The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA DOCUMENTS "r-:--:' "'" ;, - "/ T'- l, i" i:~:'~Ji>~'~~\":""''' AGENDA DOCUMENTS 7. C.2 MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION CITRUS GLEN I PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-650 TO: FROM: Chairman and Members of the Planning and Development Board . ~[) . rJ A~!l1u Tambri J. Heyden, AICP \- -J,ntI Planning and Zoning Direc r rJ DA TE: December 6, 1996 SUBJECT: Citrus Park PUD -Master Plan Modification, File No. MPMD #96-003 (reduce side setback to 10 feet) INTRODUCTION Sherylyn McAlister, applicant, is requesting a master plan modification to reduce the established side setbacks from 15 feet to 10 feet for pools, spas and jacuzzis at the Citrus Park PUD. This PUD is located on the east side of Lawrence Road, approximately 1,750 feet north of Gateway Boulevard, as described in the attached report (Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96-623). RECOMMENDA TION At the December 3, 1996, City Commission meeting, the Commission recommended that the Planning and Development Board approve this request, subject to the staff comments in Exhibit E-Conditions of Approval, with the exception of comments 1, 2, and 3. These comments were recommended for deletion as they are replaced by comment 8 which combines the issues of comments 1-3. T JH:dim Attachment xc: Central File D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\CITRUSGL \MPMD\PDAGENDA.WPD ~ PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-623 Agenda Memorandum for December 3, 1996 City Commission Meeting TO: Dale Sugerman Acting City Manager FROM: Tambri J. Heyden, AICP Planning and Zoning Director DA TE: November 25, 1996 SUBJECT: Citrus Glen - Master Plan Modification File No. MPMD 94-008 (reduce side setback to 10 feet) NATURE OF REQUEST Sherylyn McAlister, applicant, is requesting to modify the side setbacks of the following amenities in the Citrus Glen PUD (see Exhibit "A" -Location Map): . screen enclosure - from 15 feet to 10 feet . pool, spa, jacuzzi - from 15 feet to 10 feet The approved setbacks in the Citrus Glen PUD, taken together with the requested setbacks, are as follows (see Exhibit "8" - Letter of Request): Buildings (no change): front rear side (zero lot line) side 20 feet 15 feet o feet 15 feet Pools, spas, jacuzzis: front rear side (zero lot line) *side 20 feet 3 feet (units abutting lake) 13 feet (units abutting Lawrence Rd. or Miner Rd.) 11 feet (all other units) o feet 10 feet Screen enclosures: front rear side (zero lot line) *side 20 feet o feet (units abutting lake) 10 feet (units abutting Lawrence Rd. or Miner Rd.) 8 feet (a/l other units) o feet 10 feet The requested setback changes are indicated by an asterisk. For an illustration of the requested setbacks see Exhibit "C" - Proposed Master Plan. .A :5 Page 2 Agenda Memorandum for City Commission Meeting November 25, 1996 Citrus Glen PUD - MPMD #94-008 BACKGROUND The Citrus Glen PUD is a residential development consisting of 196 existing, single family units. All lots are "zero lot lines" - where one of the side yards is reduced to zero. The lots within this development are classified in four different categories: . Lakefront lots - lots abutting the shore of one of the lakes . Lawrence/Miner lots - lots abutting either Lawrence Road or Miner Road . Courtyard lots -lots that contain a courtyard style house (also known as "Captivas") with the amenities located on the side of the house, rather than the typical rear of the house . Typical lots - all other lots in this development (amenities located in the rear) The "non-zero lot line" side yard setbacks, as approved for this development, are 15 feet. The applicant requested that the "non-zero lot line" side yard setback for house amenities be reduced to 1 0 feet, however, the "non-zero lot line" side yard setbacks for residential structures would remain unchanged (15 feet). Therefore, from view from the street, amenities would extend five feet beyond the house. In 1994, a similar application for reduction of the "non-zero lot line" side yard setbacks for screen enclosures, pools, spas and jacuzzi from 15 feet to 5 feet was filed with the city. However, because of severe access limitations to the back of the residential structures, the Technical Review Committee strongly opposed the request and eventually, the petitioner decided not to go forward to the Commission with the request. 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 a part of the zoning to PUD may be permitted by the Planning and Zoning Board upon application filed by the developer or his successors 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. Non-substantial changes as determined by the City Commission in plans shall not extend the expiration of the eighteen month approval for the PUD classification. " As a point of information, the proposed changes to the land development regulations would change the above master plan modification procedure which now requires a Commission determination of substantial change prior to forwarding to the Planning and Development Board. The proposed procedure would place the Planning and Development Board's review prior to Commission review. Whether or not a change is substantial would be delayed to the Commission level. ANAL YSIS 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: 4, Page 3 Agenda Memorandum for City Commission Meeting November 25, 1996 Citrus Glen PUD - MPMO #94-008 Section 1. Intent and purpose '~ 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 hannonious 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-Iot basis. In view of the substantial public advantages of planned unit development, it is the intent of PUD regulations to promote and encourage development in this fonn where tracts 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. " As previously mentioned, when viewed from the street front, the requested side setback reduction would allow a screen enclosure projection five feet beyond the side of a unit. Although this is not considered aesthetically desirable, due to the floor plans constructed within this PUO, it is reasonable to limit this request to only the 69 courtyard units. This is because the courtyard units are constructed with a side yard patio plat, rather that a rear yard patio, of 30 feet by 15 feet, see Exhibit "0" - Housing Units Typology, where amenities such as pools, enclosures, etc., would be logical and functional in order to tie in to the room arrangement of that floor plan. The floor plan configuration of all remaining types of houses and their location on the lots would make construction of any side yard amenities impractical, as the amenities would be limited to five feet in width; the difference in the width that is gained by this request and the location of the side wall of the unit. In order to further evaluate the side yard emergency and utility access problems perceived with this request, City staff visited the PUO. During the field investigation, special emphasis was placed on the courtyard units and any conflicts with existing utility easements and existing encumbrances, such as side yard fences and gates which would conflict with the provision of appropriate access for emergency vehicles. Based on that analysis, the following courtyard units do not pose utility and emergency vehicle access problems if the side yard setback were reduced to 10 feet: Lots 2, 11, 12, 14,16,18,19,21,53,63,99,126,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,143,145,146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 156, 157, 190, 192, 193, 195 and 196. /' 8 Page 4 Agenda Memorandum for City Commission Meeting November 25, 1996 Citrus Glen PUD - MPMD #94-008 RECOMMENDA liON On Tuesday, November 5, 1996, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) met to review the requested master plan modification. The majority of the Committee members recommended that the City Commission deny this request. The reason given was that although the code sets forth the master plan modification process to reduce setbacks, a Board of Zoning Appeals variance on a case by case basis makes sense in this situation given the inappropriateness to apply this request across the board to all units in the PUD. However, due to the field investigation and analysis conducted by staff, no technical problems are anticipated with this request, this problem can be resolved if it is limited to certain courtyard units, rather than if it is allowed for all units. Also, since the floor plans were not submitted with the original master plan approval (the time when lot sizes and setbacks are established), it was not known that there would be a unit constructed that would have a side patio. Special setback provisions were made for rear yard amenities with the approval of the master plan. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Department recommends the City Commission make a finding of no substantial change for the proposed modification, and that the Planning and Development Board approve the request, subject to the comments in Exhibit "E" - Conditions of Approval, which would limit the request to only those courtyard units listed on page 3 of this report. d: Isharelagendaslcilycommlcilrglen. wpd o EXHIBIT II All 1 LO~AT\ON ME~!: C\TRUS GL \~ -'......- . _-90..,1'1'1"01'1 " \\ '.'Jl\\nr:- 1'1 \JflEle.fll e.EI .. {;."Illlllli puO ::. . "l""x:-:... L-Ul:4.O ~ . ,'" :,. - - . - . - ~. \ ~ \ \ ~~ , -:. I ., :::: . ~ ~,,~~..;~.. ....- ~.~:- . .. ~ -"" .~.:t:1 .,~ '\:)~ 1 ,_ ~:._ .,;:::;. ..........~~'c:~~.... ,-..".. ,IT' ,IU ~ .. . ... It.'? ' ...':.~,~.O ~ ~'..." \~ ~::... 0 ~\ '\ ~,~ 1\, .'or .\ t) 'if ~ IJ. \ \, ~ ....l\- \\. fj - . '.J~. ....;:; A -r-'eW #','-f p'J3] - .-- -- \\\\ \ \. ."~!J _') \ ,? 1 _ nnO f~EI - '~r \ /\K.'~ ~\ \G<:\' .~ . ""pr;. Ji.-.9.kJ ~ ' ..y rrO EXH\B\T "B" (1 SHERYL YN MCALLISTER 00 ~,:~ ~ ,org, ~ @I ... 195 VIM Trails Circle. Boynton Beach, Fl 33436.561-734.0494. Fax: 6~9fLANNrNG AUO .'.... . ' ZONING OEPt September 16, 1996 Ms Tambri J. Heyden, Director Planing & Zoning Department 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd P.o. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Fl 33425 Re: Master plan modification to change the exisitng non-zero setbacks for pools, jacuzzi or spas and screen roof enclosure from 15 feet to 10 feet - Communities of Citrus Glen, Lawrence Rd, Boynton Beach, Florida Dear Tambl" i: This is a follow-up to conversations my parents, Art & Sandi Albrecht, had with you regarding the subject master plan modification request...and subsequent discussions with Mike Haag and, more recently, with Jerzy Lewicki. This request modifies our earlier request to change the setback from 15 feet to 5 feet. Per Mike's instructions, I'm enclosing 12 sets of the following: . An official request for the subject modification signed by the president of the Executive Estates of Boynton Beach Homeowners Association on behalf of the residents of the Communities of Citrus Glen. . A l7X22 document showing the layout of the Communities of Citrus Glen and spelling out the requested modification ...indicating site plans which illustrate the request and a list of the lots which are involved. . Plat maps of Executive Estates and Citrus Trail which constitutes the Communities of Citrus Glen. Please call me at 561-734-0494 or my parents at 561-393-9985 re: next steps. Thanks you so much for your hel~-and cooperation regarding this request. ~Si~CerelY' . ~ ffJC~/L) Sheryly McAllister /0 EXHIBIT "C" /1 ~ = . I otfj I trjCj ~o a:= :::". a: ~ I ~c:: ~~ ~ 1--4 ~~ cn~ t?j z, en ~I I 0 51~ 0(1 -1--4 ~~ cn~ ~~ ==00 en ~ ~ t?j Z I: Z ... ;D ;D 0 ~ " l J n ;l o n ~ c:: 2. - (ii' V> o ..... Q 2 VI o i-b ::J E I.~ /.: r~ L~- [~. E [C' If :z-3' 31:>111:> jlMJ.O:>3X3 . --. ~h. ~ .~J ~J ~J ~J ~] ~] .;] -:..., . .-. ; . ,H{{,~;{~~I"1 I . .. I I, I , .. I': . ! i Go ~ ~ .. ii .. :' ,~ .. ~ -.: " . io ;: . . ,. ,. ~ ~~ r"- I ;; t .. ,- '-. r- r-- r -- -.- -- I: ,'; ::: f:: r.. r.- , ..:...:.... ~ I. .--- 1.--. ~,_. L_., l._ L~ .. __ ~~llla. 30N!!J2., "' !'1 oil .- , ""'I ~ I ~ ; .:!-/ 'il ---1 0, ;;, .~ I .., . I IS' '-' ._ .1 .'. .~ - ! rt'w N 0..... .....cncn8" ::T' . HI' onto10l'1 ID ~8 0 0 ~(f) Ul'tl ttl Ul IIIUl "':I ttlnc:: ::T< Uln l'10 c:: ID .....10 to1l'1)1::Z:l'1 t-'.CD n~ 80 H rt' .....rt' l'1zn)llll 1011 ~tTl b:It'" t'" t:r t:r 8 :>IZ8 ::Till )I....... 0 III /D III . ~tnf.l.., lll..... t'l~ Otrl H n III n III..... Z :>I'd Z X- liiX' 0"':1 0 rt' ~~ trI)I c;l III 111 III "':108" ::T ....... a l'1";> '0111 on 1:.1 tn III /Dill o t-'. >'Ijt'" )I to1 11 :311 Z'd t-'.IQ 0 n 8 111 rt'ID nol'1~ :3::T 000 c:: ttl III t40X rt'rt' Zc:: N > III . III Ot"'HCIl ~61 N n !II g. CIlUlUl8 00 H :>I C::. HtTl HI HI 00 HI ....,. ~ 8" 0 CD CIlH 111 !II ..... n 'dZ'd ><0 ..... rt' "':I>c;lt'< t-"11 trlen :0"':1 en en :>;l'"IJ CIlen:>;l'"IJ 0 ~CIl > !II CD ,.... ,.... /D 11 ,....,.... 1011 ,....,....111 11 :f; rt' O. Z Z rt'CD p.p. III 0 p.p. 1110 P.P.1II0 !II 0 :3: 0 ,....:3 CD 10 11:3 10 10 11 ::I CD 1011::1 C-IZ;3: ::I .. rt' .. rt' .. rt' 11 .....>'0 10 !II .. .. III UlnNO ::T III c::tTlH 11 I>> rt' t<JN:>;l..., 0..... ..... ..... ..., ..... ..... ........, ..... ........, 11 t'lNOH 0..... oooocoo ooww.....o UlOUlO t-'. t'lH n HI - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n 8 CIl:t>' . :3 -~~ F~~ rt' ~H8 0 t"4t"'8 1-" 8 OH rt' 111111'< IlllU'< 0 Ot:1l'10 :f; X-'O :f; X''O ::s z CD 11 ID 1-" 11 111 t-'. III >< /D - n lD-n n ::s III ::s III CD n ..... n ..... ro III ro 0- ....... ....... ~ ~ 1-" 1-'. ::l ::J 0 0 /c7 11 11 - __ - __._____m --~-~ '. EXHIBIT "0" /J .. _... . __T.l'N ~:j ,ei ,Q ....: " ... n~ .i~lu .~ ~u-"';\ ~ .~~-tS -'~ ~ '.' "" ~ ~_.\ ~ t3 Ul a I- b z tIl ~ o ..:I ~ P: '4' o ~ z ~ H '<1' ::E: '" ..... I ~ II'l U II'l Z ~ ~ ..:I 1 ~ ... a: o c( o II: II: IU 0.. ~ :l 0:, 0 QIZ Q c( ..II ILl UoI U ...... ffi ~. a: - ~ WI ::5 , M . N N I '4' ~ ~ l " ~ ..; itS ~ ~ . U) , CD ~ N '" r-- ~ I 5 , 0- . tIl '<1' 0- II'l Z ~ II'l 0- 0 I , ~ l ..:I CD '" I <> l- N 0- 0 I .. 0 ..:I I CD Lx-=- . ..J ~ , M ~ Z'" u r-- 0- <!! H N ll< I .. ..I .) >t ' r-- ~ II'l r-- -.- 0.;1 E--t N <<xl ~ 0:::J o~ " .O"WC o~ 1 .J:i o!.lO\ .. ..,'~., IJ..-' ,'- c( .I'CO l WU ...ii: z -> I>l , en... ~ I '"1 P: UP: .~--- 11 tIlO -.. :I:H 51 ~N . HN ~I :J:~ el I>J~ ~., I ~ \I) Co l,;t , ooeC un I ~ ..:10.. .. Uti) },' ~ z ..I .g ~ <<xl ~D . N r-- I 'I- 0- ~ z~ ~ I '" ~ I>J ~ CD '" 1>JtL."'; r-- p:oo ~ ~ uoo ...,. I 1I1P:ll< I :z CO 0- < I '" <> ~ ~ ..J M ~ ~ .. D.III r-- -L ..." p,,- . 0:'" ~ 09 <<xl 0... 0- , ... ... . ..,JZ . I 1&.0 ~ '" I 0 .- .. ".-!if '0' 1 ....a: r-- r-- ,...., ~~ 0- '""' .t"Ol I u.J :> CC 01 ~t Ct, (I) \i ~~ =I~ 1 , I If ~ '~ '6 z .. .. M CO .....,. '""' M '""' 0- .. .. r-- \D .. ~ ~ '""' M M \0 ~ ~ , '" ~ II'l ::: '""' tIl E--t S D P: < >< ~ Il4 :::J o U .. ...,. .. '""' M I U1 '""' '""' .. .... , N N '" 0- ~ I o '" ,...., ~ '<1' '" U"\ N ~ rol I .. I ~ ~. g: ~ EXHIBIT "E" /6 EXHIBIT "E" Conditions of Approval Project name: Citrus Glen File number: MPMD 94-008 Reference: The plans consist of 1 sheet identified as 2nd Review. Master Plan Modification New Site Plan. File #MPMD 94-008 with a September 17, 1996 Planning and Zoning Deoartment date stamp marking. I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJ ECT I PUBLIC WORKS r . NONF UTILITIES Comments: 1. Due to existing easements the following lots may not be allowed to have the requested reduction in side yard setback: Lot #1, 5, 7, 13, 23, 28,31,3743,46,48,50,54,61,68,75,82,89,93,97,100, 141, 144, 148,153,159,163,172,176,181,191, and 194. As this proposal was submitted for the entire PUD, the request cannot be approved due to th", of .,.. in thA c:.irl", \'::Irrlc: Intc: FIRE Comments: 2, Many of the side yards have extra foliage, fences, etc, that may intrude on the Fire Department's access. All models with the exception of the "Courtyard" models seem to have completed their desired improvements, 3, Noting the situation with the courtyard models we have no further objections to the request for a ten (10') foot side yard (specifically lots- 2, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19,21,53,63,99, 126, 131-138, 143, 145- 147,149-152,154,156,157,190,192,193,195,196. POLICE - . NONF DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - . NONF PARKS AND RECREATION r . NONF FORESTER/ENVI RONMENT ALlST I . N 0 1\11= PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 4. The chart listing amended setbacks indicates different requirements for pools/spas/jacuzzis and screen enclosures. Illustrate these different setback requirements on separate drawings for the following categories: a, building b. pool/spa/and jacuzzi, and c. screen enclosure 5. Provide a statement on the master plan that within the 10 feet, non-zero lot line setback area trees, decorative elements and other access obstructions do not exist or, if they do, will be removed or relocated prior to receiving a building permit for a pool, spa, jacuzzi, or screen enclosure. 6. To maintain an unobstructed access to the lot it is recommended that a 10 feet wide access easement be established and dedicated along the non-zero lot line at time of oermit. /~ Page 2 Citrus Glen File No. MPMD 94-008 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 7. Provide a statement by a registered engineer that the drainage can be handled by the existing drainage system when amenities on all lots are constructed, 8. It is recommended that modified setback requirements, as proposed by petitioner will apply only to the following courtyard houses, as these are the only courtyard houses that currently have no existing utility easements in the side yard and pose no Fire Department access problems: 2,11,12,14,16,18,19,21,53,63,99,126,131-138,143, 1..1"i_1..17 149-152 154 156 1"i7 H:jn 192 193 195 :::Inrl1QF\ ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS 9. Tn hI" ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS 10. Delete Comment No. 1 11. Delete Comment NO.2 12. Delete Comment No, 3 MEH:dim D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\CITRUSGL \MPMD\CONDAPPR.WPD 'r-; I, i PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-491 TO: TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS Carrie Parker, City Manager Bob Eichorst, Public Works Director AI Newbold, Building Division Ken Hall, Department of Development William Cavanaugh, Fire Prevention Officer Sgt. Marlon Harris, Police Department John Wildner, Parks Superintendent Kevin Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist Clyde "Skip" Milor, Utilities Chief Field Insp. Mike Haag, Planning & Zoning Department William Hukill, Development Department FROM: Tambri J. Heyden, AICP Planning & Zoning Director DATE: October 2, 1996 SUBJECT: Administration Technical Review Committee Meeting - Tuesday, October 8, 1996. On October 8, 1996, a staff-only meeting will be held to discuss the projects below in the 2nd Floor Conference Room, Room 201, Mangrove Park School. 1. Old Business None 2. New Business A. Master Plan Modification: 1. PROJECT: Citrus Glen PUD LOCATION: Southeast corner of Lawrence Road and Miner Road DESCRIPTION: Request for a reduction in the non-zero side setback from fifteen (15) feet to ten (10) feet to construct a screen enclosure (with screen roof), jacuzzi, spa or pool. NOTE: As previously stated in Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96-486, written comments are to be returned to the Planning and Zoning Director no later than 5:00 P.M., Friday October 11,1996. a Major Site Plan Modification: 1. PROJECT: Shoppes of Woolbright PCD LOCATION: North side of the intersection of Woolbright Road and S.W. 8th Street. DESCRIPTION: Request for approval to modify the approved sign program to include freestanding and wall signage for outparcels and main building tenant(s). Page 2 Administrative TRC October 8, 1996 NOTE: C. Master Plan: 1. PROJECT: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: NOTE: 2. PROJECT: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: NOTE: D. Conditional Use Application: 1. PROJECT: LOCATION: AGENT: OWNER: DESCRIPTION: NOTE: 4. Other Business None 5. Comments by members 6. Adjournment a:ADTRC108.wpd As previously stated in Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96-492, written comments are to be returned to the Planning and Zoning Director no later than 5:00 P.M., Tuesday October 15,1996. Boynton Festive Center Northwest corner of Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road Request to waive the master plan approval process regarding subdividing the existing 10.11 acre Boynton Festive Center site into two (2) separate tracts of land. Written comments are to be returned to the Planning and Zoning Director no later than 5:00 P.M., Friday, October 11, 1996. Orchard Landing East side of U.S. 1 approximately 185 feet south of the intersection of U.S. 1 and Golf Road (S.E. 23rd Avenue). Request to approve a master plan to subdivide a 2 acre parcel into three lots for single-family homes. Written comments are to be returned to the Planning and Zoning Director no later than 5:00 P.M., October 11,1996. ITVTower 505 South Congress Avenue Agustin A. Hernandez The School District of Palm Beach County Palm Beach County School Board Request for co-locating telecommunication equipment (satellite dish) on an existing tower. As previously stated in Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96-496, written comments are to be returned to the Planning and Zoning Director no later than 5:00 P.M., Monday October 14, 1996. 7.B.l MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION CITRUS PARK P.U.D. l PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-358 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning and Development Board Tambri J. Heyden ~ Planning and Zoning Director FROM: DATE: July 3, 1996 SUBJECT: Citrus Park PUD - (f.k.a. Citrus Glen Phase II) Master Plan Modification, File No. MPMD #96-003 Reduce lot width and side setbacks for lots 22 and 23 and the rear pool and enclosure setbacks for lot 32 INTRODUCTION James A. Hamilton, III, P.S.M. of CCL Consultants, Inc., agent for Next Development Company, owner of Citrus Park PUD, located on the east side of Lawrence Road, approximately 1,750 feet north of Gateway Boulevard, is requesting approval to modify the previously approved master plan for the Citrus Park PUD, as described in the attached report (Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96- 297) . RECOMMENDATION At the July 2, 1996, City Commission meeting, the Commission with a 3-2 vote, made a determination that the changes requested are not substantial in nature. In addition, the Commission recommends that the Planning and Development Board approve this request, subject to the staff comments in Exhibit D, with the exception of comments 3, 6 and 8. Commments 3 and 6 are in conflict with allowing a reduced lot width and side setback for lots 22 and 23. To mitigate the appearance of the reduced lot width and side setback for lot 22 and 23, the Commission is recommending two additional comments (see Exhibit D) for a one story limit on lot 23 and additional landscaping on lots 22 and 23. To replacJ: comment 8, the Commission recommends an additional comment to place a restriction on applicability of this request to other lots. Regarding additional landscaping, the Board may want to add another condition to ensure that the additional landscaping is not removed by the homeowners, without replacement, due to their lack of knowledge that the landscaping is required. Therefore, wording as follows is recommended: 15. Homeowners association documents shall be revised to reflect that lots 22 and 23 contain required landscaping, pursuant to a 7/9/96 city approved master plan modification, that shall not be removed without city approval. The documents shall specify the number of trees/shrubs and their general location which has yet to be determined. TJH:dim Attachment xc: Central File a:Citrus,P&D/2 ~ -- OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER AGENDA MEMORANDUM July 2, 1996 VIII. DEVELOPMENT PLANS B. Citrus Park PUD - Master Plan Modification At the previous City Commission meeting on the first vote, this item was defeated in a 2-2 tie vote. Therefore, the motion was made to reconsider this item at the next City Commission Meeting when all five Commissioners would be in attendance. (~~~U AJ-e- Carrie Parker City Manager CP:smb Attachment c: Planning, Dev., Utilities :3 VIII. DEVELOPME~T PL~~S A cc: Utll, Dev., Pial PLANNING AND ZONING DEPJ MEMORANDUM NO. 96-2fY1 - - Agenda Memorandum for June 4, 1996 City Commi~on Meeting TO: Carrie Parker City Manager , ;;r-. ) II " FROM'. -:.-:et'??J,. t...... i.J.. "7 ~ c..) ~ -(..'.. 'I.. Tambn J. Heyden./ Planning and Zoning Director DATE: May 30, 1996 SUBJECT: Citrus Park (f.k.a. Citrus Glen Phase m - Master Plan Modification File No. MPMD 96-003 NATURE OF REQUEST James A. Hamilton, m, P.S.M. of CeL CODSultants, Inc., agent for Next Development Company, property owner, is requesting to modify the Citrus Park Master Plan as follows (see Exhibit "A" - Letter of Request and Proposed Master Plan): 1. Reduce the width of lots 11 and 13 from 55 feet to 51 feet. 2. Reduce the nOD-zero side, side building setback for lots 21 and 13 from 15 feet to 11 feet . 3. Increase the frontage and area of lot 21. 4. Reduce the rear swimming pool setback for lot 31 from 8 feet to 7 feet. 5. Reduce the rear screen enclosure setback for lot 31 from 6 feet to 5 feet. Note: The 5,500 square foot minimum lot area, 10 foot front, 0 side and 15 rear building setbacks are not affected by this request. The 15 foot non zero lot line side building setback will remain as approved for aU lots except lots 22 and 13. The pool and screen roof enclosure setbacks will remain as approved except for lot 31. The Z8.34 acre, 113 lot, An....famlly, zero lot line, detacbed unit d.~elopment 'I zoned PUD and located on the east side of Lawrence Road approximately 1,750 feet north of Gateway Boulevard (see Exhibit "B" location map). BACKGROUND In August. 1989. tbe Master Plan was approved for the subject property under the title Citrus Park. The property owner, in November of 1994, requested and received administrative approval to omit, from the master plan, the recreation facility. The , omission of the recreation facility required full recreation fees to be paid to the City prior to platting. The applicant, Next Development Company. paid all required fees and received plat approval on March 7, 1995. On March 18. 1995. a permit wu Issued to begin construction of the project, now known as "Boynton Estates". On June 6, 1995 the City Commission determined that a master plan modification request to change screen roof 1 Page 2 Agenda Memorandum City Commission Meeting - June 4, 1996 Citrus Park - MMier Plan Modification 'Iemorandum No. 96-297 enclosure setbacks and establish pool setbacks was a non-substantial change. On June 13, 1995 the Planning and Development Board approved the master plan modification (see Exhibit nc" - current master plan, subject to comments). The typical lot size is SS feet by 100 feet. All lots front on an internal private road network with one ingress/egress to Lawrence Road. The project is bordered by the Citrus Glen PUD to the north, a public school to the south, Palm Beach County land to the east, Lawrence Road to the west and farther west, Nautica PUD (f.k.a. Boynton Nurseries). There are homes existing on lots 21, 22 and 24. Chapter 2.5, Planned Unit Development, of the city's Land Development regulations states that changes in planned unit developments shall be processed as foUows: Section 12. Changes in plans. nChanges in plans approved as a part of the zoning to PUD may be permitted by the ~ Planning and Zoning Board upon application ftled by the developer or his successors in interest, prior to the expiration of the PUD classification, but only [after] a rmding 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. Non-substantial changes as determined by the City Commiqjon in plans shall not extend the expiration of the eighteen month approval for tbe PUn classification." ANALYSIS Staff has renewed this request for consistency with the PUD development standards, and the intent and purpose of planned unit developments as stated in the foUowing sections of Chapter 2.S 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 01 adjacent and existing and luture City development. The district is suitable for development, redevelopment and conservation 01 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 appUcable City regulations to the same delree that they are intended to control development on a lot-by-Iot basis. In view of the substantial public advantqes of planned unit development, it is the intent of PUD regulations to promote and encourale development in this form where tracts suitabl-e in size, location and character for the uses and structures propoted are to be planned and developed as untned and coordinated units." 5 Page 3 Agenda Memorandum City Conunission Meeting - June 4, 1996 Citrus Park - M38ter Plan Modification ~Iemorandum No. 96-297 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." As indicated in the request from the applicant (Exhibit "A" - letter of request) the basis for changes on lot 22 are a result of field errors by the surveying crew. The building is presently under roof. The requested changes to the screen enclosure and pool setbacks for lot 32 are a result of the pool contractor constructing the pool 7.37 feet from tbe rear property line rather than the required 8.00 feet. Therefore, the pool is .63 feet outside of the buildable area for a pool. The error in the pool setback also affects the rear setback for the proposed screen enclosure. Relative to the proposed changes to lot '22, one of the concepts of zero lot line development is to "create" more usable side yard space, on the property, between units. This is accomplished by concentrating the side yard area to one side of the unit, rather than splitting it between the two sides of the unit. Visually, there is no difference (with the exception of window placement), since the building separation does not increase by virtue of concentrating the side yard. With respect to the requested cbanges to reduce the lot frontage and the non-zero lot line side buildiDa setback for lots 22 and 23, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) offers an alternative to the request that woUld maintain the project's minimum standards for lot frontage aad buDdinl setbacks. It is recommended that instead of reducing the minimum lot fron" for lots 22 and 23 from 55.10 feet to 51 feet and reducing tbe non-zero, lot line side building setback from 15 feet to 11 feet for both lots, that the developer cbange lot 23 from a 55.10 foot wide lot to a 47 foot wide open space tract of land. This 47 foot wide open space tract would be created by moving the lot line between lot 22 and 23 approximately 8 feet south and dedicating tbe land south of the new lot line as a tract with ownership, operation and maintenance responsibilities to the H.O.A., including preparation of landscape plans and installation of lanclKapinl. Therefore, within the 110.20 foot frontage of the existing lots 22 and 23, an open space tract with a 47 foot frontage and a house lot with a 63.20 foot frontage would result. This alternative would eliminate the need for items 1, 2 and 3 of the request referenced on page 1 of this report. This alternative also eliminates any effect on the existing houses on lot 24 and lot 21. With respect to the proposed reduction in swimming pool rear setback from 8 feet to 7 feet and the reduction in the screen roof enclosure rear setback from 6 feet to 5 feet for lot 32, it il recomDlended tbat tbe propoMcl setbac:kI b. 1I~C;.pted. provided tbaC 'h. ':lIll..lnll pool and screen roof enclosure rear setbacks for lot 20 (tbe lot tbat backs up to lot 32) not be decreased with a future master plan modification. G Page 4 Agenda Memorandum City COJllmi..~iOD Meeting - June 4, 1996 Citrus Park - M8sttr Plan Modification Memorandum No. 96-297 RECOMMENDATION On Tuesday, May 14, 1996, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) met to review the requested master plan modification. The Board recommends that the City Commission make a finding of no substantial change for the proposed modification, and that the Planning and Development Board approve the request, subject to the comments in Exhibit "0" - Conditions of Approval. TJH:meh:arw xc: Central File ~:citruPUD.Str ~ 7 .... E X H I BIT "A" ; 'i ., ... -....- ~ - ,. . CCl !] m @ ~ ~ CONS(JL~~~TS. 2,~, f'V"'" ~ .. Consulrt"g En";"..,, ZGi~;,'~',~~,'c:r Suri.yors PI.""." ---- ...- -r- 2200 PARK CENTRAL BLVD., N, SUITE 100, POMPANO BEACH, FL 33064, (305) 974-2200 · FAX (305) 973-268 April 23, 1996 Ms. Tambri Heyden Planning Director City or Boynton Beach 100 East Boynton Beacb Boulevard Boynton Beacb, Florida 33425-0310 Re: Citrus Park POD Proposed Master Modifications Boynton Beach, Florida CCL Project No. 3454 I Dear Ms. Heyden: Due to a field survey .istake, the building on Lot 22 of the above referenced project was incorrectly positioned. The structure i. presently under roof. Due to contractor placement of pool on lot 32-, it is constructed 0.63 over the pool .etback line. Please ba advlaed ~at we are herein submitting for Master Plan Amendment tor said project. We are proposing to amend the Master Plan aa tallows: A. Pa~io home lots for buildings 22 and 23 will be revised from 55' to 51' in width. B. side (interior) minimum set back for buildings 22 and 23 will be revised from IS' to II'. c. Rear swimming pool minimum setback for lot 32 will be revised tro. 8' to ". D. Rear screen enclosure minimum setback tor lot 32 will be revised tro. 6' to 5'. Enclosed herewith please tind the following: 1. Twelve signed and sealed prints for the revised master plan for the above referenced project. Cj -- 2. A check made payable to the city of Boynton amount of $500.00. i rn ~ I~ r? r: :- ~ , :t) I? ' I 0 '--~-_.-- , I , . I . .u I ; V I I - Beach ~7~-:;'- ZC;'~:,:!~ ...~~; 3. A sketch showing: The existing location of buildings 22 and 24; the proposed location of building 23. 4. A letter ot authorization from owner for CCL Consultants, Inc. to act as agent for this matter. 5. 12 copies survey for lot 32. We respectfully request that this proposed Master Plan Amendment be place on the next Technical Review Committee Agenda and thusly on the next available Planning and Development Board, as well as City commission Agenda. Should you bave any questions, or need any additional information, Please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, eCL cons~ltant., Inc. . ) /{6tt:- . ama. A. Hamilton, lXI, P.S.M. iractor ot Survey Operations JAB/lb Copy: 1I.x1: o.velopaent CCl CONSULTANTS, INC. /0 eel CCL CONSULTANTS, INC. AUTHORIZATION NLB5610 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 2200 PNfI( CENTRAl. BL.W. N, suITE 100 POMPANO BEACH. n. 330154 (305) ;74-2200 PO~PANO BEACH ORLo\NOO MIAMI COHSULT"HTS CITRUS -PARK ~ :!! CD I I I I I I I mer- -1- .oo'L \ ;... io 10 N ! REVISIONS TRASH PLOT L-22. 23. de 24 I I I I -1- - - - I 8 I G I ----- 48~' ~ ~ 0.f7' I - .. - co ~~ Ii ~ '" 1I.0Il' . 7. . 'UHllOI ROar ~ S ---- ~: ~: 21 I I I I - - ~ '1'lIllI'OSII>-N 'I'EI' STMIID' ~ ;,- . - - ~ - - - -s- - - - - _:: I I I I I ...err . DIS1IHG IIESIDUC:t Slii ,IJa- I _~~ I.QJ' ,~, ; ~I ... G a ., 22 --- ! 23 ... 24 ------------ - BY MRG SCALE: ,. = 30' / 21 / / / , / ./ / / / / / / /' / I / I / I ( I I I I I I ,. I I I I I I I I , I I I I 20 ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I \ I \. I "- ........ --- I I L__------ '0' unU1Y }, - ~. TRACT 5 .J .------- DRAWN BY l. T . ---- I ~ --I-~-..~~- 0 1;7 ~ ffi~ II J ~~- ~..' -- .-.., ~ \ I ' I . It , . . t nl ;JI.,:! '; JI ' . ---'- - ,\ .-- .- ) CHECKED BY FIELD BOOK CCl Lv'L CONSULTANTS, INC. AUTHORIZA nON ILB5610 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 2200 PUK CENTRAl BLVD. N. SUITE 100 PO"PANO I~. FL .J.SO" (305) 174-2200 A WlNGWALL OF BRIDGE OVER L. W.D.D. CANAL L-20. ELEVATION 17.765' N.G. V.D. LEGEND: R= RADIUS L= ARC DISTANCE 6~ CENTRAL ANGLE \, LOT Sq Ft 8,086'i: \ \ SCALE. l' = 30' 'I PC = POINT OF CURVATURE I I PCC = POINT OF COMPOUND CUR~ TURE PRC = POINT OF REVERSE CURVA U~E o INDICATES 1/2" PIPE SET WITH \ I NUMBER LB5610 CAP ,I W.M,R.D.E. - WALL MAINTENANCE' , & ROOF DRAINAGE EASEMENT \ \ " ~~ 00" I .""q ...... OFFSET NOTE: !'I. ~ I !'I.OO' .1.-"l .J...... 5l' 20' OFFSET fRONT I r Q'S~'" '!It 15' OFFSET REAR \ q' ~......- 15' OFFSET NON ZERO SIDE \ % O' OFFSET ZERO SIDE , NO SCREENED ENCLOSURE FOR POO ON MASTER SITE PLAN r:" S' r-J o , , , ..... ,~ , . " .^'> ~ :\! I ^~. . _~ '0. ", ..., ~ ,/ ~"'v.!21 -----, ~ ',v I rv ... ":v.I). ,~ . , " , ~"'" , , , ~J'. (~ ' " ", ~. ., ,.... TRACT A " ',-..J"... 'S. , , , , " " THIS PARCEL WAS ABSTRACTE[t:4,NDER ~~ ATTORNEYS' TITLE INSURANCE FUJi/8,. INC ~,., UNDER COMMITMENT NO. OPM-6760Se... ~~ FOR E:ASEMENTS AND RIGHTS -OF -WA'f".... .. "_, OF RECORD ",-- CON5ULT..NTS CITRUS-PARK NA nONAl FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMMUNITY NUMBER 120192 PANEL NUMBER 0190 8 MAP REVISION 7/21/95 FLOOO ZONE B BASE FLOOD ELEVATION N/A LO'NEST FLOOR(GARAGE) 17,0' BEARINGS DERIVED FROM Tl1E NORTH LINE OF THE PLAT OF CITRUS PARK A P.U.D. AS BEING N 88'00"20. E ELEVA TIONS DERIVED FROM Tl-iE BENCH- ~ II: lei U Z lei II: ~ :5 LOCATION SKETCH (NOT TO SCALE) CERTIFY TO: ERROL I. CLARKE AND VIVIENNE A. CLARKE. HIS WIFE WORLD SAVINGS AND lOAN ASSOCIATION, FLSA ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS. ATIMA ATTORNEYS' TITLE INSURANCE FUND. INC. IGNACIO G. ZULUETA, P.A. K -;-; \..0 ... .,.,.,.." \ ......) '$,~,. 50' !'IO,OO' ----. .... ^') ~ " i LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 32, PLAT OF CITRUS PARK, A P.U.D., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT. THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 74, PAGES 176-177, PUBLIC REcdB.~~P;AL:M... BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. SAID LANDS LYING AND BEING IN T~'"t/ CrTY' ~F' I,,"' BOYNTON BEACH. I) . NOTES: 1. UNUSS IT BEARS THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF .. FLORIDA UCENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPEI THIS DRAWING. SKETCH. PLAT OR YAP IS Fall INFORMAnONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT VAUD. CERTlFlCAnONI. 2. LANDS SHOWN HEREON WIRE NOT AISTIUoCTED IV I HElEIY CEIm" TH~T THE ATTACHED SKETCH 0' CCL CONSULTANTS. INC. fOR EASEMENTS AND OR RIOHTS- SURVEY IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE 8EST OF "Y Of-WAY or RECORD. KNoWU:OCE AND BEUE' AltD THAT IT UEm THE ..'NIMUIot 3. LOT IotEASURE..ENTS ARE THE SAIolE AS ON RECORD UNLESS TECHNICAL STANDARDS SET FORTH DY THE f'lORIDA STATE OTHERWISE NOTED. BOARD OF PROn:SSIONAL SURVEYORS AND Iol.PPERS IN .. LOCATIONS ARE LllollTEO TO VISIBLE INPROVENENTS ONLY. CHAPTER e'G17-~" fL RIDA AD..INISTRATIVE CODE. S. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT REFueT OR OETERt.llHE OWNERSHIP. (J REVISIONS DATE BY L.A OL~ PLOT PLAN 05 12 95 MRG PROfESSIONAL SUItVEYOR AND "AP"ER '4710 STATE Of flORIDA FORMBOARD 08/15/95 L.P. CHECKED FIELD 88 AS8UILT (FINAL) 04/03/96 L.P. BY BOOK Rel/ise Pool 04/23/96 JAH I~ -- // ~ I' Ilk' ! Jk I, f.fi.' iil . I ! i i 1111111 ~ 1'111 I I ! ; (I I ! ~ I I i '.1.:1 I I I lUlU 1'11111111 j : 11111" I i I I I ,I I !' i iiiiiii ! . II , l.' -1.; ~ liC m II ~o~..~ i~li!"~iIJ : ..... .. . ...... ...... 11'1. · i ~: I ~.,~~ I ;: ;; hi. i! j I)! 1; ~~-j . ;.~--.; i IIJft Ii :, : r I : I ~.~ · · 'I " L r." ,. ;. . . I J.I....1.,_ i I. t ..... : . I r J-.;'" i ~".~ ....: _ i I \ . I . I -.. I ,,;;; "II .. : ! J-;:.:.:--'" I. I I.. ... : J: I I ., L.':__l 'Ii II~" I.'~I :1 , i' I I . . e t l \; ~---_.. I. I I I" , .1 I '......h____'. ; : I l_=__J '. 11111 II1I r '_m" ::: I~. I ~ ~ ro" r"l ~-.11':-;-:- '----'''Iililillj' i IT.' Ii. : II i II ri L.:__J l i"'llll IIi Iii iil t I .--=--.. <'-.. '.... :. t._ 'L::'::.../ I ..- ",' i:1 '. ~i ~Ii I ~ ' ~,) r-- r-- ,... .1 I I I ~ iI ~ '.- L I I 'I :. r-- r- .' N I ' I ,. : I I I C', I '.. L__ I I \ " I' . ~.. -. ...-- ... .. '" , llm~' , IUI& :::~=i=:' ""IJI ~I ;}J.IIIIII =1 It In ,,~ Ii ' ,;1 , iI ... .. .,...... . ....;.. iI' '~T.U-~'" i ~ I .. 'I il !I Ll- t. [i-r---- a ~ :.- ;= ~:.- ... : ! . . I I ~ I n i I m j,; ~ ilnln" 2 i jI ; HiS t91 !!R0i1 G) ...... · .I~ .~ I 'I..... ~ 111111 , ,'" ,I" "I"'. 'V . I ,1r.;B .. III~ J · 111111 ; I'S ~ 'I."~! ~ I q! I!:! ~ f!ilBi ~ i I I 'II t .nll~i' I: i ;i;" II .. rl ~ ! n1 i ~ I r- ~ Z r.i u' 1;11 ;!I ,III I' I"!; , ,. I ..' III ifff ~ln~1 , I 1=..'-'" . ! i" " I . ,.. !::: :::d . .- - -.... - . I I I CITRUS ClARK PUD "'ASTER PlAN UOOIF'lCAnOH ..". ==rn.a=:.:lo_ ......i'!... '.. .... .-- \ ,,\ - ,.-..--.. : I : r----, I. I I. , .....---., : I : " , , , C C L CONSULTANTS IHC - .-- "'- ---.... _. ........"... 1-....- -.... .... --- CSt ..... .... ..... .. ...... ... ..... ... :c:c::... ,. ,: /3 - E X H I BIT .. B II If Lvl;Af ION "'lAP ~. .~twP~,~RU~ ~~~~!~~P 61~ ~.:: AG BRcvli~ l'I~~~~~ ..../-H ',' .... :::, -t; \ "...J'" -2' ~'i\ u~:(n ~"' ' / ~ V/.llt- J ' ::i II II' ,_, k( lfTlmrr I I 1111,1,: · _ ttr, J ~~j li~~-- f'i: If :;; ::,.i ;.~ I1J'~fl ..- ..~-~ - ...::::- " ~ ~. .. .::..l..1 _... [1 1 ~.~ ~ ~~~~ r .-. '1 . .uz ~ TIT'if' · ~: . ~)~\w 0.. c mm ~ :~\ '/1 ~\~ . ~ ~~"'Oo;:::: .,,.,.1:. --'f _L- < " '( ~:- ~0.! 3 :Y 11 rnm::l : .: :' <c .. ' I ~ ~ (,;.1 '-l ==---:.~ T · I TTl 1 , , \ - - ~l I ~l u" . - ~ ~ i: ~ , . :=:; ;::::::; . ;., ~ . . : . , . ~ , ==- ~ - ~~-;::: -- -- --~ -- -~TI~~I~~l~-~ ;;;. .ilS:.lI ~ ~ _ ::: ::, . ~ I~'{ ~\3\W " 1,/1 ..eOYNTON.. ~ ,~., "?>~l-l:3t If · .;:: NURSERIES Ii."'~f >:r+,-,.'lllrl~:';I'" 1 = :: == _ if. .i1rll'f. _-t:-f!i ; I Hili, \ .:= ~ ;;;;... PUO ~~ g== L.UU4.0 ~. ;;..... r ~'E MeAueAL,TO _ .. ,_ _.:... . t: I ~ OQ' --- \ ClAOV.. .IT ....... \ ,-- ~ ~G.ilL'l' ...II """'" L. ..UO. r -- ,"'a , LUI...a I Q P t ~ G \ ~ 1 1\ - ~ ,~ i -:~ .i.; L..>-]~C .- A...dj '1~ V~ \ -l ~ I ..~ I . ~ I If: - . I I I '" ' , GiJ~~ -11I.U'~IBrl!,l,~ I I r\.. LJ' :~ ~ t. mli~;lm - .l 1 l.r" \ -,;- '~~ =' ~~~,iI11lliilil'tt 11 h,. --' ~_::::-.: 11' I. ... ' ~J~~~D;:~ n' ll'll' it.,-rrl1n-r:rlJ-\, ~ ~ ," ~~J-,:H','::' \ \ ,\] 1 n 1 I "',,J' III CI rll 11"'" ctrnJ]"1:-.-!~ t:t:::t:.!:: - -n 1 'j "'I \ \ ' rq ~'"k~. ,l, J1 11 ~ ~.1,:: ~:;:i . Rill' -- · , ... ,,__ .. ~.. .. iTTTTmrr::\41 ~~ + HIE ,: V tt:t::t:J.J:g t:I"..i...LC - . ' , , rT ~l= .0 118 MILESl [;ITJJ3~ - ...' -.:' 'r' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' ~ f rrrmfmTI1 L':"1fL Q.,Il1'L'~' " ~~-- . C A/VAL- C -1lP,.... .' ~ -0 400.800 fEET __~ ,.,;: ,OWh~Cl'td;-~l~lr.I~ TE-; R&C' Pt.AN~/NIO ~~YI~ . ,,....;..~~ L_ (~L-, .--" ",--..., f. . -=- . ..,..,;7." (;.,A"'." .'A" AG Pl L.UI \\I~ ~{ III .\'\" .:'.~ ,.. ~.,,-~4...........-. , ~5~~JLmlL '1 . - 1;;..:......- '\ '. ".. .- \ "ME!U LA,; -- E X H I BIT II C .. /(P \\',,\' " i \' \ \ , . \ \ iiiiii I , \ mml' \ un, , I' I \ , ....I.a.. unm \\ ~ ~." I ('!' ;...,,,...i.1 ..~ \ ~ ,-- .-.- - - : I i · : 11- m Ii :..: ~ml' t ~ '\.\\\ \1 ~ \l'H~n n\,nl"\~ \ ~ , :\11: 1'1 UtaH . ~ \!\!~ i i iii~ I~ I '\\il" i ! ~ i~!I' I I till i!\ ~I~'\\\. i ~ 'I' I . j\\ ~ \itbll \ tJ .:.~. i ,Is~' ".91' ~ 11M ___ .._ _1.- ~ m "Q ~ Z .-.-.--.-..-.-- .. ~ =! (0 :; i.1 \' -.. ~. i\ ~ [' II . ., ; - , \i' I It' \i \!l' \\ \it 1 n \ 'l" ,1' I ,I t 'I' III ~ ,llff q 1\\\ UW ir'\~" 1 \ 1111 \ ~iia,r' rill' I ~ \\,' .. ~\. i\ ,\ ...~i.,;. ii~ , , "1" t. ' 'tl'.... ,." · I ""' , . t I' . 'I .... ...,' ,iii n= ::.::~ . ,... ' ~ ,......... ., '. , ,. , ....-, ,...- ...-.. . ill :; I . - -' i .-___, \ f'\ :: ~. 1 , . _ . 1 c r . - - - ~ tit : 1 ~ - .- fIIIr: · A L IQNauLU",,' INIO ' ' , ......... ..........' ..-.. iJ ~. au- ., ""__...'_.. ---",- ........- tl'-;.:u ~.,.....~ " li!I1l..a_u*",~~;:!~ ..~ ..".....,... r.o," ".,. .._~~.~ ". /1 EXHIBIT "D" Conditions of Approval Project name: Citrus Park PUD File number: MPMD 96-003 Reference:The olans consist of 1 sheet identified as 1st Submittal, Master Plan Modification. File # MPMD 96-003 with a Aoril 23, 1996 PlanninG and ZoninG Deoartment date stamo markinG . I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I I PUBLIC WORKS NONE I I I Comments: UTILITIES Comments: 1. Developer will be responsible for the relocation of water and sanitary sewer services to lots 22 and 23, to the new property lines, to conform with the entire project. Utility Department inspection of relocations will be required. FIRE Comments: 2 . There is no sidewalk/bicycle path along the front of this project. Since a sidewalk will keep pedestrians off Lawrence Road while enroute to Citrus Cove Elementary School, one is recommended to be installed. I POLICE I I I Comments: NONE ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: 3 . Approval of this request is not recommended. The house already in place can remain, but the developer should not be allowed to build on the nonconforming lot to the south which results from improper placement of the adjacent residence. The nonconforming lot can become additional open space dedicated to the H.O.A., or distributed to the two adjacent properties. I BUILDING DIVISION I I I Comments: NONE I PARKS AND RECREATION I I I Comments: NONE FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: 4. It is recommended that the applicant replace trees in accordance with the project's Tree Management Plan. PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: /8 Page 2 Master Plan Modification Citrus Park PUD MPMP 96-003 I DEPARTMENTS 5. Amend the drawing to show compliance with conditions of approval of the previous master plan modification (Planning and Zoning Department File No. MPMD 95-002) identified in Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-247. 6. It is recommended that instead of reducing the minimum lot frontage for lots 22 and 23 from 55.10 feet to 51 feet and reducing the non zero lot line side building setback from 15 feet to 11 feet for both lots, that the developer change lot 23 from a 55.10 foot wide house lot to a 47 foot wide open space tract of land. This 47 foot wide open space tract would be created by moving the lot line between lot 22 and 23 approximately 8 feet south and dedicating the land south of the new lot line as a tract with ownership, operation and maintenance responsibilities to the H.G.A., including preparation of landscape plans and installation of landscaping. Therefore, within the frontage of the existing lots 22 and 23 an open space tract with a 47 foot frontage and a house lot with a 63.20 foot frontage would be created. 7. Submission of a rectified master plan showing compliance with the conditions of approval for the project will be required to be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department, in triplicate, prior to whichever occurs first; the final inspection for the pool on lot 32 or prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the house on lot 22. 8. PUD master plans establish setbacks for all units within the PUD by granting all the units, or groups of units having similar characteristics, the same privileges. Since the setback encroachment issue with lot 32 is only one case within the PUD, if the Commission and Planning and Development Board determine this as-built situation to be acceptable, it is recommended that reference be deleted from the master plan. In lieu of this, a special agreement between the city and the owner of lot 32 would be prepared by the city attorney, as has been done in the past (Bay tree at the Meadows PUD), to remedy isolated encroachments in a PUD where the city decides not to require demolition. /1 I INCLUDE I REJECT I Page 3 Master Plan Modification Citrus Park PUD MPMP 96-003 ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Include Reject 9 . The house on lot 23 shall be limited to one story. 10. Additional landscaping shall be planted on lots 22 and 23 to conceal the reduced lot width and side setbacks. II. Delete comment number 3. 12. Delete comment number 6. 13. Delete comment number 8 . 14. No future master plan modifications shall be approved which would allow an 11 foot side building setback, a 7 foot rear pool setback, a 5 foot rear enclosure seback and 51 foot lot width to other than lots 22, 23 and 32. Such limitation shall be noted on the master plan. ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD Include Reject CONDITIONS 15. To be determined. TJH/dim a:ComDept,CIT dO .. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, July 9, 1996 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: Commission Chambers 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, Florida 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Introduction of Mayor, Commissioners and Board Members. 3. Agenda Approval. 4. Approval of Minutes. 5. Communications and Announcements. A. Report from the Planning and Zoning Department 1) Final disposition of last meeting's agenda items. B. Filing of Quarterly Report for Site Plan Waivers and Minor Site Plan Modifications. 6. Old Business: A. PUBLIC HEARING Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (Postponed from June 11, 1996 meeting.) 1. PROJECT NAME: Public Storage, Inc.lPlanning Area I.q. AGENT: Mike Carter Construction, Inc. OWNER: Public Storage, Inc. LOCATION: Planning Area I.q. - West side of South Federal Highway between Old Dixie Highway and the Gulfstream Mall DESCRIPTION: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Section I.q. of the Future Land Use Element, Section VIII - Land Use Problems and Opportunities, as it applies to property at 3000 N. Federal Highway. 7. New Business: A. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use: 1. PROJECT NAME: Riverwalk Shopping Center f.k.a. Causeway Shopping Center AGENT: Michael Carey Page 2 Planning & Development Board Meeting Agenda for July 9, 1996 OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPfION: B. SUBDIVISION Master Plan Modification 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPfION: C. SITE PLANS New Site Plan 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPfION: D. OTHER Parkinl: Lot Variance 1. PROJECT: Florida Boynton Investment, Inc. Robert Armstrong, President East side of Federal Highway and 150 feet south of Woolbright Road (1600 S. Federal Highway) Request for conditional use approval to add a drive-through window to the west end of the Walgreen's drug store, a new 4,115 square foot restaurant on a leased outparcel and 10,130 square feet to the east end of the shopping center; demolish 11,061.95 square feet of floor space to replace with parking; demolish 5,000 square feet of mezzanine within the east building; and modify the existing driveways and parking layout. Citrus Park P.U.D. James A. Hamilton III CCL Consultants Next Development Company East side of Lawrence Road, approximately 1,750 feet north of Gateway Boulevard Request to amend the previously approved master plan to reduce the width of lots 22 and 23 from 55 feet to 51 feet; reduce the non-zero line side building setback from 15 feet to 11 feet; reduce the rear pool setback on lot 32 from 8 feet to 7 feet and reduce the rear screen enclosure setback on lot 32 from 6 feet to 5 feet. Healing for the Nations Church Vincent Delalla Healing for the Nations Church West side of Seacrest Boulevard, approximately 335 feet north of Mission Hill Road Request for site plan approval to construct a 6,888 square foot church located on 1.006 acres. Riverwalk Shopping Center f.k.a. Causeway Shopping Center Page 3 Planning & Development Board Meeting Agenda for July 9, 1996 AGENT: Michael Carey OWNER: Florida Boynton Investment, Inc. Robert Armstrong, President LOCATION: East side of Federal Highway and 150 feet south of Woolbright Road (1600 S. Federal Highway) DESCRIPTION: Request for three variances from the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 23 - Parking Lots, Article II: 1) Section F - Drainage, to reduce the required 2.5 inches on-site containment of storm water to .5 inches 2) Section H.3 - Distance from streets, to reduce the required distance from the intersection of US No.1 and Woolbright Road of the west driveway located on Woolbright Road from 180 feet to 158.5 feet; and 3) Section H.5 - Clearance at major driveways, to reduce the required distance of the interior access aisle to the west driveway on Woolbright Road from 100 feet to 25 feet and the existing middle driveway on US No.1. from 100 feet to 87 feet and 25 feet for the access aisles on the north and south sides (respectively). 8. Comments by members 9. Adjournment NOTICE ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. (F.S. 286.0105) THE CITY SHALL FURNISH APPROPRIATE AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES WHERE NECESSARY TO AFFORD AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN AND ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF A SERVICE, PROGRAM, OR ACTIVITY CONDUCTED BY THE CITY. PLEASE CONTACT JOYCE COSTELLO, (407) 375-6013 AT LEAST TWENTY (24) HOURS PRIOR TO THE PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATE YOUR REQUEST. xc: Central File a:agP&Dmtg.JUL .. \ '. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-312 '. TO: Jim Cherof City Attorney FROM: Tambri J. HeYden~ Planning and Zoning Department DATE: June 21, 1996 SUBJECT: Special Agreement for Setback Encroachment - Applicability to Citrus Park - Lot 32 (pending) Since there has been no conclusion regarding my February 9, 1996 and April 24, 1996 memos to you, I've searched and have found Minutes of the Regular City Commission Meeting of February 4, 1992, referencing a PUD setback encroachment "Special Agreement" for Baytree at the Meadows PUD. Would it be possible for this type of "Special Agreement" to be used for Lot 32, Citrus Park? This matter will be reconsidered at the July 2, 1996 City Commission Meeting. Thank you. TJH:arw Attachments xc: Carrie Parker Central File a:Citrus32.312 TJH.2 r .'\ PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-069 FROM: Jim Cherof C ~ .1 City Attorney . C",'6~/().().~ Tambri J. Hey~V N,cr. Planning and Zoning Director February 9, 1995 TO: DATEs SUBJECT: Search for Bay tree at the Meadows PUD IISpecial Agreement" This is a follow up to our conversation yesterday .regarding preparing an agreement similar to the one you did for Bay tree at the Meadows PUD, I believe four or five years ago, to resolve a setback violation. There is a setback violation in Lawrence Grove for a roofed screened enclosure and I do not want to direct the developer, Steve Bovio, to file a master plan modification to change the PUD setbacks when I would not be in support of this type of request. Pleas~ locate this Bay tree agreement and see if it would be appropriate to apply the same solution to this case. I will inform Mr. Bovio that we are investigating his options, but the problem must be resolved fairly shortly as there is a closing pending. TJH:dim xc: Central File a :JCBayt:ree. mem ----- PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-213 TO: Jim Cherof City Attorney Tambri J. Heyden '7lJtJ Planning and Zoning Director FROM: DATE: April 24, 1996 SUBJECT: Search for Bay tree at the Meadows PUD "Special Agreement" What is the status of the February 9, 1996 request (Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96-069) to locate the agreement from four or five years ago that your office devised to handle a major setback violation in Bay tree at the Meadows and to determine its applicability to pending setback problems? Please note that Steve Bovio of Lawrence Grove has "fallen from the forefront" due to the delay, however I've received two more similar setback problems. Therefore, this needs to be resolved as soon as possible. TJH:dim xc: Carrie Parker Central File a:JCBaytre.Mem \i~~ "'-"'~~.~~~~'5~~~;i~~~ . MINUTES - REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 4, 1992 , D. Other 1. Consider proposed ordinance amending Appendix A-zoning, Section 4.F Height Limitations and Exceptions of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Boynton Beach.......................... . TABLED (Commission directed this item to remain on table until after the joint Commission/Chamber Workshop) Mayor Weiner announced this item is to remain on the table. 2. John Martin easement encroachment Ms. Parker stated Mr. Martin is in the process of selling his home and explained the problems he is having with setbacks and the encroachment in the easement. Attorney Cherof stated the purpose of asking for the Commission's authorization to prepare, sign, and record a covanant not to enforce the setback is to waive Mr. Martin from a bureaucratic nightmare. The process he would otherwise have to go through to clear these two title problems would probably take him six to eight months and a tremendous amount of attocney fees. He has a buyer for his property. The contract has a provision in it that requires him to clear up this issue as it affects the encroach- ment, in the easement and the violation of the setback. The ease- ment is easy because the structure does not prevent access or work in the easement. The setback is a little bit trickier and that is the purpose of the covenant not to enforce. It is the City's promise of record and recorded in public records that we will not enforce that six inch encroachment. Mr. Martin stated he contacted Telemedia and they have no objec- tion to the encroachment. He contacted Florida Power and Light who informed him they are abandoning the rear part of the ease- ment because they took their poles down. Mr. Martin also said the City has no utilities in that area at all. Commissioner Aguila moved to approve the release of the easement encroachment for Mr. Martin. Vice Mayor Harmening inquired if the City Engineer has signed off from the existing utilities. Ms. Parker advised at the moment the City Engineer has not signed off. Mr. Martin is getting those documents from Florida Power and Light. Vice Mayor Harmening said he would not consider approving this until the utilities that are existing in the easement are signed off. Mayor Weiner asked Attorney Cherof how long this would take. Attorney Cherof said he did not know; however, Mr. Martin needs to obtain the consent of the other grantees of the easement. 11 ~, MINUTES - REGULAR CI'.I.':i COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 4, 1992 Mr. Cherof thought the Commission should only address the City's ~ interest in the easement and the setback, and said unless \ Mr. Martin obtains the release of the other grantees, he is not going to get very far with his buyer anyway. Commissioner Matson seconded the motion which carried 4-1. Vice Mayor Harmening cast the dissenting vote. 3. Update of Vincent Finizio Lawsuit Attorney Cherof advised that the lawsuit which was filed by Vincent Finizio against the City was for a Writ of Mandamus (a writ whereby the Court orders the City to take a certain action). The City's motion was granted by the Court, which is basically a victory for the City in that part of the lawsuit. This should be the end of the lawsuit unless Mr. Finizio desires to appeal. He has another 17 or 18 days in which to file an appeal. If an appeal is filed, there would be another action in Appellate Court and the projected City's fees in that regard would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $5,000.00 to $6,000.00. MAYOR WEINER DECLARED A RECESS. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:03 P. M. VII. OLD BUSINESS None. VIII~ NEW BUSINESS A. Items for discussion requested by Mayor Arline Weiner 1. Solid waste Authority Update Ms. Parker reported that the Solid Waste Authority is considering implementing a volume based system. However, a clear consensus of what they want to do at this point has not yet been established. One of the items under consideration is to establish a base assessment that would be assessed to the resi- dents and then residents would purchase the appropriate number of blue bags they need from the Solid Waste Authority or from the City acting as the Solid Waste Authority's vendor. She explained the many concerns with this type of system. Mayor Weiner said the Municipal League was concerned that there was discussion on "how" the volume base system will be used, instead of on whether or not it should be used. She said the Municipal League is following this very carefully and she has asked Ms. Parker to attend those meetings as well. 2. U. S. Conference of Mayor's National Priorities for Cities 12 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMEN1' MEMORANDUM NO. 96-297 Agenda Memorandum for June 4, 1996 City Commission Meetlug TO: Carrie Parker City Manager ~/f~-LO'~0~ Tambrt' Y. -Ue'Yden ~ Planning and Zoning Director FROM: DATE: . May 30, 1996 SUBJECT: Citrus Park (f.I(.o. Citrus Glen Phase II) - Master Plan Modification File No. MPMD 96-003 NATURE OF REQUEST .James A. Hamilton, III, P.S.M. of CeL Consultants, Inc., agent for Next Development Company, prOIJerty owner, is requesting to modify the Citrus Park Master 1)lan as follows (see Exhibit "A" - Letter of Request and Proposed Master Plan): 1. Reduce the width of lots 22 and 23 from 55 feet to 51 feet. 2. Reduce the non-zero side, side building setback for .lots 22 and 23 from 15 feet to 11 feet . 3. Increase the frontage and area of lot 21. 4. Reduce the rear swimming pool setback for lot 32 from 8 feet to 7 feet. I 5. Reduce the rear screen enclosure setback for lot 32 from 6 feet to 5 feet. Note: The 5,500 square foot minimum lot area, 20 foot front, 0 side and 15 rear building setbacks are not affected by this retltlest. The 15 foot non zero lot line side building setback will remain as approved for all lots except lots 22 and 23. The pool and screen roof enclosure setbacks will remain as approved except for lot 32. The 28.34 acre, 113 lot, single-family, zero lot line, detached unit development is zoned PUD and located on the east side of Lawrence Road approximately 1,750 feet north of Gateway Boulevard (see Exhibit "B" location map). UACKGROUND In August, 1989, the Master Plan was approved for the subject property undel' the title CUrus Park. The property owner, In November of 1994, requested and received administrative approval to omit, from the master plan, the recreation facility. The omission or the recreation facility re(luired full recreation fees to be paid to the City prior to platting. The applicant, Next Development Company, paid all required fees and received plat approval on March 7, 1995. On March 28, 1995, a permit was issued to begin construction or the project, now Imowll as "Boynton Estates". On .June 6, 1995 the City Commission determined that a master plan modification request to change screen root' Pngc 2 ^~end~ Mcm()r~ndlllll City Commission Meeting - .June 4, 1996 Citrus Park - Master Plan Modification Memorandulll No. 96-297 "Changes in plans approved as a part of the zoning to PUD may be permitted by the Planning and Zoning Board upon application filed by the developer or his successors 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. Non-substantial changes as determined by the City COlllmission in plans shall not extend the expiration of the eighteen month approval for the PUD classification." . encloslIre setbnc:k. and ..tabU." pool ..tb"C!kI w'" II no....ltub.tftlltl.. ohAna'. On J"n. 13. 19.. the l'I....nln. 'lid U...lopmtdt BOllrd ."ro".d tbe muter p'an nlodlnoatlon (.ee Iblllble "C" III ou....nt Mui.. plan, ,ubJect to comments). The typical lot size Is 55 feet by 100 feet. All lots front on an Internal prll'ate road network with one Ingress/egress to Lawrence Road. The project Is bordered by the Citrus Glen PUD to the north, a public school to the south, Palm Beach County land to the east, Lawrence Road to the west and farther west, Nautlca PUD (f.k.a. Boynton Nurseries). There are homes ex.lstlng on lots 11, 12 and 24. Chapter 2.S, Planned Unit Development, of the city's Land Development regulations states that changes In planned unit developments sholl be processed as follows, Section 12. Changes ill plans. ANALYSIS St~rr has reviewed this request for consistency with the I~UD 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 1)lanned Unit Development District (PUD) is established. It is intended that this district he utilized to promote efficient and economical land use, improl'ed amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety in physical development, creative design, hnllrOved Ibing enl'iromnent, 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 consenatlon of land. water and other resources of the City. Regulations for planned unit developments are intended to accompliah the purposes of zoning, subdivision regulations and other applicable City regulations to the same degree that they are intended to control del'elopment on a lot-by-Iot basis. In view of the substantial public adl'antages of planned unit del'elopment, it is the intent of pun regulations to promote and encourage development in this form where tracts suitable in size, location and character for the uses and structures proposed are to be l)launed and developed as ulliIled and coordinated units." )'age 3 Agenda Memorandum City COl1l1ul..lon Meetll1l .. June 4. 1996 Citrus Park - Master Plan Modification Memorandum No. 96-297 Section 9".. : Internal pun standards. "B. INTERNAL LOTS AND FRONTAGE. Within tbe boundaries of the PUD. no Ihlnlmum lot .Ize or mlnlnulm ".rd. 8haU be required, provided, ho",...r, that pun trOll tn.. on dedicated pllbllc rondl Ihnll ob".r..... fremt YArd ...qulroments In nccordanee with tile zoning district the PUD use most closely resembles and thnt peripheral yards abutting other zoning districts shall be the same as required In the abutting zone. II As indicated in the request from the applicant (Exhibit "A" - letter of request) the basis for changes on lot 22 are a result of field errors by the surveying crew. The building is presently under roof. The requested changes to the screen enclosure and pool setbacks for lot 32 are a result of the pool contractor constructing the pool 7.37 feet from the rear property line rather than the required 8.00 feet. Therefore, the pool is .63 feet outside of the buildable area for a pool. The error in the pool setback also affects the rear setback for the proposed screen enclosure. Itelative to the proposed changes to lot 22, one of the concepts of zero lot line development is to "create" more usable side yard space, on the property, between units. This is accomplished by concentrating the side yard area to one side of the unit, rather than splitting it between the two sides of the unit. Visually, there is no difference (with the exception of window placement), since the building separation does not increase by virtue of concentrating the side yard. With respect to the requested changes to reduce the lot frontage and the non-zero lot line side building setback for lots 22 and 23, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) offers an alternative to the request that would maintain the project's minimum standards for lot fmntage and building setbacks. It is recommended that instead of reducing the minimum lot fmlltage for lots 22 and 23 from 55.10 feet to 51 feet and reducing the non..:zero, lot line side building setback from 15 feet to 11 feet for both lots, that the developer change lot 23 from a 55.10 foot wide lot to a 47 foot wide ol)en space tract of land. This 47 foot wide open space tract would be created by moving the lot line between lot 22 and 23 approximately 8 feet south and dedicating the land sOllth of the new lot line as a tract with ownership, operation and maintenance responsibilities to the H.O.A., including preparation of landscape plans and installation of landscaping. Therefore, within the 110.20 foot frontage of the existing lots 22 and 23, an open space tract with a 47 foot frontage and a house lot with a 63.20 foot frontage would result. Thill plterl1Atlve would ~lImlnnte the need for Items 1, % and 3 of the retltlest referenced on page 1 of this report. This alternative also eliminates any effect 011 the existing houses on lot 24 and lot 21. With respect to the proposed reduction in .::-wlmmicg pool rea: ~etba~k fron:. 8 feet to 7 feet and the reduction in the screen roof enclosure rear setback from 6 feet to 5 feet for lot 32, It is recommended that the proposed setbacks be accepted, provided tllat the existing pool and screen roof enclosure rear setbacks for lot 20 (the lot that backs up to lot 32) not be decreased with a future master plan modification. RECOMMENDATION Page 4 Agenda Memorandum City Commission Meeting - June 4, 1996 Citrtls Park - Master Plan Modification Memorandum No. 96-297 On Tuesday, May 14, 1996, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) met to review the requested master plan modlOcatlon. The Board recommends that the City Commission make a nndlng of no substantial change for the proposed modlncatlon, and that the Planning and Development Board approve the request, subject to the comments In Exhibit "0" - Conditions of Approval. T JH:meh:arw > xc: Central File 8:CltmPUD.Slr Page 2 Master Plan Modification Citrus Park POO MPMP 96-003 I' I OEPARTMBNTS INCLUDE REJECT 5. Amend the drawing to show compliance wl~h conditions of approval of the previous master plan modification '(Planning and Zoning Department File No. MPMD 95-002) identified in Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-247. It is recommended that instead of reducing the minimum lot frontage for lots 22 and 23 from 55.10 feet to 51 feet and reducing the non zero lot line side building setbacK from lS feet to 11 feet for both lots, that the developer change lot 23 from a 55.10 foot wide house lot to a 47 foot wide open space tract of land. This 47 foot wide open space tract would be created by moving the lot line between lot 22 and 23 approximately 8 feet south and dedicating the land south of the new lot line as a tract with ownership, operation and maintenance responsibilities to the H.O.A., including preparation of landscape plans and installation of landscaping. Therefore, within the frontage of the existing lots 22 and 23 an open space tract with a 47 foot frontage and a house lot with a 63.20 foot frontage would be created. 6. 7. Submission of a rectified master plan showing compliance with the conditions of approval for the project will be required to be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department, in triplicate, prior to whichever occurs first; the final inspection for the pool on lot 32 or prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the house on lot 22. 8. PUD master plans establish setbacks for all units within the PUD by granting all the units, or groups of units having similar characteristics, the same privileges. Since the setback encroachment issue with lot 32 is only one case within the POO, if the Commission and Planning and Development Board determine this as-built situation to be acceptabl~, it is recommended that referenc~e deleted from the, J J /.) master plan. In lieu of this I a t f),A'&:..-. &^- special agreement between the city and the owner of lot 32 would be prepared by the city attorney, as has been done in the past (Bay tree at the Meadows PUD), to remedy isolated encroachments in a PUD where the city decides not to require demolition. S\,~c;.A+ PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-298 TO: Carrie Parker City Manager FROM: ~j/ Tambri J. Heyden ~~~ Planning and Zoning Director DATE: May 30, 1996 SUBJECT: Copies of Development Plans of Current Projects Scheduled for Review by the City Commission at the June 4, 1996 City Commission Meeting Please find attached one (1) set of plans for the following current development project: Master Plan Modification Citrus Park MSPM 96-003 Note: Please return the plans/documents to the Planning and Zoning Department following the meeting. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me. TJH:bme Attachments c:trans30,MAY/P&D PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-297 Agenda Memorandum for June 4, 1996 City Commission Meeting TO: Carrie Parker City ~anag~r_ .. J ~??l.A.k.(:J'~-<d~ Tambfl J. -H~den tf/ Planning and Zonlna Director FROM: DATE: May 30, 1996 SUBJECT: Citrus Park (f.k.a. Citrus Glen Phase II) - Master Plan Modification File No. MPMD 96-003 NATURE OF REQUEST James A. Hamilton, III, P.S.M. of CCL Consultants, Inc., agent for Next Development Company, property owner, is requesting to modify the Citrus Park Master Plan as follows (see Exhibit "A" - Letter of Request and Proposed Master Plan): 1. Reduce the width of lots 22 and 23 from 55 feet to 51 feet. 2. Reduce the non-zero side, side building setback for Jots 22 and 23 from 15 feet to 11 feet . 3. Increase the frontage and area of lot 21. 4. Reduce the rear swimming pool setback for lot 32 from 8 feet to 7 feet. 5. Reduce the rear screen enclosure setback for lot 32 from 6 feet to 5 feet. Note: The 5,500 square foot minimum lot area, 20 foot front, 0 side and 15 rear building setbacks are not affected by this request. The 15 foot non zero lot line side building setback will remain as approved for all lots except lots 22 and 23. The pool and screen roof enclosure setbacks will remain as approved except for lot 32. The 28.34 acre, 113 lot, single-family, zero lot line, detached unit development is zoned pun and located on the east side of Lawrence Road approximately 1,750 feet north of Gateway Boulevard (see Exhibit "B" location map). BACKGROUND In August, 1989, the Master Plan was approved for the subject property under the title Citrus Park. The property owner, in November of 1994, requested and received administrative approval to omit, from the master plan, the recreation facility. The omission of the recreation facility required full recreation fees to be paid to the City prior to platting. The applicant, Next Development Company, paid all required fees and received plat approval on March 7, 1995. On March 28, 1995, a permit was issued to begin construction of the project, now known as "Boynton Estates". On June 6, 1995 the City Commission determined that a master plan modification request to change screen roof Page 2 Agenda Memorandum City Commission Meeting - June 4, 1996 Citrus Park - Master Plan Modification Memorandum No. 96-297 enclosure setbacks and establish pool setbacks was a non-substantial change. On June 13, 199~ the Planning and Development Board approved the master plan modification (see Exhibit "c" - current master plan, subject to comments). The typical lot size is 55 feet by 100 feet. All lots front on an internal private road network with one ingress/egress to Lawrence Road. The project Is bordered by the Citrus Glen pun to the north. a public school to the south. Palm Beaeh County land to the east, Lawrence Road to the west and farther west, Nautlca pun (f.k.a. Boynton Nurseries). There are homes existing on lots 21, 22 and 24. 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 a part of the zoning to PUD may be permitted by the Planning and Zoning Board upon application filed by the developer or his successors 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 pun zoning. The determination of what constitutes a substantial change shall be within the sole discretion of the City Commission. Non-substantial changes as determined by the City Commission in plans shall not extend the expiration of the eighteen month approval for the PUD classification." - 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 (PUn) 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-Iot basis. In view of the substantial public advantages of planned unit development, it is the intent of PUD regulations to promote and encourage development in this form where tracts suitable in size, location and character for the uses and structures proposed are to be planned and developed as unified and coordinated units." Page 3 Agenda Memorandum City Commission Meeting - June 4, 1996 Citrus Park - Master Plan Modification Memorandum No. 96-297 Section 9. Internal PUD standards. "B. INTERNAL LOTS AND FRONT AGE. Within the boundaries of the PUD, no minimum lot size or minimum yards shall be required; provided, however, that pun erontage 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." As indicated in the request from the applicant (Exhibit "A" - letter of request) the basis for changes on lot 22 are a result of field errors by the surveying crew. The building is presently under roof. The requested changes to the screen enclosure and pool setbacks for lot 32 are a result of the pool contractor constructing the pool 7.37 feet from the rear property line rather than the required 8.00 feet. Therefore, the pool is .63 feet outside of the buildable area for a pool. The error in the pool setback also affects the rear setback for the proposed screen enclosure. Relative to the proposed changes to lot 22, one of the concepts of zero lot line development is to "create" more usable side yard space, on the property, between units. This is accomplished by concentrating the side yard area to one side of the unit, rather than splitting it between the two sides of the unit. Visually, there is no difference (with the exception of window placement), since the building separation does not increase by virtue of concentrating the side yard. With respect to the requested changes to reduce the lot frontage and the non-zero lot line side building setback for lots 22 and 23, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) offers an alternative to the request that would maintain the project's minimum standards for lot frontage and building setbacks. It is recommended that instead of reducing the minimum lot frontage for lots 22 and 23 from 55.10 feet to 51 feet and reducing the noO:...zero, lot line side building setback from 15 feet to 11 feet for both lots, that the developer change lot 23 from a 55.10 foot wide lot to a 47 foot wide open space tract of land. This 47 foot wide open space tract would be created by moving the lot line between lot 22 and 23 approximately 8 feet south and dedicating the land south of the new lot line as a tract with ownership, operation and maintenance responsibilities to the R.O.A., including preparation of landscape plans and installation of landscaping. Therefore, within the 110.20 foot frontage of the existing lots 22 and 23, an open space tract with a 47 foot frontage and a house lot with a 63.20 foot frontage would result. This alternative would eliminate the need for items 1, 2 and 3 of the request referenced on page 1 of this report. This alternative also eliminates any effect on the existing houses on lot 24 and lot 21. With respect to the proposed reduction in swimming pool rear setback from 8 feet to 7 feet and the reduction in the screen roof enclosure rear setback from 6 feet to 5 feet for lot 32, it is recommended that the proposed setbacks be accepted, provided that the existing pool and screen roof enclosure rear setbacks for lot 20 (the lot that backs up to lot 32) not be decreased with a future master plan modification. Page 4 Agenda Memorandum City Commission Meeting - June 4, 1996 Citrus Park - Master Plan Modification Memorandum No. 96-297 RECOMMENDATION On Tuesday, May 14, 1996, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) met to review the requested master plan modification. The Board recommend. that the City Commission make a ftndlng of no substantial change for the proposed modification, and that the Planning and Development Board approve the request, subject to the comments in Exhibit liD" - Conditions of Approval. TJH:meh:arw xc: Central File a:CilruPUD.Stf E X H I BIT II A" ; 1[0) ~ & ~ 0 Wi ~ .r CCl CONSUl~~ TS,21~C. ' PLAfml~IG ;'.:.m Conaulflng Englneeff lON!~'.l nf.llT. Surveyors P/anneff 2200 PARK CENTRAL BLVD., N, SUITE 100, POMPANO BEACH, FL 33084, (305) 974-2200 · FAX (305) 973-2686 April 23, 1996 Ms. Tambri Heyden Planning Director City of Boynton Beach 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Re: citrus Park PUD Proposed Master Modifications Boynton Beach, Florida eeL Project No. 3454 Dear Ms. Heyden: Due to a field survey mistake, the building on Lot 22 of the above referenced project was incorrectly positioned. The structure is presently under roof. Due to contractor placement of pool on lot 32',. it is constructed 0.63 over the pool setback line. Please be advised that we are herein submitting for Master Plan Amendment for said project. We are proposing to amend the Master Plan as follows: A. Patio home lots for buildings 22 and 23 will be revised from 55' to 51' in width. B. Side (interior) minimum set back for buildings 22 and 23 will be revised from 15' to 11'. c. Rear swimming pool minimum setback for lot 32 will be revised from 8' to 7'. D. Rear screen enclosure minimum setback for lot 32 will be revised from 6' to 5'. Enclosed herewith please find the following: 1. Twelve signed and sealed prints for the revised master plan for the above referenced project. 2. A check made payable to the city of Boynton amount of $500.00. "\ rn rn I~ rn 11 \1 O ,J ,5 . -.-'.- l r----"-. 'L." 'U ., ;. .' t..,j Bea~h e~r2:ifj'--' , ZCj,;\f'lG :~,H .. 3. A sketch showing: The existing location of buildings 22 and 24; the proposed location ot buildinq 23. 4. A letter of authorization from owner for CCL Consultants, Inc. to act as agent for this matter. 5. 12 copies survey for lot 32. We respectfully request that this proposed Master Plan Amendment be place on the next Technical Review Committee Agenda and thusly on the next available Planning and Development Board, as well as City commission Agenda. Should you have any questions, or need any additional information, Please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, CCL,consfltants. Inc. , G 1-f6tt::- ames A. Hamilton, III, P.S.M. irector of Survey Operations JAH/lb Copy: Next Development eel CONSULTANTS, INC. ", CCL" ~~',~"'!,.';"" ,..' , . . , . .'; . ,.' , ,Y~i :!I' . . " cdH~u~t~Hts .... ..,., " . .'...' "'"'' CCL CONSULl~NTS, INC. AUTHORIZATION #L85610 ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 2200 PARK CENTRAL BLVD. N, SUITE 100 POMPANO BEACH, fl 33064 (305) 974-2200 POMPANO BEACH ORLANDO MIAMI ,.,..'.'..',...,..B"~')..."~".',';.',.,.;; :p'., . ".' ;:.), .,i/~;:':' '0:,:"'" ~':"I /i~!=lij~UL. f~flfg,,:, .~~,....".., .k.,4..,.q4.....'~ CITRUS en I I I I I I I IOOd--I- Gi i.o a:i '" IlEVISIONS mASH PLOT L-22, 23, & 24 P ARI( I I I I -1- - - - 8 a:i ----- .9.50' a; e:-'Cl Cl ~ ~~~ 11,00' 7 OJ' ~ ~ ~ - 00 t5 ~ ~ '":' il/JrT.J. R lIMlb~~~~' . UNDER ROOF" Z ~ .3,59' h.' I'- ~ I ~ - "<C I ...; ~I S I ~I I I I I ~ ~ =--=,- - - - -;:;- - - - - -;::- .. - - - I 69.00' I ~ . EXISTING RESIDENCE' ~ en I ~~2c , 8~r.,~ I 20,J3' ~ 10.50' ,.,.. ~ '" . P lJl bllg' I DRIYE 3' WAlK::' ~ r- 1,03'~ I .1;)' _12.83' J.lJ.4'~ ;g ~ ~ 'PRDPOSID-NOT YET STARTID' DAl E BY 04/09/96 MRG SCALE: ," = 30' 8 ad 22 it> ~ 23 >~ .. .O~4 27/ / / / / / / I I I I I I \ \ \ "- '- I I I I I j I I I I I , L ---- ---- to' unuTY N. -----. TRACT S DRAWN BY L. T. ------ .. ." ---...--.-.\ I: I:' It: II WI fi,: '~, II J l-...L...~~)... t., , " -" - 1,_/ r 1\ \ , . 'I I. f \ 1\ III " '. 1\ ., ,1'1 .' \ : ' ! , ~ L{) ~ n r.. .- I L} t;J . :0.:0 VlZ .j CHECKED BY FIELD BOOK C'fCL ~1UN S1lJL lAN '1'51, IJv L,1. AUTHORIZA nON #LB5610 SURVEYORS PLANNERS SUITE 100 POMPANO BEACH, FL 33064 (305) 97,(-2200 ORLANDO MIAMI I I. I. I. k' I .$ I. ~ I I / / I I "'- I ~ I ..... "" /~~ I ..J rv / I\.~' / .0v C> I ~..... / r:v , 1 / 0 , ;s'~ ',.?:.J. <. ~ I " ~-1?- ... S' ~J-t \&.6' TRACT A " "......)/'" 6- ... , , ... , .... .... "- THIS PARCEL WAS ABSTRACTED"'~DER '-?p.:.~ ATTORNEYS' TITLE INSURANCE FU~ INC ~~'-?h, UNDEI~ COMMIlMENT NO. OPM-6760,sG-.... ~~CE' FOR EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS -OF -WAY'........ ...."'.... OF RECORD ........ ClrllRUS P ARI( NAllONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM COMMUNITY NUMBER 120192 PANEL NUMBER 0190 8 MAP REVISION 7/21/95 FLOOD ZONE B BASE FLOOD ELEVATION N/A LOWEST FLOOR(GARAGE) 17.0' BEARINGS DERIVED FROM THE NORTH UNE OF THE PLAT OF CITRUS PARK A P.U,D. AS BEING N 88'00'20" E ELEVATIONS DERIVED FROM THE BENCH- ININGWAlL OF BRIDGE OVER L.W.D,D. CANAL L-20, ELEVATION 17,765' N.G,V,D. LEGEND: R= RADIUS L= ARC DISTANCE 6= CENTRAL ANGLE \ \ LOT Sq Fi: 8,G86'! \ \ SCALE. l' ::: 3D' \ \ PC ::: POINT OF CURVATURE \ I pce ::: POINT OF COMPOUND CUR~ TLh~E PRe ::: POINT OF REVERSE CURVA U~E o INDICATES 1/2" PIPE SET WITH \ \ NUMBER LB5610 CAP \ \ W.M,R,D.E. = WALL MAINTENANCE \ \ & ROOF DRAINAGE EASEMENT \ I OFFSET NOTE: 5.0~ \ 5.00' .~ /' 20' OFFSET FRONT \ r-~\ u~ ~ IS' OFFSET REAR \ (;" \~/ .... 15' OFFSET NON ZERO SIDE \Z 0' OFFSET ZERO SIDE , NO SCREENED ENCLOSURE FOR POO ON MASTER SITE PLAN r S N o LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~ ~ w l> 2: w ~ :t ~ CITRUS PARK BOULEVARD LOCATION SKETCH (NOT TO SCALE) CERTIFY TO: ERROL I. CLARKE AND VIVIENNE A. CLARKE. HIS WORLD SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, FlSA ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS, ATIMA ATIORNEYS' TITLE INSURANCE FUND, INC. IGNACIO G. ZULUETA. P.A. WIFE .s~ ,--0\ ... ",'" ~ ~ , ~) ~ 50,00' ----- ..... ^'J {; '-J ::I: I- lX CI 2: -- LOT 32. PLAT OF CITRUS PARK. A P.U.D.. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT 8001< 74, PAGES 176-17l. PUBLIC REQdR(jS'iPi~~M. BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. SAID LANDS LYING AND BEING IN T~[,! CITY GF' r.' i:,,' I BOYNTON BEACH. ,; / " f NOTES: 1. UNLESS IT BEARS THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER THIS DRAWING. SKETCH, PLAT OR MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT VALID. 2. LANDS SHOWN HEREON WERE NOT ABSTRACTED BY CCl CONSULTANTS. INC. FOR EASEMENTS AND OR RIGHTS- Of-WAY OF RECORD. 3. LOT MEASURE~ENTS ARE THE SAME AS ON RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4, LOCATIONS ARE LIMITED TO VISIBLE IMPROVEMENTS ONLY. 5. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT REFLECT OR DETERMINE OWNERSHIP. REVISIONS DATE BY PLOT PLAN FORM80ARD AS8UILT (FINAL) Revise Pool CERTIfiCATION: I HEREBY CERTifY TH,61' THE ATTACHED SKETCH Of SURVEY IS TRUE M!D CORRECT TO THe: 8EST or MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF' AND THAT IT MEETS THE MINIt.lUt.I TECHNICAL STI.NDARDS SET fORTH BY THE fLORIDA STATE BOARD Of PROfESSIONAL SURVEYORS hND MAPPERS IN CHAPTER "G17~R1DA AD.,NISTRATIVE CDDE. \ .Aocl! PROfESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER 64790 STATE OF fLORIDA NAND PERSAUD. P.S.M DATE OF SURVEY DRAWN 04 02 96 BY MRG -.;;;t If) ~ 1'0 :z: u t;j. :.:0 V)Z 05 12 95 MRG 08/15/95 loP. 04/03/96 loP. 04/23/96 JAH fIELD 889/55 BOOK CHECKED BY // II~ Il\ I I I I I IiIIIII m ~ lilll I >< iimll en mil I II TI' I -t .. Z r)) I ~ ~ I : ! I C) ....11 . . )> mm" ! i iiiiii I . ." i ." i I:!III = 1"11111'1 0 i Iii I E < m . Ii. I I C ; .:.1. 0 !: I !!m i dmr I I .)> ! en t I I . -l . m I ,I t :a I 11 " . r- i iiiiiii > z i : f! =.~ I i'I:' 1'," i 1~'!i!I-I~ , .11' 1 .1.1.1. ~ IJ!~ l~: lo,'UU! o ._.0. 0 ,"," ~ ld! 'I'i Illlli'l ~ I e!I, '0 ..iI.J.' · ':ra .~~ . dl~~=I. Ii I ~ lpl . 5..... . I;:' p Ijii'wJ .'~ !I 1iI:1~1 I" ,. I~'l~l 'II . ~ill-'I'1 1.1 I 1"1" l~i Ii I; I~ hllli~ ~ 5i · Ie . .r I"!' . ,1 I · I' III 'I' Rl"1f IS 1I1111111i'II111111il n'llliI I I I I b III11P II nll'I' 't · I'll .11', II mj 111i ,'ill 1111. I. II' I iiill,I' 1111 ! :II~ I m ,I II , I I. I 1\ .....1 I 'n.... ....' J - un I I ...1.... ....~ II ".. -, I 'II'.... ""1 . ; 11111 I ; . II ~ I i I ~;:; ~;:: ;~:~. .... , .. ~ . I ! 'II :- .-t.-..... I / ~ p, -~ . . r-.--" I.. , . , ~I i ~V l'11~ '-...,. ,- r----' I = , ,..----, '.. , I. , ~ -l r----' r- r-- r-- ,:: I I \~~ ~l t~_ l~_ t:. I fi=i I i I ,,"'----- Ir-':--"1 i " t - .'\ ( ; ~ .. I C r- 1 1 l~ = " L____-' ,::_-:;~: ~;~ 1 l.~' \'11 I ~ I Ii":: I E \ I 1\'... '.: I--~--'r' ,tlt" f, -....---1, ~~~ o~ ) I ------';, I- I -j' I I . f.'~" . \. . --------, L____J ~.._- ~ I. I'll \1 'n-- -- r I.: :.,--~ -w,lTi.i .... 1= " \', : t- rl.t r--- r-.: \tilT': -T:-::;t.-; -i. I ! !r! u= ,. !!l ~ t.;:.:~:. <: I ~ .... ' I - - L._ .. - - ,,-- ,.. ~/ C ,- M' .- I. :':-::-..L ~ , · lr.- :: : po . .. L~.. HI! ! ~-~-:1 . ~ I~li Iii I 'fY"""'-T'" '. L_N ! "l' I, I'!! ! : : I ). : ~...I ~ t t-. i:-' r '1 --,- .,----" , I. I' -! 'E' ~Il- . L?_.J -[IJ ------------ ~.~-- ~ i n !I;~rli ,. J II i "il - "l--:l I 'I~.. '" --.-."- II It: .1 I ... , , :-r:-:u. - -===r · ,l'i II L-n_~ " !..---.. 9 ':: : ulll': ," ll! i I : I !. Ln___' ii ~i Illi i ': j'-":'" . ':!: : n)U ii ~t r. i = t ,--.._...1 , . Ii .. 1': 1 -.,. I ".-r7'""J~ t j~.t,l~,~-:" E I ~, ! ,..... \ i - r~.; - -r.. ~ -' '.' _~ r- I I I .., '~!' I!~:: ""I .. ! \li~~-il- S!:I!I-iliwil I . ._n_.. ,..' "1 i u ~.. . ~ '. J ,;-r L~__J 'd !!lli 5~i g '------_n_' L" I !" · Ii '~5 I i ::= - I: I ..;.~ C ~ .... r' --I I' I ..n__~ ~'.lll~.' · : II f-- I: ~ I -,----r f,21 ~"J i ..~ = Lll :: I! : III ~.-_.., . L~_J i!1 ;,d~ I .. , .1 L~ If...... J I I' I~. r ~ . l..:..:.:1L ---' Ii I' I i. i n , III I ~ ~ "r -.,. , ~ , ,N' l~ ,.~:" ~ .. I .. I I . I 1-. ...-' .. i ~ ~ ~ ~ In .. -l ~ = -, iL: : IT:-~ ~----. . ., , I .-----~< ; /i,> -. r-- ~/\.,:' L f I: I! L '-.- '-_. r-- ..-. I. .. t.. f" I , L.__ 1..__ ,..- I I.. 1 - , ~-- roo I . L ..r....... ....... I)!::!TI il'" ' ..!':~ : CII, i' :':!Al~ . "II . I"'. r ...., . r . 1.... ~ ..... ~, ~ tf~;;;'~. ...,~~b~ ~,t III 18!1g~ i.';". DI"Oloctl'..ClTnus PAr.~ ~II' !It,...,' .."ftO~N~r:.a.~,:.'~~~oa q. . , . .. .u. . 't'(I.._..f~..t.,.. . I t e ..1.. _.~ 10,.,.: ::: ~~,!,OII.t<.:tO~I". ........ '''OM, "'."A ~ , CITRUS PARK PUD MAS1ER PLAN MODlrlCA1l0N ~ ""J"" .. ...... :::-'':::=~r-~ t::. C C. L CONSULTANTS lNC t> ENClNrIItS Sl'''~''''''S po ."""'ltS 6 (). .,...... CIDftIUt ....... .. . ..nt '00 f'ICII"'''''~ _-. n. J.1OIt fJOS) .'....1200 &. ....... -Rill ,.u-,. flllC Mt""r. P::lWMO J[1IOt CIlIIl.IofCKI IIIU' PAI,M ItAQt V p"lt ' ~'!!. .' E X H I BIT "B" LOCATION MA2 CITRUS PARK PUD , -"I KtftJ1>." ."", ,,) It~_ ".:/'.....-.. .-..... .. IU: -.:th-~~ 1- 1-'-1-: ;'f 'KNCLLWCCD ~ ~11). ~ ?:r ~ f- ~L..:7T: ..1 - AG BRC VE!~ 7 ~ ~~~ .... f--:"_t; ~ ~~ ~"- . }l rrrrs:.~:. _.-:.: ...~~1= "'-{r+1=~~ = ,. fl fl~~' Iri = (ljjJr r 1 . Via ,....-"'1 k' 'H"T1 1.11 I '11 "" lIT ...... , -IT - ii, ", 11 :' " '~:;J1""~'~;~ 7 ~~. .... '1III1,'~j;lll): I F'~\ {~ ~ '""',~I,,:, II ~, Lg \~-'~ '" !:jT,...~Dcf~J '~)61 ~J./ i0... II ~ (~~ ...j ~ 1 ~f'''\'. v , !'t , r ') \l ~i' ' "'oo~s ul 0 'r- (lT7,- ~ v ~ '\ ,. zj1~::~i\- = ~ Cl5- Ia: ~, r]j ~;:: c u '~ ~ ~~-r~ '''q ~E t ~ II 1-1-[ (~,// l~ I- c ' l- f'I ~::.~ / I , I ( Tll TI I I \ "V J 1 - '= l-- .' 1= ~1AA """. ~ ~ -. [_ . g~!~rf~~C-'~8"r~-L--j. - --- '. 1,,0 I t I ~~ B \ Y I 'qif[7~ ;- w ~"- I ...J L ~ '_. I f!'- I [j I 1- I J tf I ~~ ~ "J J' J I J - ,,- I I ,~ ....... I L. 2 '2. ~............-- .--"'-"'L-- ~':rrrrn~'~~ " 'IJ'~ :.. .- "fR!' -- .::~~..:..::.:J:r:; - -.- _L..,.;..-LU tt:t.L - I. __' rnrrrn- : - ITlTrm ~++ ! 1J .. I H~' HI] ! : t.Lt1:LUJ CU_ - . I rrn-nIDTITIT' l'l .}- I I' tl:lLLD ~ J It - . -. - '1'1 !1 -- . fIITIllJDTJTJI il.:H[nIIJJC.. "~~-~~~~~~~~ r~rJ.hb;(wt];~~~!TlIR&CI,I'J,. . - ~--1 i -1 ,/ .. - - ~- 211-,7Iri_1'---llnW~~71'1'~', - t:: ~IU. II f'.Bi~ " ~ ,'...--........ . 1- , ~ gi "~ .. lt~\ ~1J - ~'-II!'\~, ~ ~~'K;:~ ;.-\ ~ "SOVNTON" "~~ I ~.::tx"~l'~~! ~ =- NURSERIES r?7 '. ,'..~',# ( ,:.t.)'. I I ,:1(' ,i _ -r..jt"I1'"-: -~. rrtr;":IfI!"I'\, . == -~ r-- ~ - - - -- - - - ~ - .... -. -.. ,N', r>, '" t:-;. IV A I.. ~'~D I jilt' "(1' - 1 r- _ Irl.I'I.'..'..~ I ,J j I L. ~Ull d.L i II i \~LlL']I; 1m: : ::--<:~:.::: ':.':: AG v ~ t-- ~ puc LUI:4.0 ;= I=: -=;d~ , . SITE ,.-..~. -- ~ -- 1 . ;= :=: . II r ~ . i , : . , . 0 I, ;= "SAUSALITD GROVES" PUC' LUI:5.D [;-\ - ":. ::.~~ \I fl", ~ ~ " I I ~. :~Ei -: -~ -~, L.:lIU' :~I..n I ,. 1>1 . I~ IF.... ....... ~r~ iim~lt~ =-j. ~ .. :;;:~i ,"~rfITIII !).1 H1I1 i "Till ~')1'11-]~~g\~~;1et~t-tf ~'~'II' f!11 : "~i t lL J\UJJ LL _!. ,I L\~ T.TL . I . I .-...., rT~ rt~...f!. 1 ..... ~r-r T -Y.""" . -~ ~ o 1/8 MILESV" 1111'1. - o 400. '800 FEET P~AN^,-INIO ~EPr. 6.-9.5, II o ' f':, ~..,J - .....- - --=~'- ~, ~I---i 'u,-l PI n ~I LUI .~i&1 ~I '---' ~ ~. "MEL ~ 'ft.... \1 ~ E X H I BIT "C" \\1,\1", i ,I \ i , i , I iiNi' i ~ III!!!'II i lun I I i I , , .....;;..,;.1 nmn " \i ,," II" '1111' n III' 'I ii' iil'l'lliiii'l~ 1 ;! 1\\' ~!\l,' '\ \U\ ~'l '11' I\I! ','II!\I'1 I II 'Ii l '1\ 'ii", I/i I II 11,1 i 'II !!!, I' II I 't , 'i/l \ . :' ,I '" II I , ,I ',1 .~t i\ 1 .. ,.... ...., I. II nt', ,....4.... ..... I, I'" I "ll.... ,..., . . , ,", I, . & ',I ! '.... ...,i 'Ui :::: ::;:'1 .~.. I -- i I , .lIl:.Ir.D- III ~ CITRUS PARI< PUO MASTER PLAN \.40plnCAll0N ~ ,*-- ~ eeL ClONIULJANlI ltole _ . _ 1&dl4L-- ."...,.. ..r't.c.a. ......... j) ;..: ._. -.r Q WlWL--- .-.,..... "'~I ...................... .........".... ,....;;:P; &f~ "...,.....,U....'.... . lUD ... m!l1t:iiSii:i!:=-.-~-~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ..tI, "".,, t.,.,.. -r'f P:P -~~.t ~ -... . .._--~~.._. -- E X H I BIT .. D II EXHIBIT "D" Conditions of Approval Project name: Citrus Park PUD File number: MPMD 96-003 Reference:The 91ans consist of 1 sheet identified as 1st Submittal, M~ster Plan Modification. File # MPMD 96-003 with a April 23, 1996 Plannina and Zoning Denartment date stamn marking. . DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS Comments: NONE UTILITIES Comments: 1. Developer will be responsible for the relocation of water and sanitary sewer services to lots 22 and 23, to the new property lines, to conform with the entire project. Utility Department inspection of relocations will be required. FIRE Comments: 2. There is no sidewalk/bicycle path along the front of this project. Since a sidewalk will keep pedestrians off Lawrence Road while enroute to Citrus Cove Elementary School, one is recommended to be installed. I POLICE . Commen t s : NONE ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: 3. Approval of this request is not recommended. The house already in place can remain, but the developer should not be allowed to build on the nonconforming lot to the south which results from improper placement of the adjacent residence. The nonconforming lot can become additional open space dedicated to the H.O.A., or distributed to the two adjacent properties. I. BUILDING DIVISI~ . Comments: NONE I PARKS AND RECREATION . Commen t s : NONE FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: 4. It is recommended that the applicant replace trees in accordance with the project's Tree Management Plan. PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: Page 2 Master plan Modification Citrus Park PUD MPMP 96-003 DEPARTMENTS S. Amend the drawing to show compliance with oonditions of approval of the previous master plan modification (Planning and Zoning Department File No. MPMD 95-002) identified in Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-247. 6. It is recommended that instead of reducing the minimum lot frontage for lots 22 and 23 from 55.10 feet to 51 feet and reducing the non zero lot line side building setback from lS feet to 11 feet for both lots, that the developer change lot 23 from a 55.10 foot wide house lot to a 47 foot wide open space tract of land. This 47 foot wide open space tract would be created by moving the lot line between lot 22 and 23 approximately 8 feet south and dedicating the land south of the new lot line as a tract with ownership, operation and maintenance responsibilities to the H.O.A., including preparation of landscape plans and installation of landscaping. Therefore, within the frontage of the existing lots 22 and 23 an open space tract with a 47 foot frontage and a house lot with a 63.20 foot frontage would be created. 7. Submission of a rectified master plan showing compliance with the conditions of approval for the project will be required to be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department, in triplicate, prior to whichever occurs first; the final inspection for the pool on lot 32 or prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the house on lot 22. 8. PUD master plans establish setbacks for all units within the PUD by granting all the units, or groups of units having similar characteristics, the same privileges. Since the setback encroachment issue with lot 32 is only one case within the PUD, if the Commission and Planning and Development Board determine this as-built situation to be acceptable, it is recommended that reference be deleted from the master plan. In lieu of this, a special agreement between the city and the owner of lot 32 would be prepared by the city attorney, as has been done in the past (Bay tree at the Meadows PUD), to remedy isolated encroachments in a PUD where the city decides not to require demolition. INCLUDE REJECT Page 3 Master Plan Modification Citrus Park PUD MPMP 96-003 ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS 1. To be determined. TJH/dlm a:ComDept.CIT