REVIEW COMMENTS
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 96-296
TO:
FROM:
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zoning DW
Michael E. Ha:;:<J{' ~
Current Planning unator
May 30, 1996
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Citrus Park a.k.a. Citrus Glen Phase II - Master Plan Modification
File No. MPMD 96-003
Please be advised of the following comments relative to the first review of the modified
master plan for the above-referenced project:
1. 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). The conditions of approval are identified in the attached
Memorandum No. 95-247.
2. 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.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 be created. The open space and lot would extend east 115 feet from the
east right-of-way line of Valencia Drive to the west perimeter of the lake tract.
This recommendation to omit one lot and create an open space tract would
eliminate the proposed reduction of lot frontage for the proposed new lots 22 and
23. The recommendation would also eliminate the proposed creation of the zero
lot line for the north side of lot 22 by moving the lot line between lots 21 and 22
8 feet south and the reduction of the non zero lot line side building setback from
15 feet to 11 feet for the new lots 22 and 23. The existing house on lot 24 will not
be effected by the request or the recommendation and the existing house on lot 21
will not be adversely effected by the proposed request or the recommendation.
3. 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 which ever 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.
MEH:arw
xc: Central File
a:lstCitPk.MP
.
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-247
Agenda Memorandum for
June 6, 1~95 City Commission Meeting
TO:
Carrie Parker
City Manager
Tambl- i. J. Heyden . ~~J
Planning and Zoning Depal-tment
FRON:
DATE:
May 31, 1995
SUBJECT: Citrus Park PUD - HPMD #95-002
Revised SCl"et.ln encl(l~;l\l"e setbacks and establish pool
setbacks
NATURLQLREQ!!LST
Louis R. Campanile of ceL Consul tants, INC., agent for tJe~~t
Di:::vE:lopment Company I pl'operty 0"m~r I 18 l"equvstinq to modIfy tile
Citnl3 ParJ~ mastE:r plctn as follow:::; (3ee ExhIbit 1Ii-." - l~tter uf
r~ql\~st ~nd propose~ master plan);
1. Reduce the approved rear screen pool enclosure setba,::k
from 8 feet to 6 feet.
'J
Reduce the appro\'f:cl side screen pocd 8nc] Clsure setback
frum 15 fdet to 10 feet.
3. Establish the follOWing pool setbacks:
Front ')') f~et
~-
Side (Int~ri.or) 12 feet
Siele (Zero lot line)- 2 feet
Side (Corner) 13 feet
Rear 8 feet
From Residence 5 feet
From Residence 3 feet
(With shear wall)
Note: The fOllOWing original screen enclosure setbacks
will remain the same; 20 feet front, 0 feet side
(zero lot line) and 20 feet (corner).
The 28.34 acre, 113 lot, single-family detached, zero lot line,
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).
BACKGROUNQ
In August 1989, the zoning and accompanying master plan was
approved for the subject property under the name C1tru8 Park puo.
The property owner, in November of 1994, requested and received
administrative approval to omit from the master plan, the non-
required recreation facility (see Exhibit lie" - CU1'1'ent Master
Plan). The applicant, Next Oevelopment Oompany, paid all required
f.e. and 'l..ceived plat approval on "Icu'gh 7, 1995 I On M~H.ch 28 I
1995, a land d&\lvtaloPl1lent order was issued to begin constrllction of
the pl"oject, now referl-ed to as "Boynton Estates".
Page 2.
Agenda Memorandum for City Commission Meeting
June 6, 1995
Citrus Park PUD - MPHD# 95-002
The typical lot size is 55 feet by 100 feet. All lots front on an
interllal private road network with one ingress/egress CQ Lawr~nge
Roa(:l. 1'hE! PJ.'oJ~ct is lh..rdenld by thli!! Citrus Glel) PUD to the north,
C1 true Cove Elementary School to the sou th, rE:S ident tal I alld to the
east ill Palm Beach County, Lawrence Road to the west and farther
west, IIautica, formerly known as the Boynton Nurseries PUD.
The approved bUilding setbacks of 20 feet front, 0 feet side, 15
feet int~rior side, 20 feet cornar side and 15 feet rear setback
are not affected by this l-equest. The approved ::icrl3en enclosure
setbacks are as follows: 20 feet front, 8 feet rear, 15 feet side
(interior), 0 feet sidE: (zero lot line) and 20 feet (corner). Pool
setbacks were not establ ished with the original mastel- pi all.
Chapter 2.5, Planned Unit Development, of
de'/elopmen t regul a tions ::; ta te~' tha t changE:s
developments shall be processed as follows:
the
in
city's
planned
land
unit
Section 12.
Changes in plans.
"'::~hanges in plans approved as c part of the zoning to PUD may
b2 pe,Cluitted by the planllin'J and zoniny board upon applicat:ion
f i l8d by the developer or his successors in in teres t, priur to
the expil'ation of the Pud classification, but unly f ~tftel-l a
flndin9 that any such change or Changes are in accord wi th all
l't:::glllation::; in effect when the change or change::; are requesteLl
and the intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan in effect
at the time of the prop03ed change. Substantial Changes shall
be Pl'opo~ed as for a nevI application of PUD zOlling. The
determination of what constitutes a substantial change shall
he within the SOl02 discretion elf the, city commission.
N()nsubstantial Changes as determined by the ci ty cOlllmis::ii0n in
l)lClll::. shall not t::;-:tend the expiratioll l)f the eightet::lJ montb
approval for the PUD cla:-:isif1cat1on."
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed this request for consistency with the PUD
development standards, and the intellt and purpose of planned unit
developments as stated in the fOllOWing sections of Chaptel 2.5 of
the city's land development regulations:
Section 1. Intent and purpose.
"A Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is established. It
is intended that this district be utilized to promote
efficient and economical land use, improved amenities,
appropriate and harmonious val-iety in physical development,
creative deSign, improved living envil-onment, ordel-ly and
economical development in the City, and the pl-otection of
adj acent and axis ting and future 01 ty development. The
district i8 Buitable 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
vie"" of the substantial public advantages of planned unit
development, it is the intent of PUD regulations to promote
~nd encourage development in this form where tracts suitable
in size, location and character for the uses and structul'es
Pl'OPClSE:d are to b~ plaune:d and devoClloped as unified and
coordinated units. -
Page 3.
Agenda Memorandum for City Commission Meeting
June (), 1995
Citrus Park PUO - MPMD# 95-002
Section 9. Internal PUO 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 PU[l llt'ii! 1lll;.lst clolihaly l"IUlliIl\llHes dllll that
Pi1.I1. iplliSlal yurds abuttil.g other zlJllillCJ distrICt.!:. shall be the
salliE: ciS required in the abutting zone."
Witli respect to the changes requested, the original building and
screen enclosure setbacks \'/e.L'e established consistent wi th other
zero lot line developments in the City. One of the concepts of
zero lot development is to create mere side yard space, 011 the
property, between uni ts . This is accompl ished by allowing tile
l:!xter iell- wdll of a un i t to ~;e t on the property line 0 f an dbu t t I11g
lot, \-.lith the oppl)site side of the unit being liO closel- thdn 15
f8et to the abutting pi:operty line. Thus, Crl::atHlg a 15 foot side
Ydl d S.2 tbdCk. The miidluulil s ide yard .setback allowed ill
conventional si.ngle-family 20ning dh,tl-icts is 7.5 feet (t::!dch side)
to th~ abutting property lint::.
The l-equest to reduce the side yard setback for screen l"oof
enclusul-es from 15 feet to 10 feet ili:-cannot be supported by staff
(see attached Fire Department Memol'andum No. 95-268). The Pl'OPOSdl
reque~t is contrary to ~ concept of zero lot line development tllat
although side yard space is aggregated, sufficient open space
between buildings is still provided. Staff recommends that the
11011- zero line s ide yard setback c f 15 f eej: be main ta ined fC)i'
s true tures olld screen pool E:nclcJsures.
Relative to the request to reduce the rear setback for screen roof
enc losures from 8 fE:et to Ii fee t, it is recommended t11 at the
reduced setback be accepted, with two exceptions. \-Jh8re the rE:ar
property line of d lot abuts any portion of any other residential
lot in the development, or where the rear lot line abuts a
l-esidential lot Hithin an adjacent development, the rear setback
shall continue to be 8 feet.
Regarding the establishment of the above ground pool setbacks,
staff finds these acceptable, with one exception. The intel'iol"
side setback shall be 15 feet and the corner side setback ahall be
20 feet. The basis for this recommendation is that pool ~etbacks
in conventional zoning districts (non-PUO) are allowed no less than
8 feet on each side and 8 feet in the rear.
RECOMMENDATIO~
On Tuesday, May 23, 1995, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) met
to review this mastel" plan modification request. 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
staff exceptions listed above and the attached staff comments in
composite Exhibit "0" - Utilities Department Memorandum No. 95-177,
Fire Department Memorandum 95-268 woe, Pl.nn1n~ and Zonino
O.partment Memorandum 95-246, Building DiviSion M.mo~andum No. 95-
159 dnd Engineering Division Memorandum No. 95-151.
II :UtI:T:ol41. _nil
E X H I BIT
II D ..
1m ~ @ ~ u rn ~
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT luL Mav 30& ~
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 96-1~1
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
TO:
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
~JIMJr-~uki11, P.E.
{yfjttIingIneer
DATE"
May 30,1996
RE:
CITRUS PARK PUD - MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION
We have reviewed the proposal for reducing lot sizes for a few lots at subject location and
do not support approval. The house already in place can remain, but the developer should
not be allowed to build on the non-conforming lot to the south which results from improper
placement ofthe adjacent residence. The non-conforming lot can become additional open space
dedicated to the H.D.A., or distributed to the two adjacent properties.
WVH/ck
C:CITPKMPM
/
I
/
MEMORANDUM
Utilities # 95-177
(
!
I
Talhri J. Heyden.
PI, ;jng &, Zonin Dir
TO:
FROM: John A. Guidry.
Director of Utilities
Date: May 30, 1995
SUBJECT: Citrus Park, Master Plan Modification
First Review
Staff has reviewed the above referenced project and offer the following comments:
1. Lot set backs should be consistent throughout the project. In no case should the
set backs be less than, Citrus Glen. the project adjacent to the north.
2. Unobstructed access shall be maintained for utility and drainage easements.
(Sec.26.33(a)).
It is our recommendation that the plan proceed through the review process.
If you have any questions regarding this subject. please contact Skip Milor at 375-6407 or
Peter Mazzella at 375;..6404.
8m
xc: Clyde "Skip" Milor
Peter Mazzella
File
III W If:: I;i II
I I .' .
! : ~ 11
: Ii II
i
I
13
,:/' ;. I
\: I:: I. ~ : !
" ~, '
Cb
FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-268 WDC
"
TO:
Planning Department
FROM:
Fire Department
DATE:
May 26, 1995
RE:
Master Plan Change
Boynton Estates (AKA-Citrus Park)
LawL'ence Rd
The Fire Chief has determined that fifteen feet (15') between
bUildings shall be maintained for Fire Department access.
/ ~ 'f /1 (
/, /b . /,//. ,7,/
/// ( . t".c.:..-1-( c?,-/c'~~~' {~/(/~ \
William D. Cavanaugh, FP~
I ::.," " - .. -'.. ,_
i//J}..,m m. ffl fI"\i;;.-"I-~" (\/
'if"I" '.... ....' '.. ..~.! ..-. f!} f IlJI f
,:! : I. : 6 , ,'I Ii j
. "--H.;,.',j!jj;.i;;-;f~:I:'-"" I i
,,,,.1'.111' ro'
, "'!.':j jI'r', ,p ;
ILl
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-246
TO:
FROM:
Carrie Parker
City Manager
-:77 .II
Tambr i J. Heyden I ff-l
Planning and Zoning Director
DATE:
SUBJECT:
May 31, 1995
CITRUS PARK PUD - MPMD #95-002
(Revised Screen Enclosure Setbacks and Establish Pool
Setbacks - Staff Comments)
Please be advised of the fOllowing Planning and Zoning Department
comments with respect to the above-referenced request:
1. On the drawing titled Master Plan, omit the typical 55 foot by
100 foot patio home lot drawing and replace it with three
drawings showing the same typical lot size (drawn to a smaller
scale) . One drawing shall illustrate minimum building
setbacks (hard roof), one shall illustrate minimum screen roof
enclosure setbacks and the third shall illustrate minimum pool
setbacks. On each of the three drawings, dimension the size
of the lot and identify the size as typical. Within each
drawing delineate the maximum buildable area for
structures/buildings, screen roof enclosures and pools. This
delineation shall identify the approved minimum dimension each
structure and/or pool may be located from abutting property
lines. USing a distinguishable symbol, shade in and label the
maximum buildable area (It is not necessary to identify the
area or dimensions of the area, just to shade and label the
area.) In addition, provide the above three drawings for an
irregular shaped lot, such as Lot 66. Show, label and
dimension the minimum setbacks and delineate the maximum
buildable area for structures/buildings (hard roof), screen
roof enclosures and pools, in the same manner as for the
typical lot.
Below each of the three draWings place the approved setback
chart. On each of the six drawings, show dimension and label
the typical utility and drainage easements, including the 3
foot maintenance/drainage easement adjacent to the zero lot
line. Place the follOWing two (2) general notes below the six
drawings:
i. No buildings or any kind of construction shall be
placed on utility or drainage easements.
ii. Maximum lot coverage is 45%.
2. Add a note to the pool setback drawing to state that the
setbacks are for below-ground pools and that above-gl~ound
pools, such as whirlpools and jacuzzies, shall comply with the
bUilding setbacks.
3. Omit sheet 2 of 2 or complete this draWing by depicting on it
the apPl~oved building, screen roof enclosure and pool setbacks
for each lot.
4. A revised master plan, which reflects all staff comments and
conditions approved by the City Commission and Planning and
Development Board, shall b. submitted in triplicate to the
Planning and Zoning Department, prior to permits being issued
for those screen enclosures or pools that are part of this
request.
all5elloZ4ti. arw
IllJ
,
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-159
ill
~IAY :3 0 II);))
@
(E@mnwrn
May 30, 1995
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
TO:
Michael E. Haag, Site & Zoning Administrator
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
Master Plan Modification for Citrus Park P.U.D.
FROM:
RE:
After reviewing the submitted revised master plan, the Building
Division offers the following comments:
1. That this change is only for the 7 typical models as
shown and any lot that has a model constructed and
can't comply with these setbacks cannot be permitted
without requiring a change in site plan.
2. The setbacks shown are for in-ground pools only. Above
ground pools must comply with the same setbacks as the
buildings.
/' .-. -a' /'?
, '. -- " ,
#!I/~A')~//,
'./L('; ~__ -.,
Al Newbold
AN:ck
cc: William V. HUkill, P.E., Department of Development Director
C:CITR lISI'K. TRe
15
May 24, 1995
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-151
To:
From:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
W~m V. Hukill, P.R.
~tment of Development Director
Citrus Park Master Plan Modification
Re:
We have reviewed the suggested setback reductions for swimming
pools and/or screen enclosures at Citrus Park and find them
wanting. If, for example, the rear screen enclosure setbacks are
reduced to six feet, it is possible to back up two houses (one
from Citrus Park and one from Citrus Glen) and end up with twelve
feet between enclosures. It is even worse when you consider that
both owners are entitled to fences and/or planting and, if
constructed, no access would be available to those rear yards.
If you combine the six foot rear yard setback with two requested
side yard setbacks of two feet each, you have no access there,
either.
The applicant has stated that he would not create adjacent two
foot situations, but when he is gone, an independent owner may
apply for a permit for his lot which is between two lots with two
foot setbacks already in place, and be unable to build at all.
At some point, we probably should refer to units essentially
without yards as multi-family homes, or perhaps even as row
houses, but not single family detached homes.
Please also remind the applicant that Land Development
Regulations, Chapter 5, Article V, Section 1, D 10, Page 5-7
declares that "no buildings or structures shall be placed within
easements. II
WVH : mh
cc: Carrie Parker, City Manager
Michael Haag, Planning & Zoning
A: eJTRUan
11
r~~""--
r~ ~ rn ~ \\7 qnl
U1J MAY 20- ~
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM #96-111
TO:
Tambri J. Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
THRU:
Robert Eichorst, Public Works Director (!f
FROM:
Larry Quinn, Sanitation Superintendent
SUBJ:
Master Plan Modification - Citrus Park PUD
DATE:
May 17, 1996
The Public W r Department has no comments in reference to the above site.
Larry Quinn
Sanitation Superintendent
LQ/cr
MEMORANDUM
Utilities # 96-170
11"';"I'lI;, ["
j " 1 I,r;
:Lj}f~L
, ~ l
ulJ I
I
rf) i :,:"~''''''n'''~il~''''~!;~'';' ~..;::~.
:.:-;J ;:' Ii \ tI I:' , 'i
... ._,~;.2_,.,.;.. .,~~.'d:;'7 i rll
~W , 3I!1J) J W
PLANi~ING AND
ZONING DEPT.
TO: Tambri J. He den,
Planning
FROM: John A. Guidry,
Director of Utilities
Date: May 13, 1996
SUBJECT: Citrus Park PUD,
Master Plan Modification, First Review
Staff has reviewed the above referenced project and offer the following 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.
It is our recommendation that the plan proceed through the review process.
If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact Skip Milor at 375-6407 or
Peter Mazzella at 375-6404.
sm/citrus 1
xc: Clyde "Skip" Milar
Peter Mazzella.6-
File
'.'''"___~-----:----\!'.<l
.:......'.r;' '1.;\ ~; II ~J ~ f.' \ j
".,\!(~\,_\~J,~l\\
, .' ; \"-::...--- l.~\i
! "'. ~ ~ J, U
:;, 1\ "
i 'uL ~\P<.Y \ 0 1936 1
FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 96-258 \J
1 Pl!\NNiNG f>,NI}
\ ZONING OEPT.
1....--~."..-
TO: Tambri Heyden, Director
Planning & Zoning Department
FROM: William D. Cavanaugh, FPO I A~ C
Fire Department
DATE: May 10, 1996
RE: MPMD 96-003
Citrus Park
Lawrence Rd.
We have no objections to the changes requested. We noticed the lack of sidewalk / bicycle path
past the front of this project. The installation of a sidewalk will keep pedestrians off Lawrence
Road while enroute to Citrus Cove Elementary School.
cc: Chief Jordan
FPO II Campbell
File
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REF:
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC UNIT
TAMBRI HEYDEN, PLANNING & ZONING DIRECTOR
SGT. MARLON HARRIS
7 MAY 96
CITRUS PARK PUD - MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION
MEMO #0231
rn
llwrn
..
ill 1
,
MAY
l;....;..:~~~~:~:~~l
I reviewed the above plans and find no...pf,~r~S'?:ii:~~::;~~
/P 'l~> u
/.:~::~.
~<<:;;i'
r;,~
r~
t~~~::::;~::::::~~~:.i r'~
,~~'~~'''~''''~~'''':::::~~1
~~;';"";'~'~::'~::~
......:.
::-~
,~ f:::~::'::~::}
\0)
.........0:...
.i~~;::::~i~;;>
0:-, ;.'
..~.'
Respectfully,
,.:..
.:-::.:..
~('{:~~~~~
~\c\\
':\~:1, \/
~',',','.w,,,,,,,,,., ffrP:':>:// r'.F:.....'''''..'''':
l811~ 0
l~?~:~:::~}'};::::~:::::::::>\
{J ll'
>/~;:.f.t~
((fjJ)
t~>~:~.;
.,~ (()~
n~\)
ill
rn@~nwrn
.. 28.
001
i
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 96-196
May 24, 1996
To:
Tambri Heyden, Planning Director
From:
Al Newbold, Deputy Development Director
Re:
Citrus Park PUD
Master Plan Modification
The Building Division has no comments on the changes to the previously approved master plan
for the above project.
AN:mh
Attachment: Plans
cc: William V. Hukill, P.E., Development Director
C:\WPWIN60\WPDOCS\TRC\CITRUSPK.WPD
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #96-244
I~~J~ ~ ~ Wi ~ ,rn1
I. ~Jl fW I 71900 I~
. ~--""..,..,...---.J
PL{\:\:U;i-,jG A,NO
70-,!!t--C nr:PT
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Department
John Wildner, Parks superintendentt'
Citrus Park PUD - Masterplan Mo ification
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
May 17, 1996
The Recreation & Park Department has reviewed the Citrus Park PUD; Masterplan Modification.
There are no recreation related comments. The project may continue through the normal review
process.
JW
. -
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #96-237
'~~~ @ ~ nliJ ~ ~
MAY , 6 1996
1
- Pll\.NNING ANO
ZONING DEPT.
-
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director ~
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist ttJ~
Citrus Park PUD (MPM) (FKA Next Development)
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
May 16, 1996
I have no comments in regards to this change. I want to remind the applicant of their responsibility
to replace trees in accordance with the project Tree Management Plan (copy attached). The project
should continue in the normal review process.
KH:ad
Attachment