Loading...
AGENDA DOCUMENTS ',.,. . "",-",,-- AGENDA DOCUMENTS PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-251 Agenda Memorandum for June 6, 1995 TO: FROM: Carrie Parker city Manager~ ___ Tambri J. Heyden' F' Planning and 20nin Department DATE: June 1, 1995 SUBJECT: Woolbright Place PUD - MPMD 95-003 (Transfer of units and s~tback and unit type changes for 108 single-family units and private recreation in Pod 1 and a Pod 3 use change from duplexes to park) NATURE OF REQUEST Richard Wohlfarth of CCL Consultants, Inc., agent for Howard Scharlin trustee/property owner of the Woolbright Place PUD, is requesting approval to modify the previously approved master plan fOl- the Woolbright Place PUD (see Exhibit "A" - letter of request and proposed master plan). The requested modifications are limited to that portion of the PUD that is entitled Pod 1 and Pod 3. Pod 1, a 14.5 acre parcel, is located on the east side of S.W. 8th street and is approximately 2,250 feet north of Woolbright Road. Pod 3, a 3.33 acre parcel, is located at the northeast corner of the PUD and is directly west of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (see Exhibit liB" - location map). The changes are as follows: 1. Change the type of units in Pod 1 from 90 multi-family units to 108 single-family, detached zero lot line units. The following building and site regulations are proposed for Pod 1: Minimum lot width 36 feet Minimum lot area 3,600 sq. ft. Minimum front yard 15 feet Minimum front yard (to garage)- 20 feet Minimum rear yard 15 feet Minimum side yard (interior) 10 feet Minimum side (zero lot line) 0 feet Minimum side (corner) 20 feet Maximum building height 45 feet Screen enclosure (screen roof) setbacks Front 15 feet Rear 8 feet Side (interior) 8 feet side (zero lot line) 0 feet Side (corner) 20 feet 2. Provide separate private recreation within Pod 1 to serve solely Pod 1. 3. Change the use of Pod 3 to recreation (private vs. public has not been specified) from 16 duplex units (16 duplex units are requested to be transferred to Pod 1). 4. Relocate the previously approved Pod 1 access point (street) off of S.W. 8th Street approximately 240 feet north. 5. Add an additional access point (street) off of S.W. 8th Street that is approximately 210 feet south of the north property line of the PUD. Page 2 Memorandum No. 95-251 June 1, 1995 6. Reduce the north PUD landscape buffer from a 25 foot wide buffer with berm and native landscaping (see Exhibit "e" - approved planting plan) to a 10 foot wide landscape buffer consisting of a 5 foot high chain link fence, continuous hedge and trees spaced 35 feet on center. 7. Reduce the north PUD property line building setback from 60 feet to 15 feet. 8. Reduce the Pod 1 west property line building setback from 40 feet to 15 where rear yards abut this property line and to 10 feet where side yards abut this property line. BACKGROUND Pod 3 is master plan approved for 16 duplex units. Pod 1 is master plan approved for 90 multi-family units and was split-off as a separate residential parcel within the PUD when 548 of the multi"family units wlthin the PUD were subdivided for the "The Vinings at Boynton Beach" project. The Vinings was further subdivided into two (2) phases. Phase One (1) was platted on February 21, 1995 and construction is underway. The latest approved rnaste~ plan for the Woolbright Place PUD is shown in the attached Exhibit "D". Chapter 2.5, Planned Unit Development, of the city's land development regulations states that changes in Planned Unit Developments shall be processed as follows: Section 12. Changes in plans. "Changes in plans approved as part of the zoning to PUD may be permitted by the planning and zoning board upon application filed by the developer or his Sllccessors in interest, prior to the expiration of the PUD classification, but only [after] a finding that any such change or changes are in accord with all regulations in effect when the change or changes are requested and the intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan in effect at the time of the proposed change. Substantial changes shall be proposed as for a new application of PUD zoning. The determination of what constitutes a substantial change shall be within the sole discretion of the City Commission. Nonsubstantial Changes as determined by the City Commission in plans shall not extend the expiration of the eighteen (18) month approval for the PUD classification". Also, pursuant to Resolution No. 92-99, and subsequently superseded by the Commission's recent approval of a revised agreement with Tradewinds, which sets forth an expedited review of development applications submitted to the City by the property owner, the special schedule established by staff and the applicant for processing this request is as follows: May 12, 1995 - application/plans received May 19, 1995 - plans distributed to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) Page 3 Memorandum No. 95-251 June 1, 1995 May 23, 1995 - TRC meeting held and written comments due to Planning and Zoning Department at end of day on May 26, 1995 for preparation of staff report to Commission. (Note: The expedited process does not require resubmittal by the applicant. Therefore, regardless of the condition of a first submittal, staff must forward the request. The only exception to this would be resubmittal voluntarily by the applicant. The applicant did not choose to resubmit this request to address some of the more major issues raised by staff.) June 6, 1995 - city Commission meeting June 13, 1995 -Planning and Development Board meeting (no special, earlier Planning and Development Board meeting was desired by the applicant) ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed this request for consistency with the PUD development standards, and the intent and purpose of Planned Unit Developments as stated in the following sections of Chapter 2.5 of the city's land development regulations: Section 1. Intent and purpose "A Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is established. It is intended that this district be utilized to promote efficient and economical land use, improved amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety in physical development, creative design, improved living environment, orderly and economical development in the City and the protection of adjacent and existing and future City development. The district is suitable for development, redevelopment and conservation of land, water and other resources of the City. Regulations for Planned Unit Developments are intended to accomplish the purposes of zoning, subdivision regulations and other applicable City regulations to the same degree that they are intended to control development on a lot-by-lot basis. In view of the substantial public advantages of Planned Unit Development, it is th~ intent of PUD requlatiOng tG prQm~t@ and encou~i9~ development tn this !o~m where t~aets suitable in size, location and character for the uses and structures proposed are to be planned and developed as ..' unified and coordinated units. Section 9. Internal PUD standards B. INTERNAL LOTS AND FRONTAGE. Within the boundaries of the PUD, no minimum lot size or minimum, yards shall be required; provided, however, that PUD frontage on dedicated public roads shall observe front yard requirements in accordance with the zoning district the PUD use most closely resembles and that peripheral yards abutting other zoning districts shall be the same as required in the abutting zone." with respect to the changes requested, the change from 90 multi- family units to 108 single-family units reflects a transfer of all the residential units planned for Pod 3 (16 duplexes) to Pod 1 and a transfer of two multi-family units from Pod 2 (A and B). This transfer increases the net density within the 14.5 acre parcel (Pod Page 4 Memorandum No. 95-251 June 1, 1995 1) from 6.20 units per acre to 7.44 units per acre, although the transfer does not increase the total number of 656 units approved for the PUD, which has a gross density of 8.08 units per acre. There are several concerns with this increase in net density and transfer of units as follows: 1. There may be an ownership issue with the two multi-family units requested to be transferred from property that is owned by The Vinings. Since The Vinings phase II will not be under construction for some time, there is the potential that The Vinings could desire a site plan modification in the future to construct these two units as provided for on the approved master plan. "') ...... Pod 3 becomes realistically useless without densi ty value. a. Use of Pod 3 for public park purposes is not acceptable due to its physical limitations for active recreation and isolated location increasing its crime potential,: issues that have been long debated on several occasions as part of the original master plan. b. Use of Pod 3 for private park purposes has similar problems which are compounded by lack of access by Pod 1 residents due to blocking The Vinings Phase II parcel as its future fencing. Only if The Vinings were to agree to an "after-the-fact" access easement, could this problem be overcome. However, due to distance, it is questionable whether Pod 1 residents would use the park. Lack of activity on the parcel would increase the pod's crime potential. 3. Increasing the net density on the parcel impacts setbacks, which in turn are being requested for reduction. To date, the smallest lot size approved has been 4,000 square feet (Boynton Nurseries - Nautica). It is staff's position that approval of 3,600 square foot lots would be an exacerbation of the issues that staff raised with the review of Boynton Nurseries (insufficent land area for proper emergency access and parking, diminished aesthetic integrity and pressure to use buffer areas for private lot area - surplus parking has been proposed, but it is not scattered within the project to be usable by all the residents). 4. Changing the unit type from multi-family to Single-family can have a negative effect on aesthetics. When units are clustered or attached, available open area is greater than when the same number of units are detached and carve up the open space by each unit having its own "piece" of the open area via front, rear and side yards. Although single-family is generally valued more than mul ti-family, the value of multi-family can be perceived as greater when compared to very small single-family lots. when viewed as a whole, many multi-family projects are better maintained, including more landscaping, than some single- family projects. If there is more of a market for fee simple, rather than rental units at this time, townhouses could be an option. Regarding the lot layout, the six lots located at ~he northwest corner of the project are so detached from the rest of the units in Page 5 Memorandum No. 95-251 June 1, 1995 Pod 1 that they require their own additional access point from S.W. 8th Street. This access point does not meet the subdivision requirements due to its shortage of distance from the main access point to Pod 1. Shifting this access point north is not a solution, due to its insufficient distance from Ocean Drive. Better use of this area would be for the required, private recreation amenities, having access only from inside the project, not an additional separate access. The minimum five amenities proposed are not acceptable, primarily due to inadequate size. Switching the recreation 'area with the units to the north of this area might provide more land area for recreation, although this too has drawbacks the further removed the recreation area becomes from the units. For these reasons and those expressed earlier relating to increased net density, the project would be better served by deleting these six lots. Regarding the north relocation of the main access point from S.W. 8th Street, staff finds this to be acceptable. Al though, one access point to a development increases emergency response time, emergency response time call also be negatively affected by street design. Narrow streets with tight turning radii encourages obstacles caused by on-street parking, which in turn is caused by small lot size. These factors reduce designed travel speeds and increase response time. Since the PUD was not originally planned to be subdivided into several parcels of different ownership, each having separate access needs, rather than being able to benefit from internally, integrated access, the safest access design has already been compromised. Therefore , given the choice of two entrances to the project or relieving street congestion by reducing net density, the latter would most likely be preferred since it solves more than just access problems. The request to reduce the width and landscape material of the landscape buffer along the north PUD boundary reflects a deviation from the size, configuration and quality of material established as part of an executed stipulated settlement agreement between the Ci ty of Boynton Beach and Intervenor Gary Lehnertz, which was resolved by Resolution #92-210. The approved landscape buffer is illustrated in Exhibit "B". Since degree of screening was not the only issue that revolved around resolution of the buffer design, staff recommends that if the buffer is reduced in width and the berm omitted that the quantity and type of material previously approved be installed. As a point of information, it continues to be staff1s position that buffers are intended to not only provide a visual separation, but a physical space separation. Since this buffer is platted as an easement, reduction of its width would further diminish its purpose, since it can be used to meet the minimum lot area of lots which back up to it. Regarding the reduction in setbacks, this issue is- addressed in detail in Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-252. In general, the perimeter setbacks proposed do not comply with the zoning code and cannot be reduced through the master plan modification process. If staff's recommendation to Change the type of unit is approved, the setback along S.W. 8th street shall be forty (40) feet and twenty (20) feet along the project frontage on S.W. 3rd Avenue, consistent with the zoning code. This submittal did not include an evaluation of the increase in impacts on water and sewer demand and on traffic generation. Due to the change in unit type from multi-family and duplex to single- family (single-family placing more demands on water, sewer and roads), these services will be affected by this request. The burden is on the applicant to determine the degree of this effect, if any. Historically this information, as well as degree of Page 6 Memorandum No. 95-251 June 1, 1995 change to unit type, unit layout, setbacks, buffers and access, has been essential to the Commission to determine whether a requested master plan modification is a change so substantial in nature that it does not resemble the previously approved master plan. RECOMMENDATION On Tuesday, May 23, 1995, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) met to review the requested master plan modification. The Board recommends that the City Commission make a finding of substantial change for the proposed modification, necessitating submittal of a a neVI application fOl- PUD zoning. The analysis above and the attached staff comments in composite Exhibit "E" are the basis for this recommendation for substantial change. These factors can be summarized as safety (emergency access and crime prevention) and aesthetic compromises anticipated to result from the increase in net density within Pod 1, the narrow streets proposed, the congested lot layout, inadequate lot sizes and setbacks and the use of Pod 3 for passive recreation. If the City Commission determines that this modification is not a substantial change, it is recommended that approval be subject to those staff comments that are not in conflict with Commission findings for a non-substantial change. TJH:pab xc: Central File c A \I e n d m e " E X H I BIT A CCl CONSULTANTS, INC. 2200 PARK CENTRAL BLVD., N, SUITE 100, POMPANO BEACH, FL 33064, (305) 974-2200. FAX (305) 973-2686 Consulting Engineers [!!" '.. Surveyors Planners May 12, 1995 Mr. Michael Haag Zoning & Site Administrator Planning & Zoning Department City of Boynton Beach 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, Florida 33425 Re: Master Plan Revision Woolbright Place P. V. D. CCL's Project No. 3425 Dear Mike: This letter along with the plans attached (12 sets) constitute our Revised Master Plan submittal for the Woolbright Place P. V.D. They specifically detail the site development criteria by which our clients propose to complete Pod 1 of the P.V.D. as a single family (zero lot line) type of community. A summary of the revisions made to accommodate this scenario follows: 1) Pod 3 has now been committed as future Park, with the 16 units originally identified for this area now being transferred to Pod 1 (90 + 16 = 106). 2) Pods 2A & 2B were completed with only 548 units being built as opposed to 550 as originally approved (550 - 548 = 2). These two units added to the 106 above result in a total revised/proposed units for Pod 3 of 108 units. The total number of units proposed under this P. U. D. therefore remain at 656. 3) Sheet MP-l has been revised to reflect these changes, including the most current calculations of the land use areas tallied in the Site Data Chart on the plan. 4) Sheet MP-2 is a new sheet we've provided that details the proposed 108 unit single family development proposed for Pod 1. Included on that sheet are the typical units planned for construction, the proposed setbacks, legal description, location map, typical signage/roadway/parking details as well as a summary table that shows the site data calculations for this Pod within the P. V. D. Mr. Michael Haag May 12, 1995 Page two 5) The modifications made on MP-l to accommodate the proposed plan on MP-2 include the relocation of the parcel entry point, the addition of a secondary entry point to the north (serving only the 6 unit satellite), and the reduction in width of the landscape buffer on the south between Pod 1 and Lake Boynton Estates. It is our belief that the single family units now proposed for Pod 1 provide a more complimentary relationship to Boynton Estates than the originally proposed multifamily units would have, and therefore do not require the same degree of buffer. The reduced 10' wide buffer with 5' high chain link fence, continuous hedge, and trees at 35' a.c., should provide the same amount of "screening". 6) Revised Traffic Generation rates will probably be a result of the Master Plan modifications proposed. Palm Beach County Standards and ITE identify single family trips as greater than multifamily, however we are unable to provide a revised traffic analysis for the P. U. D. at this time. When we have established the additional traffic impacts created by this Master Plan Revision, that report along with a proposed solution to offset those impacts will be provided. The most likely solution will be a simple transfer of assigned trips from the Woolbright Place P.C.D. Commercial development to the south, which is also controlled by our client. In closing, we hope this proposed Master Plan Modification receives your staff's favorable review and are confident this project would add an attractive housing alternative to the current and future residents of Boynton Beach. Please don't hesitate to call should you require any additional information to complete this submittal. . RCW /BN/ddp Encl. cc: George McArdle Michael Morton CCl CONSULTANTS, INC. I '11"lili'!l'Hjill~iil~l!'ljl:'i!I:I:n;'i!Ii!'ili:l.i!I'~I'.'lilI1"1 r I II 'li1iillo;!,,;I!':P:jlh til~!!;;I;,~llli;:I;~!li'I'~'i~I'~1 I. I' Ill! li!;;m!!i~lim!~I!i:j!:;;!lll!iIIWW.l!!I;i!!lil;!liII'li!l!!,Ii',' !f, ! ! lj :;'UI~'i'hFI:I;l;~I!i~iiPII;1 illlhi.I:"ll"! i~II' I: I I P ,'Hii,"I'I,:,'l,;I::! ;1:ililliil';l~;hl:!!;il!!ii;:I!I["I:lii;l:iii ;h Ii ,-I ill' i, I ;Iill:". 'I pll P ':'II,!!,:,lj,"I't11 Ii' il'll d! l'I;II'illll,""J:jl!;il"I; !.!IW,,:!lii!i!:l!!l,;il1ili','!IIII,I!IIi'I'l!!'lli! ;!~Ii Ii ! 'I ; Ill, 111"l'I" 1111",'11" I'" I 'I 'II" ~'I I' I' " I, iiI,'! Ilil:,:rl';'l:"'" ii I:. !,.j!il! .ila" ::il ':1' .i, I II' i J 1'liB!i!II'illlil'li.i:~:i!m:!i!!'I'ii':'I'i,illillil'[;i:!~im'illlli.,ll Ilill,'! !I I ~ . I ~ In;~111 I i t~. ;cl-. I I "II"I...I! h.II.III'II.,h,,,"ld.lIJ..,!....III'~,II,I,! .h.1 :I:~ :::' = -, :=r! ~;f= ~F if i;,J ih= !H ~a 5~~ "d !~ :i , J ! J ! rs ' ~ ~l: . ~I~ ~ U ~! ~i1 ~~ U ;l\S i ~i;fl ~I;i ~liP ~I;~ ;Wf :: fi:ii ~;;t ~If( HF Wi " I~,!, 'T i ,II 'Ji! 'ill ! .I=i s.( !Ii :r= r( : = i~ ~n r_l, h~ ' · I" :~ ... I 5' -;; ii i Si !~i i=; i i ~I ~! i :1 ! / I i I ; I I .' ~ il I~gl ~~ 1.3 ~:;;. . ~ i a"ll~ . Q 3~ i;~: a i D. 0 ~:t D ~ : it "IC~~! ; =; iEa ;;: 19 !i~ I ~ 1'1 i~;! ~ . Ig~r: I CO;:. >> ~ ;::1 e = Eat a I ;E~~ ~ II '~"! I ~ 3~~ ~ . ..~iI . a E~~ :E ~ woo L 8 R I C H' P LAC [ P,U,D, :. i DlwtNllONS AT IOYM'ON MASTER PLAN ijt ~ ~ L~ '...~i ~ H~ ~~I 1 '8: -:. \f.41 is ~ y z ~. '" ~ .~; ~ >8 - . :/ ' 1 ,~ ffi - gn: = ! i ' 4JI'! '\ ' i:;;;I q ~(,/I.... I ' i.\ \ ,~! .,:,.It,.,\ · ~I i ~llil ~~! J "/ ~ il~ i~i ill I .. \:11(\\ I .,\, I i II I II ~ I~ I~, \ - I: -~I2l :1',; 1::0 ; l. i!' ~ ~ -n S - !"lill!,1 ~ ~ I . ~: ~ ~ ~ ; f \ '01 I r I .~" _ m ! I' 1I~1; R ~ I ,!!n ~ 0 I' I I \1 11;1l1 " :! i'I' . il. 111;" ~: . · I., ~'I ",J..11,I, m,' Iliil! rr(:/ ~II. 1~!8 (111=' ~ I .', . 11:1 -0 . '" '\ : 1-" ~'.. ,~o I i I I' ~ I!'II ~ ID ~I ~I~ i, I j I - l ~l rl ,L, I :.1 M ' , I r-- i r-""':_.J I ~ III II~ It"~ I ~~ '1,--,::---1 nc ~ II ~! ~ I~. Iii! l',I:I~!l1 ~i /~J~/'~;\ 'Ii' m hi > ~ ~;. /x:::'~\'- ,--- :~, Ll::.:~LL 0 ~ I' "', I ~ ij~ ~ /" \-----. ~ Iml -.l' -. /'/' I ' , ,;" ' r- -- -. i ~ I~:-~-__!(.o J I ; 1. I I ~ I. - --, - _.:~- - .i J C l '! I ,"" ' I', ~ . ':. I I '", . i 1 : d I' ,pfJff _ ',I ;; II 1, '~ 5 _ ~ " Q I' '~, 1, 5 IP ~ .' ~ .. I=q !> =;; '1''''10. 'II is ! N '\ ".1._ ,g \. .,111 I~ _2 \~~\_-- .._._-- .,.. .~.' ." I =-CC-~_::--\F=~=:t5 . '\ (... .. 1; ~ '\ _::- : ~MORTON S..WAY - ___ I ... r I\! -..... '..'. .. \ ;\~\ ',:,~\.....:;.o~\ , ~\. . \ '. . \. i' \\ " J \~ ~~ \ \ ,," , "REi '" :0 , ~:I>o ,. .:i '1 ii . II: .:1>0 ='11 N' ... S t2 .!! ~ r ~ I ~ ~ ~ ,. !- to' l" . ~ a ~-) I iUI~11 U~I U1 ~~ ! b I 0 r r; ill dla >' i ~ i c :l>, J ' ~ . -t ~ ~ tiil 'rQ ~ :l> B~ E ~ E Ii t 5 ~ R i~ ; ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N i ~= . . . E 5 i i ; I Ui E !: i : N ~~ in: . . . 5 i J i 5 p 0 0 ~ ~m a= i~ ~~ ~i ~~ iill3 <~ 1'0 ~! ~ I . I i N m I ; : = I ~ ~ . :~ :: ~ 0 g I: DO' . aN , i '''rIll S i!!!lhl ~ ll'h!~l II I" ~ ~ m B 2 . r ~ m ~ ~ ! ~ ~ i '" !il I :0 g eeL CONSULT ANTS ,INC I_MUI' IUttVl"CHtS ~MId.S 6> __............. .....t. ....._IUlQ>,ri.~'(JOSI.'..IlMOA ....0\lIO IIACM 0ltl.AND0 wn' PALM eucH ~ DAY[ ~H' ~m t-m ~.. 5H ~m E ~.~ gS .. lili ~~~ '" h r- :n ;c o q '" b ~ '-' -l I m ~ '" ~ r :2 m 0 ." ~ '" i m )> lD 0 . S; 0 0 0 > (Il -l r Z m :0 > ~ 0 )> 0 '" b :< ok , ) -M h l" ~~ ~.' . '" ;': I I ! : ~ i 'r: I I 'l;J I ~ ,.. il18 if!1 H!I I 1 II f: JI~ lill "111 ~,II i A , I I: ~ i II i 1,1 I i ~i I .1 I I I B'l:mllll! ii k i H1i:I::I,II'!, ~ f 'I ,Ie 'HI. I I I "riKli!1 I. I . , ~ '~ III 'I f .! Ih~;I:!11 I 1'1 II' .11111 .! 1I!'II~lhlllll I !ilC iil1illi II I : 111~IUII'"111 // I ."1 jiillU111 I A Ili'11111il II I I' IIliliul.!11I /i I : I 'III 'II ~ lili~ill ~illll I I I I II 11'llfIIl If --t I lillil1h;llli -< I "U , ~llIh 1111 n I )> il:iillHhi ,; ,... I I II" 'IUll II it: I _,Ol.il II II 0 0 I II~i~!:lll.. I M I 1:11 I I I ,... I ::0 I 0 I ~ I l~ 1~r(ID I e I .. I I 0l'~ I I I I I r f .. . Ifijii"1 i I' I! t i I II 111'1 ! V I III I II --4_ _~.~......., WOOL"'OH' , L , C I ',U.D, C C L CONSUL TANfS JNC ......., turir,'" "........ w i "WINt'DHI ., IO'M'OM . DUC.I~IIDof ,_2: M " M IolASfER P L , N 'Ill " E X H I BIT B ,)> ~ g I~~~ i~~ 11~ " iii' ::J t f~ i \~[ 1 I-l!l ~ \i1 1 ~ :< ~ ~ ~~ J11 ~ ~ ~ ~ l\ ~ " -~ r fiU d~ :! z. \I ,.... t i ., Q :1 -' 1". ., iii ...... . ~ '.' ..t. - E X H I BIT C LOCATION M~P WOOLBRIGHT PLACE P.U.D. ...~ -, p :R~. . --" . . 1_. _... ~: " . /:-" "'l~ ", ~: i " - .. ...,' "J.l,U:',':":;";' .. :' " t , ~ L._,__ Q,'''- "f'" .. - - ............' , . 3, .L.~_...' 1 rl :- ,.( I r:1 1"'5 I'f ~ . 0- ! ; " ........ / I I I"".,', I I E X H I BIT D ~ . r ~ .. ~ . != I I~ I . I i Of (, ~~ 0 ~ i~ .. c i f' ~ ~:ifif"'!;.~:!iP~i~!l~P!ii i;!FI'~i.l;IP";f;i~ifP~i'iUI rrl ij :: ~ , ~ ;1-(.!';I~II;I.;;~.j;:iJi r;.~iJi'r.liil)Ji~.Ji~t ::f!f'" I J ~i i ]:a , ' I ii'i;irj":'~";"j;f'l' ,';ij',r: !:;,,'I~;.frl"..~i' . II .Ii , n ~ . !i .. i! ! 'iill':.~;I:!'lli'l:irll::Pl;I~ill;illjlll:'IiI:II~ijl/ii' I lIi Ii i . J I . . J fl'l'i.~f.i lI,.1 j" fIi . (to I 1 Ih', 1.1 II i.' 1~ . ; : II : HF~d:iU.i~I~! ~jilHll;iliiil!';il::'ih!l!illli'!II~I!:1 ill jl I~ ~ ~ i Iii H!!i i; ;1:iil;;11 !!im!l i!:i i :1:!:!!iiil!!I!i!!llil!!i!iii~ i I! Ii J J J :1 II f . I' 10 i jl' 'I' nl" ""1'1 "'1'1'11 I 11"1 I' 5 .. S i . i I (/ill!"lil;jl'! li!:l!l;llll,il!;1 II 1.1' '! ,I.,ii I' ~llli : . . eO ~ II .:1 i!!i11jli; ':U(il ~ti:jl;ir:'lI'i: lilll'llil':'llh li'. ; . . . .. .. l~ ! ; I ~!ljt!lil!'jli!~IH:;!r ;il~:j:iiii":Hii ~1!1!iiji!::I.lI! 1!lli I ~ i 1 i ;:H:t;llh:'!i',.!;l:>%': !:I,f'll;r:i;!:i.II;.:'wll ;:i!' . ~ : '. ;....lj,:;:li'.I;.;iljJi!;;i';;It."lli(j.;jp.I!!I,I~;llir.I I' I! I .. : :i ' I , ,,-1" r' It.., ','1>" I.' I .j' .1"11' hi i' I ! '; !i'j!:j ;1:iiil,~'I'i(":'I!I;ljl'llll"l~il,lilll,,11i I ! I ~ . 1 i1!~; 1.1i~ .U:l ,i. 'f:~1f i. JH' .'11 ..1 'l1 tI: ~ i J= i2 . . .0. ~ i . . II ;: 0 .. n III ! ! ~ H ~! h p II iI - . ~. i f.~ . I ! , I J~ :r.i~ i=:r i~:Jf ere: :f=~ :1:= :(11 I ~;fl sii- :~;~I ~;~j € :, i;~lf ~r2 . ~i - ~'II h~~f ~I i il~ n. 'ill I " ~ =r - e~_( ~,i= 0.1 -Ell :'f I~ 1 :g- =p ; r~r. .!. j_ =~ I .. WI' ~~f .hi ::,1 i;i ii' 'II I .' ~~ I., til h; fO' . litE .~~ I :' .1, :! ill .. :. ' jl"-. :i =: I i, '~I ir~ ~I IE oft ' - I . , ~ -I i 0 : J _ 1: i I. i i i I rll!31 JI 13 i3~ : ;1 1;=1 9 j. r'~1 ~ ii ;i: i '. lu. : I !fl I '1Iil~ · ~I:I I I .. ~ ~h ~ i i:~ :1 I":"U I , J Jr H I I i' ~'~. ~~~~\~ftW ~II' !.l,\"\I,\~, ~ '~ I, "\;"', \ 3: -a . ..&. ~~- \ ;1 \ L = ~ \1 cO ,~ '10 . \'t ' ~o ~'\ f ~ i: ! (3 I B, . ,.-t : 0 ~ t II~! ~ ~ I N ~ ~. i !:i,i · CD ~ ~ h ~ I -:;1 ~. o '1' >.J ~; ~~ g !i!. ~ ~ ~ m 1:1 _ ~ ~ ~ ~Fi H ,~,j - ~'l,t ~; :E ~' ; ~ -~-~, -~ ~ ~ :1; 'Q , ;; J (jl ::: ~ . 'll .' Q ... g R~ t g 0 I 4. ~1; ; N ..,I.> ~)o f~ ~;'-'''! : t ~ ~ OJ : q I \ ,~_;i_, :~ _~~~_~~y 0=>', ~ L _"h .... ", \~" \ " ~ I'll ill' ! Ih!lIil 1',!p;1 J I H ~~i ~:~ t:;~!i 08~ 2~~ ~;! aa= ;!; "I ~ ,_0::0, _ u.:;.o 0 CD "' )0 n :r r "' Iii ~ "' < ~ , .' m ~:' I : ! . , ~~ ; o , I , , .' , . f < = ~ . " !; ~ S .. \ i I r !fl I 1'1'" 1 I m ;i;-;. -~ If I i" '" Il:ij .. ,Ill: 3, q i t t f ~ rl,l 'I l R 'I' ~ L , ;~:h ~ ~ . n i n . 1Il =i m C ]:a -l ]:a I +') :p ij ~ . 'M ~ . ~ HH ii;i i.ig I=!j 11-- s;i U~ &!:~ ..020 m h !;; ;:u o q 3l b ~ ~ :E m ~ r :! m !j\ Kl )0 ~ S; o o o )0 en ... ~ 3l )0 S; o ~ 3l b :; ~ WOOLBRIGHT PLACE P.U.D. fi) BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA . MASTER PLAN ~. TRADEWINDS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION . - . C:.... ~ it ~C:.. Ii :::::i ~ ~ ~ f' f" r' f' gr~' i!:~ . , , . rn . . p.t ~i ..: ;!: .~ ..1, l r21, ~ ~ .0. ~ ow' . 8 ! i =: i . f} . : . ~ I ;H ilL' 5 loi j~ i ~ i ' _u_,_':,-:"'~ ~...~- ", ~.. e"", . .~'_--:.... _:!""~ & ! if l ~ f ~ 0~J f ...~:-~~. ... ...... _# ----# . c ~ ~ "' .13 .~ ~... ~~ "rn ... )0 ;;:l m I ': I I III ~ -.. ; ~ ~; : 0 . ~ ~ ,Q Il'i'l all:, hHII "illl II-h :11;. 1....1 iiHH !1 ~ !il I " g I E X H I BIT E MEMORANDUM UTILITIES DEPT. NO. 95 - 175 TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning Direct FROM: John A. Guidry, Utilities Director DATE: May 26, 1995 SUBJECT: Woolbright Place P.U.D. - Master Plan Revision - Pod 1 We offer the following comments on this application: 1) The plan indicates neither on-site nor off-site utilities, nor points of connection for water and sewer. These must be shown before the plan can proceed. We have some serious concerns about how portions of this site will connect to the gravity sewer system. (Art. IV, sect. 3 (0)) 2) Water main easements proposed for side lot lines must be at least 20-feet wide to allow IO-foot clearance to the nearest building. In cases of sanitary sewers in side easements, the easement width must be at least twice the depth of the sewer, or twenty feet, whichever is greater. It appears that some side lot line easements will be required to connect to the existing utilities. (Sect. 26-33(a)) 3) No information is provided on the drainage system, or stormwater management. The plan therefore fails to meet the requirements of Article IV, Section 3 T. 4) The plan does not indicate existing utility easements on the property. These must be clearly shown. Plans must also be submitted as to how those existing utilities will be relocated. (Art. IV, sect. 3 (I)) The plan that was submitted does not provide the minimum information required to allow a comprehensive review. Conflicts with existing utilities are proposed, without any accomodation or relocation shown. The design also does not clearly show how water and sewer service will be provided to the site. We therefore recommend this plan not proceed until a complete package is provided. Please refer any questions on this matter to Peter Mazzella of this office. JAG/PVM be: Peter Mazzella xc: Skip Milor File RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #95-248 TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director John Wildner, Parks Superintendent }tJ Charles C. Frederick, Director Cc::~ Recreation & Park Department - --r- . FROM: THROUGH: RE: Woolbright Place PUD - Revised MasterPlan (POD 1) DATE: May 30, 1995 The Recreation & Park Department has reviewed the revised masterplan for the Woolbright Place PUD (PODI). This POD is being developed as a single family zero lot line community. The following comments are submitted: 1. The developer has already received one-half credit for private recreation. Multi-family unit PODs 2A and 28 already show privatized recreation sufficient to qualifY for one-half credit, but restrict the recreation provided to the multi-family unit residents only. In order to qualifY for one-half credit for POD, the developer is obligated to provide a minimum of five basic park requirements suitable for the future residents of this section. 2. The following recreation elements are shown on the plan: I. one-half basketball court 2. sand volleyball court 3. family picnic area 4. play area 5. open canopy There is also a 3.3 acre area listed as a proposed park. . We are assuming that this proposed park is private and to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. In any case, the size, configuration, and location of this particular parcel is not suitable for a public park and has limited potential for active recreation. 3. The recreation elements listed above are insufficient to meet the needs of the single family units. We cannot recommend one-half credit for private recreation provided at this time. We recommend a swimming pool and meeting hall be added to the recreation elements in order to strengthen the recreation package sufficiently for us to recommend one-half credit. ~:':.,~ . 'l, <. 4. Based on the number of single family units, the following additional recreation fees would be applicable if the developer does not qualify for one-half credit: 108 single family units X .0180 = 1.944 acres. Since the developer has already paid one-half of the recreation fee, he would be responsible for 1.944 divided by 2 = .972 acres. Fee in lieu of land is recommended. 5. If the final recreation package includes a children's play area and family picnic area, then additional details would have to be provided to insure that recreation equipment would be of commercial quality and of sufficient size to meet the needs of the community. JW:ad --.'-- ~-_.~ -:::--.- ~ - ~-Tf-- \f/ ~ ,,--- \ n) J.,JL~,L~'i i 1,1' I II} I ;: \,I! i \, ,,' . I , ' " , ! . -,,-,_.._-_.,'-~ 1 i .'--i;j {!),1PH: [,!!n 1 'I - "i~'i" iirf'" J ..__.......__/\'.~~ r:u ., .:___ .~ ::~. '" -. FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-270 WDC TO: Planning Department FROM: Fire Department DATE: May 26, 1995 RE: Woolbright Place PUD SW 8 st The Fire Chief has determined that fifteen feet (15') between bUildings shall be maintained. A minimum of twenty-four feet (24') of pavement fo~ roads is necessary for Fire Department access. An emergency access road shall be provided. ~/'~~'/' ),,/ ( /i/('l"t' ~<:'~, ~ t"? c' c.?~ , {<2--'J' William D.cavanaugl1, FPO I ',! I I 'i j:I,,: Ii I:' , " ~f> r ' L , ' ,,- -, BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC UNIT TO: FROM: DATE: REF: Tambri Heyden, Planning and Zo.ning Directo.r Sgt. Marlo.n Harris, Po.lice Department 24 May 95 Wo.o.lbright Place - POD 1 MEMO #0140 f;.,.............~......"1' I have reviewed th~ pro.jected site pla~~~.ft~.d?flfe Jiilo.\YllJg:'.E.o.nc~ms: . . .. . I: An area o.fthls vo.lume I feel ~;~~::d1~~JbahJ>ne en)l~u~~.xlt (co.nsldenng It IS a m~ltl- family area) fo.r no.rmal traffic fl:~w ~1f~~~rgcncy and s~lce acc~l' S.W. ~ Street is 80.m~ to be a cornmon travel route for.i~ccs8 Wo.rn W. Boynto.n Beach BJvd)tfWo.o.lbnght Ro.ad. ThIS road is also. curved in this area.~ii'd future co.ngestio.n is pro.ject&k(~1:""',,~ .~~ ~..~~~ '- Jt .~.-:: .... ~ "::; l 2. The park Io.catio.n ~pa'Me~' next to. the single entrance/exit, ~QP. o.~!lS,W. 8 St.) do.es no.t seem to. be an o.ptimum loij:iHoh. If the park is designed fo.r privat~~:4~d:::by POD I residents, the Io.catio.n will invite, no.t o.nly o.ther surro.unding co.mmunities, but will':~nvite o.ther residcnts of the city to. frequent the par~"rnd::~r}ite ar'i,uuwrred e,cFeo.t~.~or thlSF:tb~~~~I(ve in this develo.pment. 3. The 6 unit satellil4.:if~~;\Yith ~i:dci;~~c apnk~rs:::t6"be a ~bJ.y coJJested are and specificatio.ns need to Ch~Ck~':td.io.ihbid~:::W'ith:lcddb. tJ :L.,::::::::::;::~::::.,/' tJ ,',' "\ ii' .(;0....:..;::;:.::::;. \:;;;::::.,::...".:)") "';~":" ...;.,.;:., ,....... l .~::::::::.:.:.:...:.. ::' /" .....) ..::::~::::::::;::..;:...:"" . ',...: l:.:/' :l:l /i.::iil;n RC,SPC }~,!.~.I.'j~:'i.':'4!::::/ ,,',. "', ....~ ....:..-. '. ..:......., ':'. '. " . ~/?:.... .:;;::t t . '('ry1~tl(M Harris {j Cytlig,Unit r::::::::::::::::::;:;::::::J f:::::::':':'::~:") , i" !,.: ~ I ~ I : u' , i; I, ~ '" .~ ~~ PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-252 TO: Carrie Parker city Manager ---=-; / Tambri J. Heyden /;l:p- Planning and Zoning Director FROM: DATE: Hay 31, 1995 SUBJECT: Woolbright Place PUD - MPMD# 95-003 (Transfer of units and setback and unit type changes for 108 single-family units and private recreation in Pod 1 and Pod 3 use change from duplexes to park) Please be advised of the following Planning and Zoning Department comments with respect to the above-referenced request: 1. Show and label on the master plan drawing the following required setbacks for the perimeter of the proposed project: i. Show a 25 foot rear setback where the subject parcels abut a rear property line of a lot in the adjacent R-1A, single-family subdivision (Lake Boynton Estates Plat 2). ii. Show a 7.5 foot setback where the subject parcels abut a side property line of a lot in the adjacent residential subdivision to the north. iii. Show a 25 foot setback where the subject parcels abut S.W. 8th Street and S.W. 3rd Avenue. iv. Show the proposed 15 foot rear setback where the subject parcels abut The Vinings at Boynton Beach. [Chapter 2.5, Section 9. B. of the city I s land development regulations] 2. Since pool setbacks are not proposed with this request, include a statement on the plan that indicates pools are not allowed and a future master plan modification shall be required to establish pool setbacks if pools are desired at a later date. 3. Show and specify on the master plan the specie and size of the trees and spacing, size and specie of the hedges proposed for the landscape buffer along the north PUD boundary line. Also specify the size, specie and spacing of the hedges required along the interior property line where the subject property abuts The Vinings at Boynton Beach. The overall master plan indicates landscape material along the S.W. 8th Street frontage of the project. Therefore, specify on the plan the specie, size and spacing of this material. Clarify the location of the 10 foot wide buffer easement and the 10 foot wide utility easement shown along the north property line of the project. The overall master plan and the Pod 1 master plan contradict each other with regard to the location of these easements. [Chapter 2.5, Section I1.B. of the city's land development regulations] 4. Add to the project summary data the minimum lot frontage and minimum lot area proposed. [Chapter 2.5, Section 1 of the city's land development regulations] 5. Show and label on the plan the appropriate number of handicapped parking spaces consistent with the number of surplus parking shown on the plan. [State Handicapped Code] Page 2 Memorandum No. 95-252 Woolbright Place PUD MPMD 95-003 6. Add to project summary note #4, the minimum size of 9 feet wide by 18 feet long for parking spaces. [Chapter 2.5, Section 9.C. of the city's land development regulations] 7. Show on the plan a dimension of no less than 660 feet between the two access points into the subdivision. If this cannot be met, one access point shall be deleted or a subdivision variance filed and granted. [Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 1 of the city's land development regulations] 8. Prior to plat submittal of this subdivision, a revised traffic report is required to be submitted for review. 9. A revised master plan which reflects all staff comments and conditions approved by the City Commission and Planning and Development Board shall be submitted in triplicate to the Planning and Zoning Department, prior to plat submittal of this subdivision. 10. In addition to those recreation issues addressed by the Recreation and Parks Department, additional fee will be required at time of platting of this subdivision. The cash paid thus far for the PUD was calculated based on a total of 16 duplexes and 640 multi-family units within the PUD. However, since the ratio used for calculating the recreation fee is greater for single-family units than for multi-family uni ts and since this modification proposes to convert 92 multi-family units to single-family units, the market value of .184 acres of land, assuming half credit for providing private recreation within Pod 1, shall be due. If half credit cannot be granted for private recreation, the value of .184 acres shall be paid in addition to the 1.944 acres referenced in Recreation and Parks Department Memorandum No. 95-248. Since the new platting process does not require Commission review of the plat until the very end with adoption of a resolution accepting the final plat and accompanying surety, setting land value by the Commission has to occur prior to platting. Therefore, since this modification is the last step prior to platting, it is recommended that if this modification is approved, the Commission accept a recent purchase contract for Pod 1 as the instrument verifying current market value of the land. RECOMMENDATION 10. It i. r.~Qmm.nd.~ that ~ 15 toot setbAck be eitabli.h.~ around the perimeter of the private recreation area within Pod 1, with the exception of the required 25 foot setback along S.W. 8th Street. 11. It is recommended that the overall building height be set at 25 feet. 12. It is recommended that all landscape material for the landscape buffers be native materials. 13. Compliance with the recommendations listed in the "Analysis" section of the staff report, Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-251, is recommended. TJH:dim xc: Central File o:WLBRGHT.COH/CC QEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-167 TO: Tambri J. Heyden Planning & Zoning Director ~fll~ ~ukill, P.E. ~nglneer May 24, 1995 WOOLBRIGHT PLACE PUD - POD LAND 3 ill 1,11\1" ,( 5 !t, @ rn @ rn 0 ~J rn FROM: 'tM; DATE: RE: Insufficient information was submitted to permit a complete review, of this project, but fortunately the request before TRC related only to a transfer of density; provision of offsite park land; and a private recreation area. Our comments on these issues are as follows: 1. Transfer of Density. The transfer of 16 units from an area within the original PUD but remote from the single family proposal would be supportable under certain circumstances. In this case, however, the resulting density requires 36' wide lots having zero and 10 foot side yards; rear yards as little as 20 feet; and front yards (to garage) as little as 15 feet. Many easements are shown as 5' whereas the code stipulates 12' in most cases (page 6-9). Street rights-of-way are 40 feet whereas the code normally requires 50 feet (page 6-11). The site is simply too crowded. 2. Offsite Park. The applicant offered to give the 3.3 acre offsite property as a park dedication, but it is not useful as a park. In fact, without density, it has practically no value and likely in time the owner will default on property taxes and the lot will revert to the City. Either way we lose. 3. The Private Recreation Area. The proposed location is not very convenient to most of the lots in the development, and residents who drive to it will have to exit onto SE 8th Street then turn back into the cul-de- sac because no parking is proposed except the cul-de-sac. It's location with a major SE 8th Street frontage may be less desirable for small children than an alternative location farther into the development. WVH/ck C:WOOLBRITE.PD3 "r}..'..'