CORRESPONDENCE
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning and Zoning
Bulent I. Kastarlak, NCARB
Director
Building
Planning & Zoning
Engineering
Occupational License
Community Redevelopment
January 13, 1998
Mr. Dan Weisberg, Senior Engineer
Palm Beach County Traffic Division
Department of Engineering and Public Works
P.O. Box 21229
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
Re:
Trip Generation Analysis:
Grand Park at Boynton Beach
Golf Road at S.W. 13th Street
File No. NWSP 97-022
Dear Mr. Weisberg:
The enclosed trip generation analysis for the proposed Grand Park at Boynton Beach site dated
January 6, 1998, prepared by Yvonne Ziel Traffic Consultants, Inc., was received by Planning
and Zoning recently for the above referenced application. Please review the enclosed
information for conformance with the County's Traffic Performance Standard Ordinance.
If you have questions regarding this matter, please call me at (561) 375-6260, otherwise please
send me your written comments/approval to the above address, with a copy of your written
response to Michael E. Haag, Permit Administrator also at the same address.
Sincerely,
/7 , lJ:,~
~Jr0]/'}1.d/lA ~r :;~J.p-rv
Tambri J. Heyden, AICP
Planning and Zoning Director
TJH:bme
cc: Michael E. Haag, Permit Administrator
w/attachment
Central File
s:\projeclSIGrand Parkltratlic
America's Gateway to the Gulfstream
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.. P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach. Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 375-6260 FAX: (561) 375-6259
fJ1ie City of
'Boynton 'Beacli
100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beac1i 'Boufevara
P.O. 'B~310
'Boynton 'Beadi, :rforUfa. 33425-0310
City !J{aff: (561) 375-6000
:r.9lX: (561) 375-6090
December 11, 1997
Gregory Miklos
Miklos and Associates, Inc.
2263 N.W. Boca Raton Boulevard
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
RE: Initial Review Comments - Grand Park at Boynton Beach
Southwest corner of S.W. 13th Street and Golf Road
File No. NWSP 97-022
Dear Gregory Miklos:
The City of Boynton Beach has completed its first review of the documents submitted
for the above-referenced project. Attached are comments made by the reviewing
departments during their initial review of your project.
In order to complete the review process, the site plan and documents must be
amended to comply with these comments within 90 days of the date of this letter. (If
amended plans are not submitted in 90 days, a new application fee will be required.)
When there are comments made by the reviewers that you feel are not applicable to the
approval of the project or will be addressed separately and you have not amended the
plans to comply with the comment(s), you must prepare written explanation for each
comment stating why the comment is not applicable and return the explanation with the
amended plans and documents.
After amending the plans and documents, please submit twelve (12) complete sets
(including surveys) of the plans to Planning and Zoning. When the amended plans and
documents have been submitted to Planning and Zoning, they will be distributed to the
reviewing departments for second review and recommendation to the appropriate
boards for approval or denial. A recommendation for denial will be made if there are
major comments that have not been addressed on the resubmitted plans.
Jl.memQ's (jateway to tlit (julfstream
Page 2 of 2
Initial Review Comments
Grand Park at Boynton Beach
File No. NWSP 97-022
Dates pertaining to the remainder of the review process are as follows:
. The amended plans will be due by 5:00 P.M. on January 12,1998.
. The request will be presented to the Planning and Development Board on
February 10, 1998.
. The request will be forwarded to the City Commission as a development plan on
March 3, 1998.
If you should have any questions regarding the comments or the approval schedule,
please feel free to call Jerzy Lewicki, who is coordinating the review of your site plan for
Planning and Zoning.
Very truly yours,
~ _G, 7C-r?
Tambri J. Heyden, AICP
Planning and Zoning Director
T JH:bme
Atts.
S:\project\Grand Park\1st rev. comment
tJJU City of
~oynton ~eacli
100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beadi 'Bou!evari
P.O. 'B0l(310
'Bognton 'Beacfi., j"foritfa 33425-0310
City 9lalf: (561) 375-6000
j".9lX: (561) 375-6090
--"-::~,::---.
November 18, 1997
Gregory Miklos
Miklos and Associates
2263 N.W. Boca Raton Boulevard
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
RE: Grand Park at Boynton Beach - NWSP 97-022
Dear Mr. Miklos:
Your November 14, 1997 submittal for New Site Plan approval for the above-referenced project
was reviewed for completeness. It has been determined that the submittal is substantially
complete and accepted for further processing. Jerzy Lewicki, within the department, will be
reviewing and coordinating your applications through the remainder of the New Site Plan
approval process and can be contacted if you have questions.
The next step in the review process is for the Technical Review Committee to review the
submittal for compliance with the review standards identified in Part III, Land Development
Regulations, Chapter 4, Site Plan Review, Section 8 and all applicable sections of the Boynton
Beach Code of Ordinances. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) will meet on December 9,
1997 to discuss the first review comments. The review schedule will be further determined after
this meeting.
If! can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (561) 375-6260.
Very truly yours,
7J'v J~- 7'7/- ~~
Tambri J. Heyden, AICP
Planning and Zoning Director
TJH:bme
sl PROJECTSIBcommctrlOperations Cente", A - BII ST ACL TRWPD
Jlmuica's (jateway to tlU (julfttream
January 12,1998
Phone (737-5405)
Ms. Tambri Heyden
Planning Director
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beavh Blvd.
Boynton Beach, Fl. 33435
Re: Grand Park at Boynton Beach
(East portion of Alhambra South)
Dear Ms Heyden:
On January 5, 1998 a meeting was held at the residence of
Harry & Helen Brandt 2344 S.W. 13th Street, Boynton Beach
with the principals of the above mentioned project and the
residents of S.W. 13 Street.
The concerns of these citizens were as follows:
(1) They would prefer to have the percolation ponds
on the east end of the project, which would entail
flipping the site plan to accommodate.
(2) The black chain link fence to be concealed by a 4 ft
high hedge on the Golfview Harbour side of the fence
for concealment.
(3) The responsibility of the relief of the storm water
trapped in the cui de sac on the end of 13 St.
to be determined and acted on before constuction
of site work.
The general plan amd these concerns were brought before the
regular meeting Jan. 7,1998 of the Golview Harbour Estates
Homerownwer's Association Inc. (Single Family Homes).
and approved by the body.
Sincerely,
Robert J Borovy
President
2521 S.W 11th St.
Boynton Beach Fl. 33426
W';,E~X-
\da~
Il~ ~ .:,1 ~ " u ~ WI
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
PETITION
AND DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF BOYNTON BE
GRANT PARK, SE PORTION, ALHAMBRA SQUARE
IV:
SUBJECT:
We, the undersigned are property owners on Southwest 25th Avenue, contiguous or a
to the proposed GRANT PARK development on the Southeast portion oflana described as
Alhambra Square South. We have been informed the proposed development of this
property and have the following objections:
1.
Care
2. INCOMPATIBLE STRUCI'URE: The proposed design encompasses a central, two-
story tower approximately 34' high and 100' wide with five radial single story wings
approximately 100' wide and 23" high. From ground view, this complex would
represent a large, single building approximately 300 feet long with a roofline increasing
from 23 to 34 feet and back again. This vi . s dramaticall din he single-
story, cam us-' e atmosphere ori in ose ~or t at
portion of the property and IS not in concert with the single story, single family housing
surrounding it in Golfview Harbour. ILis u~termined whether the 4/~ch
limitation of the AGREEMENT is met. -- -~'-
3. INCOMPATIBLE USAGE: The development incorporates the foUowing in the
Southeast comer of the property, directly adjacent to single family homes in Golfview , t (;\1\
Harbour: 'J(\~
"\. \t to
Delivery and receiving dock open to the South. ~., ~
Staff parking for 21 cars open to the South. ()v 'J [ ,
Two large dumpsters for the entire complex open to the South. , ~
Eating facility for 105 people plus 21 staff. \0 ~ \)
Due to the intended usage, adjacent homes in Golfview Harbour can expect to be \
subjected to:
.
.
.
.
· Undue traffi~ lights, and noise from 24-hour staff changes, hearses, ambulances,
delivery trucks, hazardous and regular waste pickups, et~h a hospital facility.
· Excessive light from outside lighting plus the headlights of -vehicles (staff and visitors)
entering and leaving the area over 24 hours. This is restricted in the AGREEMENT. ~
· Undesirable smells from both the dumpsters and the eating facility. The placement of
~mpsters is _~jd:ed in the AGREEMENT. ~-
4. UNACCEPTABLE FENCING: The plan calls for a partial chain link fence 4' high
along the South boundary of the property. This fence, which is transparent, is discontinued
well before the Southeast comer, where minimal plantings and a partial berm are situated.
The fencing, as proposed, subjects those homes which are south of the proposed
development to a direct view of the "business end" of the complex.. The AGREEMENT calls
for a six-foot wall with suitable plantings outside it to screen the ACLF from the adjacent
houses. --- - ------ ._-~
5. LACK OF LIGHTING PLAN: There is no lighting plan for the proposed development
and no statement as to the intention of the developer to meet the terms of the
AGREEME~ this regard. An impressive Performance Bond to assure compliance
to the AGRE NT is highly recommended.
6. LACK OF NOTICE: Due to the existence of the AGREEMENT, we have not been
formally notified of the proposed development even though it directly affects the value
and enjoyment of our property. We have learned of prior meetings of the developer
and/or his representatives held with both homeowners on 13tb Street and the Golfview
Harbour Homeowners Association without our notification.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, THEREFORE PETITION THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND BOARD OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
THAT:
.
THEY DENY THE GRANT PARK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AS CURRENTLY
PRESENTED.
.
THEY REQUIRE lHATWE, OR ANY ~ OF OUR PROPERTY,
BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING, AT LE~NE ~RIOR TO THE EVENT, BY
THE CURRENT OR ANY OTHER 0 PROPERTY PRESENTLY
KNOWN AS THE EAST PORTION OF ALHAMBRAH SOUTH, OF ANY AND ALL
FUTURE PROPOSALS, REVISIONS, MEETINGS, HEARINGS, ETC. WHICH
PERTAIN TO THAT PROPERTY.
~q~
\~
Address
Signature
(~v p1r t~s0oQCL)
Responses to Petition from Homeowners Against Grand Park
Planning and Zoning Division-Micheal Rumpf, Senior Planner
/ P{;/;?S
Paragraph #1-Grand Park is not an AcLF but a Hospice, and would generate more traffic, noise
smells and light.
Repsponse- The Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with the City does indicate that the use
is limited to an "AcLF". The State defines an assisted living facility, in part, as a place providing
for a period exceeding 24 hours, housing, food service, and one or more personal services for
four or more adults, not related to the owner, who require such services or to provide extended
congregate care, limited nursing services, or limited mental health services, ..... The plans
indicate that it is an "Adult Congregate Living Facility". From the layout of the building it appears
to be providing services similar to the ACLF definition. The City does not define an AcLF, nor a
Hospice. If the statement is true that this is to be a Hospice, and assuming that such a use is
not construed as an AcLF, I cannot confirm that a Hospice will generate more traffic, noise,
smell and light.
Paragraph #2-Grand Park will appear as a large, single building approximately 300 feet
long....which is in great contrast to the single-story, campus like project originally proposed.
The planned roof pitch is undertermined.
Response-The proposed project does differ slightly from the original conceptual plan; however, I
would argue that the difference is a positive one. The original plan was a sprawling two story
builiding, whereas Grand Park is only two story in the center and the rotary-like wings around
the central core are single story. I too am not certain what the roof pitch is, but it is true that the
Settlement Agreement does limit it to a 4/12 roof pitch.
Paragraph #3- Site design is undesirable at it incorporates activities in the south area of the site.
Response-The original plan also placed the service entrance oriented south, just approximately
200 feet west of the location of same in Grand Park; near the southern side of the project there
is a cluster of approximately 17 spaces, unlike the original larger parking areas were located on
the north side of the project (the cluster of spaces on the Grand Park plan are located opposite
residential areas, across the drainage canal); the two large dumpsters are located further to the
center of the project than originally proposed and 20 feet farther than required to be from the
southern property line (per the agreement), which is an improvement, as the original ones were
located at the projects periphery nearest to residential areas (it should be noted that the original
plan was not an approved plan and would not likely have been built with them located at such
distances from the source of waste); the eating facility for 105 people and 21 staff is likely
smaller than that to have been in the original facility which was planned for 248 beds. I would
not assume that traffic, noise, lights or other performances would be greater from the Grand
Park project than the original conceptual project.
Paragraph #4-Unacceptable fencing
Response-The Agreement does indicate that the wall and landscaping design are to be
approved by the adjacent HaA, but the agreement does not define the height or design of the
buffer elements.
Paragraph #5-Lack of lighting plan.
Response-Lighting, per the agreement, is to be turned off after 11 :00 pm, is not to shine directly
into the adjacent residential areas, and the poles are to be the minimum height per code. A
lighting plan is not required, other than the logical details or notes to show location, etc. More
details should be placed on the plan to show compliance with the Agreement.
Paragraph #6-Lack of notice
Response-As this is a site plan request, public notices are not required, nor required by the
Agreement.
Lastly, this project is scheduled for Planning and Development Board review on February 10th,
and City Commission review on March 3.
.?e t/ / "-"~ C fA,
~
li--/-: r--;:~ ~fo.-"<' h 5 T
6~ ~-,'l J;Z ?c.. r K:
~
~;tIc r '" Y) 4C(F - f>7C"C/v\'5(5~..-~f G/ S r//:' f>?~>yr ,fJr<os:rY1Q.")...T
- ~'C,T'--S-"-/ FtA'j4<'.:"f f-. ~. s: :, ",~rd~'S ,-,-/J(~ 'Ii]~' Y\""' (
,$ co- +-I-/~ t'1-"\~ ""of- ~ ,-e--=- 1"1.<" '^- + t",: -f-c;;...e'v( r'C/;;CY C~~r~r4t<.'-
cC-11~ d<?- c.";-/)/ of' (50 i''' /e..- lS""-,,,~Lj' ; rld.2; Ci.- -:k.S" ii-
I ~; fc-I;-C1?- ~ &- ~ AC L F .. 7f,tC-T~v?- ,y\Q.,- + C(~~'Y /10-f
cfeP/I ~ A ct. F ~
ID
-- --rl,e.. I-L5.r~c ~- C0; (( J~'~( 'L~<:::' ""S 'J n, fl""C:>--r\+1i< u-Iz~ (,"-\ ~'::J(~~
GF +{~-ftic: / nOj":"e.., SM=-((S "'-"'~ tjC+ ".
(2:), ". C'- r p~\ , .
;l.)/hll- G; F: f rj <::.,-/ I de- s j-~ ~ uJ -; tl krl.. '<: ~ - 1:- 0:-5~, ( <J-;] <:- / S ~ :')~
b<.-"kY.'(j' If!'- )<(Y'L",~I--C( ,~F; r' I~,(,-,I 0- 6-c",."fC~c {y\,-(~,-..;sl~
r '1 ~ L -, - - /' / j ,C~-;-1 .' , +-
'rrc~ l~~ -r='.J <'( <I- bcc-C' {<... "? (,"" .. I n, S VI "":><:t..:r {s c cJ\ ,] G-~ \
C~ ~<.,.. /0 -ti~ "s :.'l Sf~r> G_~'I"" - (, ~ d"l7I""fho'",-
C),('4.:JIi 'f'-C'1 0 F'~c'.<;'; / Gd'\U C-"J}"..1rd;~fs k.i( <<-.ij ~"s:-__f 5" 2r~
L" '. ,J @J ,) r . , . r) ~ \ I . I 'J .
"PL"",-rl..f \(\,,~C"s. 0...dc-(l:::I.M.,V\.~" _ (...Jh.<'"t-~ 'f/I;"" f,'F-'-
l ;,.,.;.1.+ I J f'I\<r:.. + ".
:3)S;fc. jO-Y~vt- f(<.:J-~C-),^~~ff- "f: &::(;'v.,--rr ~-\~sl" 5~l'r rvlcy
?{(~-,,""!/ 5-~<:'""rs co<:J>-1I--- fr-. S--,--(--~
c'~ -t/~.,( ~c'0"t; ~~c 10'5- f'e~~~
(C7 1~<(9'"
~~lt""~/ ;1z-~. ~. -~rrcV~
&'~V6/l t, u f
(~( ho-rnb;-c- ~t'-'<--<~ SF;--rL
C u ~. / .;L/,?K' 5~,-c>(C-S
1;2l( b:--b.)s. / /}CJ/ oCC'-, r
S fzoc s? '.~? ,:the- .( l L/ I ~h Y d-- c-<?~- eltf,' ; r-p >'
6-C G .., -ru<(J, :)
_~ ~ fr-">{ '1 =r-- ~ e,~ c,,- vJ;
.!l s &r I;' d_ ~~ "- 1c.I.
(C~ "" Q r!.""v' c:s/ .::~ i....;1' zr _<; /,.ov..; s ~- {/- .:2 -s, fre1Y
-
DEPARTMENT DEV
Bulent I. Kastarlak, NeARB
Director
~ V~. <_M~fY
~. . -c<"{ rYdt.. ~cW
~{tX' ~h V >t?/(e _
74:~tv
--------~,
/ j){ , \
/ I/~. {/I
j, ", (1/
t ~, (''71
f ,,!';U
I "
~/
;ilK
~ ~. 11--Ii' -n 1
I BUILDIN IVISION. ANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, OTY OF BOYNTON BE
, SUBJECT: GRANT PARK, SE PORTION, ALHAMBRA SQUARE
,-,0 <<~ (...::';'/~r~-1'~t!.-<'~
~-~
h~u~
~~~
We, the undersigned are property owners on South~est 25th Avenue, contiguous or a
to the proposed GRANT PARK development on the Southeast portion of land described as
Alhambra Square South. We have been informed the proposed development of this
property and have the following objections:
c).... ,
1. NOT AN ACLF: The proposed development is a Hospice and not an Assisted Care
Living Facility (ACLF) as defined by the State Licensing Board. The prior legal
agreement with the Boynton City Commission (hereinafter referred to as b
AGREEMENT) states that land usage is restricted to ACLF (now ALF). The proposed
usage is expected to engender a significantly higher degree of traffic, noise, smells, and
light.
2. INCOMPATIBLE STRUCTURE: The proposed design encompasses a central, two-
story tower approximately 34' high and 100' wide with five radial single story wings
approximately 100' wide and 23" high. From ground view, this complex would
represent a large, single building approximately 300 feet long with a roofline increasing
from 23 to 34 feet and back again. This visage is dramatically different from the single-
story, cJLQ!P]!s-like atmosphere o~~proposed in Alhambr~a.r:.~~ut~ for that
portion ofthe property and is not in concert with the single story, single family housing
surrounding it in Golfview Harbour. It is undetermined whether the 4/12 roof pitch
limitation of the AGREEMENT is met.
3. INCOMPATIBLE USAGE: The development incorporates the following in the
Southeast corner of the property, directly adjacent to single family homes in Golfview
Harbour:
. Delivery and receiving dock open to the South.
. Staff parking for 21 cars open to the South.
. Two large dumpsters for the entire complex open to the South.
. Eating facility for 105 people plus 21 staff.
Due to the intended usage, adjacent homes in Golfview Harbour can expect to be
subjected to:
. Undue traffic, lights, and noise from 24-hour staff changes, hearses, ambulances,
delivery trucks, hazardous and regular waste pickups, ete, as with a hospital facility.
. Excessive light from outside lighting plus the headlights of-vehicles (staff and visitors)
entering and leaving the area over 24 hours. This is restricted in the AGREEMENT.
. Undesirable smells from both the dumpsters and the eating facility. The placement of
the dumpsters is restricted in the AGREEMENT.
4. UNACCEPTABLE FENCING: The plan calls for a partial chain link fence 4' high
along the South boundary ofthe property. This fence, which is transparent, is discontinued
well before the Southeast corner, where minimal plantings and a partial berm are situated.
The fencing, as proposed, subjects those homes which are south of the proposed
development to a direct view of the "business end" of the complex. The AGREEMENT calls
for a six-foot wall with suitable plantings outside it to screen the ACLF from the adjacent
houses.
5. LACK OF LIGHTING PLAN: There is no lighting plan for the proposed development
and no statement as to the intention of the developer to meet the terms of the
AGREEMENT in this regard. An impressive Perfonnance Bond to assure compliance
to the AGREEMENT is highly recommended.
6. LACK OF NOTICE: Due to the existence ofthe AGREEMENT, we have not been
formally notified of the proposed development even though it directly affects the value
and enjoyment of our property. We have learned of prior meetings of the developer
and/or his representatives held with both homeowners on 13th Street and the Golfview
Harbour Homeowners Association without our notification.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, THEREFORE PETITION THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND BOARD OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
THA T:
. THEY DENY THE GRANT PARK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AS CURRENTLY
PRESENTED.
. THEY REQUIRE THAT WE, OR ANY OTHER OWNERS OF OUR PROPERTY,
BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING, AT LEAST ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE EVENT, BY
THE CURRENT OR ANY OTHER OWNER OF THE PROPERTY PRESENTLY
KNOWN AS THE EAST PORTION OF ALHAMBRAH SOUTH, OF ANY AND ALL
FUTURE PROPOSALS, REVlSION~ MEETINGS, HEARINGS, ETC. WHICH
PERTAIN TO THAT PROPERTY.
Address
Signature
ft:- If ;: C .~ -f
{;(d-y>J2 p~y-K.
730(/1 f.- y....,-'---
it: t,;2 G ~'- {~
.--
L( C'11 do ~ c"'-!
'f1~."'(, p,d25
15 j 5 r''tJ~ (~I>=- -
~
93
,;l tit
rON-<
f::> -;/
:l ,., '"
'{
rn
rnrnrnllW~
~l
~o. ~ur~X/
a~.,,~
h~~
~~
PETITION
AND DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF BOYNTON BE
GRANT PARK, SE PORTION, ALHAMBRA SQUARE
JAM14: ,"
<,..,-
PLANNING AND
ZONING OEPT.
SUBJECT:
We, the undersigned are property owners on Southwest 25th Avenu~ contiguous or a
to the proposed GRANT PARK development on the Southeast portion ofland described as
Alhambra Square South. We have been informed the proposed development of this
property and have the following objections:
1. NOT AN ACLF: The proposed development is a Hospice and not an Assisted Care
Living Facility (ACLF) as defined by the State Licensing Board. The prior legal
agreement with the Boynton City Commission (hereinafter referred to as
AGREEMENT) states that land usage is restricted to ACLF (now ALF). The proposed
usage is expected to engender a significantly higher degree of traffic, noise, smells, and
light.
2. INCOMPATIBLE STRUCTURE: The proposed design encompasses a central, two-
story tower approximately 34' high and 100' wide with five radial single story wings
approximately 100' wide and 23" high. From ground view, this complex would
represent a large, single building approximately 300 feet long with a roofline increasing
from 23 to 34 feet and back again. This visage is dramatically different from the single-
story, campus-like atmosphere originally proposed in Alhambra Square South for that
portion of the property and is not in concert with the single story, single family housing
surrounding it in Golfview Harbour. It is undetermined whether the 4/12 roof pitch
limitation of the AGREEMENT is met.
3. INCOMPATIBLE USAGE: The development incorporates the foUowing in the
Southeast comer of the property, directly adjacent to single family homes in Golfview
Harbour:
. Delivery and receiving dock open to the South.
. Staff parking for 21 cars open to the South.
. Two large dumpsters for the entire complex open to the South.
. Eating facility for 105 people plus 21 staff.
/ .
Due to the intended usage, adjacent homes in Golfview Harbour can expect to be
subjected to:
. Undue traffic, lights, and noise from 24-hour staff changes, hearses, ambulances,
delivery trucks, hazardous and regular waste pickups, ete, as with a hospital facility.
. Excessive light from outside lighting plus the headlights of "vehicles (staff and visitors)
entering and leaving the area over 24 hours. This is restricted in the AGREEMENT.
. Undesirable smells from both the dumpsters and the eating facility. The placement of
the dumpsters is restricted in the AGREEMENT.
4. UNACCEPTABLE FENCING: The plan calls for a partial chain link fence 4' high
along the South boundary ofthe property. This fence, which is transparent, is discontinued
well before the Southeast comer, where minimal plantings and a partial berm are situated.
The fencing, as proposed, subjects those homes which are south of the proposed
development to a direct view of the "business end" of the complex. The AGREEMENT calls
for a six-foot waU with suitable plantings outside it to screen the ACLF from the adjacent
houses.
5. LACK OF LIGHTING PLAN: There is no lighting plan for the proposed development
and no statement as to the intention of the developer to meet the terms of the
AGREEMENT in this regard. An impressive Performance Bond to assure compliance
to the AGREEMENT is highly recommended.
6. LACK OF NOTICE: Due to the existence of the AGREEMENT, we have not been
formally notified of the proposed development even though it directly affects the value
and enjoyment of our property. We have learned of prior meetings of the developer
and/or his representatives held with both homeowners on 13th Street and the Golfview
Harbour Homeowners Association without our notification.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, THEREFORE PETITION THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND BOARD OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
THAT:
. THEY DENY THE GRANT PARK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AS CURRENTLY
PRESENTED.
. mEY REQUIRE THAT WE, OR ANY OTHER OWNERS OF OUR PROPERTY,
BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING, AT LEAST ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE EVENT, BY
mE CURRENT OR ANY OTHER OWNER OF THE PROPERTY PRESENTLY
KNOWN AS THE EAST PORTION OF ALHAMBRAH SOUTH, OF ANY AND ALL
FUTURE PROPOSAL~ REVISION~ MEETINGS, HEARINGS, ETC. WHICH
PERTAIN TO THAT PROPERTY.
Address
Signature