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}..'..'