LEGAL APPROVAL
. C~ (j-. ~JkJ0 f;xJ
r:d tpc~O . j
~ ~ ~\ co-tZS
Oct- .000 08:S2a. 00-383037
OhD 12058 Pg 1 646
1..11111111..1111. nllllllllllllll.
EASEMENT
THIS INDENTURE made this ~ day of ~ugu,,j- , 2000, by
CONDOR INVESTMENTS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, INC., a corporation
existing under the laws of FLORIDA, and having its principal place of business
at 430 NORTH G. STREET, LAKE WORTH, FL 33460, first party, to the City of
Boynton Beach, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, second party:
(Wherever used herein, the terms, "first party" and "second
party" shall include singular and plural, heirs, legal
representatives and assigns of individuals and the successors
of assigns of corporations, wherever the context so admits or
requires.)
Whereas, the first party is the owner of property situate in Palm Beach County,
Florida, and described as follows:
PCN 08434509240000010 to 1100
08 43 45 09 24 001 0000
08 43 45 09 24 002 0000
08 43 45 09 24 004 0000
Legal Description:
See attached Exhibit "A"
And,
WHEREAS, the second party desires an easement for water utilities and/or other
appropriate purposes incidental thereto, on, over and across said property,
and,
WHEREAS, the first party is willing to grant such an easement,
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants each to
the other running and one dollar and other good and valuable considerations, the
first party does hereby grant unto the party of the second part, its successors and
assigns, full and free right and authority to construct, maintain, repair, install and
rebuild facilities for above stated purposes and does hereby grant a perpetual
easement on, over and acro~: !~-e ~~~\!e ~e~cr!~e~ ~!'Op9rt}' for.said ~!..!!'~o~e~
-'
o
()
-1
f'-'
- -:; ._;
---,-<'
~-
-'-...\. }
-, . -.~<
-
..
'..--,..,
:~r-~
c:::> C? >
r,_~. ; "0
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ORB 1 2058 Pg 1 648
A DESCRIPTION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT BEING 15 FEET IN WIDTH AND LYING
WITHIN A PORTION OF THE PLAT OF CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES. A P.U.D., AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 80. PAGES 28 THROUGH 32. PUBLIC RECORDS OF
PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA: SAID EASEMENT 8EING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PLAT OF CEDAR RIDGE
ESTATES: THENCE SOUTH 88041'51" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
PLAT. A DISTANCE OF 572.78 FEET: THENCE NORTH 01018'09" WEST
DEPARTING SAID PLAT LINE, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING: THENCE SOUTH 88041'51" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF A
PLATTED 20 FOOT ACCESS, UTILITY. DRAINAGE AND SIDEWALK EASEMENT, A
DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET: THENCE NORTH 01018'09" WEST. A DISTANCE OF
6.47 FEET: THENCE NORTH 06011'51" EAST. A DISTANCE OF 28.16 FEET TO A
POINT ALONG THE SOUTHERL Y LINE OF AN EXISTING 10 FOOT UTILITY
EASEMENT, SAID POINT BEING ON THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHWEST, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08013'18". A RADIUS OF 115.00
FEET. AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS NORTH 71040'17" EAST; THENCE
NORTHEASTERL Y ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE AND SAID SOUTHERL Y
EASEMENT LINE. A DISTANCE OF 16.50 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 06011'51" WEST,
A DISTANCE OF 34.02 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 01018'09" EAST, A DISTANCE OF
5.49 FEET TO THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT OF BEGINNING.
SURVEYOR1S NOTES
I. NO SEARCH OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS WAS PERFORMED BY THIS OFFICE TO
DETERMINE ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND/OR RESERVATIONS
OF RECORD.
2. BEARINGS AS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
PLAT OF CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES. A P.U.D., (PLAT BOOK 80. PAGES 28 THROUGH
32). HAVING A PLATTED BEARING OF SOUTH 88041'51" WEST. ALL OTHER
BEARINGS ARE RELA TIVE THERETO.
P.O.B.
P.O.C.
U.E.
P.B.
R/W
D.E.
DENOTES POINT OF BEGINNING
DENOTES POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
DENOTES UTILITY EASEMENT
DENOTES PLA T BOOK
DENOTES RIGHT-OF-WAY
DENOTES DRAINAGE EASEMENT
UNLESS THIS DOCUMENT BEARS THE SIGNATURE
AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A LICENSED
SURVEYOR AND, MAPPER" ~Mfp O.f3AWING, SKETCH
PLAT OR MAP IS FOR !NtOR~AflQ~(\L .~<URP~SES
ONLY AND IS NOT VALID. .'< . f.:'. . . '.>
. 8/22/2000.; -. :,;":~ :..("~ so.
DATE. ::.' ....
.., '.... . ~ '_. "I"
CRAIG S. P\J5EV. .-:-, c-< > :
PROFESSI~At. 'SOR-V~YO'J;l AN[)"
FLORIOA CE~TiEICA-tt NO: 5.0t9
. . ..' . , . , . ~ ' '.iff
LEGEND
Landmar1< Surveying & MappIng Inc.
1850 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD, SUITE 100
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406
PHONE: (561) 433-5405
LB 14396
rlELD: NI A DRAWN: TRASK SCAlE: N.T.S.
SKETCH OF
PROPOSED ISI UTILITY EASEMENT
CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES
A P.U.D.
BOOK:
PAGE:
N/A
N/A
DATE: AUG. 2000 PRO.I. ALE 2405
CHECKED: PUSEY
CAOOrI.E 2405EASE SHEET NO. I OF 2
JOB NO. 98.. L .. 2405
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
PROJECT NAME: Cedar Ridoe
TRACT/SUBDIVISION:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
PERSON RETRIEVING COMMENTS AND/OR PLANS:
Signature
Print Name
DATE PICKED UP:
I Plans - Comments
DESCRIPTION:
Site plan for 110 sinale familv townhouses
REVIEWER'S NAME:
I Il'!r::l
PERMIT NO: 97-4573
DATE: 9/30/97
RECEIVED: 9/25/97
STARTED REVIEW: 9/30/97
RETURNED: 9/25/97
REVIEW (place asterisk):
* 2 3 4 REVISION
APPROVED: No
ZONING DISTRICT: (place asterisk)
COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL * /INDUSTRIAL
MMSP I SPVW I PERMIT*
I FILE NO.:
I FEE:
The permit number identified above is the referenced number for your proposed improvement(s). Prior to
further processing on your request, the documents that you submitted illustrating the improvement(s) shall
be amended to show compliance with the below listed comment(s). To discuss the comment(s) it is
re~ommended that an appointment be set-up with the reviewer identified in the upper right hand corner,
(561) 375-6260 between 8 A.M. and 5 P.M., Monday thru Friday. Please reference the project name and
permit number when corresponding with City's Staff. After amending the plan(s) to show compliance with
the comment(s), return both sets of plans for re-review to the Building Department. Please note that
additional comments may be generated as a result of reviewing the amended plans. All comments shall be
rectified prior to staff review approving the documents.
1. Prior to Planing and Zoning sign off for permit all P&Z comments in Development Order must be
addressed. (see enclosed)
2. Indicate type of mulch other than cypress.
* Departments required to review the project:
all TRC members
REV: 10/01/97
\\CH\MAIN\SHRDA TA\PLANNING\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\PERMITS\PERMIT\97.4573.DOC
Page 1
of 1
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
dC!.:- ~c r ~,
p~
D ~ @ rn n w li,~\
, ill ~
,rr'(" ' ~ tl ~
fit7t~rm;;?a~f--=-_J
\
APPLICANT: CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES PUD
APPLICANTS AGENT: Paramount Enaineerina Group. Inc.. aaent for Condor Investment
the propertv owner
DATE OF HEARING BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: June 18. 1996
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Reauestina site plan approval to construct 110 sinale-family
townhouses and a private recreation facility on 18.88 acres within the Cedar Ridae Estates
PUD.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Southeast comer of Hiah Ridae Road and Cedar Ridae Road
(Parcel C and Parcel D of the Cedar Ridae Estates PUD)
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT '6-" ATTACHED HERETO.
THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of
Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having
considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant,
members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows:
1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner
consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
2. The Applicant
LHAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative
staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as
set forth on Exhibit "~" with the notation "Included".
4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
X GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3
hereof.
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this order.
Other:?' NONe
DATED: June 18. 1996
~~;;;A'/9K~/.~/ _
C:devord.1Im
rev. 1 12419ll
CecI.rRidge. PUD-6I1719fS
I
.,\
\
'I
--~
--
.--
....,'
.....:.,.... .
-
-
-
--
--.;::.-
-' --:::-...--
. ,
.
..
t
-~
---
1.
a
.
'"
l~
~~\
1\\t~
;lie "
~t ~
" ~ ~\. ~
"'~ ~ .
Q,~. ...
~~:;
C.~lo
f, .
,.: .
c. .
~~~
';I'"
~~
Q,
1.~
y\ ---
\ll.~
'It.,
\~U \ ~
"'t. ..
;'11~~
~""c.
.'i" __
~ t...
\,;
\
.
l
~
~
.
~
'::
\
--
\.
~
.
-----
'f.
.
~
Ie
, :nH;;I
\'~tnC':i!l i
..- 8 \\\\\\\ \ ~\\!\t\ i;
." ,!~! lfl li\\ \, \" \~
. !\\Hi'\i~i\" ....~ \ ; 1 t\
'+=t\'\\~ l'\i\~lih~ \ nh Q ;
-\I'\\m.\ ;e\"\ u .!\~ ~~ g ",
\', 1111, '\1\ '\'1\ \\ . .. ii'"
~\\\~.\-ll:\ \,~:: \! '\ '," ," ~ \\i\\ ~\\ ~
\; lli i ~l\~" '\ i~~i\: ~~.;~ ~\\ ~
· ,':: ',: iv, ." :
\ ~'it '" . t~::.;; ~~~ ~
\ ~ !. iu li~j~ ' ;
\ ~: \~~~ 1 ~",' ~
l e ~..
t ~ :.~~__---
-
--
r~u
~\,
t~.-
--\-
. ~\
\~!:Jt
---
--
---
-
----
-------~-
-------
..-------
------
- II
- .
"J? ...2.
...
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Cedar Ridge Townhomes - Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File number: NWSP 96-002
Reference:The plans consist of 34 sheets identified as 2nd Review.
New Site Plan. File # NWSP 96-002 with a May 10. 1996 Planning and
Zoning De~artment date stam~ marking
.
I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: NONE
UTILITIES:
Comments:
1- City water will not be supplied for x
irrigation. Please clearly show water
source for irrigation, (City Compo
Plan, Policy 3C.3.4).
2. Only Palm trees will be permitted x.
within utility easements, (Sec.26.
33(a)}.
3. Sanitary sewer, as shown, does not x
connect to the existing sewer system.
4. Show existing and proposed utility x
easements (Sec.26.33(a}).
5. Palm Beach Health Department permits x
will be required for water and
sanitary sewer (Sec.26.12).
6. A Capacity Reservation Fee of x
$15,246.00 is due within thirty (30)
days of Commission approval or upon
request for Director of Utilities
signature on HRS/DEP forms (Sec.20-34
(E)).
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
ENGINEERING
Comments:
7. All plans submitted for specific x
permits shall meet the City's code
requirements at time of application.
These permits include, but are not
limited to the following; site
lighting, paving, drainage, curbing,
landscaping, irrigation and traffic
control devices. Permits required
from agencies such as the FDOT, PBC,
SFWMD and any other permitting agency
shall be included with your permit
request.
8 . Revise documents to reflect all x
comments.
9 . Project shall have underground x
facilities to residential units.
Chap.2.5,Sec.9E,pg.2.5-7
10. Provide relationship of development to x
proposed LUI rating.
Chan.2.5.Sec.10A3,pq.2.5-8
Page 2
New Site Plan
Cedar Ridge Townhomes - Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
NWSP 96-002
I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I
I!. Provide a statement that all utilities x
are available and will be provided by
appropriate agencies. Chap.3,Art.IV,
Sec.3R, pg.3-5
12. Provide a master stormwater management x
plan. Chap.3,Art.IV,Sec.3T,pg.3-6
13. Plat review and approval required. x
Chap.5,Art.II,Sec.1,pg.5-1
14. Establish deed restrictions providing x
for a property owners' association to
pay for the operation of a street
light system within the development.
Chap.6,Art.III,Sec.14,pg.6-4 and
Chap.5,Art.V,Sec.2A4,pq.5-9
15. Sidewalks are required on both sides x
of all local and collector street.
Chap.6,Art.III,Sec.11A,pg.6-3
16. Provide certification by developer's x
engineer that drainage plan complies
with all City codes & standards.
Chap.6,Art.IV,Sec.5A,pg.6-7 and
Chap.23,Art.IIF, pg.23-8
17. Parking lot section must conform to x
City code including, but not limited
to, parking spaces for each townhome.
Chap.6,Art.IV,Sec.10F,pg.6-12
18. Minimum street right-of-way width for x
a local street with 2 mountable curbs
is 50 feet; with swales minimum right-
of-way width is 60' . Chap.6,Art.IV,
Sec.10C,pg.6-11
19. Need SFWMD & LWDD acceptance prior to x
Engineering Division approval. Chap.6,
Art.VII, Sec.4B,pg.6-24
20. Photometries must be approved for both x
pedestrian and parking lot lighting
before building permit can be issued.
Chap.23,Art.II,A1a,pq.23-6
2I. Provide a satisfactory lighting plan. x
Chap.23,Art.IIA,pg.23-6
22. Parking lot dimensions, striping, x
aisles, stalls, radii, signs,
landscaping, etc. must conform with
City codes and standards. Chap.23,Art.
II,pg.23-6
23. Landscaped areas in parking lots must x
be protected by wheel stops or curbs.
Chap.23,Art.IIE,pq.23-7
24. It is recommended to locate the. x
meeting hall as close as possible to
related parking facility and east of
proposed pool.
25. It is recommended to extend pedestrian x
walkways for lefthand entrances out to
point accessible to driver.
Page 3
New Site Plan
Cedar Ridge Townhomes - Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
NWSP 96-002
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
26. It is recommended that if Forest Road x
(now a public road) becomes a private
road, a consent from Cedar Ridge PUD
to the north, including maintenance
responsibilities, shall be granted.
27. It is recommended that for a safe x
pedestrian circulation and access to
recreation area, consider a sidewalk
or jogging path at the following
locations:
a) . Behind building's 3 & 4
b) . North-south path between building
9,10,11 & 12,13,14
c) . East-west paths between buildings
9 & 10 & 10 &11
28. It is recommended that the two car x
garage parking spaces should be 20'
wide.
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments:
29. All signs and entry walls or fences x
must be shown on the site plan in
compliance with the code.
30. Parking at the clubhouse or recreation x
building shall comply with Chapter 2,
Section 22, E (12) of the Land
Development Regulations.
31- The Building Division reviewed the x
plans for site review issues only.
Building review and comments will be
handled at the time of permit
application submittal.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments:
32. It is recommended that the x
preservation area site be moved from
south of the entrance road (Cedar
Ridge Road) to the southwest corner of
the property. This should be
indicated on the engineering and
landscape drawinqs submitted.
33. If the preservation area site is x
moved, then remove all improvements
and utility easements from the newly
located preservation area. The
preserve area shall also have a
management plan for before, during and
after construction.
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
Page 4
New Site Plan
Cedar Ridge Townhomes - Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
NWSP 96-002
DEPARTMENTS
INCLUDE
34. Submission of a rectified master plan x
showing compliance with the conditions
of approval for the project will be
required prior to applying for a
permit or replatting; whichever comes
first. The rectified master plan
shall be submitted in triplicate to
the Planning and Zoning Department.
35. One of the conditions of the master x
plan approval is to submit a plat to
the Development Department of the area
to be developed. This plat shall
vacate any existing streets within the
PUD that are desired for private
ownership.
36. The submitted boundary survey does not x
meet the requirements of Land
Development Regulations, Chapter 4 -
Site Plan, Section 7.A. The survey
shall include, but not be limited to,
all easements that exist on the site.
The submitted survey contains a
surveyor note that the property was
not researched for the easements and
other restrictions. Provide a current
survey (within 6 months) showing all
easements and other restrictions. The
survey that includes locations of
existing trees on the site, Sheet 25
of 34, is dated January 19, 1995,
which does not meet city requirements.
37. To comply with the Land Development x
Regulations, Chapter 4 - Site Plan,
Section 7.E, provide percentage
distributions for the site data. Also
break up the category, "paved areas",
into vehicular use area (parking and
driveways) and other paved areas
(sidewalks, etc).
38. On the site plan, sheet 2 of 34, draw x
in all setbacks as shown on the
approved master plan.
39. Indicate on the site plan the method x
of trash pick-up.
40. If colored elevations of the proposed x
structures as required by Land
Development Regulations, Chapter 4 -
Site Plan, Section D, are not
submitted to the Planning and Zoning
Department prior to the Planning and
Development Board meeting, it is
recommended that the elevations go
back before the Commission, at a
future site plan approval.
41. On the site plan, Sheet 2 of 34, x
include the 27 foot dimension required
for the back-up space of the parking
spaces servina the recreational area.
REJECT
Page 5
New Site Plan
Cedar Ridge Townhomes - Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
NWSP 96-002
I DEPARTMENTS
I INCLUDE I REJECT I
42. Amend the homeowners' association x
document to include a provision
regarding unobstructed access to the
"T" turn-around at the western portion
of the development. Indicate a method
to ensure enforcement of constant
access to the liT" turn-around.
Provide amended homeowners'
association document for staff review.
43. Provide parking calculations for the x
recreational facilities and include
information regarding:
a) square footage of the water area
of the swimming pool and
b) number of dwelling units located
within a five hundred to eight
hundred foot radius.
Include the calculation on the site
plan.
44. A drainage permit issued by South x
Florida Drainage Management District
designates Veronica Lake as a dry-
retention area. Amend drawings to
comply with the district requirements.
If the retention is to be entirely
wet, provide an alternate location for
the required dry retention, and verify
approval from the South Florida Water
Management District.
45. Provide for review an agreement x
between the developer and the Lake
Worth Christian School regarding the
use by the school of the retention
area located within the PUD. Provide
a statement by the registered engineer
that the drainage capacity is
sufficient to include the school area,
the PUD and the PID areas.
46. Provide for review an agreement x
between the developer and the Lake
Worth Christian School regarding
access by the school through the Cedar
Ridge Estates development.
47. Eliminate discrepancies between the x
Landscape Plan, Sheet 26 of 34, and
the site plan, sheet 2 of 34. Major
differences appear to exist
specifically in the common/recreation
areas.
48. On the landscape plan, Sheet 26 of 34, x
draw in all utility easements. Remove
all trees from these easements or
provide an authorization from the
owner of the easement to allow
olantina in these areas.
Page 6
New Site Plan
Cedar Ridge Townhomes - Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
NWSP 96-002
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE RE.JI$(,;'l'
49. City's Land Development Regulations, x
Chapter 7.5 - Landscape Code, Article
II, Section 5.C sets forth minimum
standards for planting materials, such
as physical characteristics of the
trees and shrubs, height, spread, and
spacing. Amend the landscape
tabulations and include these
characteristics in the planting
material specification for every item
that is proposed.
50. For all sub-area drawings provide a x
key map to allow identification Qf
these sub-areas in relation to the
entire site. Include same on the
landscape plan, Sheet 26 of 34.
51. On the landscape plan, Sheet 26 of 34, x
amend the planting material tabular
summary to include a "landscape
material required by the code"
category. Also, provide relevant
calculations for this category.
Indicate with an identifiable symbol
all native species.
52. It is recommended that there be x
different color schemes for the unit
clusters. On the site plan, Sheet 2
of 34, delineate housing clusters that
would have the same color designation,
and incorporated this into the working
drawings required for permits for the
project.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
1. Delete Comment 24. x
2. Delete Comment 27. x
3. Reword Comment 28 to require 20 foot x
wide driveways and 18' wide interior
garage dimensions for parking located
inside the qaraqe.
OTHER COMMENTS: NONE
TJH/dim
a:ComDept.CED
MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 18, 1996
B. PROJECT: Quantum Park PID
Applicant requests continuance to July 2, 1996
AGENT: James J. Willard
OWNER: QL::mtum Associates
LOCATION: 'N8st side of the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and High
Ridge Road
DESCRIPTION: USE APPROVAL: Request to amend the list of permitted
uses for the Quantum Corporate Park PIO to allow used car
sales on industrially designated lots within the PIO
Consensus
There was a consensus of tre Commission to continue this case to the July 2, 1996
meeting.
J C.
DESCRIPTION:
Cedar Ridge Townhomes - Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
Paramont Engineering Group, Inc.
Condor Investments
Southeast corner of High Ridge Road and Cedar Ridge Road
(Parcel C and Parcel 0 of the Cedar Ridge Estates PUD)
SITE PLAN: Request for site plan approval to construct 110
single family townhouses and a private recreation facility on
18.88 acres within the Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
PROJECT:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
Dennis Koehler. Attornev. Joseph Basile. President of Cedar Ridge Development
Corporation. and Craig Livingston. Landscape Architect. were present to represent this
project.
Attorney Koehler advised trat the multi-family portion of the Cedar Ridge PUD was the
focus of the changes that took place 16 months ago. Originally, the plan was approved by
the Commission in the early 1980s for 155 condo units. On February 7, 1995, the City
Commission accepted the proposal to reduce the number of units to 110 and dramatically
change them from small condos to town homes of 3,000 square feet. The Planning and
Development Board voted 6-1 to approve the site plan for the townhome project subject
to conditions.
Mr. Koehler advised that there are very few differences in the project the Commission
reviewed in concept showing the layout of the 18 multi-family buildings. Mr. Hallahan
requested that the nature preserve be relocated from the original location to the far
southwest corner next to the similar preserve for the PID.
Condition #18 (Engineering) is the only outstanding comment at this time. It requires the
minimum right-ot-way width for local streets to be 50' (60' with swales). At platting, these
20
- -----~----- .'_._~-----
MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 18, 1996
roads will become private. That will eliminate the public maintenance responsibilities. If
the developer is required to comply with the right-of-way width requirements, he will
encounter major problems. From the very beginning, the project design has been for 18
buildings, 110 units, 25' setbacks from those buildings to the road right-of-way, and 22' of
pavement.
The developer urged the Commission to approve the construction of the streets as
proposed 16 months ago. To strictly comply with the Code would result in a devastating
impact. The units are of an exceptionally large size, and the sales price will range between
$120,000 and $140,000. If the applicant is not granted relief, he will have to redesign the
entire project.
Mr. Koehler explained that the Commission could approve the roadway right-of-way at 40'
as proposed in the design, or consider a reduction in the required building setbacks from
25' to 20'. He explained that the purpose of the PUD Ordinance is to promote and develop
flexibility. The Commission can respect the Code in this case by being flexibe. This is a
project that was pulled out of foreclosure. The applicant is now looking at one item which
must be resolved.
Ms. Heyden advised that staff has made a change in Exhibit "C" by adding the
recommendations of the Planning and Development Board. The applicant confirmed that
he agrees with the three comments made by the Planning and Development Board.
City Manager Parker recommended that the City Commission either concur with the
Planning and Development Board recommendations or deny them when a motion is made.
Ms. Heyden advised that this project was an approved master plan in 1983. It was vested
and then went bankrupt. It was taken over by Mr. Basile. He came in with a master plan
modification which showed the lesser width of the streets. The staff comments did not
indicate the streets had to be widened. The applicant moved forward and prepared the site
plans on that basis.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE
PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS PROJECT.
Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz confirmed with Ms. Heyden her agreement to delete Comments #24
and #27.
Motion
Commissioner Titcomb moved to approve the request for Cedar Ridge Townhomes,
request for site plan approval to construct 110 single-family townhouses and a private
recreation facility on 18.88 acres within the Cedar Ridge Estates PUD, subject to all staff
21
MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 18, 1996
comments except rejecting Comment #18 to allow for 40' right-of.way, including all other
staff comments and including the Planning and Development Board conditions. Vice
Mayor Jaskiewicz seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
D. PROJECT:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Knuth Road PCD
Kieran Kilday, Kilday and Associates
Bill Winchester, The Winchester Family PartnerShip, Ltd.
Southwest comer of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth
Road intersection
MAJOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION: Request for PCD sign
program approval
Kieran Kildav. Kildav and Associates. advised tha~ this application is strictly for signage.
The conditions, as amended by the Planning and Development Board, are acceptable to
the applicant. He reminded 'he Commissioners that the applicant made one modification
at the Planning and Development Board meeting which was agre'ed to by everyone.
Ms. Heyden had no comments to offer.
Motion
Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve the request for PCD sign program approval for
the Knuth Road, Winchester Family Partnership, Ltd., southwest comer of Boynton Beach
Boulevard and Knuth Road intersection, including all staff comments and Planning and
Development Board conditions. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion which carried
unanimously.
E. PROJECT:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Casual Male. Big and Tall at Oakwood Square
Joseph P. Braga
J. Baker, Inc. .
Southeast comer of Old Boynton Road and Congress Avenue
Request for an administrative appeal to allow color changes
for the exterior wall and canopy of the southern-most
outbuilding at Oakwood Square
Chuck Foltz, contractor for the project, advised that Mr. Braga was unable to be present
this evening. He advised that the existing building is dark pink with a green awning. The
applicant proposes a yellow canopy with a gray building. These are the corporate colors
of Casual Male. Staff recommended retaining the green awning and repainting the building
with a softer pink. Because thiS is a men's shop, the applicant would like to eliminate the
pink building. Mr. Foltz said the applicant is open to anything the Commission would like
done.
22
MEEnNG MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 11, 1996
Mr. Aguila said that if the request is to change Area 1.q., he will not support it. If the
request is site specific, he may not be prepared to vote for it, but he is also not sure he
would vote against it. His preference would be to delay a decision for 30 days to try to
learn more about what Delray has proposed for the north end of their City. He is
concerned that if the board hastily agrees to allow this parcel to change, we may find it
hard to stop others in the area.
Chairman Dube questioned how the applicant could expand his business without opening
up this can of worms. Ms. Heyden said it is possible to do an overlay of this area where
only certain C-4 uses would be allowed.
Mrs. Frazier questioned whether or not this petition could be tabled until the next meeting.
Ms. Heyden advised that this board does not have the ability to table items unless it is at
the applicant's request.
Mr. Borthwick requested that this item be tabled for 30 days so that the board will have an
opportunity to review this further.
B. SITE PLANS
New Site Plan
1.
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Cedar Ridge Townhomes . Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
Paramount Engineering Group, Inc.
Condor Investments
Southeast corner of High Ridge Road and Cedar Ridge
Road (Parcel C and Parcel D of the Cedar Ridge
Estates PUD)
Request for site plan approval to construct 110 single.
family townhouses and a private recreation facility on
18.88 acres within the Cedar Ridge Estates PUD.
Description:
Jerzy Lewicki, Assistant Planner, provided a brief presentation.
JoseDh Basile. 5 Oaklev Court. reDresentlna Condor Investments and Cedar Ridae
Estates. approached the podium.
Mr. Aguila pointed out that in reviewing the back-up information, it is obvious that there are
four extremely dangerous intersections if stop signs are not put in place. Mr. Aguila
explained the following:
· If you enter Birch Street from the north and pass Building 15, you will get to a three-
way intersection. A stop sign is necessary on Elm and Birch at that intersection.
13
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 11, 1996
. At the south where you leave the pool area, a stop sign should be installed before
you get onto Birch Street.
. There should be a stop sign at the end of Birch so that you can turn right or left, and
there should be a stop sign coming from the east on Spruce.
. There should be a stop sign coming from the north on Forest, and coming from the
east on Spruce.
Mr. Basile agreed with these recommendations.
Mr. Rosenstock pointed out to the applicant that there are 52 staff comments which must
be addressed. Since it was his understanding that the applicant had these comments for
two weeks, he questioned how the applicant could expect the board to vote on this
application when there are so many outstanding comments.
Mr, Basile advised that he received these comments yesterday at approximately 10:00
a.m.
Mr. Lewicki said the first submittal was submitted without landscape plans for the area.
The first round comments note that additional comments may be generated in the second
submittal. If staff does not have the full submittal for the first round review, the number of
comments increase because the second round comments are, in fact, first round
comments for the areas that were not covered.
Mr. Rosenstock questioned why staff does not demand a complete submittal before acting
on the application.
Mr. Lewicki said the applicant submitted a portion of the landscape plan, but it did not
cover landscaping for the entire area.
Mr. Basile advised that the landscape plan was submitted for the entire area on the second
submittal when he was told by staff exactly what they wanted.
Mr. Rosenstock said he cannot vote on something "by guess or by gosh". He likes to vote
on a firm application so that he knows what he is approving or disapproving. At this point,
he does not know how these comments will be worked out with Engineering or Planning.
Chairman Dube questioned whether or not the applicant had an opportunity to review the
52 comments. Mr. Basile responded that everything has been addressed, and he has
questions on some of the comments.
14
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 11, 1996
Mr. Basile advised that some of the landscape comments that were generated do not exist
today due to the fact that after the industrial site put in the preserve area, he was required
to move the road and utilities to accommodate that. The landscape plan could not be
completed quickly enough for the submittal. The landscape plan was just received today.
Pete Karekos. Paramount Enaineerina GrouD. Boca Raton. advised that it would be
necessary to generally go through each comment.
Items 1,2,3,4, & 5 are in the process of being submitted to each agency.
Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are all items that have been
addressed and are on the plans.
Item 18 will be ironed out with Engineering. This is a 50' right of way width of the
local street.
Items 19,20,21,22, and 23 are items that have been addressed and are on the
plans that are in the process of being submitted.
Item 24 is open for discussion. There are pros and cons to this recommendation
to switch the pool and meeting hall. The applicant will try to abide to make
everyone happy. .
Item 25 will be worked out with Engineering.
Item 26 is in the process of being completed.
Item 27 will be worked out with Planning because of the safety issues.
Item 28 - The applicant has provided parking calculations to show that there is
ample parking. The applicant will discuss this item with Planning.
Mr. Rosenstock questioned the width of the garage. Mr. Basile advised that the interior of
the garage is 18', He can provide 20' in the driveway, but not inside the garage.
Mr. Aguila asked staff whether the 20' requirement is for inside or outside the garage. Ms.
Heyden remarked that she believes it would be inside. She also pointed out that she did
not receive these comments until this meeting, and did not have an opportunity to review
them.
Mr. Aguila explained that 18' inside is enough room.
15
Items 50 and 51 will be addressed.
16