Irrigation is not to be supplied by City water. i' Work to be in accordance with City of Boynton Beach Details and Criteria sheets. 9' Ductile Iron Pipe Polylined or P.V.C. C900, Dr 18, is required entering any sanitary manhole. Owner shall provide fire flow calculations. Palm Beach County Health Department permits are required. Fire hydrants must be spaced 500' O.C. through residential areas. Contact City Utility Engineer for lift station details. Location of the proposed 8" water main corner along buffer, is not desirable. concurrent with home construction, and installed in cuI de sac for flushing. loop, in north east Suggest looping fire hydrant be 175 GPM peak capacity limits the number to three bedrooms whi ch can be canst ructed. -!t:.~.. RECEIVED xc: Mike Kazunas File I OCT 31; r;/ PLANNING O~M", -~,_.. ,P......:~ ,. -. - 'T ..., ~ --' ~'.. TO: Michael Haag Planning Depa~tment FROM: Lt. Remchuk Police Depar~ment DATE: February 18, 1992 REF: Cedar Grove As per our discussion at the Technical Review Board meeting on 13 February 1992, I am recommending the following: 1. A traffic study should be conducted at Mission Hill Road and S. Seacrest Boulevard to determine if a traffic light would be warranted upon completion of this project; 2. Also recommend a transition lane; 3. Have another connecting street either North or South of this complex. AT~~ Lt. Remchuk Police Department DR/jb M E M 0 RAN DUM Police ::92-036 TO: Tambri J. Heyden FROM: Lt. Daniel Remchuk DATE: February 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove P.U.D. - File #654 I would like to add the following recommendations to the original copy: 1) stop bars and stop signs at all exits (city ordinance 5-142C). 2) Lighting details on entrance road - parking areas - and also on pedestrian access sidewalk to the preserve (city ordinance 5-142) . - ~ I, !i;-rJLL PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-038 TO: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board r")~ ~....6 THRU: Christopher Cutro, A.I.C.P. Planning and Zoning Director FROM: Tambri J. Heyden Senior Planner DATE: March 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove PUD - File No. 654 Rezoning Please be advised of the following Planning and Zoning Department comments with respect to the above-referenced request: Comments recommended as conditions of rezoninq approval 1. a) To meet the parks and recreation dedication requirement within the City's subdivison regulations, neighborhood park levels of service, and Comprehensive Plan Policies 5.5.4 and 9C.5.4, 3.212 acres of land shall be dedicated, along Seacrest Boulevard, for a public neighborhood park, rather than accepting the proposed fee in lieu of land. This figure includes a credit of one acre for the preservation of 11.5 acres of natural habitat, towards the 4.212 acres computed for parks and recreation to serve 234 units. b) If land cannot be dedicated, a fee, equal to the fair market value of 3.212 acres, will have to be accepted as a second choice option. This fee shall be used to pursue acquisition of the less desirable, 4.90 acre site on S.E. 2nd Street, in order to address this development's lowering of the adopted acreage level of service. c) If the City Commission grants more than one acre in credit for the preserve area, fee in lieu of land is recommended. d) In the event that the City Commission approves the payment of the fee in lieu of land and the developer opts, at time of platting, to provide private recreation to receive 50% credit toward the fee, it is recommended that the fair market value of 2.1 acres be paid. Furthermore, at least a portion of this private recreation area shall have access by all residents of the PUD and commencement of the private recreation shall take place within one year of approval of the first plat. The preliminary plat submittal shall show the number, size, type and location of the 5 recreational elements proposed. Appendix C, Subdivision, Platting, Article IX, Section 8; Comprehensive Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element, Policy 5.5.4 and Recreation and Open Space Element Support Documents, Volume 1, pages 13, 40, 41, 44, 54, 56, 65; and Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element Support Documents, Volume 1, "Land Use Problems and Opportunities" Planning Area 4.i. (pages 79 and 80). 2. If payment of a fee is accepted in lieu of land dedication, the applicant shall file a Comprehensive Plan amendment to Policies 9C.5.4 and 5.5.4 and Planning Area 4.i of the Future Land Use Element Support Document, "Land Use Problems and Opportunities" section. 3. A future master plan modification shall be required, prior to platting, if a dedicated public park or private recreation area is provided which significantly impacts the master plan configuration. P & Z Memo No. 92-038 -2- March 4, 1992 4. No building permits shall be issued for the final 50% of the total number of units within the PUD, until construction of Girl Scout Park commences consistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 9C.2 and Policies 9C.2.3, 90.2.2, 90.2.3 and 5 . 2 .3. 5. The City reserves the future right to limited, guided access to the preserve area for educational purposes consistent with Comprehensive Plan Objectives 5.8 and 9C.8. 6. A future master plan modification shall be required, prior to platting, if the location of a drainage detention or retention area significantly impacts the approved master plan configuration as determined by the Planning and Zoning Department. 7. consistent with Policy 1.3.6 and 1.3.8, Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Appendix C, Article X, Section 10 of the Code of Ordinances, the proposed street layout, with two project access roads, shall be required. The two access roads are important in order to establish and coordinate a citywide street network and provide for continuity with the existing street system within the surrounding area. In addition, the segments of rights-of-way west and south of the intersection of the proposed 60 foot and 50 foot rights-of-way shall be public thoroughfares to provide alternate routes during utility and road repairs and emergencies, for fast and efficient public service, for park access if a public park is dedicated and to encourage socialization within the community (as opposed to walled, isolated developments). A major disadvantage with private streets is that future road maintenance costs are often underestimated by homeowners' associations who must maintain them and later seek to dedicate them to the public. 8. The right-of-way width and section for the main entrance road off of Seacrest Boulevard shall reflect the traffic study revised February 24, 1992. This study mentions that this road will be three lanes (undivided) tapering to a two lane section. Furthermore, this right-of-way and the proposed 50 foot right-of-way shall be wide enough to accommodate lanes, drainage/swales, 8 foot bike path on one side, 4 foot sidewalk on opposite side and utilities. Appendix C, Article X, Section 10.B and 10.C. 9. The pavement and right-of-way width of the local streets in the housing tracts shall be wide enough to accommodate two, 11 foot wide lanes, swales for drainage, utilities and sidewalks. It is unclear whether the 42 foot private, right-of-way note on the master plan refers to just the local streets in the housing tracts. Appendix C, Article X, section 7, Section 10.B and 10.Cj Appendix C, Article VIII, Section 4.C.10. 10. Recommendations relative to the proposed access points onto the project access roads from the housing tracts are subject to change at the platting level based on the outcome of the street link to the south, the 3 lane design of the main entrance road off of Seacrest Boulevard and the public park dedication issue. 11. A bikepath on one side of the street and a sidewalk on the other side of the street shall be provided on the two access roads shown on the master plan to provide adequate bicycle and pedestrian circulation which is integrated with those existing on Seacrest Boulevard and within the neighborhood to the south. A sidewalk shall be required on at least one side of the streets within the housing tracts if these streets are privatej on both sides of the streets if they P & Z Memo No. 92-038 -3- March 4, 1992 (cont'd.) 11. are public. If a private recreation area or a public park is constructed, pedestrian and bicycle systems shall connect to these areas and any common areas. Appendix B, Section 10.A.3.(e); Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.11.9 and 2.4.4; Appendix C, Article IX, Section 11 and Article X, Section 10.T and Section 12. 12. No turn movement analysis was included in the traffic study submitted. However, a left hand turn lane (transition lane) on Seacrest Boulevard shall be required as stated in the February 24, 1992 letter from the Palm Beach County Engineering Department. Chapter 19, Article VI, Concurrency Requirements, Section 19-87 (e) and Section 19-84(e) and Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.3.1 and 2.1.1 and Objective 2.1. 13. It is recommended that money be put into escrow at the time of platting for a traffic light at the intersection of Seacrest Boulevard and Mission Hill Road, until project buildout or until the light is warranted, whichever comes first. Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.3.1 and 1.3.7. 14. There is a discrepancy in the roadway buffer width between the master plan and the drainage and water and sewer plans. It is not clear whether this area is common area that will be maintained by the homeowners' association or whether it is part of the road right-of-way or will be included as part of the lot area of the abutting lots. 15. The PUD perimeter buffer along Seacrest Boulevard shall be 25 feet in width consistent with Appendix B, Section 9.B. Lots shall not encroach into any pun perimeter buffer. Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.17.7. 16. The proposed 4,500 square foot lots, which are smaller than the minimum 6,000 square foot lots recommended by staff for PUDs, are recommended as an incentive to preserve environmentally sensitive land, subject to the following conditions: a) Single-family homes and patio homes shall have a minimum living area of 1,000 square feet. Villa homes shall have a minimum living area of 750 square feet. b) Rear building and hard roofed screened enclosure setbacks shall be a minimum of 15 feet from the rear property line, provided perimeter PUD buffers are excluded from lot area. Rear building and hard roofed screened enclosure setbacks shall be a minimum of 25 feet for lots backing up to dedicated, public roads, if the perimeter pun buffers and roadway buffers are within the lot area. Appendix B, Planned Unit Developments, Section 9.B. c) On corner lots, the side yard setback adjacent to the street shall be not less than one-half the front yard setback except where the corner lot faces a different street than the remaining lots on the street, then the front setback shall be maintained on both streets. d) No swimming pool shall be constructed closer than eight feet from any property line and no swimming pool shall be built in front of the building line. On corner lots, property bordering both streets shall be considered as front yards. Location of above ground pools shall comply with building setback requirements. e) All screen enclosures (screen walls and screen roof) shall comply with building side yard setbacks. No screen enclosure shall be constructed closer than eight feet from a P & Z Memo No. 92-038 -4- March 4, 1992 (cont'd. ) 16. rear property line and no screen enclosure shall be constructed in the front of the building line. Comprehensive Plan Policies 4.3.3, 1.16.2, 1.19.1 and Objectives 1.15, 1.19 and 6.1. 17. A future master plan modification shall be required, prior to platting, since lot layout within the various residential tracts was not provided on the master plan, as required by Appendix C, Article VIII, Section 4.C.10. 18. As recommended by the Palm Beach County School Board, no residential building permits may be issued until the developer and the School Board approve in writing an agreement which assures that public school student membership generated by the development will achieve School Board racial balance goals. 19. A statement as to the LUI rating sought for the PUD and such supporting evidence or documentation (tabulations demonstrating the relationship of the development to proposed LUI rating as shown in Table 1, Section 4, Appendix B of the Code or Ordinances) to enable the Planning and Zoning Board to determine whether or not the LUI rating requested is reasonable and proper has not been submitted. The LUI rating assigned at the time of zoning must be indicated on the official zoning map. Appendix B - Planned Unit Developments, Section 3, section 4, Section 5, Section 10.A.2 and Section 10.B.2. 20. Unified control documents, as required by Appendix B, section 6 of the Code of Ordinances, must be submitted to the Planning Department for review and certification by the City Attorney. The City Attorney recommends requiring this documentation prior to filing a preliminary plat application. Comments that are to be addressed on plans or documents submitted at the time of applvinq for preliminary plat approval 21. A management plan is required for the preserve area, PUD buffers and any other common areas, including as much existing vegetation outside the preserve as possible, which employs preservation and relocation, rather than "cut and replace" techniques. Designation of a transition buffer is recommended as a restricted development zone to prevent significant adverse effects on the protected environmentally sensitive zone. This should be included in the management plan to ensure that any portion of this buffer that is damaged during construction, is restored and operating within a reasonable amount of time. Conservation Element, Comprehensive Plan, Policy 4.4.2. and Chapter 7.5, Article I, Section 7.5-6.1(b) and Appendix A, Section 9.C.4.d.(3) of the Code of Ordinances. 22. The buffer area requirement in Appendix C, Article IX, Section 3 will be required on the preliminary plat. ~ :;1. I~ _~ ;i~!~/2'~ tjh A:CedGrFC RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #92-062 FROM: Chris Cutro, Planning & Zoning Director John Wildner, Parks superintendent!: Charles C. Frederick, Director c-~ Recreation & Park Department TO: THROUGH: RE: (Second) Revised MasterPlan: Cedar Grove P.U.D. DATE: February 18, 1992 The Recreation and Park Department has reviewed the (second) revised MasterPlan for the Cedar Grove P.U.D. The following comments are submitted in an attempt to summarize recreation issues to date: 1. As indicated in Recreation & Park memorandums #91-461 and #92-022 (copies attached), the comprehensive plan calls for a five acre neighborhood park to be located as part of this site. Based on the proposed 234 dwelling units for this development, the recreation dedication requirement would be 4.212 acres. Our original recommendation was that the entire 4.212 acres be dedicated to provide for the neighborhood park discussed in the comprehensive plan. 2. The developer, however, has indicated that he wishes to apply for up to one-half credit towards the recreation dedication requirement for the 12 acres of natural scrub he is also being required to preserve. This department has recommended that no more than 1 acre credit be granted which would reduce the recreation dedication requirement to 3.212 acres. This would be the absolute minimum requirement to construct a neighborhood park. If more than one acre credit is granted for the preserve thus reducing the public dedication of land to less than 3.2 acres, the staff recommendation is to accept cash in lieu of land. 3. If the developer is required to dedicate the 3.212 acres of land for a neighborhood park, this department recommends that the site be located along Seacrest Boulevard (to be easily accessible) and in a relatively square configuration to provide for its optimum use for active recreation. 4. The developer has decided not to apply for up to one half credit for the provision of private recreation facilities. RECEIVED FiB Ij J PLANNING D~l3t - - 5. Based on the most recent revision of the MasterPlan, staff recommendation is to provide a public land dedication of 3.2 acres. This will meet the intent of the recreation level of service requirements of the comprehensive plan which calls for an active neighborhood park. 6. Another option would be to accept cash in lieu of land equivalent to 3.2 acres and to pursue the acquisition of a 4.9 acre site located on SE 2nd Street which would serve the same neighborhood planning area. This site is designated as a potential neighborhood park area in the comprehensive plan and would satisfy the concurrency requirement of the comprehensive plan. SUMMARY: The implementation of the recreation dedication requirement in this P.U.D. is complicated by a similar requirement to preserve 25% of the scrub habitat (12 acres). While our first option is to require the dedication of 3.212 acres of land for a neighborhood park along Seacrest Boulevard, consideration may be given to accepting cash in lieu of land and acquiring the NE 2nd Street site for the development of a neighborhood park to service this planning area. Attachment(s) JW:ad .'/' RECREATION' PARK MEMORANDUM '92-022 TO: Chris Cutro, Planning Director ~ John Wildner, Parks Superintendent Charles C. Frederick, Director c- ~ :.,,-/ Recreation & Park Department r-~ Revised MasterPlan: Cedar Grove P.U.D. FROM: THROUGH: RE: DATE: January 24, 1992 The Recreation & Park Department masterp1an 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 \ ./ RECREATICII , PARlt MEMORANDUM '91-461 THROUGH: Chris Cutro, Planning Director John Wildner, Parks Superintendent ~ Charles C. Frederick, Director e:l'-r- Recreation & Park Department ~ ~ TO: FROM: 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~rlng 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. ..,/ 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 RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #92-049 TO: Chris Cutro, Planning & Zoning Director ~ff FROM: Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist RE: Cedar Grove - Planned Residential Community DATE: February 6, 1992 1. The sheet #3 in the set of plans showing street trees, 40' o.c. and 30' o.c. could also be relocated scrub (tree spade machine) from areas of the site proposed for structures. [Tree preservation 7.5-12b, p. 599; 7.5-22, p. 603J. [Camp. Plan Policy 4.4.2, p. 68J. 2. The same sheet #3 showing continuous hedge could also be relocated scrub (tree spade). This would add to the total acreage of relocated scrub habitat. [Tree preservation 7.5-12b, p. 588; 7.5-22, p. 603J. [Comp. Plan Policy 4.4.2, p. 68J. 3. The areas in #1, #2 above would become part of the Tree Management Plan associated with the environmental assessment. [Comp. Plan Policy 4.4.1, p. 68, Camp. Plan 4.4, p. 68]. KH:ad RECEIVED FEB 6 ''''' PLANNING DEPT~ \ \ ',,-- . .. RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM *92-063 TO: Chris Cutro, Planning Director Kjf+ FROM: Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist RE: Cedar Grove Ecological Assessment of Existing Scrub Habitat DATE: February 18, 1992 The fOllowing comments pertain to my review of the above document submitted by Donald Richardson, Ph.D. of Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1. The next document to be prepared would be a Tree Management Plan indicating the quantity of trees preserved, transplanted and removed. [Tree Preser. sec. 7.5-12 pp. 598-599]. 2. The preserve area shown should have the fence line placed on the property survey to be accurate. [Tree Preser. sec. 7.5-15 a, p. 600]. 3. The fence to be placed around the preserve should have a design cross section to show at least 12" depth of fence below the groundline. [Tree Preser. sec. 7.5-15 e, p. 600]. 4. The ecological assessment and tree management plan should be included as part of the eventual homeowner association documents. This is to promote continuous proper maintenance of these areas. [Tree Preser. sec. 7.5-24 p. 604]. 5. The perimeter landscape buffer be shown as 15'-20' wide to allow 2 "plugs" of 90 inch tree spade relocated scrub. [Reconmendation] . 6. The preserve area shown behind the lots be excluded from any building lot envelope. [Recommendation]. RECE\\IEO fE9 \ 8 \992 ~\ \ t:. "..u:. \i~~ 1lO'ItI'f~~ ? EXHIBIT "0" GROWTH MANAGEMENT CENTER WILLIAM V. HUKILL ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 3930 RCA BOULEVARD, SUITE 3004 PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33410-4272 407-624-7239 January 28, 1992 Re: Impact Analysis - Cedar Grove PUD, Boynton Beach This statement is provided in fulfillment of Chapter 235.193, Section 2, Florida Statutes to ensure that public education facilities are coordinated with plans for residential development. It addresses the concerns of the Palm Beach County School Board as they specifically relate to the anticipated impact of the construction of 234 single family dwelling units located within the Cedar Grove PUD east of Seacrest Boulevard and south of S.E. 31st Avenue in Boynton Beach. A study was conducted utilizing demographic multipliers for Palm Beach County to estimate the number of students which would be generated from this type of development. Information was not received regarding the number of bedrooms found in these types of dwelling units. For the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that the 234 single family units will consist of 3+ bedrooms. The Growth Management Center estimates 94 elementary, 40 middle and 36 high school students will be generated by the project. The geographic area in which these proposed dwelling units will be located is presently served by Forest Park Elementary, Congress Middle, and Atlantic High School (see note 1). Following is a breakdown for each school's current membership for school year 1991-92 and current permanent capacity. Forest Park Elementary Congress Middle School Current Membership Current Permanent Capacity 591 601 1,265 1,278 Atlantic High School 1,951 1,815 Students generated from this development will further overcrowd the assigned middle and high schools in the area. The School Board places its construction priorities in areas that facilitate the achievement of racial balance in public schools. The School Board requests that the developer provide strategies within the Cedar Grove PUD to assist in achieving School Board racial balance goals. The School Board will work with the developer to accomplish an agreement containing strategies and steps to be taken to ensure H:\data\ wp50\doc\site\cedrgrov .pud ." ,,"r....r "r''\f:'''"')''1-:'::- - .. ,i I i..iJ.~~ FEB ~ ,- ih.AN 1,,1; r JG jr-'!=";)T - ,,- - ."'....1 " -.' "~,-.-' ~.~ Impact Analysis Cedar Grove PUD January 28, 1992 that the occupants of this development will be racially mixed. Since an agreement is not in place at this time with the developer, we request that the following condition be placed as a condition of approval: 1. No residential building permits may be issued until the developer and the School Board approve in writing an agreement which assures that public school student membership generated by the development will achieve School Board racial balance goals. The School Board will continue to actively pursue a policy of providing adequate school facilities for all the children of Palm Beach County. Note 1 Attendance boundaries are reviewed annually and are modified to accommodate the opening of new schools and/or School Board policies dealing with overcrowding and/or racial balance. cc: City of Boynton Beach, Planning and Zoning Department Julian Bryan William V. Hukill File H:\data\ wp50\doc\site\cedrgrov .pud EXHIBIT "E" Board of County Commissioners Karen T. Marcus, Chair Carole Phillips, Vice Chair Carol A. Roberts Carol]. Elmquist Mary McCarty Ken Foster Maude Ford Lee County Administrator Jan ,^,'inters February 4, 1992 Department of Engineering and Public Works Ms. Tambri Heyden City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard P.o. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 RE: CEDAR GROVE - FILE N. 654 - REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY Dear Ms. Heyden: The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the revised traffic impact study for the project entitled Cedar Grove pursuant to the 1990 Traffic Performance Standards Code (Ord. No. 90-40). The proposed project consists of 234 single-family detached dwelling units which are identified in the traffic study as 72 single-family dwelling units, 128 patio home dwelling units, and 34 villa dwelling units. The build-out of the project is proposed for 1995. The traffic Division has determined that the project meets the standards of the 1990 Countywide Traffic Performance Standards Code. If you have any questions regarding the determination of the County Traffic Division, please contact Dan Weisberg at 684-4030. Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER 08-",-- JAr ~ FyI( Charles R. Walker, Jr., P.E. Acting Assistant County Engineer RECEIVED , FEB 11 qa.. PLANNING DEPT. CRW:DW - - File: TPS - Mun. - Traffic Study Review h:\traffic\diw\boynll "An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer" Box 21229 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33416-1229 (407) 684-4000 @ panted on 'ecycled paper ro. '6d panted on recycled paper "An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer" Box 21229 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33416-1229 (407) 684-4000 Board of County Commissioners Karen T. Marcus, Chair Carole Phillips, Vice Chair Carol A. Roberts Carol J. Elmquist Mary McCarty Ken Foster Maude Ford Lee County Administrator Jan Vv'inters Department of Engineering and Public Works February 24, 1992 Ms. Tambri Heyden City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 RE: CEDAR GROVE - FILE N. 654 - TURN LANE Dear Ms. Heyden: The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the requirements for turn lanes on Seacrest Boulevard for the project entitled Cedar Grove. Based on the peak hour project traffic volumes and the trip distribution patterns in the traffic impact study, a left turn lane on Seacrest Boulevard at the project entrance would be required. During our recent telephone conversation, you expressed concern that the traffic impact study did not address a possible secondary entrance to the project from a side street off of Gul fstream Boul evard. Thi s entrance woul d change the distribution of projected traffic. The changed traffic patterns would not change the conclusions of the traffic study. If YOll have any questions regarding the determination of the County Traffic Division, please contact me at 684-4030. Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER >>~')A-~ Dan Weisberg, P.E. Senior Registered Civil Engineer cc: Wael Majdalawi, Carnahan & Assoc. RECEIVED FEe 28 File: TPS - Mun. - Traffic Study Review PLANNI"~G DEPT. f ___ h:\traffic\diw\boynllA . . ~--~--~. ro I6d printed on ,ecycled paper "An Equal Opportunity - Afflnnative Action Employer" Box 21229 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33416-1229 (407) 684-4000 EXHIBIT "F" Pine Flat Woods "These are islands in time - with nothing to date them on the calendar of mankind. In these areas it is as if a person were looking backward into the ages and fore ward untold years. Here are bits of eternity, which have a preciousness beyond all accounting. " Harvey Broome, 1948 November 12, 1991 Mr. Chris Cutro, Cit,y Planner Cit,y of Boynton Beach P. o. Box ]10 Boynton Beach,Fla. ]]425-0]10 Dear Mr. Cutro Thank you for giving us the opportunity at the November 5 meeting to voice our concerns on the adverse impact that the proposed CEDAR GROVE PUD will have on the environmentally sensitive tract of land known as the "Seacrest Scrub" As you know, our group, The Coalition for Wilderness Islands, has studied this parcel of land for many years and was successfu1 in having it placed on the Palm Beach County Environmentally Sensitive Lands Inventory. It is classified as an "A" Site. Both you and Kevin Hallahan indicated that the application for re-zoning is in the pre-application phase and the N~ster Plan is very preliminary and subject to change. It is our understanding that the Environmental Assessment Report filed with the application is about four years old and has to be updated. We feel that the report is incomplete in that certain plant and animal species, that we have cataloged, are not listed. Obviously the final configuration of the Preserve Area on the Master Plan is dependent on an accurate survey of plant and animal species. This assessment and its affect on the Master Pian is extremely important since the final configuration could be affected by imput from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Department.of Agriculture and Consumer Service. RE.'.'-'f'""".'r."'>!~""".~'D ~, r-',' t, 'J> I ~ ~L4.. \1 ~ COALITION FOR WilDERNESS ISLANDS 129 N.W. 12th AVE. Boca Raton, Florida 33432 NOV 11 PLANNiNG DEPT. Page 2 Seacrest Scrub-Cedar Grove PU0 For this reason, it may be premature for the City to approve a Master Plan before agency imput. This is a unique re-zoning application in that the land in question has been identified as environmentally sensitive and the citys standard processing procedure may not provide sufficient time for agency imput. This could result in a Master Plan with sufficient changes so as to trigger the rehearing process. In our opinion, the central element on this re-zoning application is and should be the sensitivity of the land, and enough time must be allowed to assure the applicant and the city that what is proposed, can in fact be permitted. We would appreciate having a copy of the updated environmental assessment report as soon as it becomes available and welcome the opportunity to meet with your staff regarding this re-zoning. Sincere ~/~ I Stella Rossi, Boynton Beach Rep. 625 Whispering Pines Road Boynton Beach,Fla. JJ4J5 7J2-4786 cc: Kevin Hallahan, Urban Forester Fla Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission U. S. Fish andWildlife Service Fla. Department of Agriculture Mayor Arline Weiner Commissioner Lynne Matson Commissioner Edward Harmening Commissioner Lillian Artis Commissioner Jose Aguila Chairman, Planing and Zoning, Maurice Rosenstock 11 Woodside Circle Southwick, MA 01077 February 2, 1992 Christopher Cutro, Planning Director The City of Boynton Beach Planning & Zoning Department 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard P.D.Boy. 310j Boynton Beach, FL 33~25-0310 Dear Mr. Cutro: I am writing concerning the "Seacrest Scrub," the approximately 53-acre, natural area in Boynton Beach bordered by Seacrest Ave. and the F.E.C. Railway, which is being considered for development. The Cedar Grove Development Company has requested a zoning change to permit a 23~-unit housing development on the tract. This request for rezoning should be denied, and, furthermore, the city and its residents should consider long and hard whether this land should ever be developed! It is one of the few sizable, intact tracts of "Florida scrub" remaining in this area. "Florida scrub" is a natural habitat left over from the time when part of this state was under the sea. Its unique geographical features of pure white, deep, powdery sands and the plant and animal communities which associate with them, some of which are rare and endangered, are priceless and irreplaceable. Yet this habitat has all but disappeared from South Florida under development pressures. I am a former resident of Boynton Beach who has spent many wonderful hours walking in the Seacrest Scrub enjoying its natural beauty and wildness amidst the urban development around it. I was able to show my young son endangered Florida gopher tortoises living in the wild on this land, an unforgettable experience! This tract of land should be preserved, as much as possible, .~ in its natural state. It deserves to be protected from ~~ damaging activities such as dumping. It should be made a ~ public nature area, purchased and supervised by the city, ~ state, or private organizations such as The Nature u. Conservancy, and maintained for the enjoyment and education rT1 of all the present and future residents of the area including~ the wild ones that make their home in it. ~ ffi u.. ...: Q,. uJ o CQ ~ - Z ~ 0.. Green areas and green belts are desperately needed in South Florida. Children need to be raised who understand the natural ecology and can find ways to salve the problems of papulation pressure and the ever-increasing demand far clean water that besiege this area. Where will they find these answers if South Florida has been completely paved and housed aver? Residents who care can hopefully find ways to accomplish this such as the measures taken a few years back to protect the Yamato Scrub in Boca Raton. When I lived in the region, I wrote a booklet far the City of Boynton Beach tracing the history of the tract of land an which its public beach is situated. I only hope in a hundred years that same later historian and naturalist will be able to write such a booklet about the Seacrest Scrub which has survived continuously to that time in its Gad-given state, as it has survived the eons since it was farmed. Mast sincerely, ~' . I. . ( h3.~ Y'n Elethea M. Goodkin . S.r'~~-<~ February 14, 1992 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, ~62~~/L,JJiId/;;L"~ Warren A. Hollien 113 S.E. 29th Ave. Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Tel. #737-8467 p ,; HDS!'f"IIL , NIIA.J/~~ ( H,m ... /+"s. , /fIr/)leA/,. D~11C61 ... Cll1l6CII SEACREST BLVD. NARROWS FROM 4 LANES TO 2 LANES AREAS THAT ~ FLOOD DURING ~ HEAVY RAIN~ PROPOSED "PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPi.1ENT" " e.UI)~ ... $C~oOI. ... alfJ fU 11 j.&. JI, IWI. ... CHfJfUH .,. sell" L '" tumt1HlfA-r t~I{"/,, RECbl VED FEB 14 1992 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE - JlII-H leN,,,, EXHIBIT "G" Table 9. Peak Hour Intersection LOS Season Avg E/W Roadway N/S Roadway LOS LOS Hypoluxo Rd Congress Ave F F High Ridge Rd F F 1-95 D E Seacrest Blvd C C US 1 B B 22 Ave N Congress Ave C C Seacrest Blvd C C US 1 B B Old Boynton Rd Congress Ave C C Boynton Bch Blvd Lawrence Rd B B Congress Ave 0 C 1-95 C D Scacrest Blvd C C US 1 B B Ocean Dr Congress Ave F F Ocean Ave US 1 C C Woolbright Rd Congress Ave E E 1-95 C C Seacrest Blvd D D US 1 D D AlA B B 23 Ave S Congress Ave F F Seacrest Blvd C C US 1 B B SE 36 Ave Seacrest Blvd B B US I C C Source: Walter H. Keller Jr. Inc 1985 Highway Capacity Manual Bicycle Network The City of Boynton Beach has an existing bicycle transportation network throughout the City. The network is composed of signed separate bicycle paths and sidewalks on many arterials and signed bicycle routes on residential roadways. In some areas the bicycle paths are actually sidewalks that allow for the separation of motorized and non-motorized vehicles. Figure 8 illustrates the existing bicycle network. -21- I ~l ~ I , 41"- ~ il~' IIDER III Ii! ..... I 22 AVE N / f ~ f ~ ~ C,J ~ C,J ..., .... ~ ~ ....., .... ~ OLD BOYNTON AD . . BOYNTlJI: BEACH R i ~.- ~ .. ...", OCLBRI6KT AD R I LEGEND ~~~ - BICYCLE PATHS and/or SIDEWALKS --- - BICYCLE ROUTES (SHARED WITH LOCAL STREElS) & Nol To Scale May, 1989 SOURCE: Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc. BOYNTON BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FIGURE 8 - EXISTING BIKE PATHS & ROUTES MAL TEA H. KELLER "'.. INC. t:onslJltJIII 8IIJI1III's I PJWV1r8 Cor,l SprJf1IS, FlOl'Jd, -22- <<<<< <<"UlIIl lIIl<O<< ~ . ~~~.~.~ ~~~~~ ~.~~~~ . 'C5 :!=:!~~ ~~!:iS"~ :::n:ur.;~~ i 'C & ~~~~~ ~~~I::l~ ~~l::lllQ- ,..::1 P ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~88 . . ."1"). ..............'0.... ....'0...."'.... ~~~~'" ~ -.. ..... ..... ..... .... .................. <<<<0 <lIIlUoO lIIl<U<< 'if1 ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ f~ . . co ti~~~~ ~~~~g =~!:i~r: i~ij ~ It:D .,., 0- ~~~~I::l llQ~1::l1o.l1o.l ~~~~~ .5 .!!- ~";'8 ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ . .! ) ..........."'... "'000.'0 .......0...00 f. -.. ..... ..... .... ..... ................ .... ..... f"rot..... f'I4, igJ <<<<0 <lIIlllllOU lIIl<U<< [, 88888 88888 ,~~~~8 oS ~l .........M. fl"'lOO""""~ . . . . "l. 0 =o:~~~ ~~~~~ 2~~!:r-- <<; 1 t. N 'a ~~~ c: ~~~llQl::l IlQl::lllQl::ll::l llQ~~~~ . .iUt I ~~~~~ ~8~~~ 88~88 vi . "). . . . "1"l. .":."Q. ~ t i ..........."'.. .......0......... ....ClO'....OO ; ................. .... .................... ....f'\4f'l1..... : ll. .- <<<<u <lIIlllllllllllll . <lIIl<< ~ ~~~1i1i ~ ~. ~. ~.1i. ~~.~.~~. ~.li ;; D.~ 9 ~ ~aO::i~ti -~ . ~~. ]~ ~'n::l ~ ~ ~ ~~t:'" .. ~ ?:-~ I...:. e ~~~llQQ 1lQ1::l~~1::l .~~~~ . 09 18 ~ c3~ 1 t ~~~~~ ~~~~! -I~~~8 ::I Is i t'l t ~ ....Cl..."'.... ~~....~.... 00"'0."). ................. .... ...."'....~ I~d- .- - 999~9 ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ! ; j.i .. ... . ~!- i :z I! i~ 1 ~ 999..JR 99999 F1~~~R ............. ..... l!'iSII ooo..JF1 00990 F1999F1 'i.,.,] . ~~~. ..J...l ..J ;n; i!! ..... ... 999~R ~~~~~ ~~~~R . +-++. . ... i~ "0 "OllC as" iil Jj j! , ~ '8~' ~ Ii, < 1~ ~ < <1 < ~ ;II)~ ~ i~~ """0- >"'11) ~~.tCf) zs=s'" -lIIl::J <s..s .. 9"J"OS ~~J~s l'a"O I :~~ ~~ s > : ,< ~ "0< 1< ~. lIIl_ '" ~~~j~ llC~ fj~ 'C5 i: J ~ ~ ~!~ ~ .! ~ ~ CZl ::IE lIIl '" ~U":' II) ~ ~ ; lIIl i 1 " j llC J '" I ::J -37- under Scenario 2. Consistent with the daily LOS analysis, programmed improvements to Hypoluxo Road and Congress A venue will mitigate existing traffic problems in most locations. However, the SW 23 Avenue/Congress Avenue intersection will still require northbound and southbound left turn lanes to accommodate Scenarios 1 and 2. The 1-95/Hypoluxo Road Interchange and the Hypoluxo Road/Congress A venue intersection require improvement under Scenario 3; however, only the Hypoluxo Road/Congress Avenue intersection re~uires improvement under Scenario 4. Future Highway Needs The future volume and level of service table and figures indicate that traffic growth in the eastern area of the City will, for the most part, be relatively minor. The eastern area of the City will operate a LOS "C" of better. Conversely, most roadways west of 1-95 are characterized by significant increases in projected daily volumes. In some cases, the increase in daily traffic can be accommodated on the existing plus corr..:Tlitted (e.g programmed) highway network. Other roadways will have to be expanded, and in some cases, improved beyond the range of already programmed improvements. These improvements are for the most part consistent with the long range improvements shown in the Palm Beach County MPO's Year 2010 Transportation Plan. In this respect, if land use growth occurs as projected, the timely implementation of all already programmed and planned road improvements will be critical to the fU(;.lre transponation needs of the City. The following Tables summarize the future roadway needs which are anticipated to be necessary beyond the already programmed or planned schedule of improvements. Table 17 provides this information based on achieving or maintaining LOS "C"; Table 18 provides the same analysis in term of meeting LOS "0". Note that these Tables reflect two distinct situations: that already programmed or planned improvements may require acceleration to achieve the desired LOS, or that entirely new road improvement projects may be necessary to provide an adequate LOS. Segments of Congress Avenue, Seacrest Boulevard, US 1, and 1-95 require acceleration of already planned or programmed improvements to meet LOS "C" or "on level of service standards. -47- ~ ~ CIl S c: -; - c: -; ~ ""il ~ -~ .c: ~ S ~ , Z. !l c: * e * ~ e ~ ... .., i 66 5' 6 ~ ...l...l ..J i ~e e ...., ~~ ...l...l ~ ..J ~~ ~ ~ -- - - - 99 Q 5 5 1 >oJ ~ 00'0 '0 00 '0 -- ..... ::J ::J ..... ~~ ~ NN N N N Q. + + + + + 66 9 6 66 ~ ~ ..J...l ...l ...l...l 1 e~ ~ ~ ee l~ ...l...l ..J ~ ..J...l 5 ~~ ~ ~~ tiG -- - -.. -- l 55 9 Q 55 ~ ! ~ -:e~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ >oJ ~ ~~ NN N N NN + + + + + + 6 9 6' 6 ~ ~ ...l ..J ...l ~ ~ ~ ~ e 1 -< ..J ..J ..J ...l ~-< ~ ~ ~ ~ .8' ; - - -.. - Q Q 9 5 ~ ,..J .,J ~ ..,. ~ ~ '0 - ..... I ~ ~ ,..J ~ N N N N ~ + + + + l5 ~ ti i r-~ e ~ -.. -.. ~ Q 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ . N N + + ~ '0 G 'C~ ~ '0- ~.i: l ~~ c:QllIl ~ 'C ='.s ..c;]G v.c::-If) u_> ~ >- ~i:~G ii5 <!:~~ '0 u ~ 1- 'C < <~o~< c: ~~'O- 9 ~ l;~~ - - ~ ~; ~ ~ lI'I'C_ o ... ..:. >- fI) '0 v~VJ VJ ~~~fI) ~ <= 9=;:) ~ ~ ;:) ;:) :z. ~ C"'l ~~~9~ c:Q oc:Qg~ <0c:Q;:) ~ - ",9'0-9 1 a9S 9 gc:Q VJ ~9.c'09 "'......9 := CI ,-::91~9 , IG~i'O 0'0 '0 G ~ ~ 0 l~ii ~ Q< ~ ~ ~~ ~ S :z. .. VJ 9<ca"'> c:: :\ '0 ca c:...ca c:Q , G -a G '0 ~< C:'" c:Q- ~ ~ 8 ~II)... 1 ~ tl ... ..J>C::j> ai: 'i ~ 'i '2 ~ t~ 19J ~ 9' i ~-< 9 .( ~ ~ e,- C"'l ~ Q c: -all'l ;~ u ~ ~8-e ' ~ 0 g~ oC::"S '0 .. ~ 0 ... Q\ u=":'VJ :z.~=~~ ~ ca~1I) ~8..:. ~ ~ 'i i ;. ~ fi ~ '0 ~ :z. II) ~ ... G ~ G -< ~ ~ < < ~ i 'I: '1 ca e ~ ~ C"'l - 0 ~ '0 ~ II) 0 6 M II) ::> ~ ~ 1~ ~~ !l MO I I ...l0 ~ i ~ ti 'iiI ~o .. u f-" -= So ~'iiI e 'Oi ~ ': o >- ~ v:;.... '0 < " ~ > j;J ... <18 , ~.s VJ e .::: 1~~ c..<~ I I I ~~6 <-<...l c..-<~ ~ * 2i ~ -49- r- ~ -< ..(. ... ~ ~ -< -< N ~ Cl; ~ ~ ,.J c: ] c: - . ~ Ii :0- " "-5 ..(. g >- \ z :J c: e " :0- o .. 0- e - ~ . ~ ~ -< <. ... ~ ~ -< f""-< ! ~ ~ t-' 6 ..J ~ ~ Q ...:l ... ::i N + ~ -c. v ~ ~ DIl '0 i:'2 -Q~ '0 .... ~;:;:..:..?lf) !..... 0 c:Q ';) .....0- ...-'O'ig lJ~~l:o'O llb~~~~ ~ 'O~- 8~~lf)- .... ~ 9! o c; fa"" \a ~ 0 .... c- U 7U~,,:,lf) . ~ ." . ~ '" ~ '0 ~ Z 6 ,..l ::s <::. Q ,.,J .. '::I N + 6 ,..l ~ <d + 9 .... :::i N + ~ ~ \ ~ 9 '0 ,to Ctl 1 c:Q c: 9 ~ Ctl '0 ,to Ctl ~ li.... ",~lf) ~lf)':) ... 9 9 n"''O lib ~ ,to c:".Ctl ~ ti ;~! "i ~ ~ i :g o '" ~ ~ ~ If) .... If) ':) 9 '0 J;. c:Q i ~ 'O~ ,to. c:A . c ,s::;e'" ~~%~'" 'Oc:Q~~~ nig~i ~~~lf)~ ~i~g~ ;;l~~ .S ~ c:Q -Q :0- ,.J c: "S -< ~~ il! zzi~lf) '" ~ i ~ If) '0 ,to Ctl \ -51- ; 'O;a .?\liIl c:Q "c ,s::;e~ !&~ ~c:Q~~'" ~ig~~ '0 ~'O If) -0 c: ,to ~ ~ Ctlgg,1 c:Q A If) Zg~~g gO!"-'" ~~c:~~ \)19i"a .$~%-g~ ~~c:Q~lf) .... If) ':) ~ ~\ ~~ ~l ("'l0 , , c:iO + ~ 'P. \S 1 \ l ~ .. '5 ~s % \l. 'ia ~ ~~~ c.. l;a~~ r.-O>-S ~u:-a"" ~O.( ~~<\,t C:l DIl ~ If) ~.g u "'S ~1~~ ~<.... %.' , \ ~~6 .<t.<O:; .~<t."'" cJ .s "''0.... ~~~lf) <91:; p !j,~ .... \g\~ oc:'" .... ~8~ ~ . ~ '> 1i ; ~ 'C e o o ~ 1 Near term (5 year) and longer term (Year 2(00) volumes on Congress Avenue south of Boynton Beach Boulevard are satisfied by the six lane improvement now under construction. The Congress A venue link between NW 22nd A venue and Boynton Beach Boulevard is a problem in that the existing four lane design will not satisfy projected 1995 needs. The northward extension of the six lane section must occur prior to the year 2000 in order to provide reasonable roadway operation. Seacrest Boulevard from SE 26th A venue iO SE 36th A venue currently consists of two lanes. Existing peak season volumes necessitate a continuous four laning to maintain LOS "C". Even though volumes are not projected to grow substantially along the segment, this situation is anticipated to affect year round volumes in future years. While the County 2010 Plan reflects a four lane section in this area, an accelerated three lane improvement is a preferable alternative i9. ,terms of i~media~y of ne~d, project costs, and impacts to the adja\..~nt residential-'area. 01 '~~ (\ _! "., . ,-_..~- ,. "'U.;Jit'lI, Portions of US 1 already require six laning to provide LOS "e" in the peak season. While reflected as a six lane facility in the County's Year 2010 Plan, this improvement is not currently programmed. However, except for the bridge over the Boynton Canal, this roadway could be improved relatively quickly and inexpensively through restriping of the existing pavement. Segments of Boynton Beach Boulevard, Congress Avenue, 1-95, Lawrence Road, 22nd Avenue North, 23rd Avenue South, US 1 and Woolbright Road will require improvements beyond the County's 2ClIO Plan in order to satisfy the LOS "C" standard. Only segments of Boynton Beach Boulevard, Congress A venue, and 23rd A venue South will require improvements under the LOS "D" standard, generally in order to accommodate traffic during the peak season. The City has the option of providing funding for improvements, amending the County 2010 Plan and securing funds for further improvements, adopting lesser levels of service on these roadways, or denying development applications tf}at would result in unacceptable traffic impacts in these roadway segments. The relationship between level of service standards and the cost and practical feasibility of accelerating or implementing large scale road improvements must be clearly understood-particularly since most major roadways are under the maintenance and/or funding jurisdiction of the State or the County. Given that major -52- projects often take years to implement, the City must strive to secure the funding for pre-construction activities far in advance of the need. However, with funding shortages and lag times in project implementation, reduced level of service standards on certain links may be necessary in light of existing or projected traffic volumes. Relationship to Palm Beach County 2010 Plan Volwnes As stated earlier in this Element, the Palm Beach County MPO adopted the Year 2010 Transportation Plan in summer ,1988. This Plan is based upon projections of future land use and traffic volumes wh:~h establish future road improvement needs. Traffic volumes are the result of large scale computer modeling efforts which, due to the nature of simulation efforts, may be in some cases somewhat discrepant from existing real world conditions. In this respect, traffic volume information may require a certain degree of judgement and professional interpretation in order to provide meaningful results. The following Table 19 provides a summary comparison of three alternative traffic volume projections for the year 2010. The frrst set of projections consists of the latest unadjusted model output volumes (2010 Alternate "5" figures) available from the County MPO. The second set of figures were developed by the M.PO transportation consultants, based on the application of engineering judgement to the unadjusted 2010 volumes. The third set of forecast volumes reflect the final estimates developed in conjunction with the City's Traffic Circulation Element. The individual figures vary on virtually every roadway link, levels of service based on the proposed design of these roadways are very similar. The various assignments tend to independently support the County's current Year 2010 Plan. Certain discrepancies exist between the various sets of forecast figures and, perhaps more importantly, between the projected levels of service. With regard to the unadjusted volumes, this situation is particularly apparent along Boynton Beach Boulevard west of 1-95, on Congress A venue, and on small segments of Lawrence Road, NW 22nd Avenue, and US 1. The City's information reflects higher forecast volumes, and consequently, lower levels of service. The situation is reversed in the latter two cases. It is interesting to note that the County's adjusted volumes reflect higher volumes on 1-95 and reduced volumes along Congress A venue. -53- x :: i~ it *t tf II: . i: ! - . ~ o CoI E . .. l- t = - = 1&0 II: =E~ =&10 U" I- ~.i Q.c~ = ~" 0.. I!: " - . .. CoI '" = CI = ; ~- I&oI&oU ::i .. :is ~ i i " b CIO bbb CIO CIO CIO ~ iii u uuu UUU ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ (:h~ ~ v > < . . t ~ S "0 > ~ 1i = ~ i "0 > ~ vi;;: >c1:> ~ss .v"O G.< ~ ~ l~ '0 8 e :tucl 1 " ~ ~ = "0 <5 v > < 1a ~ en bbb CIO r- CIO ~~~ uuu ~9~ . I ~~ I ri ~ I ~ ~ "O~ >::C ~J- ~ ;;; :9:> Os ss~ ~~::c ~~u ";2 !eiS "i lit :9 en{}50 u > < ,s ~ en bbbbb 0000000000 iiiii UUUUU UUUUU 99~~9 .. . 99,.,),.,)9 ..... 99~~ri .. 99,.,),.,),..) ....N "0 " "0- >..c: -.. =j v..c:_v <H~<~ ~is~~ ~len~ z~~s~ SS]"O - " S "@ v _ u :3< is> Jj< 8~ ~ '8 ~ ZZ=~A v > < ] <"l ..... ~~~~~ .... ..... .............. ~~~~~ .................. l:I.l:I.l:I.l:I.l:I. 11)11)11)11)11) 99999 1010101010 ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ "0 -0" > - - .c =.. 1]~ :~~~ ~ <liS~< 1 ~l ~ ~ J::1=~s~ ~s1i~S g~J:;:: "0 ..< "lJ]"2 ~f:i ~-~ :i~c8~~ II) :> -59- ~~bbb ...._ocoooc ~~~bb ..........Ciib05 ~~~~~ uuuuu 99999 .10... ri~~~~ ~~~~ri ~~~~~ It''l''O- vct'>en >--:> <.9= =uj-~ G. > > ~~ ~;;; .... QSJ:> o8~ '0 :tu..!. lI."I "0 " Ai lie j ~ >0 r j!l I I I ,.,)Q>< ~ Z u ~ u >01 ..il- lQ >ou fal~i ~l!l I- JijJ 'O<ll i . I I ~<lI)l:I. ... 1 1 v '~ ,2 II) :s .! o ,~ ,.,) Ii "0 ]ll~ Jti~l Ii: llIl Ii: I. 'I~ ]- 'I i I a (.... 8 i ~ 00 l'i:fol ,5:= 'S ::l Ii: I;; i! .! >og. >01 'a I .8 i · '> 8.. gg2.c fi ~1Ill .].~ J Ir~1 ;..:.!v ~j ~- 2 'S IlII E' 1I)ii! - I . . . -M...,. i Z . .. I~Jl! '!S15~1. u:a.515's 1. 0 ::! ,5 'C "G ~ t-::! l:I. 'W CI Ii: S S !8888 oeUUII)en , I . . . ~e<~~ ~lI)en - -.-- ....:to EXHIBIT "H" ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-043 TO: Christopher Cutro, Director of Planning FROM: Michael E. Kazunas, City Engineer ;JfCu- DATE: February 28, 1992 RE: Drainage Concurrency Statement Cedar Grove "Master Plan" (fourth submission) Julian Bryan & Associates The drainage plan provided is insufficient for detailed review. The Developer's statement that drainage concerns will be addressed through the use of lion site retention in conjunction with roadside swales, grassed swales, surface infiltration and sub-surface permeability" is sufficient however for conceptual review. It is this department's opinion regarding on site drainage that the proposed land use, site topography and soil conditions will allow for the required level of service. It is our recommendation that concurrency regarding the drainage can be met. MEK/ck CEDAR GROVE PUD - concurrency Analysis for Neighborhood Parks March 3, 1992 This concurrency analysis on the proposed Cedar Groves PUD is being performed pursuant to Chapter 19, Article VI. concurrency Requirements (Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances). Cedar Grove PUD is located within Park Planning Area #17. According to Table 2, Neighborhood Park Needs Analysis (Recreation and Open space support Document, 1989 Comprehensive Plan), and the attached analysis for Planning Area #17, the current (1987) levels of service for Area #17 is 1.20 acres of park space per 1,000 persons, and a 1 mile walking distance. The acreage level of service will then change to 2.6 acres per 1,000 persons in 1995, as a result of the completion of Girl Scout Park. By the Year 2000 the acreage level of service is to change again to reflect the addition of the required park dedication in connection with the development of the S. Seacrest Boulevard Site. Cedar Grove PUD consists of 234 dwelling units. By applying the persons per dwelling unit factor estimated by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR)-2.248-a population of 526 persons is projected. As the attached analysis indicates, this development, when built-out, would lower the adopted acreage level of service to 1.00 acre per 1,000 persons. The walking distance level of service would not be affected by this development. The impacts from additional development within Neighborhood Planning Area #17 upon levels of service were anticipated, and in part, formed the basis on which these levels of service issues were resolved within this planning area. Included within the City's 1989 Comprehensive Plan are the following two policies which address, directly or indirectly, the level of service condition within Neighborhood Planning Area #17: Policy 5.5.1 - Subsequent to Plan adoption.. .all residential developments that exceed 100 dwelling units provide a private recreation area, unless however, public parks are located within one-half mile from the project... Policy 5.5.4 - Subsequent to Plan adoption the City shall require the dedication of sufficient land for a neighborhood park site at the time that the following properties are rezoned or platted for residential use:..., S. Seacrest Boulevard, ... Policy 5.5.1 does not apply to the S. South Seacrest Site, as this site it is located within one-half mile from the planned Girl Scout Park. According to Policy 5.5.4, the City is to require the dedication of land, in connection with the development of the S. Seacrest Site, to be developed as a public neighborhood park. The S. Seacrest Site was considered as a source for park space since it is one of the remaining large, undeveloped sites within Area #17. Once developed, this site would be the source of public park space through the dedication requirements of Appendix C. Subdivision and Platting (Boynton Beach code of Ordinances). However, if for any reason a park site is not dedicated at this location, other potential park sites have been identified within this Neighborhood Planning Area, and should be considered for public park use prior to the Year 2000, at which time when the acreage level of service becomes 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons. If an alternative site is to be selected, such potential site should be of sufficient size, and be located, so as to ensure that the level of service standards for Neighborhood Planning Area #17 are met. Furthermore, the Girl Scout Park should be developed concurrent with the development of the Cedar Groves PUD in order to offset the impacts of this development within Planning Area #17 (Girl Scout Park is currently scheduled for completion prior to 1995). Planning Department 3/3/92 6 ~l~ ~~,. i?. ~~9.~lff1! ...l1>lSi1>'1t...71...... ii~i,,\l\~ \~ ; i'''' .. ;tl~i\~! ~,., ~" ~ . ., ... ti.\i\!\~l% ii1t~ ~, ;t.\"l\~t \ \ ..l" ~ . ., ;'~lii!.'t'! ~:...:.\"\ i ...\~ ... ~ ... ;t\f;~\~! \, "l,. & . .. \t~\\t \ ""i ,........ .. ,"$ \ ; \i .. ~\\l\ ii 'i !;~.~ Co :>~.. . ; ... ..." ; ifi\'" .. ~ ... !1.... 'i .. ~i~~~ 7>"'c.~ aD.....,... QD i ~ f'" ,..~:l ..... .. ..... \ l'i ;\ ~~\il ,'1......1 '1....~ .t~!.\l. ~!' ?.i~ ~ i \ ~t ... ..... \ :; li~~\ .\...,~ % ... .... ... .." , ; ""... . ~~ Ie 1. So ... ~ "'1 g. ~t\~~ 0'''' ... ~\\1r ~..;, \il\ ~ii ~;li la- 7> .......'! i\i~ \-ii i \f;' ~~, ~~~ ...;... 'i i' ti ~~ ....g ,,'" i\ -;:;~ ~~ '1 \ Ii .. ..., ~ '" ., ..., '" ~ .... 0.;. ~ '" 0.;. o .. ... -;; !. ... . o 'b ~~~ ~ ~ 'S ... '" ~ o '6 o '6 o '6 e 7' 8 ? :J .. b '!' 8 '" <oS' o ..,. ~ .... ..,. ? ~ i""' 00 .... ..0 'b ~ t I-- ... .. 0. ... 0 0 ~ 8 '6 .. '" ... o 8 o 0 8 8 .- ~~~ i-' ... ~ '" ..., a- .. ., ? ;of' <::> ... ..,. .... o '" ., <::> 'b to> .. o ..,. 8 ... f, ... ~ o g o ... ~ :'" '6 o g [:- o 8 ... oJ' ~ ~ 7' '6 .. ...... s ~'s t-- !. So .. ., ~ .... ..,. o 8 o '8 ~ ... oo""~'" ~''b:o~'t -' -' ... ., o ~ 0 88's ... ... ~ o?~ ~'6'6 .,. t , 000 88's \- ... C .JI t.:l 0) '6 ~~$ .. ~ ;, ... g :'" 'Q ... f, ... .... OD'~1Jt 8 ~'',5 8 '!' 'Ii o ~ ~ 8 , .. i e- O!. ..... ~ ...f ~~io '-' ... '" ~ o 8 o 8 e ~ b ..,. 8 '" '6 ..,. ? '6 00.....0 b~~ ... .. 0: ... ... ..,. ? 0 8 8 ... oJ '" o 8 o 0 8 8 ,c .. ~ '6 .- l.,.....r ~ ~\r> ... oJ ~ ? '6 ... U' b g ':'" '6 o . g ~ '6 o ? 8 8 ? '6 ,... ... "'...... ~ ~.b I-- ... ~ ? .... ..,. o 0 ... '8 g ~ "... ,,-. "" 00""""'" ~~:O~8 .. ... '" '" -' ..., '$ .. o ? 0 8 8 g ; .. .. a- ..,. 00'" 'f ~~'.c; t \.J\ 7 ... ...... 0 ~~'s :; 7' 8 ? 0 8 g g .- ... .... .. 8 'b 'b ... ... 'of' o 0 8 '6 c 8 ? ..,. o .... c ~ ... 8 o ... '" 0" '" ... ;: ..,. ~ ... .. ... ..., .. ..., ..., ..., o ? 0 '6 8 '8 1 "" ... ..., ..., ... o &"l'olIwl '6 8'bC ... 8 ... 8 ..0 ~ ,., ~ ... o 8 '" .. .... ~ ''of' ... a- ""' ""' ~ ':'" ... o ... 8 ... 8 ';~lJ' ~'b's ~ ... ..,.. o 8 o g o 0 8 '6 ~ 0",0 '.c;~~ l-- ex e 'i .,. o 8 ~ '" '" ... ..,. ~ ;'~ii.~!~t! ~"l<z: &1\ i~\;..f;c.... ~!~l:1~7! ; ... Ii '.1 . ~.- 1. \ ., !.. ".~ ~ \ % ~ ~ ~ o 8 '" ~ o 8 o I,- '" ... .. ~~S ~ .. ... ;; ... 8 '" oJ' '" oD 0" o 8 ? 8 ~ 8 ~ o \i 8 \'" \ ~o ~ 8 0 ~ oJ' o ... g ':'" lI" $ !. ... ..,.. '6 ? ~ o 8 ? 8 ... .... oJ' .. ? :; \~ \ ~ ~. ?' .... ::. .- ... r ~ ... "'Q ~ g ? 8 o 8 ? :; ... b ... o c g o '8 o 8 ~ '" - ~ ... ~ 'f o , \ \,'''- \i ? o 8 o \", g \ 8. .... ~ ... CI> I~ IV' '6 .',5 '8 o g ... ~ .,. ~ o b ... .... ..,. '" \ i -: .. i ...... ~t. ...... .. . l~ ..,. ~ ~ ~ ... o 00 .. -:. CI> \\ I '" \ i ~ \ \ \ \ '" .., .. o '" i \ t '" ... '" ... o .. .... ..,.. ..0 r ... ... ... .... ... ... ... ... b .... .,. ... ..,.. o 8 o ..0 ;;. ... ... o $ .... oD ,~ .... o ':. ? '6 ... ... ~ i .. ... o 8 o '6 ... ... .... ... 7> ..,.. o g .... o ? 8 o o r. '-c ... .. .. '" -- ... o ~ \ ~ \0 ... ~ 'Q t ~ ~ -- ~- --~------------------- .... o ~ ... ..,. o 8 I,- o 8 , ... ? :r ... .. ... .... 'c'b~ I- o 8 o 8 ? 8 ~ ... <oS' ~ '6 't 'Q o 8 o '6 o $ - 8 ... '" o '" ? 0 ~ 8 '6 8 ~ \.;:; eo~"''''' ~~'8'b8 - .... o '" ~ ,., NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ANALYSI... . PLANNING AREA #17 Concurrency Analysis For CEDAR GROVE PUD Proposed No. of Units. . . 234 Projected Population.... 526 Analysis of Level of Service: 1987 10117191 1995 2000 2010 Population 4,983 5,509 6,224 6,261 6,289 Population Served by Private Recreation Facilities 1,853 1,853 2,890 2,890 2,890 Population Served only by Public Parks and Facilities 3,130 3,656 3,334 3,371 3,399 Neighborhood Park Acreage (Public) 3.70 3.70 8.70 13.70 13.70 LOS for Acresl1000 2.50 2.50 Population 1. 20 1.00 2.60 ( 4.10 )( 4.00 ) LOS for Maximum Walking Distance (miles) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 Existing and Future Public Parks and Facilities: Forest Hills 3.7 Girl Scout 5.0 Little League (District) 11 acres S. Seacrest Blvd. Site 5 Total Neighborhood Park Acres 3.7 3.7 (unchanged) 8.7 13.7 13.7 1980 Population Under Age 18, and Percent of Total( ): 697 (17) lI'llTE: -por 1991 population, the 1987 population was used since the 1990 Census includes only year-round residents. In addition no residential development has occurred in this Planning area that would significantly changethe 1987 population. -The population for Cedar Grove pun was estimated using BBBR's ppdu of 2.248. EXHIBIT "I" II. PUBLIC PARK DEFINITIONS Open space and park areas are classified according to a number of characteristics, including size, service area, population served, facility development, and general function. The purpose of this classification system is to assist in planning for a range of desired activities. A. Mini Parks Mini parks are generally less than two acres and provide recreational opportunities at the subneighborhood scale. Mini parks are normally designed as children's play areas and are located in areas where there is no larger park nearby in which to place children's play apparatus. Mini parks may be located as "infill" within existing neighborhoods which have a high proportion of young children, in high density areas in order to relieve congestion, or in neighborhoods in which redevelopment and beautification needs have been identified. Mini parks normally serve 500 to 1,000 persons within a radius of less than one-quarter mile. Mini parks were not evaluated according to LOS standards since their proximity to residents is of greater importance than total acreage available. B. Neighborhood Parks As the name implies, neighborhoo~ parks are intended to serve the recreational needs of the residents of a particular neighborhood. Since they are intended as "walk to" parks, their service area should not be bisected by arterial streets with thoroughfare traffic, or drainage canals without at least a pedestrian crossing. Neighborhood parks are normally oriented to all age groups by providing for such activities as playgrounds, small court facilities, and open space. For this reason, and because the service areas for elementary schools are very similar in composition to those of neighb')rhood parks, school recreation facilities can, in most cases, be effectively utilized as neighborhood parks. The commonly accepted level of service standard (LOS) for neighborhood parks is 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons (with a minimum of 5 acres); however, because the park deficiencies are in older residential areas, and the existence of private recreation areas within neighborhoods without public recreation, this blanket standard is only effective in measuring aggregate need. A city-wide analysis of neighborhood parks could result in an inappropriate geographic distribution of neighborhood parks by not identifying the precise location of the neighborhood park need. The City was therefore divided into 20 neighborhood areas, which were analyzed individually according to the acreage needed, and the availability of park space within a one-half mile walking distance (see Map 1). Although a LOS of 2.5 acres per 1000 persons is desirable, the lack of available land in developed areas makes this unattainable and/or unaffordable. As with mini parks, their proximity to residents is more important than total acreage. 2 rtUVU . nt;Ut"i . lu;;;.IU PLANNINli PAHt\. AREAS _L I ~J~{" I ~J r Q;f ,. ~.~;rl ~ ~i ~ ~; j -1' : r Jf / .. , --.' . . : --''-,----- Boundaries ',I Planning Areas .....Park Iii I .!.. _ l' I ~- -.."- Beach ~itY of BOynto.';tment 4/87 . 9 Oep Plannln ..- ... . Boundaries _City 3 t~ , - ( . .. J . I . . \ I I =: I ~ .. . .. ... .. .. 5 ~ '" ~ ~ '"' ~ o .... ~ 8 o ~ ... ~ ~ 8S1.8S1.~ .;.~~oo ::. ~ .. .. ... .. ~ ~ .. ~ tII ... ~ \ t \ .\ ... t 1 \ \ 1 ... ~ ... .. ~ i ... 8 o $1- .. ... g ,.; :? <7- 4 ~ ... ~ ~ '" .. .. ~ CI' all oD .., ~'i\ .. .. li 8 o o ~ ... 8 o ~ .0 8 o ... S1.S1.g ,... ~ ~ .. -' i ~ $ o o ~ '" .. ... g o 8 o ... ~ ... S1. ... o .... '1 ... " :. 't .\ ... .. ... 0- -... :D o 8 o or> 89.9. ';'t ~'l ~ \ ... g o ~ ~ $ ~ 8 o 8, ... ~\ ... l? .;, 8 o ... ~ 8 o '" .... o ... ~ ... ~ o ... .0 8 o 8 o all $ 8 o '" ,... o ,... .... .. ... .... 000 ...~.. ..... ~ .; ... 8 o 8 ~ ... .., 1 ... "' :::: ~- ! ..c ... ... 8 o 8 o '" ... o ... ~ ... 8 o 8 o '" '"' o ~ ,;, 89-9- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ... '"' 8S1.9. ';'c..a~ 8, ... ... .... ... ~ g ... ... ! 8 <::> ~ ;j) 8 .. ~ .. ~ .. i. ~ ... o '" o (. .. 0- 0' ... ... $S1.9- ~ ~ .;, ... 9- o g .... .... ... gS1.8 1"\ ~ .; .. ~ 8 8 8 CI' 000 , 8, o ... 888 ~ 0 0 0 ... .. I$. ~ $ ~S1.~ ~ ,;. ~oo -' .... ;. $ 9,S1.'A 4 ,;. ...00 8 o !. .. c.i, .. " .... o 8 ~ ~ 000 ~ ... ..... 8 o 8 o .. $ ,. .... iS1.~S1.~ ......;.00 .... ..... ~ ~ o 8 o ~ $ .... ,.. ... ... ... ~ iS1.~S1.'A ..4~;oo ... ...... -' ~ o .... ~ g o 8, o '" ... o !. .. ..; 1- ... .. ,. c.iS1.i S1. .o~"; 0 ... ..... or< .... o 1. 8 ~ ~ 0 0 8 o ~ o 1. 8 8 ~ ::: o~ 0 0 1 .J:J ,.. c.i$~ $ ~c:~ C ... ..... ;;: 8 8 9- ~ 0 0 ...- ~ ~ ... '" ... .:. ~ ..c o 8 o o 8 o 8 o g o 8 .:. $ ... ... 9. o c.i o S1. o ~ g o g o g .5 o 8 o ... ~ c.iS1.9i ~ ~ ~c:.':" .... - o 8 o o ~ . . \ 0 ~I~ 8 8, 8. ,..ol a 0 0 " .. ~ .. "'i .. , 'a .. "9. .. ~ !... 3 .......'6iu.o~.~ iC.c.il.c"~C:> 0.. '"'... " '.! ~ i ~ ~ '0 ! a 'i.c. ~ ...... ....tt~~'A~:(i~ all:.~~...~...;;I' ~ ~ <7- .. '" .J:J ~ $ .. ~ .:. .., .... .:. S1. ... o 8 . 9- o ~ 8 8 o 0 g o ... oD ... .... $ .:. 8 ' o o , 8 'i 9- .;.\ .. 0 5\\ S1., $, S1. "'..... 0 - 8 o 9. o g ... ~ 'i ... "'\ ~~~ ..c ". ~ o ~ o 8; <:) 8 o 8 .... 1 ~ ~ '" ... S1. o o S1.9-~ 9. :. 0...0 0 ..... <) .... '" ... 8 o 8 o 8 ~ o 0 J) 0' '" .... .... oD <7- g o 8 o 8 o '" ... ,.:. ... c.i9-'i ,;.....0 ...... g o g o ... '" ... 8 g o 0 ... '" '" g o g o .., .... .... ... " ... ~ ~ :e. c.iS1.c.i 9. ~ ,;c.i..o 0 ~ oD 'iS1.8 g 1 .;~~ ...... '" 9- ... 8 .;. c.i .. o or> ~ ,... ~ Q 8 .;. " o " '" .... o ... g o 8 o o 8 o ...., ~\o 0 i J". t"\ ~ ~~ -' g 8 o 0 8 o ... $1- 8; o 8 o ~ o ... $1- ...., i ~9-S S1. ~ oj"'; 0 i '" ... gS1.$1- oc-:..iJ .. ~ ;:; ~ .. 1,,;.,\3 i tl 'i \ l.a ... ... ......;. '" .. ~\1\.c:,l>:'.~ ~~t...~tII~<A'" i:'S.I"s,,~' \~.lt,\\ ... ... 'tl "a ~ ... i'C~ .ct~C:> '!~:ai'O~~! a"fl"~9. .>4 '" 'eo ~.; 'a <A ~ <A ... t.:."':c..~..~' .. ~ . l ~1..\3 l~lti\l.a ",I-t.. ....- \1!~:."':~ ~til!s\s~ ... r 9 o '" o ~ ! l . ... ... . ... ... ... o l to !.. \\ l~ ,,'a \~ 1\ !J .:..S~ "'5<) ....."S ft \' !le ,i' ...,S ,... I'" ..1' i :~5---- !i~~ lj!l \s"i 4\i\~ ~~...\ \~ 'it ~ ~\~\~ ~~\"\ ~ ;:i-'" ... ~~.., ...! \1;~t ,i"C1 i~'~~ .... 1'''' .,. ,...0.1> ~s'S~~ :l!\t'" ~..... '1 l~ \~l \1.,: ~ t"O ..00 ......It:~ '" ..., ...t~..i ...tl.'i~ ... 0 .., '" o..,s~S \!, ~"a ,,-e~il ~\st5 . ...9-G ~... ~..... ,'a',,,' tli ..! \ ~ \~ Z \1 \1\; .. "''- oS ~ ;!l!; .~~. ~!, ...... ~l~~~ I$. ... ~ .. ~ !. ... I$. ... .5 I$. .;. I$. ~ ~ o t '" 8 o ~ o " o .. ;\ ~! ,~iD i 1"1! 13. Area #13 Area #13 contains a sufficient amount of park space, according to the LOS standard of 2.5 acres, and has a maximum walking distance LOS which is less than one-half mile. In addition, all three neighborhood parks are located on the west half of Area #13, which requires children and other park users residing east of Seacrest Boulevard cross this 4-lane road in order to use park and recreation facilities. 14. Area #14 and Area #16 These two neighborhoods are similar to Area #12 based upon the following characteristics: Limited public recreation facilities exist, the number of residents unserved by private recreation facilities is minimal, a low percentage of children reside in these areas, and each area abuts the Intracoastal Waterway (arguably reducing the need for neighborhood parks). 15. Area #15 Area #15 is a predominantly single-family neighborhood, and except for the subneighborhood adjacent to the Forest Park Elementary School, the area is characterized by a low percentage of children. The peripheral location of existing parks makes this neighborhood similar to Area #13, since both neighborhoods have a maximum walking distance LOS of 0.75 mile. 16. Area #17 Several park sites, as well as the adjacent Aqua Crest Pool and Atlantic High School, serve this large neighborhood. Approximately 3100 persons must rely upon public neighborhood park recreation facilities within this area. As within Area #13 and Area #15, the existing parks area not located central to the areas residents, and a maximum walking distance LOS of 1 mile is the result. 17. Area #18 The small subneighborhoods that are unserved by private recreation are located in the northern and southern portions of Area #18. The remaining residential area is comprised of Los Mangos, a 1aa-unit residential development which includes sufficient recreation facilities for the residents of this project. 18. Area #19 As the needs analysis indicates, this area is predominantly composed of residential developments that are supplied with equivalent private recreation facilities. The recreation needs of this area will be provided privately until the single-family neighborhood, that is located immediately to the south of Area #19 and is adjacent to the Intracoastal, is annexed. 13 19. Area #20 st. Andrews Club Condominium comprises the majority of Area #20 and contains sufficient private recreation facilities. In addition, Gulfstream Park and beach would provide sufficient open space and recreation facilities to the residents of the unincorporated enclave adjacent to st. Andrews Club, in the event that this enclave is annexed. According to the LOS standards for park acreage and maximum walking distance, nearly half of the neighborhood areas will require significant additional neighborhood park acreage in the future. After considering the age of residents and their neighborhood park needs, planned neighborhood park locations, the location of future dedicated park acreage, as well as financial limitations, it can be concluded that additional park space and recreation facilities are needed the most in Areas #8, #11, #15, and #17. A characteristic of virtually all these neighborhoods is a high percentage of children, a maximum walking distance LOS ranging between 0.75 mile and 1.~5 miles, and a park acreage LOS that is less than 2 acres per 1,000 persons (with the exception of Area #13). C. District Parks At present, 62% of the parks in Boynton Beach are classified as district parks, totalling over 113 acres. Applying the standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons for district parks, the current demand is for 123.3 acres, inc~easing to 158 in 1995 (see Table 3). There currently exists a small surplus-2.8 acres-which when combined with adjacent facilities, increases to 29 acres (see Adjacent Facilities, Public Park Definitions). The addition of the new North District Park, and the expansion of Congress Avenue Community park, will provide 40 additional acres of district park space by 1995, and a surplus of 34.7 acres. By the Year 2000, development of the Quantum park recreation site, and the Intracoastal site, will provide 27 additional acres which will again create a district park surplus. A small deficit of 3 acres is projected for the Year 2010. It should be noted that since development of the Ocean Ridge Hammock Site is contingent upon the poliCY of the Town of Ocean Ridge, it is not included when apalyzing needs. D. Regional Parks The Palm Beach County IINeeds Assessment Studyll, completed in 1985, analyzed current and future needs for resource-based recreational facilities, for mini, neighborhood, and district parks, as well as nature preserves and beaches. Needs were aggregated both county-wide and by four recreational planning districts: North, central, South, and Glades. Boynton Beach is split into both the Central and South Districts, which are the two districts that were found to be the most deficient of publiC park space. 14 2000. The recreation facilities analysis also indicates the need for two additional combination ballfields by the Year 2000. In addition, the opinion poll indicated a need for more beach access, playgrounds, fitness trails, boat ramps, ba11fields, and gymnasiums. By adding to the facility inventory those which are currently planned, and assuming future utilization of dedicated park sites, the need for recreation facilities will be largely met by 1995. See the appendices for proposed park and facility development schedules. Based upon neighborhood needs and facilities, facility and park development for the period of 19B8-2010 should include the following (the planned or potential completion date is indicated in parenthesis): 1. Park Development: Planned Parks a. Neighborhood Parks 1. Bovnton Lakes Dedicated Site (2000) Hid-range development is be planned for this B.1-acre which was acquired through the subdivision ordinance. residents of the Boynton Lakes pun should be involved design process for this neighborhood park. site The in the 7///I~l~t~i/aled/Gedli~~ed/Si~e/f2GGGY 1~1~/~1~'/~~~/~~~~1t'~/~~t~~~~/~~,/~~~~tyt~1~~/~t~i~~~~,/~~~ ~~~~~~/~,/~~y,~~~'~/~t/~'~tg~,~/j~1~~~y/~t~~/~~~~~~~~tt ~~~~~~/7P71/~~i~~/~~~t~/~~t~/~t~,/~~/~~~/~~~~~! 3. E1ementarv Schools "P" and "0" (1995) These two planned schools are being developed by the School Board of Palm Beach County and will provide, at a minimum, playground facilities within Neighborhood Planning Area #1. 4. Girl Scout Site (1995) This 5-acre site which was deeded to the City by Palm Beach County, is planned for mid-range development and is to be completed by 1995. To ensure timely design and development, the issue of proper access into the site should first be addressed. Local neighborhood streets provide the only access to this park site, therefore, the most compatible route of access must be aC;lieved in order to minimize the impact of traffic on this residential area. 5. Javcee Park Improvements (1995) This 5-acre site, located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway, is leased from the Florida Inland Navigation District (F.I.N.D.). Planned facilities include additional picnic and play areas. The site is currently identified by 42 10. Pioneer Canal Expansion (1995) Approximately 0.5 acre was recently acquired adjacent to the existing park for additional parking and picnic areas. Short-range development js planned with a completion date of 1995. 11. Rol1inQ Green School Improvement (1995) 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. 12. S. Seacrest Boulevard Site (2000) 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 Atlanti~ 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 as dedicated park area if it would completely prevent the development of active recLeation facilities. 13. Sand & Sea Mobile Homes Site (2000) 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 Expansion Area (19951 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 (2000) 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 44 S. Nickles Boulevard Site (2000) This site, consisting of nearly 13 acres of property that is owned by the City, is located within the planned annexation area, south of the C-16 Canal. In addition to the . neighborhood park alternative, this site could be combined with the adjacent 8 acres that is owned by the Palm Beach County Housing Development Corporation, and possibly additional private land, to develop a district park to serve residents along the City's western fringe. A minimum of five acres, however, should be developed for a neighborhood park by the Year 2000. Palm Beach County should be negotiated with to gain assistance, and development is contingent upon the annexation of the adjoining areas.. 6. Rosemarv Scrub Site (2010) This site is located just south of Pine Point Villas, adjacent to I-9S, and would serve the northern area of Neighborhood Planning Area #11 as well as future areas that are annexed into the City. Scrub habitat is located on this site, however; this scrub could be incorporated into the park design. Development of this potential park site is contingent upon the annexation of property within this area, and park development should be compatible with this "A" scrub site, as identified by palm Beach County. If the acquisition of other potential park sites are delayed, mid-term development should be programmed, in order to reduce the total number of residents without access to neighborhood park facilities. 7. S.8. 2nd Street Site (2010) Although previously planned for long-range development, this 4.8-acre potential park site is located within an area that future park and facilities are currently needed. consequently, site should be changed to mid-range acquisition and development. This site lies between the F.E.C. railroad tracks and 5.E. 2nd. Street, and is currently used as an orchard. In addition, this site may also be an alternative for the S. seacrest Boulevard Site, if the S. Seacrest Boulevard site is not dedicated, or if the location of scrub on the site would prevent the development of active recreation facilities. If the size and configuration of this site is unsuitable for the requirements for a neighborhood park, a mini park should be developed. Development vf this site for a park would not only increase the recreational opportunities for nearby residents, but would also decrease the use of the site as a dumping grounds for refuse. 48 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 4equirements should be incorporated within the dedication requirements to ensure that adequate private recreation facilities are provided, dedicated public sites and private parks are adjacent to water resources, and that dedicated park sites are developable for active recreation facilities. Although most residential projects do provide some recreation facilities, private recreation areas should be required in all developments that exceed 100 dwelling units, and that are located beyond a one-half mile walking distance from the nearest exiLcing or planned neighborhood park. Furthermore, these private parks and recreation facilities should be of a size or 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. Most 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 causing 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 native scrub habitat within the city which not only provide a resource worth protecting, but also, an environmental education resource. The 20-acre mangrove hammock lies adjacent to the Intracoastal to the north of the future Boynton ~each Boulevard bridge, and has been identified in the Florida Coastal Zone Management Atlas as an area appropriate for preservation. Use of the area is strictly regulated by the Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and Palm Beach County. The areas of scrub habitat vary both in size and location. Unlike mangroves, the scrub areas are not protected by state law, thus emphasizing the importance of local rules and regulations guiding the use of this sensiqive habitat. It is often felt that the appropriate use for environmentally sensitive areas is no use; however, such policy has ironically led to a misunderstanding citizenry and a property characterized by misuse. Lands left vacant are often the target of tax base complaints and can become a dumping ground for refuse. It is recommended that one scrub site be sought and made available for nature study. The site selected should be appropriate in size, and be identified as an "A" site in the Conservation Element. The requirement for preservation of 25% of native habitat which is proposed for inclusion in the City's environmental regulations, would provide a portion of the needed scrub habitat, and if additional land could be acquired, the City should attempt to negotiate for this land. By utilizing such a site as an environmental classroom, the public would be made aware of local native habitat, visibility is provided which helps deter adverse uses, and the property is preserved in its natural condition. The physical improvements may include the development of raised walkways from which vegetation and wildlife may be viewed. Interpretive programs could consist of guided tours, and special lectures to local school and civic groups, which could be provided by volunteer experts. These passive parks would provide additional park acreage, and w~uld be unique among South Florida coastal communities which have lost virtually all evidence of their natural ecosystems. A policy of minimum development for these areas would promote the preservation of an environmentally sensitive resource. Development should be consistent with the regulations and policies established by agencies such as the Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Regulation, Department of Natural Resources, and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The Conservation Element provides more in depth guidelines for the use of environmentally sensitive lands. The City of Boynton Beach has, by resolution, agreed to support the preservation of the remaining five privately and publicly owned sites containing scrub habl. tat. . Currently, these 55 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 scrub habitat cannot be relocated, park development shall incorporate 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 which serves the same park target area (ie. S.E 2nd street Site). In addition, the Qmount of the natural habitat (required for dedication) that is credited toward the park dedication requirement should not exceed 50%. 56 I ....- V - ,:!j 2 ~ " .. ...v , ... "0 ... .. :l .. ~.& .&~ ~: w... ~.~ ~ ~ ~ Q i~ < ~ ; sj ~ Q "-~ , .. ~ g ii: ~ .~ i .. ~ ..... 8- w v l~ - ~ .... "" ~ ... .. .. : ~ ~ ~~ J! , ... Ji ..., ,,- . ill '" .~ to. '5~ " .. ~c;: ;!; 'i ~ .~ ~ : "' " .. ~ ~~~~I N ..... 4 ..0 ~ .... I~OOOO "" .: g .. ~ N N ..-4 """.... ..... N ~ - ;::;- '" ... ~ J >: J;::;- IH .H .,jI,jI I:.~~- > ... 2: ... <t't'Wi'r-:<: :::I:lg-i;.. .. " " ,jI I' I ~11;:~;~i! 8w~c;~f~~ " .. .. ~ ~ .. ~ ~ .. '" NN N ;::;- J ! " o . a .; ~.;: i c i.:! ~ .:! .at .. .. e:> II :. .5 r;; g - .. .. - .. cl! ~ i --:~ Jl 0. i N - .31l 3 . j ~ ~I~ [~ ~ .8~8 j ~ .3 o .. . ... x , I I.~~~l~~l o I () ~ ~ ~..o2 ... - ~ I -I ~ ... ... o N 2 N ~ N , , , - N : j i "~~~c":" j : .. .2 ~ t i .~ ! ~ ;: ~5~~f~~t.~: .. :I .- .~ ~ F ? clS - - .. , ~~~!~iIlt:<5 .8~i: \.0 ... C en......JIIl 5: i-I "e:>3g8o:::~I,; :I: fil ~~ '" e-....'" iIlJ.., .. 15.8 ",IeZCi!f::: ~i ~.! ~5'~t""~!~~: ~j~lji~~~vil~: ;;- 64 , , : ~ ~ , , , ~~I:~I N ... ~ \Q c:. 0 00""0 ~ ... -;:; v .... .. W C loll .2 .~; e ~ .. 8 .., ... ... ~:~L'''!!i::~wl tlI~.-c IJ~ ~~;8~~"i"i~~ 6 &.- 5.ll.ll.. ,jIt:.t5o....!"8 ~'-;4....!.!...N ~i!'.....~w~~aw (3j,lzzzz6-cn .. ~ I ] ~ ~ c ~ '5...i S c 4 '" g,:'a..i"; .88:.:..: : ~ : : 11 ~ < > > .. < < ~~~ ..i 3 ~ III III III ~ ... r> N l ~ t 1 ! .. I III ~ o ~ N o W N ! .1 :I ~j ..... lit. 1J Ioi.. ,H. 81w ...:1 8 .. 1'~ : ..w.! ~ 1'5 .! ~~i 3 -.. >- v>. - ~~t ! ......... .... 00 .~~ij f~!... .... l( 0 ~ . ~ ::.; t oc..,u ... i i: >-Q.> - 0" .. ! ~ i ~.! ::1& I:: l!~2li e..:::v;'" .A "" V - ~.=:.;~ >.. I:;;; ~:l... W _>-..;&. '51 ,!""".. ii 'ill~n & W:l"~l ,jI . 3.:::~. . ........ en 1- ~~.!:<:!_W~ g- ~8:1...~e:> UlI! fi-- := ii 11 .5 'Cl j ! !l ill! is "II.!': ':'~wi '!U !l:! :3'W i!.~:I:..:.::I!~ klW. . . o ....k."W....! !l:n!;~ ~~~~g.ii ~it~==c"" ;_=u~"':l1 ~~ t.~iE.3 tl 1<<_"_ ...- ..~ . .~ :t i ~ i _0..... '--~...N~ I I I I I I I ... .. i i ... ... o o '" : ~ $ . .. ~ . -!' '" i ~ .. .5 3 ~ c::: ~ 0 <II .... ~~ (/l (J .... ~ <II (/l III .n.... 0 o ~ u ~ 0' ~ (J < <II ~ U < - <II :l ...-1 C\'l :;> z 0 00 H c::: ~ E-< 'r-l <II <II -<t: c::: c:Q ~ U .r-l -r-l H C\'l 0 :l 0 S f-I 0- W <II (J 0 ~ < 0:: 0 z c::: 0 0 ~ H -004 ~ <II f-I ~ <II Co H C\'l ~~ 0 In (J .... H ...-1 t:j .004 ~ <II ~ 0- > 0 <II <II <II U 00:: Q < c.:l :z; 0 H f-I <II 0:: ~ H (/l .r-l ~ <II ~ 0 ~ c:r w (J (J 0:: << In W ~ f-I 0 H 0 I:: In .d 0 ~ C\'l -pol ~ 0 <II 4.1 .0 ~ C\'l i< (J ~ 0 -r-l 0-1 0-1 <II < Z H E-< Z ~ W 0 4.1 f-I ez.. c::: 0 <II ~ "0 ! ~ <II 0:: C\'l 4.1 0 0 <11<11...-1 >< till <II 0 ~ > W C\'l <II :z: f-IQ :z: :s ~ <II 4.1 -r-l In ~ ~ ~ r-i lI"l C\'l -"0 -r-l <II ~ <II \Il c:: ..... .,... <II .0> ~ C\'l <II 0 E-<~ ~ Oll"lll"l 00 0'- 0'\ ...... 00lf'l .-jOM 0 0 01.00'\0 ~ ..... MOM MOI.O 0 ~.-jll"lO ,... (""', If'l00 O'\O~ 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . ,... ~~ lI"l N ~ 0'\0 M O'\lI"lO'\ 0 ,... OCO ~ N N .....N ,... O~CO 0'\ N N N .-j ~ OMOO 0 N <Xl 1.00 L') NOP"'1 OMOO 0 N ,... .....OM NOM Ol.OlI"lO 0 ~~ ,... 000 ~Olf'l . . . ~ I . . . . - . I I O-MO 0 <Xl 0 N":- ~ 0'\0P"'1 -..:- N Il'I Il'I - ....... M..:-'" lI"lll'lM COO ...... 0 00 \Sl. ..:- 0 - 0 0 lI"l 0 -'0 <Xl ......0 ,... 0'. 00 s.N ~ 1.0 0 0 CO ...... CO 0 1.0 - . . -So . . . ""lI"l M ..:- 00 <<:- 0 0 If'l P"'1 .-j ..... N 0 0 M ,... 0 ~ lI"l 0 N 1.0 0'\ ~ .-j 0 I , . I - ~ I I I I I I I . I ..... Il'I ~ N 1.0 ~O 0 0 0 0 &4' 0 ..... 0 0 1l'I00 0 ~ ,...0 0 '" 0 '" SN 4' o.D 0 0 CO"" 0 0 o.D . . . ~ . . . . . . . . ,... I/") If'l 4' I/") 4' lA ..... 0 0 I/") ..... rl.....lI"l 1.0 0 ..... ,... ~ ,... ..:- ~ ,... M M M ..... ~ lI"llf') ,... ..... ..... ..... ..... - - ..... ..... - ..... - ..... .-4 .-4 ..... 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 00 0 _0.-4 00 0 0 - 0 000 .-4 0 00 0 000 00 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 NN N NNN NN N N N N NNN N N .. \Il <II e ~c:: .. 0 ~ :r: c::: r-i ~ 0 C\'l <II 0 C\'l <II .r-l c:: ~ .,.,4 >r-i (/l C\'l .. ell (/l <II'r-l c::: U .. (/l 40J .,.,4 <II <II ...-1 .0 C\'l ~ 40J .. <II (/l > <II a :l <II <II :l 0 Co ........ <II <II >.> w -,.,4 :l .0 c:: ~ ~ 0 x: X 1.0 <II <II j,.J 0 ~ c:: <II ::: <II C::~ W .-4 ~ ~ ~ ~ c:::.o <II ~ ~ > ~ <II ell I ~ 4-l <lie 0 :) ;.- U -<t: ~ > ~ <II.:.c u (/) (/) Co 4.1 In < (/) << (/lln ~ ....... 0"0 a40J .d 4-l <II C\'l .d ~ 104 0 ... l-l >. Ul 4-l..d ~"O~ 1::...1 ~ c::: ~ 0 0 ~ :i 0 ..- Ull-l U c::: 0 4' N :J ~ C\'l o.D .-4 CI'lN _1.0 C\'l C\'l c::: 4oJ~ 4-l r-i ..c::: e <II 0 c::: . . 4-lr-i <II ClJ (1) (/)'tl \Il >.~ ~ w C\'l 0":': c:: W w <J', tLl 3~ c::..... 0 ~~ C\'l C\'l . C . co .... ~ez.. z Vl ..:l....l :z; :z; 0:: Vl Vl(/) (/) Vl3 65 '" ~ '" ,... I/") ~ .-4 CO ,... .... co ... . 1.0 M ~ o.D o 1.0 If') ..... C\'l l-l o E-< EXHIBIT "J" Figure 2. Vegetation types associated with the Seacrest Scrub Site (Cedar Grove). ~ f-~ ~ 4.1 Gl Gl ... 4.1 en 4.1 III .-4 M Railroad Tr8cks Sand pine Scrub Eastern Section scrubby Flatwoods ttiddle Section 4.1 Gl " Gl ..... ... 4.1 en .t: 4.1 ..:t M Disturbed Oak Scrub Western Section Howed Areas Howed Areas s~ e,o(..~ il..""t,:'.;~~\itWN!l\'.Jlil:.<~,..~~;'zor--"'1WJI PR!OTECfED PLANT SPECIES There are eight species of plants on the site which have been listed or are under review by state or federal agencies. These include: Scrub mint (Conradina grandiflora) - Endangered, FDA; C2, USFWS. Scrub palmetto (Sabal etonia) - Threatened, FDA. Sand spike moss (Selaginella arenciola) - Threatened, FDA. Giant wild pine (Tillandsia utriculata) - Commer. Exploited, FDA. Cardinal wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata) - Commer. Exploited, FDA. Wild pine (Tillandsia balbisiana) - Threatened, FDA. Nodding pinweed (Lechea cemua) - Endangered, FDA; C2, USFWS. Pine pinweed (Lechea divaricata) - Endangered, FDA; C2, USFWS. No federally protected plant species were observed on this site during the field study, however, nodding pinweed, pine pinweed, and scrub mint ar~'candidates for federal listing (C2), but for which not enough data exists to support Iistbg. Although Cl and C2 species are not protected under the Endangered Species Act, the USFWS encr'urages their consideration in environmental planning. Scrub palmetto, sand spike moss, and wild pine are threatened by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDA), but has no real protected status if permission for removal is granted by the owner of the property. 'Tbe remaining species are commercially exploited and for this reason they have been protected. The exact location of the various plants retlects the ecological preference of the species. Except for wild pines which may occur in a wide variety of habitats (pine tlatwoods, sand pine scrub, hardwood swamp, mangrove forest), scrub mint, scrub palmetto, sand spike moss, pine pinweed, and nodding pinweed are endemic to sand pine scrub/scrub oak habitats. Scrub mint usually occurs within stands of scrub oak or on the margins in full sunlight. This species is primarily re~tricted to the scrubby tlatwoods/oak scrub and the / // PROTECTED ANIMAL SPECIES There are three animal species that are protected by state or federal agencies on the Seacrest Blvd. Scrub site. Thes include: Florida mouse - (Peromyscus floridanus) - Species of Special Concern, FGFWFC; CZ, USFWS. Gopher tortoise - (Gopherus polyphemus) - Species of Special Concern, FGFWFC; CZ, USFWS. Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens) Threatened, FGFWFC; Threatened, USFWS. Only one of the species (Florida scrub jay) has been listed as Threatened by the USFWS because of habitat loss throughout the state. The remaining two species (Florida mouse, Gopher tortoise) are listed as a candidate for federal listing (CZ), but not enough data exists to support listing. Both the Florida mouse and the gopher tortoise are also designated as Species of Special Concern by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDA). The Florida mouse was located in the eastern section of the site about 400 feet west of the tracks. This species is usually found in oak scrubs with minimal disturbance. Gopher tortoise are found scattered throughout the site but are more common in the disturbed areas of the western section. As the habitat matures into canopied scrub (eastern section), gopher tortoise densities decrease. like many of these early successional species, the Florida scrub jay also prefers the oak scrub with open sandy areas. Most of this habitat is found in the southeastern comer of the site. Relocation of the above species should pose no problem except for the Florida scrub jay. This bird must be retained on the site in suitable habitat since relocation of this species has not been considered in the past. x J~ EXHIBIT ilK" relatively abundant, but are particularly vulnerable to environmental modifications, have declining populations, or have significant impacts on endangered or threatened species. Endangered Ecosystem refers to an entire ecosystem that is likely to become extinct, or extirpated in the area designated, without human intervention to reduce the deleterious factors affecting its species an~ physical environment. Ecosystem Types Native to Boynton Beach and to the Re~on Five types of ecosystems are nati~ to Boynton Beach and are described below. For each, selected indicator species are noted. These include species that are dominant, associated, or endemic to the ecosystt.<m. Species listed are among those most likely to be present, readily seen, and evident at any season. Each ecosystem is briefly described, its physiographic position noted, and its present status within Boynton Beach indicated. Note that the list of ecosystem types begins with the most significant type within the City, and continues with its neighboring systems, and then those associated with the coast. Ecosystems Native To Boynton Beach Florida Scrub is a desert-like ecosystem dominated by sand pine (Pinus c1ausa), several species of oaks (Quercus myrtifolia, Q. geminata, and Q. chapmanii), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), and other shrubs. The ecosystem itself is endemic to Florida, having developed on the sandy ridges of former coastal dunes. The ecosystem is endangered throughout its distribution, Florida; within the sub-tropics, it is on the verge of extirpation. Successional stages are part of Florida Scrub. As the system matures, sand pines shade the earth, making conditions unfavorable for their own regeneration as well as for many species characteristic of this ecosystem, or endemic to it. Perpetuation of the ecosystem happened as one area or another was cleared by fire, stonn, or other event, making a sunny opening suitable for components of early stages. Thus, a series of plant and animal species are characteristic of Florida Scrub at different stages of the cycle. Several are listed as rare, threatened, endangered, or of special concern. -15- Physiographic Location In Boynton Beach, Florida Scrub is characteristic of the Pamlico Dune Ridge and the West Pamlico Ridge. It may adjoin a Strand ecosystem bordering salt water, Tropical Hammock, Low Hammock, fresh water Marsh, Wet Prairie, and Pine Flatwoods. Status Within Boynton Beach Ecological sites within Boynton Beach include important surviving examples of Florida Scrub at its sub-tropical extremity. Boynton Beach has within its borders a significant part of the region's Florida Scrub, both as to total area and diversity of stages of its repeating successional cycle. Endemic plant and animal species, as well as endangered species are part of the system as it occurs within the city. Significant also are ecotones with Pine Flatwoods. Connection with fresh water wetlands, however, has recently been lost to development. Pine Flatwoods is an open forest dominated by tall pines, slash pine (Pinus elliottii) with an under story including palmetto (Serenoa repens), gall berry (/lex glabra), and pennyroyal (Satureja rigida). These are indicator species for the ecosystem. Physiographic Location Pine Flatwoods occupies "flat lands" that often are, or were, seasonally flooded. It occupies drained areas of Pamlico Flatlands and Pamlico Wetlands. At its borders, it may blend with Florida Scrub on parts of the Pamlico Dune, and the West Pamlico Ridge. Under wetter conditions, it may border Low Hammock or Cypress Swamp, and is part of a patterned Wetland Mosaic in the northern part of Palm Beach County in the Allapattah Wetlands and Hungryland Wetlands. Status Within Boynton Beach A very few disturbed Pine Flatwoods, as well as the now rare ecotones with Florida Scrub, currently exist within the city. Dried Wet Prairie usually results from regional lowering of the water table with concomitant change of flora and fauna to a dry grassy community that is different from -16- Table 2. Listing of Boynton Jeach Natural Resource Sites Site Geographic Area in Summary II Location Acres Evaluation 1 43-45-08-1 88.6 B 2 43-45-08-2 3 43-45-07-1 4.a.* 43-45-17-1 4.b. 43-45-16-3 4.c. 43-45-20-2 5* 43-45-16-2 6* 43-45-16-5 43-45-21-1 7* 8 43-45-20-1 9 43-45-20-4 29.7 52.4 141.8 40.1 19.0 9.6 11.2 6.2 A? 10 43-45.30-1 21.6 D 11 43-45-20-5 17.1 D 12* 43-45-29-1 ~~ A 13* 43-45-32-1, -2,43.92S..0 A 14* 43-45-32-3 15* 43-46-05-1 16 43-45-31-1 17 43-45-31-2 18 43-45-30-2 continued ... 24.1 7.0 22.4 17.6 17.4 x X A Annotation Pine Flatwoods and disturbed PF; pond with emergent vegetation. East of High Ridge Country Club. Lift Station #717 is located here. Residential development in progress. Cleared. FlO1~Ja Scrub. County Site "Eeo-87 Quantum NE Scrub". West of Highridge Rd.; Part of the site is in the Quantum Park DR! development Portions in Boynton Beach and County. Disturbed Florida Scrub corridor. County site "Eco-36 Quantum RR-195 Route". Restricted access. South portion of Quantum DRI development Florida Scrub. County site "Eeo-36 Quantum High Risk". Part of Quantum Park development both east and west of Highridge Rd.; road clearing and development in progress. Composite of Quantum sites total 9 listed endangered species. Florida Scrub with disturbed border. County site "Eeo- 34, ' Rolling Green Scrub". Endangered species total 8. Florida Scrub. County site "Eco-32, Galaxy Scrub". Endangel\Xl species total 9. Florida Scrub site wil.h scrub oaks of shrub and small tree size disturbed by trails and disturbed borders along RR and 1-95 rights-of-way. County site "Eco-32 Industrial Scrub". Dense stand of Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenerviaJ, Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifoliaJ, and Brazilian pepper {Schinus terebinthifolius}, and area of grassy and ruderal species. A mix of Melaleuca and ol.her exotics. FOITaler Pine Aatwoods now crowded with weeds. 3 parcels. Disturbed Pine Flatwoods, Florida Scrub, and open grassy with ruderal species. Corridor, western border of 1- 95, Eeo-31 Boynton 7th St Scrub right of way. lli text narrative for additional infonnation. South of Woolbrieht Road. Pine Flatwoods and open grassy; disturbed by previous clearing at ground level and entry of ruderal species. County site "Eco-70 N I95-RR 23 Rd Corridor". No on-site visit Endangered species total 1. A continuation of site #13, County site "Eco-70 S 195-RR 23 Rd Corridor". No on-site visit Small disturbed Pine Flatwoods ecotone with Florida Scrub. Caloosa Park. Cited for preservation due to location within a public park. Disturbed Pine Flatwoods wil.h exotic weeds. Seen only from Congress Ave. Already Developed. Already Developed. A A A A B D A B C X X -23- Table 2. Listing of Boynton Beach Natural Resource Sites continued ... Site Geographic Area in Summary II Location Acres Evaluation 19. 43 <is 29 2 20 43-46-05-3 21 42-46-01-1 22 43-45-06-1 23 43-46-04 24 43-46-04-4 25. 43-46-04-3 26 43-46-04-2 27. 43-45-34 28'" 43-45-33-3 29* 43-45-33-2 30. 43-45-22-3 31 43-45-15 32 43-45-15 33 43-45-15-4 34 35 43-45-16-1 36* 43-45-33-1 37. 43-45-09-4 38 43-45-09 39 43-45-22 40 43-45-22 34.4 21.8 60.2 44.5 7.8 8.7 50.4 11.0 4.5 2.9 6.0 23.5 5.8 4.3 10.0 11.0 12.2 12.5 12.4 3.2 4.3 A - - C X X C C A C Source: Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc. Annotation B Fhuida S~rub, partly disturbed. Part of County site "s~g.- 31 BOYi.:Gn 7th St Scrub". sndangered Spe~i08 total 7. Narrow band; apparently mostly Brazilian Pepper. Development in progress. County site "Eco-85 Hunter's Run Golf". Cleared. Located in Hunters Run development . Cleared and abandoned Florida Scrub; a few oaks and herbaceous plants remain. South of County site "Eco-29 Seacrest Scrub". Pine F1atwoods ecotone with Florida Scrub, previously cleared strips. heavily re-grown with vines. Near County site'Eco 29 W Seacrest Scrub". Endangered species total 1. Florida Scrub and ecotone with Pine Flatwoods. County site "Eco 29 Seacrest Scrub". Endangered species total 12. Mangrove about 2 acres; 8 acres grassy ruderal; more than 112 developed. Beach and Strand (ocean face of dune) with expected species; dune back is landscaped. rates "D". Preservation of the Beach and Strand ecosystems in their native state as far as this remains is recommended, as it is the only such site in the City. Sea oats and sea grape are protected by state law. Endangered species total I. Mangrove with about 1 acre disturbed. (Aerials overlap; site appears on section 33 and 34.) Mangrove protection law. Mangrove having western border of disturbed Swamp with intermixed ornamental exotics. (Aerials overlap; site appears vn section 33 and 34.) Mangrove protection law. Mangrove: site proposed for CARL acquisition Mangrove protection law. Mature planting of tropical ornamentals. Former horticultural garden under development Disturbed Florida Scrub, cleared grassy ruderal west of Federal Hwy; cleared east of highway. Cleared. Approved for Bond Open Space purchase. Not in City; withdrawn from inventory. Cleared and partially regenerating Florida Scrub. County sitt; "Eco-35 Boynton 20 Ave-l St". Rated "B" due to endangered species. otherwise much disturbed. Endangered species total 7. Disturbed Florida Scrub. County site "Ec0-29 N Boynton Water Tower". Endangered species lists - 2 species. Florida Scrub. County site "Eco-36 c Rosemary Scrub". Endangered species total 8. Abandoned mango grove and disturbed Florida Scrub. Abandoned mango grove. Area of secondary growth of black and white mangroves due to tidal flooding and deposition. Bounded or traversed by roadways, little apparent tidal flushing. A A A D C X B B A D D B -24- CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH j---rro- ~ :; Vr---: ) CONSERYA TI(l( ElfNENT ,...---- ~,j' V l..J C;-'\a ~ FIGURE" - NATURAL RESOURCES I' . /)./l -- c!.1...J:: 2 . ~- - . -.j~~;'l__Tf.:!1l!~~ ~ ~j- 901 ~t, ,...-__J Lj-Pi :::- '- L. J-, r:- , ~ ./", fr. m ~-- I~~g_ --j~J~.:; L}: ~ = I h2/'l f'q Ii - 1 L-----.J-l ~ J \~ ii J, -, r r- J Lir----, I I ~j I' ,"'f \- H I -- Ti - !\lv~.") M~ ~' I \ \ ..J';-?- / 4 ~ [ii] 7 te=~ t ~ \f~~ ~c ......o1,f, .~-+- 2 ~3! ty )l" ~C I II ~ ~ . ~ I CY -_~ I - -n- .--==:.-1 r.===----- ------ _.--.3S...... ~.=:J I' L.' ,-r -..., --- -. '- O' ~ \~O I ~ -. ~'~I ~; '1'11 f- >.c'- 11 - i tit: - :7 '" ~ ~;: 40 U ~'] I - ~k~ -"0'[" o /- ~I~ "- I - c-,c-- ~ 1+ R 1/ r~ ] ~;~ ~~~.~ ~ii I rifle I I[(:I~ J ~ . L ~r- . I Jd/~l n ~ ~.-:; .;'-....: - -- u ' ! '~ ..::;= ,;,.., - -:-~ '- I- 12 - 'I r .., IT -: r1l9, / ~ I-- I- ~ 'L- 18 C?.-L.)q I~<:;~\\'~'~" ~ r. = ~.'~ ,}' (d~_ LJ 1\\\ 2"j c NJTE: SITE m OUTSIDE Of CITY- ~2b _ ~ alt3: .~)E'- :, G _ITIIlR.4I1N fROM INVENTORY L,,;;-. - . - - - ~ ,-" OLIIRIGH AO 36- !: :...-:. "'- I c...., ! i J 13 If I ::'L l{r-\~ ~' ~ ~ " 29 "" -, -1 w. --,~":0}' I '1 I II ..^"-'" \" t:::: _/.h,,,- I ;::.- ., ~'~. i IT (....7 .J ~~ ~1! J-;jl~~ Iit-~ I:=.--J d ,.fT:J.... :T":! I [r;;.-r,-:) =:rcl\qTF=, .:' IT &~ ~ urIPl'!'/ --; - ~O((j -~~ rE~ 1~ ~ 27 21 .ti1 I -r f---j I L C1 ;.; I it:~-lq-o~-:' __II , '~[' ;I} , Jr1=11'I,= R _', V~~ h ~ n IL.J~._ ~:" ~~f "': ~21V ~ ,,: ~ \W 23 . It Z'<f\ Lp& Y \~ ~:..~~ __~} _.: .3:.......~ J l E & END E!l- NATURAl RESOURCE AREAS 22 - NATURAL RESOURCE REFERENCE NUMBER . - A & B RATED SITES IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP Scuco: ~ 01 Eaosysteml in Palm Ileach County, Pha.. III Report. IwwICll'l and Ausdn. .lIAr 1.. Waft. H. K...... .... Inc. Additional r...1Id1 br Or. 0._ Iwwocn. Sept....... 'M. ~ 26 z. -" ,. --- -25- WAlTER H. KEU..BI .II.. DE, c..JtJJw e.iMrIll'1"."".. CroJ ~~ FJ6r/* Site #13 and #14-l-95/Railroad 23rd Corridor (County sites "Eco-70N & S" ): Lyin~ south of Woolbri~ht Road. between the CSX RR and 1-95,~ are the northern and southern parts of a broad portion of the corridor necessitated by the curve in 1-95. Although inspected only from 1-95, the corridor portion appears to be disturbed Pine Flatwoods with open grassy areas. It may well have good populations of component species of this ecosystem, as the system cycles through early stages of more open conditions. The expanded corridor part of the site, between the railroad and 1-95 should be protected as a segment of the biologic corridor and as an individual sample of Pine Flatwoods. Site # 13 is publicly owned. Site #15~aloosa Park: This is a small disturbed fragment (7 acres) of Pine Flatwoods ecotone with Florida Scrub. Because it is within a park, it should be protected and used for its natural features. This is a suitable site when many participants must be on site during guid:d instruction, and where awareness of a working ecosystem are not important in over all detail. Disturbed sites and disturbed parts of sites are not without interest; using them permits a less intensive pressure of other sites that will not survive even accidental over use. This site is publicly owned. Sife 1119 Boynton 7th Street Scrub (County sife "Eco 31"): This approximate 35 acre site is about 500' west of the railroad and the corridor of Site #12 Boynton 7th St Scrub right of way. On the east and south, the site is bounded by cleared land. t.bout three quarters of this site is excellent Florida Scrub and Pine Flatwoods, the rest being Dried Wet Prairie. The Dried Wet Prairie has written its biologic history, readable in the life of the site. This open area may be in use by listed species. Seyen listed species have been observed throughout the site. The site deserves preservation as one of the larger representatives of native Rorida, and as ha'/ing a potentially important mid'Nay position in the series of sites. Adjacent cleared land might continue the residential use that presently borders the site or, with so large a cleared area, the adjoining area might be considered for a school or other public recreational use, allowing no further clearing on Site #19. Site #25 Seacrest Scrub (County Site "Eco-29"): This is one of Boynton Beach's exceptional natural historic sites. It is the only site remaining on the eastern slope of the Pamlico Dune Ridge. Characteristics of the approximate 50 acre site include -35- Florida Scrub, an unusual ecotone with Pine Flatwoods, a small Low Hammock, a previously cleared grassy area along the north side, and the crest of the Pamlico Ridge bordering Seacrest Blvd. While some vehicle trails traverse the site, these have not yet significantly damaged the ecosystems present. Plant and animal species present are characteristic of and often endemic to early, middle, and later successional stages of Florida Scrub. Early successional plant components of Florida Scrub occupy natural areas of open sand and sparse vegetation, as well as disturbed sites within and bordering the area. A few isolated dead Sand pine trees possibly struck by lightning show the result of a massive release of pine seed in a small open and semi-open area. Much of the area is in a middle stage of succession, with a low canopy of Scrub oak species. Discontinuous areas of mature Sand pines form the canopy of mature Florida Scrub. Animal and plant species known from the site show a rich diversity of Florida Scrub species. Twelve listed species, the largest number for any site in the City, are part of the ecosystems occurring on this property. Several have unusually large populations, sometimes related to the disturbed borders of the site. Grassy areas are foraging ground that may be vital for the Gopt.."r tortoise population. Also near the border is the largest population of Scrub palmetto, the shrub-sized cabbage palm relative that is endemic to Florida Scrub. Although conditions appear to be suitable, the Scrub lizard seems to be missing, perhaps due to predation by pets from surrounding homes. Three of the 12 listed species, 2 plant and 1 animal, are under review for federal listing; one animal is federally listed. The number of listed species indicates the diversity of species that are part of this varied site. The only Florida Scrub sites in the County that have more listed species than the Seacrest Scrub are sites that are several times larger. Endangered species indicate the endangerment of an ecosystem- -in this case, the Florida Scrub--and dra\lo attention to the distinction of displaying Florida Scrub communities as a part of the human environment. The qualities of this site are not duplicated elsewhere in the City. Probably now unique in this county is Seacrest Scrub's ecotone of Florida Scrub with Pine Flatwoods, where slash pine replaces sand pine in an otherwise typical Florida Scrub community. The entire site should be kept for its natural attributes, to be carefully displayed without detriment to its natural features. -36- City's lakes, canals and waterways could also lead to the development of programs to minimize this occurrence. Flora and Fauna Plan Globally, the composite of native ecosystems at the frost-free tip of Florida is unique, making their survival a matter of more than local concern. Palm Beach County is within the area proposed in 1984 by the International Coordinating Council of the Programme on man and the Biosphere as an internativnal biosphere reserve, the entire southern tip of Florida (UNESCO. 1984). The Everglades National Park has been formally designated as a Biosphere Reserve. Other natural areas are under consideration as additions. Like many south Florida communities, the City of Boynton Beach has suffered from the historical impact of relatively ;nsensitive development practices. This is particularly true for the portion of the City east of 1-95, where few high quality habitat sites exist or are available for potential acquisition. The City is fortunate, however, to have available several large parcels of regional ecological significance in its developing central and western areas. It must be recognized that natural areas perform many functions that are essential to the mans continued existence. Native ecosystems provide, on a continuous ~ critical services such as ground water rechar~e and purification, prevention of soil --- - _ erosion, air cooling and purification, etc. Along with their functional contributions, the preservation~bed green tuea.s--serves as a design counterpoint to urban site development designs. The native ecosystem sites described in this Element are now performing these services. These natural areas are living historic sites, which represent the original habitat of South Florida, and provide a sense of history and place for the residents. These areas are living museums providing educational and scientific resources. The future preservation of these natural open space must be viewed as a priority in both respects, pmicularly in light of the status of the Florida Scrub ecosytem and of the City's site linkage potential along the 1-95 and CSX RR corridors. The City of Boynton Beach shares with Boca Raton to the south, and Juno Beach and Jupiter to the north, the distinction of having nearly all of the last surviving examples -54- of Horida Scrub at its sub-tropical extremity. None of the sites in the four jurisdictions repeats conditions at any other, each shows a different aspect of the system. These differences are the combined and unique result of physiographic position, elevation, successional stage, and past events. Less than 2% of the Florida Scrub ecosystem which once occupied higher parts of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge currently exists. Part of the physiographic and biological history of the region is recorded in the few sites that have survived to date. For the Florida Scrub ecosystem, Boynton Beach thus has a major opportunity to preserve regional features of world wide significance. The City's samples of Horida Scub are not duplicates of each other, nor of the very few larger sites in the county (many of whh::i1 are already scheduled for development). The City's locations show a partial spectrum of the diversity of the system and some of its connecting ecotones with Pine Flatwoods. The rights of way of 1-95 and the railway have inadvertently provided corridors linking many of the sites. Other sites are separated by only a short distance, so that they are stepping stones to one another. And, although separately numbered in this Element for organization and convenience, the sites are actually biologically connected. The future of one site affects that of others, so that planning must address the sites together. Taking these factors into account, the City actively supports the prudent use and, to the maximum extent feasible, the preserva::'on of all remaining natural vegetation and wildlife resources. In order to maximize the future public benefit of these resources, and minimize their further degradation and loss, a "Conservation Overlay" is established on the Future Land Use Map of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Cognizant of underlying permitted uses, prior development approvals and other "vested rights" affecting the various properties, the conservation overlay is established to clearly identify and liIr:,t the destruction of the sites with native or endangered ecosystems that are"A" rated in the previous Table 2 and Figure 4. Use of the sites in the overlay areas should be consistent with the objectives and policies contained in this Element. With regard to the overlay sites, all of the following methods should be pursued to enable the City to best preserve its natural resources; some of these methods perpetuate current policies and practices, others are relatively new and may warrant modifications to existing support regulations. in order to be implemented: . Revenue or general obligation bonding to purchase properties . Cooperative funding of property pur.::-hases with the State and/or County -55- . Consideration of developing a regional or local parks district with taxing authority to purchase or otherwise control sites . Solicitation of Federal, State, Regional or County grant funds to purchase sites . Conditions for building clustering and site preservation at the time of development approval. . Sponsorship and/or coordination of a private conservation groups to purchase or otherwise control sites . Solicitation of property owners regarding outright donation of sites · Purchase and multiple use of sites using utility funds · Transfer of development rights to other sites within the City (or region) . Density or intensity use bonuses in conjunction with preservation or transfer or development rights. · On or off-site mitigation strategies as a condition of development approval. · Preservation of a minimum percentage of native habitat occurring on-site. While not included in the listing of "An rated sites of native or endangered ecosystems, the City should continue to enforce and, where appropriate, strengthen its existing regulations which govern the development of all vegetated sites. Continued enforcement and, where appropriate, modification to the City's existing subdivision regulations, zoning code or other vegetation protection requirements is necessary. Improved coordination with other permitting agencies may also be required. For the host of values offered by the region's distinctive array of native ecosystems that no longer survive within Boynton Beach, residents of the City will have to depend upon natural resources protected by neighboring municipalities or the County. In addition the City could strive to recreate, restore or otherwise improve areas of former ecosystems which are no longer found in any reasonably pristine condition. In this regard, increased tidal flushing and reduced boat wake undercutting of mangrove areas, and the introduction of native canopy and understory vegetation species in areas formerly associated with tropical or low hammock throughout the City would also promote long term conservation efforts. While not as applicable to the City's industrial and commercial areas, the barren appearance of some locations suggests that continued, and perhaps improved, requirements to introduce and/or upgrade vegetation and irrigation in these areas may -56- be desirable. The City currently requires compliance with current landscaping requirements when a building facade is substantially altered, building floor area is increased or the parking lot is reconstn'''ted. The City should continue to enforce these compliance requirements and consider the necessity of other actions to increase vegetation and improve non-residential appearance. In this respect, several communities have enacted "retro-fit" landscape upgrade requirements which include multiple year implementation periods to reduce the financial impacts on property owners. Programs to eliminate exotic tree species should also be considered. Graduated replacement of these species with a variety of native or other desirable species would help reduce the barren appearance often associated with one-step clearing. Consideration of local restrictions on "h~t-rack" tree cutting practices would also improve the appearance and healthy development of vegetation throughout the City. Hazardous Waste Management Plan Given the presence of industrial and commercial uses in the City, it is realistic to expect hazardous material users also c:;xist. Since the state and the county have the primary responsibility, the resources and the overall expertise for hazardous waste management, the principal role of the City should be to coordinate efforts with these agencies. While the eXIstIng regulations are major improvements over prior controls, mechanisms to improve County knowledge of potential contaminant users in the City should be developed. The City should continue the Environmental Review Procedure oriented to conditions imposed on the issunace of local occupational licenses to users of potentially hazardous substances. Review of these users, by City or other agency staff, should also occur on a continuing perivdic basis. With regard to problems from septic systems, the City should continue the practice of requiring sanitary sewer wastewater disposal as a condition of water service.. -57 - EXHIBIT "L" V. LAND USE SUPPLY AND DEMAND, AND LOCATION REQUIREMENTS Residential Land Proiected household arowth in the City and proposed annexation areas will qenerate demand for an estimated 14.440 additional dwellinq units by the year 2010. includinq a 6.58-percent vacancy marain. This demand will require all the remaininq undeveloped residential land in the community. which totals an estimated 1.970 acres. Averaae qross density of new residential development is 7.3 dwellinq units per acre. versus approximatelY 4.4 units per aross acre in 1987. Thus. bY the year 2010. the city will have reached buildout or saturation. Boynton Beach is rapidly approaching the point at which all of the vacant residential land is either platted and under construction, or a subdivision master plan has been approved. In fact, of a total of 8,060 gross acres of land which are classified as residential, in the area east of Lawrence Road, there are only 607 acres (7.5% of residential land) where the parcel size exceeds 10 acres, for which there is no approved development plan (see Figure 7 in'the Housing Element for the location of these parcels) Of these 607 acre3, 331 acres lie within 3 parcels: Knollwood Orange Groves (115 acres), the property at the northeast corner of Old Boynton Road and Congress Avenue (104 acres), and the undeveloped southern portion of Lake Boynton Estates (115 acres). Other major vacant parcels include the acreage adjoining High Ridge Country Club to the south (68 acres), the parcel on the east side of Seacrest Blvd., near the southern City limit (55 acres), the undeveloped portion of Boynton West subdivision (36 acres), and the parcel which lies along the east side of High Ridge Road (35 acres). There are also two large mobile home parks--Whispering Pines (46 acres), and Sand and Sea Village (92 acres)--where the spaces are leased and which therefore might be redeveloped for permanent housing. The land occupied by these mobile home parks has not been included in the 607-acre figure. The remainder of the vacant parcels included in the 607-acre figure range in size from 10 to 24 acres. Boynton Beach is proiected to have a build-out (year 2010) population of 78.232. When this population is divided bY the 1980 persons per household (2.31l. and the resultant number of households (33.867) is multiplied bY the inverse of the seasonal vacancy rate fl/l-.0944)1 and the inverse of a five-percent market vacancy fl/{1-.05) 1. the resultina number of dwellina units which will be required at build-out is 39.365. Currently (i.e.. as of 1/1/86). there are 23.217 dwellinas in the City. and 1.767 dwellinqs in the unincoL'porated areas east of Lawrence Road in which annexation bY the City is anticipated. A total of 14.440 additional dwellinas could be built within the City and the unincorporated area east of Lawrence Road (see Table tV-IO). Addina the existina and potential dwellinqs (23.217 + 1.767 +14.440) Yields a total supplY of dwellinqs of 39.424 at build-out. This number (39.424 almost exactlY matches the anticipated demand (39.365). Because such a large proportion of the potential residential development will take place within approved projects or will be infill development, 25 the most reasonable approach to examining the supply of land for various types of residences is to tabulate the number and type of dwellings that could be built on each developable parcels. These figures can then be compared to development trends in 1980-1986, and, in the case of rental apartments, to an actual market study that was done for a proposed rental project in the City. TABLE 6: DWELLING UNITS, BY TYPE, BUILT IN CITY AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS EAST OF LAWRENCE ROAD, APRIL 1, 1980 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1986 Type Number Percent Single-Family Detached Single-Family Attached (townhouse)* Duplex Condominium Rental Apartment Mobile Home Adult Conqreqate Livinq Facility 1,650 31.4 1,588 30.2 86 1.6 705 13.4 992 18.9 100 1. 9 130 beds** 2.5 TOTAL 5,251 100.0 * Defined as an attached dwellin~ unit that is under fee simple ownership, or a condominium unit where each dwelling unit i~cludes a ground floor. ** Counted as dwelling units Source: Boynton Beach Planning Dept., 1988 TABLE 7: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL, IN CITY AND UNINCORPORATED AREA EAST OF LAWRENCE ROAD, AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1986 (Original) Figure 8 in the Housing Element Support Documents, shows the boundary of the area for which residential development potential has been analyzed. Type Single-Family Detached Single-family Detached or Attached Single-Family Attached (townhouse)* Duplex Condominium Rental Apartment Multiple-Family, Unspecified Mobile Horne Adult Conqreqate Livinq Facility ** Number Percent 3,105 1,772 2,208 164 54 1,356 4,845 378 220 22.0 12.6 15.7 1.2 0.4 9.6 34.4 2.7 1.6 26 Tabl e 7 (Revised) Residential Development Potential, in City and Unincorporated Area East of Lawrence Road, as of December 31, 1986, According to Proposed Future Land Use Plan Type Number Percent 2,699 17.5 2,281 17.8 2,208 14.3 164 1.1 54 0.3 1,747 11.3 5,583 36.1 345 2.4 345 2.2 15,459 100.0 -874 *** -145 **** 14,440 Single-Family Detached Single-Family Detached or Attached * Single-Family Attached (Townhouse) Duplex Condominium Rental Apartment Multifamily, Unspecified Mobil e Home Adult Congregate Living Facility** Total, New Housing Net Additional Housing Units * Defined as an attached dwelling unit that is under fee simple ownership, or a condominium unit where each dwelling unit includes a ground floor. I ** Only approved ACLF projects are included in this figure. ACLFs and group homes are proposed to be allowed in a variety of zoning and land use categories, regardless of the dwelling unit type, so it would be meaningless to correlate the demand versus supply of land. for this category. See the Hf"Jsing Element for a detailed discussion of the need for and availability of sites for group homes. *** Assumes conversion of Sand and Sea Village Mobile Home Park to rental apartments, and conversion of all mobile home parks within existing corporate limits to other uses, in accordance with the Future Land Use and Coastal Management Elements. Source: Boynton Beach Planning Department, 1988. 26.1 TOTAL, NEW HOUSING UNITS 14,102 100.0 Net Additional Housing Units -874*** 13,228 Source: Boynton Beach Planning Dept., 1988 * Defined as an attached dwelling unit that is under fee simple ownership, or a condominium unit where each dwelling unit includes a ground floor. ** Only approved ACLF projects are included in this figure. ACLFs and group homes are proposed to be allowed in a variety of zoning and land use categories, regardless of the dwelling unit type, so it would be meaningless to correll ate the demand versus supply of land for this category. See the Housing Element for a detailed discussion of the need for and availability of sites for group homes. *** Assume conversion of Sand and rea Village mobile home park to rental apartments, and conversion of all mobile home parks within existing corporate limits to other uses, in accordance with the Future Land Use and Coastal Management Elements. Table 7 shows the number and type of dwelling units which could be built on vacant land and land for which redevelopment for residential uses is anticipated. Land use changes which have been proposed in the Coastal Area and in other areas of the city have been taken into account. The following assumptions were used in generating the figures in this table: Approved projects or phases of projects, or land which is shown on the Future Land Use Plan at a density of 7 dwelling units per acre or more were assumed to be suitable for any type of multiple-family housing, including rental apartments. This assumption is made because all types of mUltiple-family housing, including rental apartments, have been developed successfully at this density. For vacant acreage in the Low Density Residential category with an area of 75 or more acres, it was assumed that 1/2 of the units available would be developed as multiple-family housing at 7 dwelling units per acre or more, 1/4 of the units would be developed as single-family detached housing on lots of less than 6,000 square feet or less, and 1/4 of the units would be developed as single-family detached housing on lots of 6,000 square feet or more. These proportions are bas~d upon approved master plans of eXisting Planned Units Developments with densities of 4-5 units per acre. For vacant acreage in the Low Density Residential category with an area of less than 75 acres, it was assumed that the units would either be single-family detached, single-family attached, or some combination "thereof. Where specific recommendations for dwelling unit type and densities are made under the "Land Use ProblemL and Opportunities" section, these specific recommendations were used. 27 Where a project was platted and under construction as of December 31, 1986, or was platted and under construction since that date, the number and type of dwelling unit was used. Where a master plan for rental apartments had been approved by this date, it was assumed that the parce~ would be developed for rental apartments, since in Virtually all cases, master plan approval of an apartment project has indicated that the project will, in fact, be undertaken. For infill development, the most intense development allowed by the zon:~g regulations was used. A-ee!8ilee-eK8Mift8~~eft-ef-~esieeft!~81-eevele~meftt-~ete"t~81,-~y-t~8ff!e 8ftalys!s-~efte,-is-~ftel~eee-~ft-tne-s~~~e~t-e8t8~ Supply and Demand and Location of Land for Sinqle-Family Detached Dwellinqs: Between 1980 and 1986, 31.4% of the housing built in the city consisted of Single-family detached housing. The percentage of single family units permitted has ranged from 59% of total units in 1984 to 25% of total un:ts in 1986. In 1987 and the first eight months of 1988, 32:8% of the units permitted were single family detached, which indicates that the 1980-1926 proportion is remaining fairly constant. There were 3,i95 2.699 potential units as of January 1986 for which development as single-family housing - was fairly certain, and i,~~2 2.281 units which could either be develoFed as single-family detached units or as attached single-family units. Therefore, Single-family units could comprise up to 4;e~~ 4.980 or 34~6~ ~ percent of the remaining units in the City. For the purpose of estimating the supply of units for attached single-family dwellings, it has been assumed that single-family detached dwellings will continue to comprise 31.4% of the total demand for hOUSing units. Multiplying 31.4% by %4;i92 15.459 would yield a demand for 4,428 4.854 single-family detached dwellings through build-out (~~!le-e~t year 2010). This number {4.854l. when added to the number of sinqle-familv detached dwellinqs which are expected to be redevelopej for other uses {145 dwellinqsl. Yields a total demand of 4.999 sinqle-family detached dwellinqs. which almost exactly matches the supplY {4.980 dwellinQsl. Tne~efe~e,-4,8~~ m!"~s-4;428,-er-44~-awe}}ift,s-ee~la-Be-al}e~~ea-~e-~fie-s~pp}y-ei-a~~aeftea s!ft,}e-!am~}Y-~ft~~8~ It is estimated that, of these 4,8~~ 4.980 units, 2,~52 3.261 units could be located on lots under 6,000 square feet, 2,999 1.594 units could occupy lots which are 6,000 to 8,000 square feet, and 125 would occupy lots of 8,000 square feet or more. From ~hese figures, it can be concluded that the City's land use and zoning regulations do not create an impediment to affordable Single-family housing. Virtually all of the current single-family projects are located in Planned Unit Developments, where gross densities range from 4 to 4.84 dwelling units per acre. At these densities, after the area required for parks, rights-of-way, and water management tracts is subtracted, the resulting lot size ranges from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet. In fact, lot size does not appear to affect the cost of Single-family housing in current projects as much as the floor 28 area, features, and type of construction of the unit, and the amenities that are provided in the development. There are no specific locational requirements which are recommended for single-family detached dwellings, since single-family dwellings are generally considered to be the most innocuous urban land use. As discussed in the Existing Land Use section, Boynton Beach was established as a primarily single-family community until the development boom of the 1970s. Therefore, the policies in this element include recommendations that zoning and land use regulations preserve existing single-family neighborhoods, particularly in the older areas of the City. It is anticipated that much of the new housing which is being built along Lawrence Road will be single-family detached housing. This type of housing is the most suitable for this corridor, not only because of the established character of the area, but also, because the market analyses for these properties have indicated that single-family housing is the highest and best use. Supply and Demand for Land for Rental Apartments: According to a market study done for a rental apartment project to be located in the northeastern quadrant of the City, 28.7% of the demand for new housing in the City from 1987 through 1995 will be for rental housing. This percentage has been applied to the potential number of new dwellings in the city through build-out: 0.287 X 14,102 dwellings units = 47e4~ 4.437 rental apartments needed in City, and unincorporated area east of Lawrence Road, from 1987 through build-out (Year 2010). Source (for percentage of total housing demand needed for rental apartments) : Reinhold P. Wolff Economic Research, Inc., "Market Feasibility study of Proposed Low-Income Boynton Beach Rental Development.", 1987. The number of potential units in approved rental apartment projects, as of January 1986, was i,356 1.747. This number, when added to the 4,845 5.583 potential units in the "multi-family unspecified" category gives a total of 6,~ei 7.330 units which could be developed as rental apartments. Subtracting 4,94; 4.437 from 6,29i 7.330 would allow a surplus of 2;i54 2.893 units which could be developed for attached single-family units or condominium apartments. The supply of land for rental apartments between Lawrence Road and the E-3 Canal has also been analyzed, since the City provides water and sewer service in this area. From the same market study that is referred to above, it can be concluded that 28.7% of the demand for units east of Military Trail and 10.3% of the demand for units bewteen Military Trail and the E-3 Canal will be for rental apartments. When these percentages are applied to dwelling unit estimates made by Palm Beach County, a total of 2,232 rental units will be re~uired between Lawrence Road and the E-3 Canal from 1988 through build-out. There were approximately 65 units which were approved but unbuilt at the beginning of 1988, which would yield a net demand of 2,197 units. There are a total of 2,736 potential 29 dwellings between Lawrence Road and the E-3 Canal which are at densities where rental apartments would be feasible (7 units per acre or more). All of these sites are located within 1/2 mile of Boynton Beach Boulevard. subtracting the 2,197 units needed for rental apartments from the 2,736 potential multi-family units would leave a surplus of 539 units which could be devloped as condominium or attached single-family units. Attached single-family units have been developed at very low densities in this area--in PUDs with densities as low as 2 units per acre, so there would be sufficient land in the County's hew-Med~~m-Bens~ty-eate~ery-t3-te 5-~n~ts-~er-aeret two. three and five dwellinq unit per acre land use cateqories for any combination of single-family detached or attached single-family units. Rental apartments and condominium apartments should ideally be located near arterial roads, and major intersections, since these locations have the highest degree of accessiblity, and are most easily served by mass transit. If mUltiple-family dwellings are to be located near single-family neighborhoods, height and setback limitations should be utilized in order to minimize land use conflicts. There are a number of parcels described in section VIII where such height and setback requirements are recommended. Multiple-family dwellings should not, however, be permitted within neighborhoods which are already developed primarily for single-family housing. Redevelopment for multi-family housing should only be permitted in neighborhoods where a significant amount of vacant property can be assembled, or where the existing housing is characterized by major deterioration. SupplY and Demand for Land for Sinqle-Familv Attached. Condomimium. and Duplex Dwellinqs: Attached single-family (townhouse) dwellings comprised 1,588 or 30.2% of the dwellings constructed between 1980 and 1986. In 1987 and 1988, 637 or 42.8% of the total number of units built were attached single-family units. This figure includes condominium units where each dwelling unit includes a ground floor. Currently, there are 2,208 potential but unbuilt townhouse units in the City, which is 15~~ ~ percent of the total remaining units. This number, when added to ~fte-44T-lew-defte~ty-~ft~ts-ftet allet~ed-te-s~n~le-fam~iy-de~aened-marke~-and the r,154 2.893 multi-family units which have not been allotted to rental apartments would allow 4,899 5.101 or 34~~ 33.0 percent of the total number of potential units to be developed as attached single-family units. Townhouse units have been developed successfully in all density categories permitted by the City, including the low density category (4.84 du/acre). Condominiums apartments compriser 705 or 13.4% of the units constructed between 1980 and 1986. The percentage of units being built as condominium apartments has declined sharply since 1980--there are only 54 condominum apartments in current projects. Condominium apartments are not expected to comprise a significant proportion of future housing demand, based upon current construction activity. The small future demand for condominium units could be accomodated in the potential r7~54 2.893 multiple-family units which have not been allotted to rental apartments. Future condominium construction will most likely occur eft-~ne-s~ee~ai-n~~n defts~~y-~areeis-whien-nave-~een-desi~nated-in-tne-€eastai-Benein the Mix 30 Use land use category which has been designated in the CBD and the area lying between the CBD and the Boynton (C-16l Canal. Duplex dwellings have occurred either as infill development, where the zoning allows, or as condominium dwellings in planned unit developments. Duplex dwellings under condominium ownership have been classified with attached single-family dwellings, since the market for this type of dwelling is probably similar to the market f~r townhouse units. The more conventional type of duplex dwelling occurs primarily as infill development in the R-2 zoning district. Duplexes as such have not constituted a large part of the units built from 1980 through 1986, and are anticipated to consistute only 1.2% of te future units. The City's zoning regulations allow duplex units to be owned and sold separately, which is a policy that should continue, since this policy encourages ownership of these units by the residents. Townhouse dwellings have a wider range of possible locations compared to rental apartments or condominiums. Townhouses are typically one to three stories high and are built in development tracts within PUDs. Net densities range from 5 to 8 dwellings per acre. The city should continue to allow townhouses in most residential land use categories, within planned residential projects, provided that the site is designed to avoid creating conflicts with single-family dwellings in the vicinity. Duplexes should be permitted only where approved as such in planned residential projects, and in older neighborhoods which are in the Medium and High Density Residential lane use categories. The City should generally not permit the rez~ning of Single-family neighborhoods to allow duplexes, since doing so tends to destablize these neighborhoods. Supply and Demand for Land for Mobile Homes: Mobile home parks have been traditionally located either in small parks along U.S. Highway 1, or in larger mobile home parks on the fringe of the urban area, west of Congress Avenue. It is anticipated that the mobile home parks along u.s. 1 will eventually be redeveloped for commercial uses or multiple-family housing. It is also anticipated that the Sand and Sea Village mobile home park (618 units) which lies along N.W. 22nd Ave. west of Congress Avenue;-aaa~~- lt is also possible that Whispering Pines Mobile Home Park (304 units) on Lawrence Road will be redeveloped for permanent housing. The remaining mobile home sites in phase 1 of the Sunny South Estates mobile home park, will provide 154 spaces. The 224 spaces which could be located on phase 2 of Sunny South Estates can be developed for mobile home sites, however, it is equally likely that this site will be developed for permanent housing. The City recognizes ~tat redevelopment of existinq older mobile home parks are susceptible to economic displacement and will represent a reduction of lower-end affordable housina in the area. Their attrition, however, is a function of rising land values and transactions occurring in the private sector. The city does not have a relocation plan for those displaced by lawful actions in the private sector, but will encouraqe replacement bv all~wina mobile home parks and individual mobile homes to be placed in all areas of the City where single-family detached dwellina are permitted, subiect to the zonina reaulations and other code reauirements that apply to other t'/pes of sinale-familY detached dwellinas. 31 APPENDIX The following policies and objectives from the 1989 Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan adopted November 7, 1989 by Ordinance *89-38 and amended December 18, 1990 by Ordinance *90-58, are relevant to the Cedar Grove PUD rezoning request: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Objectives: Policies: 1.1, 1.6, 1.8, 1.11, 1.15, 1.19 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.2.3, 1.3.1, 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 1.3.8, 1.3.9, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.7, 1.4.10, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.5.6, 1.5.8, 1.7.5, 1.7.6, 1.8.1, 1.8.3, 1.11.2, 1.11.7, 1.11.9, 1.11.14, 1.13.1, 1.14.3, 1.15.5, 1.16.1, 1.16.2, 1.16.4, 1.17.3, 1.17.7, 1.17.8, 1.18.1, 1.19.1 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT Objectives: policies: 2.1, 2.3 2.1.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.7, 2.4.8 SANITARY SEWER SUBELEMENT Objectives: policies: 3A.1, 3A.2, 3A.4, 3A.5 3A.1.1, 3A.1.4, 3A.2.1, 3A.2.4, 3A.2.5, 3A.3.3, 3A.4.1, 3A.4.2, 3A.5.1 DRAINAGE SUBELEMENT Objectives: Policies: 3B.4 3B.1.1, 3B.1.3, 3B.2.2, 3B.2.5, 3B.2.8, 3B.4.1 POTABLE WATER SUBELEMENT Objectives: Policies: 3C.1, 3C.4, 3C.5 3C.1.1, 3C.1.5, 3C.1.6, 3C.3.2, 3C.3.4, 3C.3.5, 3C.3.6, 3C.4.1, 3C.4.2, 3C.4.4, 3C.4.5, 3C.5.1 SOLID WASTE SUBELEMENT Objectives: Policies: 3E.1, 3E. 2 3E.1.1, 3E.2.1, 3E.3.5, 3E.3.8, 3E.3.9, 3E.3.11, 3E.7.1, 3E.7.2 CONSERVATION ELEMENT Objectives: policies: 4.3 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, 4.3.6, 4.3.7, 4.3.8, 4.3.10, 4.4.2, 4.4.6, 4.5.1 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Objectives: Policies: HOUSING ELEMENT Policy: 5.2, 5.5, 5.7, 5.8 5.2.1, 5.2.3, 5.5.4, 5.5.8, 5.7.1, 5.7.3, 5.8.1 6.1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT Objectives: Policies: 8.16, 8.22, 8.23 8.16.1, 8.22.1 policies and Objectives Page 2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT Sanitary Sewer Objectives: policies: Potable Water Objectives: policies: Parks Objectives: policies: Overall Objectives: policies: A:CEOPOL.JM 9A.1, 9A.2, 9A.3 9A.2.4, 9A.2.5, 9A.3.1 9B.1, 9B.2, 9B.4, 9B.5 9B.1.1, 9B.2.5, 9B.3.4, 9B.3.5, 9B.4.1, 9B.4.2, 9B.4.4 9C.2, 9C.5, 9C.7, 9C.8 9C.2.1, 9C.2.3, 9C.2.6, 9C.2.7, 9C.5.2, 9C.5.3, 9C.5.4, 9C.5.5, 9C.8.1, 9C.8.2 90.2 90.2.1, 90.2.2, 90.2.3, 90.2.4, 90.2.5, 90.3.3, 90.5.4 6Al CEDAR GROVE PUD REZONING PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-039 March 5, 1992 FROM: ~ ~ Zoning Board Members Christopher cutro, Planning and Zoning Director TO: RE: Cedar Grove P.U.D. Some questions have arisen regarding why the Planning and Zoning Department is reviewing the Cedar Grove application since the site has been designated for purchase by the County as an environmentally sensitive site. The Boynton Beach Comprehensive plan and the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances do not contain provisions that would enable staff to delay or not review a planned unit development application for a parcel of land that is environmentally sensitive. In fact, such provisions, if they did exist, might be illegal. In addition a zoning district has been applied to the land that is consistent with the comprehensive plan and which the owners can develop under at any time. This application is a request to modify that development pattern which the applicant is entitled to do. Therefore, staff must review the application when it is complete and forward it to proper review boards in a reasonable amount of time. As the staff report indicates, this development has been reviewed for compliance with the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan, the Planned Unit Development Ordinance and the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance and other applicable ordinances. Our review is consistent with other P.U.D. reviews done in the past by the City. Our recommendation is based on consistency with these ordinances and is not to be taken as an endorsement of development over environmental preservation or vice versa. staff is well aware of the environmental sensitivity and value of this site especially in a world where our environment is being altered on a daily basis. To this end, we have assisted Palm Beach County with their application for funds to purchase this site, met with County staff to discuss the future management of the site and are committed to future assistance with the funding application. In reviewing this application we have attempted to require preservation of the most sensitive portion of this site to maximum extent possible. However, we have no ability to force the applicant to fully preserve this property or sell the property to the County. Staff is, to quote a favorite phrase of Chairman Rosenstock, "on the horns of dilemma." We must review a development proposal for a site which we and others are working to preserve. We would ask that the Board keep this in mind during the review of this request. CC:ald CEDARGRV.ALD PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-035 THRU: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board c~e~ro, A.I.C.P. Planning and Zoning Director TO: FROM: Tambri J. Heyden Senior Planner DATE: March 3, 1992 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove PUD - File No. 654 Rezoning INTRODUCTION Julian Bryan, agent for Cedar Grove Investments N.V., is requesting that a 53.69 acre tract of land, located on the east side of South Seacrest Boulevard, approximately 100 feet south of S.E. 31st Avenue, be rezoned from R-2 (Single- and Two-Family Dwelling District) and R-1AA (Single-family Residential District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development District). The vacant property has a 641.41 foot frontage on Seacrest Boulevard and is commonly referred to as the "Seacrest Scrub", as it is a type of ecosystem, known as Florida scrub, which is endemic to Florida, having developed on the sandy ridges of former coastal dunes. This native ecosystem is endangered and within the sub-tropics, which extends as far north as the northern border of Palm Beach County, it is on the verge of nonexistence as a result of urbanization and relatively insensitive development. PROCEDURE This request for rezoning is being processed consistent with all applicable Florida Statute and Boynton Beach codes and ordinances as follows: 1. F.S. 166.041: Procedures for Adoption of Ordinances and Resolutions. 2. Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Zoning, Section 9.C, "Comprehensive Plan Amendments; Rezonings". 3. Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Appendix B, Planned Unit Developments, Section 10, "Procedure for Zoning of Land to PUD". SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING (see attached location map - Exhibit "A") Abutting the subject parcel to the north is an R-1AA zoned, residential neighborhood, referred to as Sky Ranch Estates. Seacrest Estates, also to the north of the subject parcel, is zoned R-1AA, with the exception of an R-2 zoned portion which borders the Josephine S. Latino subdivision of duplexes, abutting the subject parcel to the northeast, zoned R-2. The 100 foot wide, Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way, adjacent to the 80 foot wide, Old Dixie Highway right-of-way, runs along the entire eastern boundary of the parcel. Further east of these two rights-of-way, the City limits are irregular. In this area, from north to south and due east of the northeast corner of the subject parcel, the existing land uses, zoning and jurisdiction are as follows: Killian's Park single-family subdivision, zoned RM (Residential Medium Density) in Palm Beach County; two single-family homes, zoned C-4 (General Commercial) in the City; a single-family home, zoned RM in Palm Beach County; Knights of Columbus lodge, zoned C-4 in the City; four industrial/commercial business, zoned CG (General Commercial) in Palm Beach County; Agape Bible Church and Gulfstream Mobile Home Community, zoned C-4 in the City. Abutting the subject parcel at its southeast corner is the R-2 zoned portion of Gulfstream Estates and the R-1A zoned portion P&Z Memo No. 92-035 -2- March 3, 1992 of Gulfstream Estates. All homes in this subdivision are single-family. Southwest of the subject parcel are two, 2.27 acre parcels, zoned R-1AA. The southern-most parcel is occupied by a nonconforming duplex, while the northern-most parcel is occupied by a large single-family home. Farther southwest, across Seacrest Boulevard, an 80 foot wide right-of-way, is St. Joseph's Episcopal Church and School, zoned R-1AAB. Directly west of the subject parcel, across Seacrest Boulevard, is Mission Hill, an R-1AAB zoned, single-family subdivision. Four lots along the west side of Seacrest Boulevard, in the vicinity of the northwest corner of the subject parcel, are vacant. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - FUTURE LAND USE MAP The underlying land use for the western portion of the proposed PUD, currently zoned R-1AA, is shown as "Low Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. This land use category allows a maximum gross density of 4.84 dwelling units per acre. The underlying land use for the remainder of the proposed PUD, the eastern portion, currently zoned R-2, is shown as "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. This land use category allows a maximum gross density of 9.68 dwelling units per acre. The proposed gross density of the PUD of 4.36 dwelling units per acre is consistent with both land use categories, therefore a future land use map amendment is not necessary. However, staff may include the "Medium Density Residential" portion of the site, and any public park acreage among the properties recommended for land use changes in connection with the 5 year evaluation and appraisal report, anticipated in late 1994, to unify the land use of the subject parcel and implement language under Planning Area 4.i of the Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element Support Documents, "Land Use Problems and Opportunities" section. The subject parcel is also delineated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as a "Conservation Overlay District" due to an "A" rating of the native, Florida Scrub ecosystem on the parcel. The use and development of properties delineated as a "Conservation Overlay District" are subject to the recommendations contained in the Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. As applied to the subject parcel, these recommendations relate to the protection and acquisition of "A" rated ecosystem sites. Discussion of the rating system and the specific Comprehensive Plan policies is provided in the "Master Plan: Preservation Area" section of this report. PROPOSED ZONING AND MASTER PLAN (see attached, proposed master plan - Exhibit "B") The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject parcel from R-1AA (Single-family Residential District) and R-2 (Single- and Two-family Dwelling District) to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). As defined by Appendix B-Planned Unit Developments of the Code of Ordinances, a "planned unit development: Is land under unified control, planned and developed as a whole in a single development operation or an approved programmed series of development operations for dwelling units and related uses and facilities; Includes principal and accessory uses and structures substantially related to the character of the development itself and the surrounding area of which it is a part; Is developed according to comprehensive and detailed plans which include streets, utilities, lots, building sites and the like and site plans, floor plans and elevations for all P&Z Memo No. 92-035 -3- March 3, 1992 buildings except for single family homes intended to be located, constructed, used, and related to one another, and detailed plans for other uses and improvements on the land related to the buildings; Includes a program for full provision, maintenance, and operation of such areas, improvements, facilities, and unit development, but will not be provided, operated, or maintained at public expense." Due to intended differences between PUD developments resulting from appropriate and harmonious variety in physical design tailored to the specific site, submittal of a site development master plan is required at the time of request for zoning to PUD. This master plan is attached to the zoning of the land and sets forth specific guidelines for future development of the parcel. MASTER PLAN: The uses proposed on the Cedar Grove master plan and the acreages devoted to each, including tract net densities, are as follows: No. of Land Use Units Acres Net Density Road Rights-of-way ----- 2.10 ----- Perimeter Buffers ----- 1. 65 ----- Preserve ----- 11.50 ----- Single-family 79 14.80 5.34 units/acre (6,000 sq. ft. lots) Single-family 86 12.83 6.70 units/acre (4,500 sq. ft. lots) Duplexes & Single-family 69 11.41 6.05 units/acre (Villa Homes) TOTAL: 234 53.69 Gross Density = 4.36 units/acre The proposed master plan would allow for the construction of 234 fee simple, dwelling units located within three residential tracts within the PUD. Included on the master plan is an option on the villa home tract of 86 units to be constructed as duplexes or single-family units or a mixture of the two. If single-family, detached units are developed within this tract, they will be constructed to the typical lot layout provided for the patio homes (minimum 4,500 square foot lot size). Because the applicant is processing this application for speculative development by future buyers, the lot layout for the entire project has not been designed, only the typical lot layout for each proposed housing type, which is consistent with PUD master plans approved in the recent past. In such cases, submittal of a future master plan modification has been required prior to platting. The specific building and site regulations proposed for development of units within this PUD are as follows: P&Z Memo No. 92-035 -4- March 3, 1992 Single-family Detached, Zero Lot Line Units Patio Home Single-family Detached, Zero Lot Line Units Villa Home Duplexes Minimum Lot Size 6,000 4,500 (square feet) Maximum Building Height 25 25 (feet) Maximum Lot Coverage ( %) 35 35 No Minimum 25 40 Building Setbacks (feet): Front Rear Side 25 15 15 (non-zero side) 25 15 15 (non-zero side) 25 15 10 Amenity Rear Setbacks (feet): Pool 8 Screened enclosure 8 Hard-roofed screened 15 enclosure 8 8 15 8 8 15 Minimum Living Area 1,000 (square feet) 1,000 750 The data in the table above has been adjusted to reflect incorporation of Building Department and Planning and Zoning Department staff conunents in Exhibit "C", relative to setbacks. Therefore, a discrepancy in the data will be noted when compared to the typical lot layout submitted on the master plan. ACCESS AND INTERNAL TRAFFIC FLOW The primary access point to the PUD is an entrance off of Seacrest Boulevard which aligns with Mission Hill Road. This road, which serves all three housing tracts, terminates in a cul-de-sac at the entrance to the villa home tract, and is proposed to be a 60 foot wide private, right-of-way. Branching off this primary access road is a 50 foot wide, private right-of-way which provides the project with a secondary means of access and links the project to the surrounding street system. As stated in the attached staff comments (Exhibit "C") from the Engineering Department and Planning and Zoning Department, the proposed right-of-way widths are not wide enough to acconunodate all the required design elements such as sidewalks, bike paths, easements, utilities and drainage. In addition, as stated in the attached staff conunents from the Fire Department and the Planning and Zoning Department, the segments of right-of-way west and south of the intersection of the proposed 60 foot and 50 foot rights-of-way are needed as public thoroughfares, since these rights-of-way will provide alternate routes during utility and road repairs and emergencies, fast and efficient public service and park access if a public park is dedicated. Although the internal lot and street layout within the housing tracts has not been provided, the proposed access points from the main project roads to the housing tracts are shown on the master plan. POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION The site will be served with water by connecting to the existing 8 inch water mains on the east side of Seacrest Boulevard and the southern terminus of S.E. 2nd Street and the existing six inch water main on Ocean View. The proposed potable water facilities P&Z Memo No. 92-035 -5- March 3, 1992 would be consistent with Objectives 3C.5 and 9B.5 and Policy 3C.5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan which state that, to prevent urban sprawl, only those infill developments in areas presently adequately served by potable water facilities shall be encouraged. SEWAGE COLLECTION The site will be served by a sewage pumping station proposed at the southeast portion of the cul-de-sac, which will connect to an existing 6 inch force main that runs from north to south, along the center of the subject parcel. Housing tract connections to the pumping station will be via an 8 inch gravity sewer line located within the project road right-of-ways. The proposed sanitary sewer facilities would be consistent with Objectives 3C.5 and 9B.5 and Policy 3C.5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan which state that, to prevent urban sprawl, only those infill developments in areas presently adequately served by sanitary sewer facilities shall be encouraged. SCHOOLS Consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.22.1, the Palm Beach County School Board has reviewed the proposed PUD and has indicated that students generated by the Cedar Grove project will "further overcrowd the assigned middle and high schools in the area". Furthermore, the School Board recommends that the City impose the following condition on the project approval: "No residential building permits may be issued until the developer and the School Board approve in writing an agreement which assures that public school student membership generated by the development will achieve School Board racial balance goals." (See Exhibit "D" for the School Board's analysis.) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic impact study submitted by the applicant was reviewed by the Palm Beach County Engineering Department as required by Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance No. 90-40. A copy of Palm Beach County's determination of compliance letter, dated February 4, 1992 is attached as Exhibit "E". Also provided in Exhibit "E" is a letter from Palm Beach County, dated February 24, 1992 which states that the only off-site improvement required for development of the subject parcel for the proposed 234 units, is a left turn lane on Seacrest Boulevard, a County collector, at the project entrance. Although concerns have been raised by staff (see Exhibit "c" for comments from the Police and Fire Departments) and citizens (see Exhibit "F" for letters received from citizens) regarding the existing operational problems along the 2 lane section of Seacrest Boulevard adjacent to the proposed PUD, widening of Seacrest Boulevard to a 4 lane, divided road, is reflected in the County 2010 Plan. The Traffic Circulation Element Support Document (Volume I) does recommend an accelerated three lane improvement due to existing peak season volumes, however, not until the year 2000. As a possible measure to improve the current operational problems on Seacrest Boulevard, money could be put into escrow at the time of platting for a traffic light at the intersection of Seacrest Boulevard and Mission Hill Road, until project buildout or until the light is warranted, whichever comes first consistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 2.3. The existing off-site traffic circulation system, subject to the developer providing the left turn lane on Seacrest Boulevard, is consistent with Objective 2.1 regarding the adopted traffic level of service and Policy 2.4.7 and 41.1 of the Comprehensive Plan. Those pages of the Traffic Circulation Element Support Document that are relevant to the Cedar Grove PUD have been attached as Exhibit "G". P&Z Memo No. 92-035 -6- March 3, 1992 DRAINAGE Pursuant to the Concurrency Management Ordinance, master plans must be reviewed for concurrency against the adopted drainage, neighborhood parks and traffic levels of service. As stated by the Engineering Department in the attached staff comments (Exhibit "C") and in the Engineering Department's concurrency certification (see Exhibit "H" for concurrency certifications prepared by the service providers), the drainage master plan provided is insufficient for detailed review. However, the Engineering Department feels that the applicant's statement on the master plan of compliance with the drainage level of service and that drainage concerns will be addressed through the use of on-site retention in conjunction with roadside swales, grassed swales, surface infiltration and subsurface permeability, is sufficient at this time. It is the Engineering Department's opinion that the proposed land use, site topography and soil conditions will allow for compliance with the drainage level of service and is, therefore, consistent with policies 3.B.1.1, 3.B.1.3 and 3.B.2.2 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding the City's adopted drainage level of service and the incorporation of adequate stormwater drainage facilities within the plans submitted for all new developments. Most likely some sort of drainage retention or detention area will be necessary to contain the project's stormwater on-site. Since the location of such a drainage area has not been shown on the proposed master plan, a future master plan modification may have to be submitted, prior to platting, if the location of a drainage area significantly impacts the master plan configuration. However, to address citizen concerns over the existing Seacrest Boulevard drainage problem (see Exhibit "F" for copies of letters received from citizens), it can be assured that project drainage shall be contained on-site and will not exacerbate the existing drainage problem on Seacrest Boulevard in the vicinity of the Cedar Grove PUD, and that the 11.5 acre preserve area can not be used for drainage management. As discussed earlier under the "Traffic Analysis" subsection, a left turn lane on Seacrest Boulevard is required. This road improvement will require permitting through Palm Beach County Engineering Department and will need to address, to some degree, the existing drainage problem on Seacrest Boulevard. RECREATION As previously mentioned, master plans must be reviewed for concurrency with the neighborhood parks levels of service. Based on the number and type of units proposed, a total of 4.212 acres is required for parks and recreation purposes, pursuant to the City's subdivision regulations. The master plan submitted does not provide private recreation and proposes to satisfy the parks and recreation dedication requirement by paying a fee in lieu of dedicating 4.212 acres of land, at the time of platting, equal to the fair market value of 4.212 acres of land. As detailed in the attached Cedar Grove PUD neighborhood parks concurrency certification, prepared by the Planning and Zoning Department, (see Exhibit "H" for concurrency certifications), Cedar Grove PUD is located within Neighborhood Planning Area #17. Development of the subject parcel would lower the adopted acreage level of service for Area #17, as was anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan Recreation and Open Space Element was written. Due to this realization, the subject parcel was included in Policy 9C.5.4 and 5.5.4 which states that "subsequent to Plan adoption, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient land for a neighborhood park site at the time that the" S. Seacrest Boulevard property is rezoned or platted for residential use. This policy also states that "If the need for public park acreage is not indicated at the above-mentioned time, a fee shall substitute the dedication of land". P&Z Memo No. 92-035 -7- March 3, 1992 The Cedar Grove site also falls under "Land Use Problems and Opportunities"-Planning Area 4.i of the Future Land Use Element Support Document, Comprehensive Plan policies 1.16.1, 1.16.4 and 1.17.3, referencing Area 4.i, which states: 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 of Interstate 95. It is not coincidential that the property also contains the largest remaining area of Florida scrub in the City. As noted in the Conservation Element, this is an "A" rated area of natural habitat, which therefore warrants preservation. Through a combination of different measures, the City should attempt to preserve as much of 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. Therefore, based on the above and the adopted parks and recreation levels of service stated in Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.2.1, 9C.2.1, 9C.5.5, land dedication is required in lieu of a fee. Taking into consideration language on pages 44 and 56 of the Recreation and Open Space Element Support Document (Volume I) relative to the relationship between park design and the natural scrub habitat existing on site, it is recommended that a maximum credit of one acre of the required 4.212 acres computed for parks and recreation, be allowed for the preservation of 11.5 acres of natural habitat. The remaining 3.212 acres shall be dedicated along Seacrest Boulevard as a public park. If a park site is not dedicated as part of the development of the subject parcel, acceptance of a fee, equal to the fair market value of 3.212 acres, is a second choice option to the dedication of land. The reason for this is that the 4.90 acre site on S.E. 2nd Street, referenced in the Recreation and Open Space Element Support Document as a potential park site within this neighborhood planning area, is not as desirable for public park dedication as the subject parcel due to physical constraints limiting the type of recreation facilities that can be constructed on the site, limited visibility and indirect public . access to the site through an existing neighborhood and the location of this site on the fringes of Neighborhood Planning Area #17. Parks centrally located within planning areas are more viable due to a lesser walking distance and a greater likelihood of meeting level of service standards for neighborhood parks. If the City Commission grants more than one acre credit for the preservation of 11.5 acres of natural habitat, thus reducing the land dedication for a public park to less than 3.2 acres, staff recommends that a fee, equal to the value of 3.2 acres, be acceptable in lieu of land dedication. This recommendation is made because land less than 3.2 acres in size is too small to accommodate the facilities associated with development of a neighborhood park as referenced on page 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element Support Document (Volume I). In the event that the City Commission approves the paYment of fee in lieu of land and the developer opts to provide private recreation to receive 50% credit toward the fee, staff recommends that the fair market value of a minimum 2.1 acres be paid. This recommendation is based on the need for funds to complete Girl Scout Park prior to 1995, consistent with the City's park development schedule on page 63 of the Recreation and Open Space Element Support Document. Girl Scout Park is also located within Neighborhood Planning Area #17, and is vacant dedicated acreage P&Z Memo No. 92-035 -8- March 3, 1992 needed to meet current and future potential park and recreation needs within this area. Therefore, as a condition of PUD zoning approval, no building permits shall be issued for the final 50% of the total number of units, until construction of Girl Scout Park commences, so that the need for parks and recreation facilities can be met concurrently with the demand for such facilities generated by the proposed PUD. This condition of approval is necessary for consistency with Objective 9C.2 and policies 9C.2.3, 9D.2.2, 9D.2.3, and 5.2.3. Also, paYment of fee in lieu of land will necessitate a Comprehensive Plan amendment, submitted by the applicant, to policies 9C.5.4 and 5.5.4, as well as Planning Area 4.i of the Future Land Use Element Support Document, "Land Use Problems and Opportunities" section. These amendments should be adopted prior to final platting of the subject parcel. Copies of all pertinent pages of the Comprehensive Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element Support Document (Volume I), are attached as Exhibit "I" for reference. PRESERVATION AREA As previously mentioned, the subject parcel contains a non-renewable natural resource referred to as Florida Scrub; a desert-like native ecosystem dominated by sand pine, several species of oaks, saw palmetto and other shrubs, and has therefore, been designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as a Conservation Overlay District, requiring, in this case, consistency with all applicable Conservation Element policies. The Conservation Element rates each native ecosystem on an A to D scale, with "A" indicating high quality or important as part of biological corridors and "D" indicating a site that does not represent a native Florida ecosystem. To understand the rationale used in the applicant's selection of the eastern-most portion of the site, adjacent to the F.E.C. Railroad, as the location of the preservation of a minimum 25% of the total scrub habitat of 45.69 acres, as required by Comprehensive Plan policies 1.11.2, 1.11.4 and 4.3.5, it is important to have a basic understanding of this type of ecosystem and of the specific characteristics of the "Seacrest Scrub". As described in the Comprehensive Plan, Conservation Element Support Document (Volume I), page 15, "successional stages are part of Florida Scrub. As the system matures, sand pines shade the earth, making conditions unfavorable for their own regeneration as well as for many species characteristic of this ecosystem, or endemic to it. Perpetuation of the ecosystem happened as one area or another was cleared by fire, storm, or other event, making a sunny opening suitable for components of early stages. Thus, a series of plant and animal species, endemic as well as rare, threatened endangered or of special concern, are characteristic of Florida Scrub at different stages of the cycle." As related to the "Seacrest Scrub"; an unusual ecotone of Florida scrub with pine flatwoods, not duplicated elsewhere in the City and unique in Palm Beach County, 3 stages exist as shown on the attached diagram (Exhibit "J") prepared by the applicant's ecological consultant, Donald Richardson, Ph.D. Exhibit "I" also includes a summary, prepared by Dr. Richardson, of the plant and animal species protected, listed, or under review by state or federal agencies, that occur on the site. The locations of the protected animal and plant species on site is within the open, sandy areas existing within 50% of the eastern and central portions of the site. Dr. Richardson concludes that it is in this area that past and present small scale disturbances have allowed colonization of several of the referenced plant species and the utilization by scrub jays. Staff concurred with Dr. Richardson's selection of the eastern portion of the site (the sand pine scrub) as the location for the preservation area, based on the data submitted, the lack of disturbance and presence of several Champion sand pines in this portion of the site, and P&Z Memo No. 92-035 -9- March 3, 1992 the greater chance of survival, when combined with a strategic management plan to maintain and enhance the plant and animal populations, of this stage of the ecosystem. This management plan will have to include a program for the relocation, prior to construction, of the one observed Florida mouse and most of the gopher tortoises (there are approximately 56 tortoises on site), since the 11.5 acre preserve can only support 10-15 tortoises. The Florida scrub jay, however, must be retained on site in suitable habitat since relocation of this species has not been considered in the past. Concern has been raised by citizens through calls to the Planning and Zoning Department and letters included as Exhibit "F", regarding the future of the animals upon the development of the site. Relocation programs are subject to approval by outside agencies and consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.5.1, Dr. Richardson has consulted with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding this rezoning request and has provided a copy of his environmental assessment to them. Copies of all pertinent pages of the Comprehensive Plan, Conservation Element Support Document (Volume I), are attached as Exhibit "K" for reference. PROPOSED ZONING: As stated in Section 9.C.2.a.(2) of Appendix A, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, evaluation and analysis of the proposed rezoning against the criteria stated in Section 9.C.7. related to the impacts which would result from approval of this request, is not required since this rezoning to PUD is consistent (subject to staff comments) with the zoning and land use recommendations contained in the Comprehensive Plan for the subject parcel. However, two criteria stated in Section 9.C.7. are worthy of discussion. They are section 9.C.7.(b) - "Whether the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use pattern, or would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with protection of public welfare" and Section 9.C.7.(e) - "Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, or would affect the property values of adjacent and nearby properties." These criteria are best evaluated by analyzing the information in the table below which compares the potential lot size and number and type of dwelling units under the existing zoning with that which would be allowed under the proposed development. Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Designation Low Density Res./ Medium Density Res. R-1AA/R-2 PUD Acres 43.34/10.35 43.34/10.35 53.69 Density Gross: 4.84/9.68 Net: 5.4/9.68 Gross: 4.25/6.45 Gross: 4.36 Net: 5.99 Units Allowed 209/100 Net: 234/100 Gross: 184/66 P&Z Memo No. 92-035 -10- March 3, 1992 Table continued from previous page: Comprehensive Plan-Land Use Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Total Units 309 Net: 334 Gross: 250 Gross: w/preserve 179 234 Min. Lot Size (square feet) 8,000/ 4,500 6,000/ 4,500 Unit Types Single-family detached/ duplexes Single-family, zero lot line/ duplexes As distinguished in the table above, land use category densities are stated in terms of gross density; the relationship between numbers of units and gross acreage, including all acreage used for rights-of-way, common open space, parks and recreation, sidewalks, drainage facilities such as lakes and canals, buffers, easements, etcetera, whereas zoning district densities are stated in terms of net density; the relationship between numbers of dwelling units and the net land area (total of all lot areas) remaining after the acreage devoted to non-housing uses has been extracted from the total number of acres of the site. Therefore, it can be difficult and misleading to compare PUD densities, usually stated as gross density (one of the advantages of zoning to PUD), to conventional zoning district net densities. The table above provides conversions from net density to gross density, and vice versa, which are approximations based on the City's design standards for streets, sidewalks/bike paths and rights-of-way. Based on the analysis in the table above, several points are noted. Although it appears that development of the subject parcel under the proposed zoning, will yield fewer units than if developed under the existing conventional zoning, the opposite is actually true. This is due to the difference in the smaller, minimum lot sizes proposed in the PUD with the larger, minimum lot sizes required in the R-1AA zoning district. This conclusion is drawn by factoring in 11.5 acres of habitat preservation, the minimum size known to be required for this site, into the gross density figure for the existing zoning district. The gross density figures calculated for the existing zoning are general and did not consider the special requirement of the subject parcel for preserve acreage, nor the standard land area devoted to recreation and drainage. However, the gross density figure calculation is made simple since the proposed master plan also does not include land area for recreation and drainage. Since no lot layout on the master plan was submitted, other than a typical lot layout for the three types of dwelling units proposed, it can not be verified whether the total number of units proposed can be accommodated on the site. Even if fewer units than the 234 units projected can be accommodated, the potential yield of units from the proposed PUD zoning will be higher than the approximate number of 179 units calculated as the yield for development under the existing zoning, again due to the larger, minimum lot size required under the existing zoning. Regardless, the gross density of 4.36 of the PUD is consistent with the maximum (gross) density allowed by the Comprehensive P&Z Memo No. 92-035 -11- March 3, 1992 Plan, even if the "Low Density Residential" land use category of 4.84 dwelling units per acre is applied to the entire parcel. From the foregoing comparison of the potential lot size and number and type of dwelling units under the existing zoning with that which would be allowed under the proposed development, it can be argued that the proposed rezoning--a master plan comprised of single-family, detached, zero lot line units of a minimum 6,000 square foot lot area; single-family detached, zero lot line, patio homes of a minimum 4,500 square foot lot area; and duplex units or villa homes, is unrelated to the R-1AA (Single-family Residential) district to the north of the subject parcel, the R-1A (Single-family Residential) district to the south, and the R-1AAB (Single-family Residential) district to the west. These districts require a minimum 8,000 square foot lot size, a minimum 7,500 square foot lot size and a minimum 9,000 square foot lot size, respectively. However, the following policies in the Comprehensive Plan support the proposed rezoning to PUD and the minimum development criteria and types of dwelling units proposed: Objective 1.15 Encourage planned development projects which are sensitive to characteristics of the site and to surrounding land uses, and mixed-use projects in locations which are appropriate, and utilize other innovative methods of regulating land development. Policy 1.16.2 Subsequent to Plan adoption, modify the land development regulations to allow planned unit developments up to the maximum density shown on the Future Land Use Plan, if all other Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations are complied with, and the proposed PUD is compatible with surrounding land uses. (see discussion below regarding PUD perimeter buffer.) Policy 1.19.1 Subsequent to Plan adoption, allow for a full range of housing choices, by allowing densities which can accommodate the approximate number and type of dwellings for which the demand has been projected in the Housing and Future Land Use Elements. (See Exhibit "L" for attached copies of referenced data from pages 25-31 of the Future Land Use Element Support Documents (Volume I), relative to the future demand for all undeveloped residential land in the City, the demand for single-family, detached dwellings and the limitations of duplexes to within planned residential projects.) Objective 6.1 Provide, or assist the private sector to provide 4,590 new dwelling units of various types, sizes, and costs by 1992, and a total of 13,228 new dwelling units by the year 2010, in order to meet the housing needs of the existing and anticipated populations of the City. Furthermore, staff supports the 4,500 square foot lot sizes, which are smaller than the 6,000 square foot lot size that staff has recommended in the past as the minimum within PUDs. Staff support is due, in part, to an acceptable proposal of amenities, such as pools and screened enclosures, into the design of the typical lot layout. This layout will minimize future requests for master plan modifications to reduce setbacks to allow such amenities. It is also due to Policy 4.3.3 of the Conservation P&Z Memo No. 92-035 -12- March 3, 1992 Element of the Comprehensive Plan which encourages incentives to maximize the preservation of natural areas. with regard to whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, or would affect the property values of adjacent and nearby properties, page 28 of the Future Land Use Element, Support Documents (Volume I), states that it does not appear that lot size affects the "cost of single-family housing in current projects as much as the floor area, features, and type of construction of the unit, and the amenities that are provided in the development." Therefore, the lot sizes proposed, which are smaller than those of the surrounding single-family neighborhoods, most likely will not have a negative effect on the property values of adjacent and nearby properties. Architectural styles of the proposed units, particularly the duplexes (villa homes) and patio homes, may have somewhat of an effect if, for example, they have monotonous, unarticulated facades, or are constructed poorly. Pursuant to Appendix A, Zoning, Section 9.C.4.h.(9), the Planning and Zoning Board or City Commission may request the applicant to "state the type of construction and architectural styles that will be employed in the proposed development." It should be noted that a 15 foot wide PUD perimeter buffer is proposed along the north and south project boundaries. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.17.7, this buffering measure will afford some protection to the R-1AA and R-1A residential neighborhoods to the north and south and will minimize any potential land use conflict between the proposed PUD and the adjacent and nearby properties. A final point relative to the proposed zoning is the requirement for land zoned to PUD to be indicated on the official zoning map with the land use intensity (LUI) rating assigned at the time of zoning. No information has been submitted which indicates the LUI rating that will be used for the PUD. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - TEXT Throughout this report Comprehensive Plan references have been cited within the discussion of a particular issue for determination of consistency of the proposed rezoning with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and conditions of approval necessary for such a determination are discussed in detail in the following section entitled "Conclusions/Recommendations". An appendix is attached which lists all Comprehensive Plan policies related to this request. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS On March 12, 1991, voters approved the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Bond Issue Referendum for $100 million in general obligation bonds to acquire, preserve and maintain environmentally sensitive lands in Palm Beach County. Fourteen sites, with an approximate total assessed value of $300 million, were recommended by the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Acquisition Advisory Committee for acquisition. Two of the 14 sites are located in the City; the "Seacrest Scrub" and the "Rosemary Scrub". The "Seacrest Scrub" has been included in the first round of sites selected for appraisals and is the subject of an active application for a state program that provides matching funds for land acquisition; the Florida Communities Trust. A total of 55 applications were received by the January 3, 1992 deadline for this program which is anticipated to require an $808,000 "local" match. The Planning and Zoning Department is providing technical assistance to the County in the application process, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.3.4. Funds will not be released until early next year. If the subject parcel is threatened by P&Z Memo No. 92-035 -13- March 3, 1992 development, prior to the County receiving the state funds, or if the County is not granted state funds, prior to the threat of development (issuance of building permits), the County will acquire the subject parcel with the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Bond money. To date, the City's joint effort with Palm Beach County in applying for state funds to acquire the "Seacrest Scrub" site is the only mechanism the City has explored to implement Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.3.2 and 9.3.10 and Objective 4.3 which intends preservation of 75% of the acreage designated as a Conservation Overlay District on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Pages 55 and 56 of the Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element Support Document (Volume I), list some of the methods the City can pursue to best preserve its natural resources. They are as follows: ..Revenue or general obligation bonding to purchase properties. ..Cooperative funding of property purchases with the State and/or County. ..Consideration of developing a regional or local parks district with taxing authority to purchase or otherwise control sites. ..Solicitation of Federal, State, Regional or County grant funds to purchase sites. ..Conditions for building clustering and site preservation at the time of development approval. ..Sponsorship and/or coordination of private conservation groups to purchase or otherwise control sites. ..Solicitation of property owners regarding outright donation of sites. ..Purchase and multiple use of sites using utility funds. ..Transfer of development rights to other sites within the City (or region). ..Density or intensity use bonuses in conjunction with preservation or transfer or development rights. ..On or off-site mitigation strategies as a condition of development approval. ..Preservation of a minimum percentage of native habitat occurring on-site. With regard to the Cedar Grove rezoning request, the applicant has employed preservation of the minimum percentage of native habitat occurring on-site. Also, as previously mentioned under the master plan discussion, smaller lots than have been approved in the past are proposed. The proposed lot sizes are recommended by staff as an incentive to preserve native habitat in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.3.3 as well as a one acre preservation credit toward the recreation and parks dedication. As set forth in Appendix B, Section 10.B.2 of the Code of Ordinances, the Planning and Zoning Board shall find that the plans, maps and documents submitted meet the requirements for LUI ratings, unified control, locational standards and internal PUD standards and establish that: P&Z Memo No. 92-035 -14- March 3, 1992 a) The tract for the proposed PUD is suitable in terms of its relationships to the city comprehensive plan and that the area surrounding the proposed PUD can continue to be developed in coordination and substantial compatibility with the PUD proposed, including overall dwelling unit density and peripheral transitions in such density; b) That the desirable modifications of general zoning or PUD regulations as applied to the particular case, justify such modification of regulations and meet to at least an equivalent degree the regulations modified, based on the design and amenities incorporated in the site development plan; c) That increased open space is provided for the occupants of the proposed PUD and the general public, and desirable natural features indigenous to the site are preserved in the development plan presented. To date, LUI and unified control documentation have not been submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department, however, the applicant has stated that the LUI information will be submitted in time for review, prior to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. The City Attorney confirmed that the applicant has agreed to supply unified control documents. The City Attorney has recommended, as a condition of rezoning approval, that the unified control documents be submitted prior to filing a preliminary plat application. The remaining requirements referenced above will be met if this project is approved subject to the attached staff comments in Exhibit "C". Please note that Police Department Memorandum #92-036, Utilities Department Memorandum #92-087 and Recreation and Parks Memoranda #92-049 and #92-063 are comments that have to be addressed by the applicant as part of the platting process. Those comments within Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum #92-038 that will have to be addressed as part of platting are indicated as such. Based on the analysis and discussions contained within this report, this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Code of Ordinances (subject to staff comments). It is also compatible with current and future uses of surrounding properties and would not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Department recommends approval of the Cedar Grove PUD rezoning request, subject to the attached staff comments in Exhibit "c" and provided that the required LUI documentation is submitted and determined to be acceptable. p- J~l:e&~ TJH/jm Encls. NOTE: If the Planning and Zoning Board votes to recommend approval of this rezoning, findings shall include a statement that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A:CEDGROVE.DOC EXHIBIT "A" . LJCA 1\ON MA~. . CEDAR 'GRO\lE p\J ;r:5. ,I ~ I . .. I . I - i rcd /~ I . . C3 f ; . c: I . - . I Fi - , . . . , . I I I , ~! -"' .-' -- . ..' JJ , . EXHIBIT "B" Ii 1;. 1 ! = :. i i I. i ! il "l - I i ~ ~ l:l ~ Ii ii Ii !O J t 'Iflli! a.~.. 6 I- J ; ; i i ~! If If S t.gofil~ Ii ~ Ii ! Ii I II ... ! I I l .; !i~i - ; i i f go i I .'~i J!I I~; Ii' ~ Iii Iii ;Ii Iii i Iii III- 'Ii i i ~ - i I E I . I! I .-- ~fllC:::!!!:!l~~l':lUl~ "'0 '" lnlSlil ",,,~ ~ .. > > > 2 li ! ~ m > > 0 Po, w !;>!;>"j"~i'" >~ ~~!~I~~~ i~ JliBP j~i<~~~ ... - N - ~! : _ '" 1/1. ... - ~ -- /'F''4i '.f i:: I ( 'I r -- llCUH VIEW ~.C!__ II II ;s\. -'~ ~ , I · =,,1' nr ~I ;0 I , ~I, ~."U r~~: i (AEVISED SUBMITTAL. MASTER LAND USE PlAN A Pl..AN\lED RESIDENTIAL COM'4.NTY CEIflR C?1I'OI~ fUlMlIl 11 ~ lSl! .."~' ;.../ i I . ,/. dt'" . "'7 6A1 CEDAR GROVE PUD REZONING JULIANBRYAN & ASSOCIATES 4e733Se395 p.e2 CEDAR GROVE - LUl RATING os 3.7:S (City of Boynton Beach, Florida} 53.69 ACRES - 234 LIVING UNITS L~nd Use Intensity Rating (Based upon 234 units on 53_69 acres) LUI RATING of 3.75 is further based upon living units averaging a maximum of approximately 1750 squar4? fe~t each. The largest (square feet or Hving area) would he- Single Fa:rnUy Homes with Patio Homes the next largest and V1lla Hom€s the smallest, prepared by: JULIAN BRYAN 8. ASSOCIATES REC,EIVEI) tMftl& P\..ANNH'iG Oft;.pt~ - -q ADDITION TO EXHIBIT "F" ~- --~- To the City Commissioners To Mr. Scott Miller, City Manager To Mr. Chris Cutro, City Planner City of Boynton Beach, P.O. Box. 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 February, 1992 RE: "Seacrest Scrub" rezoning (environmentally sensitive land) vs. Cedar Grove PUD. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING! The higher density and the rnulti=tamily buildingS-are not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods! !! is not fair to the community to sandwich a 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-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~ild on it and who will maintain it? Should the sewer line be relocated to be easily accessible by the City? 4. There is gQ water retention area on the West side of the property. The rain flows from 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 no layout of the lots to illustrate how many residences can be built by the current zoning and by this rezoning. ".. / ~ I 7 36~:;{/)o2- 5.-3-9;. Na~~~. A"6/t'?~:reetj.l1.lr1k~O Ci,ty Zip Code Date & -P1115ne No. I. /' ~ ! cJ::20 I / l~ 10/1 i 38-<)4/ z.(j 2. 3-3-'Z. ~"f\'l t, .r~~',,,( 't~l:\,l"(f!f/'--~-" ., 36'-t-Cf270's-3-92- :3 .(\"\'1 ~-I:r:"\ E-\ ~\ \.A\"\\'....\ e 'J{) 3, S ~ w " ,')Ltt~:~JtlJ<2- f( () ; { y\+6 r\ 3 - 3 '-9 2- F:~~) \.... ~_s. ;"~'r.;J/r;-__fl,<r\. '---f!J:)~):'I~/)~---,/-----;j II 1? I /.7.:.75-010d- 4 . ;) (),' . er7' ,7 T (-//J 0/ f?...! if / if U I()cr:c . 110 :s -3 -92- /I " J .1/ ~ . _ . < h 73;?~?og>J t..O/)/J/<:? '" ft/c?/ /;~K.~~~ a~.!~o~I!*~/? . fil 0' :' (:l C'~ ~ ...... 4..l n.. c..... o 1Il QJ N C ::- QJ (lJ 0 \.I 1Il \.I L' . ~, .0 M 10-1 ::f-<CIl \.Il'll'1:l U.uQJ UlCU N ClJ 0\ .....E; 0\ UlCUl -< QJO::- \.I 1-, U.....~ >0 1ll:>'1:l \.I (lJ C C I1l UlClJI1l ':J ._.-4 \.I ~ ~l o ~, \.I ,...,0 QJ\.I -< C7>QJ)(M I1lCOO CCIIlI CIlIll lf1 ::E: -< . N ~O.". 1Il >0 . M \.I..... >O~ M QJ .... .u CU.... 'Ill o U.c'1:l .~... U-.-4 (1) t..J ... n;, \...l UlQJOQJO ..... -< \.I III -< e......... la. e .... ::f C O::E: U 0 ' U .L.c .....IIlCU >0..... .... >. III ..... 0 \.I 0 QJ .... U.c ro CD UUlU "-'C (lJ . 0 0 ..c\o-l..., ....... .....::E:::E: ;>,C ..... >0 o 0 0 ." 0 t-<t-<Eo<Um -. ~ ~ U rJ) ~ cr.J ~ ~ U < ~ rJ'l ~ == ~ ~ < 00 ~ -.... ~.o Z.,..l H..... ZIll o ...e eLl 0 P::U ~Igl Eo< ~I ~I.~: Q'O eLl.... Ul .... O::f ~.o ~ o .... .... e eLl I III P::.... 0<(1 .... ..... .... eLll::! ~ e ~I- III '01'8 co Ill..c \.I ~.8 .u..c .,..l lJ).... CQJ QJ C :~QJ :.01: .... 0 ..c\.l \.I ::f ~I~I 't;~C .,..l >C QJ ~ e:: 41 41 :- ..... 4i .0 ~I III I ..c U .... :- '0 C to III ~I ~ 1!1~ .....41 E ~Io .... '~I~ 111'0 ;I~ .~I....~c .....1.... ....1Il .r$ Z~~ O=-:~ ~~~ ~t--- ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~e ~~S~ O-<~= N ~Z ~~O~ ~~~i ~=u z;.. ~$~ <:i~ ~ ~I ~I ~I 41 ::f lJ) III .,..l ~I c o .... .... .... .,..l E al;;~QJ QJILl .cQJ .....1Il 41 ~ILl ~I~I :> 41 :> 0I1',..l :-..... ""1';;; CJ\C O\Gi ""1Il ..c~.... ......... NIIl ......... ..cl ~ UE ... C III 0 ELl .... :> CIC 041 1 I I 1 . I I I I , 1 I I I . I I I .. I Ul I E I ClJ I.... ..0 I 0 I '" 10. I 10> I C . .... I ): I 0 ,.... 1-< . 0 ..... I I QJ l..c ,..... '0"'" c: 0 III C ..... Q>IIlC \.I .... QJ .,..l E .........0. HO Gi .... ..c .QJ .....'0::- > QJ \.I-<'1:l om .... 41 ......c '1:lUl..... QJ ClJ '0"'>' QJU.o 41 ra CQJ'1:l UlQ> lJ) lJ) .... C ::f o <II '1:l'O.o :> Q> -< ..... .... CD Ill.... u.... .......... :- 1Il'1:l <II C . ....... ..... U Ul III III QJ .... '0 Ul C N e 41 oc LlllleLl .....-< tIl 41 uc..... C \.I .... III ::f \.I.....Q ..... 0 C ~ QJ 0 ZQJ Q> I ..c C ..... o . <II C ~I~ ~ ..c0:- ..... 0. 0 ..c ~11! : 0.....-< E ... III "'41 .0.... ......... u III QJ N 0 41 '0 .". ..... ('. Ll Ill' QJ UeMl/l:> III .... l/l \.I QJ QJ QJ (7\:> IV UUl \oCIl.QUQJ ...c:: III \.I M '1:l n. LnO....QJ .c::f:>0 <V:JOCll..... "r ..c:..c .... Ul l/l III ..... C U QJ CO..... ..... \.I QJOC-<Ill O(l)~ <IIue::fIV ..cIllIVo.> .&.J ~ ~ .rot ...(11..... C'1:l ::l.c.... OCtr.uUl III IV C '0 \.I .... QJ IV' .... Ul .u Ul ClJ.... l1lQJ>~>' .... >C \.I .... ::l 0 Q> ..... U.....UlOIll .... QJ 0 ..... to: ......., 0.. C U III a. (II IV IVe OJUl<ll.cC .0 .... .c .u 0 o Eo< 1-, '1:l..... c.... .......... .0> ::f 0 41 C 0..... e l/lQJ .c 041 lJ)Ll..c::Ll..... OJ UUl -..c...rao lIP 0..... e Ll'lOQJLn N o>..c . (II ..........c ~I: E ~ .; III 41 QJ.u.c ~~ ~ [; ~ QJIllQJI1IQJ .., \.I.....> .... III \.I QJ.....C(ll ... c..... III QJIQJ IV QJ ..c.c \.I E-<..... 1110. III 111 ..... Ll 111 . 1Il..c u..c NIll.....ra..... I ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >- ~ ~ -< ~ .... Z ~ 0 ~ ~ u 5 ;:;J p.., o 0 ~ Vl ~ :i! o Cl E;j S ~ 0 3 g ~ >- !l~ ~ 'Ed:O'3 u >,<1)..1:1 0 .~ _. = 8. ~ e ~ .- tl/)!:I 0.... ~ U o Cc"''''' en... ~'2 u Cl. u ~ u E 2 ~.~ e oS ~ u ~ e U D en~.:: o en'-.I:I C _ g.- > en ~ 0 .... -5 c._ ~ 0 ell U U....UO-5 l{I~iellUOen .- -5 U ~ ca .~ E .~ -g -5 en~ S :: ~.I:I ell ~ .- ~ S 2:: l{I.o ~ ~o~~-g5~u I*St;;oB-....sg ~'::I ~ .s u t) en.c o 0 ;;. .c ... ... ... ell ~ U U Cl. U .- S U VS .~ ~ fa -5 ~ ~ .- U 0 .!!l ~ II.) ~.I:I U ~ ~ .:::B~~B~~..2 III 1II 111 .... 'tl '1:l III o .u 1II '1:l QJ Gl c: C III .... 0. Gl ..... .... 1II QI ~ Eo< . ... '>ICIJ ..... ): 1-, IV IV Ul n. 0111 \.I.c a...... 11I'tl .c.... .....::f o ......-.c oU) (II ,.. ..... ., '0.... '0 .... c: ,.. e..... >0 Ill..... QI .... ..... ..ceu .......... III (II ce..c .... ..... .... .c .... >0 .... .r< .0 ::l :- o (II tIlO.... ..c.o '0 ):..... e III III 'tl III C 111 .cIllU ..... l! "'.... III 0..... Z >t c.... III o.,..l e III ::f 'tl III Ll~<II 1111';; IV c.o.o ..... .... 0 \.II~ ..... 111 0.'0 :l 0 111 111......... Ul IV III :> u ~~~ .... Q.I .... \.I U Q.I ..cQJ ......a <I QJ C C . "'..-4 MU.... ~ ~ s: -< en ClI . Gl . ..c::1Il..c::t7> E-<QJ....c: e .0-4 .0.-4'0 >...c:: .... c ..... .....:l Ll >O~ 0 41 .0 \.I o.\.I>OLl o to Ill:::l Lll1leUl o.c ....>0 1110......... .c.....0'tl .u C 'tl::ltO ~~'-' o III C 41..... 111 ..c 'tl'tlEo<..... .....:> .... Ill"" ...... IIlQJ::l ..... '0.0 1II.....0-4 111 III III >0 3 IV .... \.I.......... 111 U 1II C ..c1ll1ll11l .....QJeLlUl tIl 111 C QJLl oo..co. :I~:~ ...eo..... Ill::l .... 'tllll.o C QI III 0111 "'.e .......c '" ......... .... c e III QJ.....oe ..... 0......... (II .... C \.I 0. e III ~I:E~ Ill..c :-.....Ll\.l 111 IV ole.... t:7I e:: 0 III e \.I :J to 1111.... '0 .,..l 0 C lIleQJ ~I~ : 'g QI ..... III to ..c .c f-I .0 e >t::l ..... QJ \.I Ill..c U ........&-tlJl 'Gl lJl :> c..... 0..... o U 0 u.... III \.I IV ..... Ill.o \.I III .... >< ClJ 111.0 IV.u ..co ~c: ...... Ill..... ......... '" :l e .... l/l e.... '" III e 1!/'c; .....Ill .~e] ..... .u III 0 U 0'1:l .....e (II III \.I Ul e \t.41::f o III III o co. o ..... , .....1Il e IV 41 III 41 e..... :> 0.... ....IV 01\.1 Ul C 0 IV .....'" _ 0. 11)1'" .,..l QJ.... ..c.... ~I~! .c 'QJ f-IlIl..c IV..... >C . O. C It\ ..... ..... ~I~ ....'0 C ~llll .....C7> C ~I'C; ~~ 0..... C III QJ rl\.l .... Ol::f C U -gl~ III.... >t lII.o c 0..... ......... 1Il',..l C::::l 111.0 e 'r< QJ '0.0 C 01 III cu ~I~ tOe IV ~I~ IV 41 ..c... Eo< >0 e . to \oe ~ o ..c 410> .... C Ill..... ....e:: .u0 III N ::l IV ....\.1 .... .... III .... o..c ..... ..... D VI -.J- I :--... .?: /'.. " \ J r' \ ~ , I' N M .... ..... QJ QJ .... ..... tIl .... = -. ~ U en = ----- " <- ;; ;;. \ Q,I 6 'I' ~ '" " 2 .. S _ ~ 0- ~,t!~ ~ S ~ ,i \' 'j ,f , .. I. t. .. .. (~ , '" 1 ;.0 .. '. (~ ~ ,~ '" ," .. ~ ~ Ii> ~ i Q, '! ,. '!< Y' J ,. n .. ." " ," .. ": ~ ". ). "'. ~ ,;, a <J ~ .~ ~; '; ,. \ - --- '" '" '" IJ' ~ \;'. ... V) l1 ... $ !. ; 1 ~ 0 Ie t/l ~ <- l1 ~ ". ? '" jV, (() ~ jV, ~ t/l - -- ,....0, ~~-:.~~;;T ',': -- t, i , ) o ..";c l..~ .'4 ': \ ~ I . ol LLL1::t:.LLl V ...' '. , 100 R!W Ul I I I I OlD HGHWAY 80 RIW \ =.. ~ ~ ",...-0 -\ --\ r.'~ \ ,,-,=- ._\------\ u"..t, . ~ -.. \. IlU..-.c;. c..." ""'0 prop.,.,.v.".I'I.I. ",_r"ec ,...IOUIC" \.1\ N Do: V .. _on ....... \ ~". .......... r."."". IlJ\.I~" .",,~" . ~$oG'r.t&$ IlIl'l~tO SUU""ll"ll MASH:R LAND USE. PLAN A PLANNED flESlOel1\AL CO\lflll\\.lN\I'/ C\.\.lf\" on< 1'0/10 l i c. i~~ . . . \ . .. . ",' \ ; ". \ ;:\ .' A('1'fl'&,nta 1'\t AC.\~ f\ t .1\\\'" ,,' I ~.. ., 'V )10 r- I: llI:J "' )10 (') ::t."f 'V- ON (I)' ~~ I l I ~i~ ~il~ ~ ....~Q ..0 - ~~s3 i'e.~ Q fSil-g.!!.a CI i!Z-% ~ t:z: ~ a. ii .. l.$ ~ CI' . ...c>...-a~ n "'w...~;n ... ~~ g~..-::= a. g ~ ~~ % \ 6'-~~" ':S s.~ 'g 'O~,.. i ~"'6' ~'t ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; 5' S' ;%.a a ;j"" cru ~~.~ (1.'g ~ ill \l ; ~1 ~- t1 i t>S; .. ~ C ~.l:l"'" 'iiw ... ~n~ tI ;;.~~ ~~ ~ ft.;l' " .. e ' 5LG'~ ~~ , I.' 'C\:!A~\" \ ~\.,.~;. {1'~ ~'~'.?r!:i .:'~~r.1 ......... ~- , .1''''''''. ~ .;\ ":J~: r ~~:fi ~ '?\:;::w ;t~ ~ .~,....... ~. \i~ .. Rl i"'~' \" ~o'--'~ ;'%\~! ",=,"~1\- ~ .0(.1 \/I Qo".r"~."t;_l proe...1 ~ To the city Commissioners To Mr. Scott Miller, City Manager To Mr. Chris Cutro, City Planner City of Boynton Beach, P.O. Box, 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 February, 1992 RE: "Seacrest Scrub" rezoning (environmentally sensitive land) vs. Cedar Grove PUD. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING! The higher density and the ffiUlti=Iamily buildingS-are not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods! ~ is not fair to the community to sandwich a 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-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--SUild on it and who will maintain it? Should the sewer line be relocated to be easily accessible by the City? 4. There is ~ water retention ~ on the West side of the property. The rain flows from 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 no layout of the lots to illustrate how many residences can be built by the current zoning and by this rezoning. Name Street City Zip Code Date & Phone No. 1. t.1~~ 3:1.1~ U'.p'I/p;' eN"'- &~niP.' &t;d, Fl- 3Jy 75 3/yP- 30-J"M c. - - C/. ~ {3'?N(4<V I3c,-/ 2 .~~ r:O----~ 3 4.'t Cf'/4f'~'f.. HILL ~v'J '3 ~ y 30)- ;;t/1L '3 bJ- .,Tf:? 3~~~'lIT~ 3;;l)" (\\!'O'f.\l \~Qj\\\Pp,"bC:!J=)1~.:h~3S , 4 . "3 6/""7~68 To the City COlOmi3s1oners To Mr. Scott Miller, City Manager To Mr. Chris Cutro, City Planner City of Boyntor. ~p.3ch, P.;, ~~~ ;:0 Boynton Beach, ?~o'7ida 3::':::':-.:2::'0 :<::Druary, 1992 RE: wSeacrest ScrubW rezoning (environmentally sensitive land) vs. Cedar Grove PUD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING! The higher density and the multi=IamilY buildingS-are not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods! It is ~ f!i! to the community to sandwich a PUD between long existing STngIe family developments. On March 12th, 1991 we voted for the $100 million bond issue. We ~ ~ environmentally sensitIve land-pFeservear- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ~ water retention ~ on the West side of the property. The rain flows from 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 aftd endanger the animal habitat presently built in a dry surrounding. 5. There is no mention of relocating the animals. The extra raccoons, fpxes, gopher tortoises, possums and other animals will not be able to live in the small preserve. 6. There are no dimensions and ~ layout of lh! lots to illustrate how many residences can be built by the current zoning and by this rezoning. ame ~ Street cJ:. -',!-"" 'i . ., h' -/, '-' C' ( '. \ ,O:1':,..e.... ~ Co. City Zip Code Date & Phone No. ~/3..A, ~ Hn~~.. '~} J'3'7.1./-: 7::5'.'/ -c.~. J ;i~~~Cv21 L. '7 ... L. ~, 3. 4. To the city Commissioners To Mr. Scott Miller, City Manager To Mr. Chris Cutro, City Planner City of Boynton Beach, P.O. Box, 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 February, 1992 RE: "Seacrest Scrub" rezoning (environmentally sensitive land) vs. Cedar Grove PUD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING! The higher density and the multi=Iamily buildingS-are not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods! !! is not fair to the community to sandwich a PUD between long existing single family developments. ~ March 12th, 1991 we voted for the $100 million bond issue. We ~ 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--SUild on it and who will maintain it? Should the sewer line be relocated to be easily accessible by the City? 4. There is ~ water retention area on the West side of the property. The rain flows from 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 Zip Code Date & 2. c;~ ':/ 3. 4. To the city Commissioners To Mr. scott Miller, City Manager To Mr. Chris Cutro, City Planner City of Boynton Beach, P.O. Box, 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 February, 1992 RE: "Seacrest Scrub" rezoning (environmentally sensitive land) vs. Cedar Grove PUD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING! The higher density and the multi=Iamily buildingS-are not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods! It is not fair to the community to sandwich a PUD between long existing STngIe family developments. On March 12th, 1991 we voted for the $100 million bond issue. We want 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 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 1. ~~/" c:7, Street City Zip Code Date & Phone No. ~~, /- ,/ t. -./' ';;7 v , I..., ~, 4. t I 6A1 CEDAR GROVE PUD REZONING PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM #92-025 TO: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board ~~ THRU: Christopher Cutro Planning and Zoning Director FROM: Tambr i J. Heyden -7ru J Senior Planner '~ DATE: February 6, 1992 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove - Rezoning File No. 654 Please be advised that the applicant for the above-referenced request submitted revised master plan drawings on January 16, 1992 for review by the Technical Review Board on January 28, 1992. At the Technical Review Board meeting, staff concluded that the plans submitted could not proceed to the Planning and Zoning Board due to several unresolved issues. Briefly, these issues included lack of surveys, revised traffic study, typical lot layout, and unified control documents; and improper alignment of the project access road and an unacceptable proposal for meeting parks and recreation levels of service. It was determined that these issues were critical and needed to be addressed by the applicant resubmitting revised plans which were received on February 3, 1992 for the February 13, 1992 Technical Review Board meeting. Due to the delayed forwarding of this item to the Planning and Zoning Board, the applicant is requesting that the Planning and Zoning Board hold a special meeting prior to the regular Planning and Zoning Board meeting on March 10, 1992, to take action on this request, so that the request may be forwarded to the City Commission for their March 3, 1992 meeting. If the Planning and Zoning Board wishes to hold a special meeting, an announcement must be made that the public hearing for this item will be continued to the date and time of the special meeting. If the Planning and Zoning Board decides not to hold a special meeting, an announcement must be made that the public hearing for this item will be continued to the March 10, 1992 meeting at 7:00 p.m. TJH/jm A: CEDARGR.JM 6A2 CEDAR GROVE PUD REZONING PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM #92-003 TO: Chairman and Members planning and Zoning Board ~~~ THRU: Christopher Cutro, A.I.C.P. Planning and zoning Department FROM: Tambri J. Heyden senior Planner DATE: January 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove - Rezoning File No. 654 Please be advised that the revised master plan for the above-referenced project was not submitted on December 17, 1991 as was originally stated by the applicant in his December 5, 1991 letter requesting postponement to the January 14, 1992 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. In conversations with the applicant, it was indicated that there have been delays in obtaining the necessary information relating to their environmental assessment. However, the applicant offered to pay for the cost of renotifying property owners within 400 feet of the subject property, although not required. As a result, the public hearing must be continued to the February 11, 1992 meeting and an announcement made to that effect. " , ~fi . ~~.' ~. Tambri J. Hlden tjh A:CedarGr D~ 7A14 CEDAR GROVE PUD REZONING ~ Julian Bryan & Associates December 5" 1991 Mr. Christopher Cutro Director of Planning City of Boynton Beach P. O. Box 310 Boynton Beach" Florida 33425 Re: Cedar Grove Investments, Proposed pun Rezoning (Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Board) Dear Mr. Cutro: In response to our various conversations on the above referenced matter, I here'with request that this item be carried for'W'ard to the January 1992, Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. In this regard my check for $25 is enclosed. As you are a'W'are, 'W'e are gathering additional detailed information relating to our Environmental Assessment. That 'W'ork should be completed early next 'W'eek at 'Which time appropriate revisions 'Will be made to the Master Plan Documents. The entire package 'Will be resubmitted on December 17, as requested by Tambri Heyden in order to made the January 1992, Public Hearing. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. F~CEIVED cc: Cedar Grove Investments Michael Rubin Carnahan & Associates OEe 6 PLAf'-!NIl'iG DEPT. - ~ Land Development Consultants · 3191 Leewood Terrace · L 136 · Boca Raton. Florida 33431 . (407) 338-0395 !\ Is I ~~i HI Ui i!l im~ J;\.... dg pI!' ~I~ ~h Iii iiI !h Iii ~~i ~I~ ~~ .. ~.... tI .. ~ I i ~ ! & ~ .. ~ i 1:= ! ~.. yo ! \! \ .,-~ ~ => !!l 0- o :::l II> E. Iii => in '9' fg. Ul~ :: ~ "TI. l'J_ .. f\) Ut en $2U1Utgm>~~~~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ 2 P ~ ~ W ~~ ~ l" ~ 2 ~ l ~ ~ f) ~ es ~!!l:l!~~ :21> ~ ~ ~ i 0 m ~ m ~ill!lljc~i >i~~i~ffi ~>~m~~' <D;~~!ll~ ~ ill ill ... > " ~"~~?i ~ i ~ ~ Ui ~ .. - ~ ~ t i! " 5. !II ;z ~ ~. !!? Ul ~ >- i . lE _ -i : i ii ~ ~ l>> ~l 1 ~ ! CD ~~ - .. '" III ~ .. ~ ~ .1 i~ CD - lE Il ~l '!il1i ~ III _ .c <<en ~ tl .. · · i 0 : ll" 11! I!l Ci - 6 .: en ~a S s s i;~~g i 't ! ~ S~!& ii i 0 _ ! i i Il i I e ~ ll~ ! ;; !. ~ - g .. ii' .. 8 ; ! ~ f go 9. I [ ~f4: .1 t (I ( I r ,j OCIAH YEW J4!:IlIW c.,~ \c'~1- I , i ~t ~! l~1 ~Io ,0 I j .hI. pl_nlng rezoning. p....perey _.ly.l. tn........ f...lbIlICY lANDEVCO u.....n d..lgn .IUUAN 1IRYlUI. ASSOCI<<l'U (REYlSED SUllUlTT....L) MASTER LAND USE PLAN A PLANNED RES[)ENTIAL cQMMUNITY CEDAR (lF1OVE ...~ n~~ HI ~ l ~ , 11 III ':I ~ , --~------_.._-----~-- ~PCd " ~ ..-J - =----=- ~~ ..-J ' ~ ~ /'/, C3.: -- ;;/ ....... -: 1'1 1 Il t-- Co............. -.', ~ /?J); , ...r- ff....;T1' r--- f--l !---:": l \ ~:=I-- i r~ Ij ~ ~ - If{ ''1; I -1 \\ T '. :':1.&0-"\ '. '" I --r .:[~ 1. ,- '~r ~ .~ -, .1 '~ 'I . ..,.. \ LOCATiON-MAP"'-~~--~.~'~""- ,~ -.- . ---- . CEDAR 'GROVE III 1M II ~ .Y J ,Jilt ~ I \illi L/ IT {H, IiiC~ \ J lJL ~. J pu"'j ii c~~ !, ::In ,iLU- 1'i1 ~ : I . I ~L ;R1~:~ ~I i~ -L\..~ . , - Ic:I} I~ J1 I? mm ~ Ubi:r-.: '- 1~ IlT-'" 'I ! . . .,~ t == __ f .....r:-r:; ~r .I~ ,,'{/ :1:- . r.. -.. IlL 11i)~CI/, rf'W"' -,-.' -~---I "~..4'r-r-, : - - l'.--J I' 9~TII: ~e ,Ii 1\ 1 '~. ~ · Uf," ;'"1~'; ~~=-= t-~ 1 r (='IF' I 51' !....~ . -.... 3 R EC , , I 1;/ :p_R .' TI iiE;t::~)~~~) ,~. A II :c___ - ~ ! ----~. .- -!jI:. :' . r J; ~',./-...J f-R - ~f .r- f1Ir -TI .. ~ L ~ LL.. -- 'vi '/ Tr ~. ~r I ..~ . l;Ill II PlT~L "'" '/ I ~ ~~ [J"t'- ( I ........' ~' 1;)., " I II ~~ ~W 1-'-' :i. N PU", ,.~'1'-A'J If'" 1fT! R I HH ~, +~.1ti=1~ .~~ ~ REC r[ rf ~.. ~R' rfJ-' I~ I" D~!~ rJIJ'l r;;UDJ . 1 "'II} 'A .~.':- -' .rIJ i// ~ ' L ?-/I ,~~ 6 ;- " lI~oJ&, ~~:' ~Wl~ fi ~ =: ~,~ ill ,.. ~ .1 ""Tl ~ :,/ Ii;; 'IL ~ - .. 'II Fa :' '//// ~r:: ~ ~J ~ - ~ '!///J. \J ~ ~ n 'ill f I JI T , '1//11 , I-. t1" , t:: I , I I I ~ I E C -'- ..L I \ \I I I I L- j.--, H ~rr j~- ~ .J , '~ ,-1- - '-I-- I-- lti Ii Crry M,H -1 ~ & i 11\\1" U - - , \ I .L t- 1 \ , I I I I I-- l-i- ...... c ~ C~ -- -- ,... '-i=R :'1 1 F] :, - 1=;3 ~! ~~ -: ~ ~ ~ C:II I) ; -. . l/ rr NaT. : __I C:~": O. 1t MIL~SP ~ . "~J,.111 HO,8kN~i~T '::.:; ~ 1-:11 17 - -1 I ~~ I r\ --"1, I