The URL can be used to link to this page

CORRESPONDENCE CORRESPONDENCE! LETTERS DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning and Zoning Bulent 1. Kastarlak, NeARB Director Building Planning & Zoning Engineering Occupational License Community Redevelopment June 9, 1998 Ms. Ellen Smith Unruh, Smith and Associates, Inc. 105 S. Narcissus Avenue, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dear Ms. Smith: Accompanying this letter, I am providing you with an excerpt of the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report received from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on your applications for the two proposed Future Land Use Plan amendments, Please prepare a complete response to these objections and forward to me within ten (l0) working days. As I will assist you or your staff with this effort, please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, I'-'o.-/U 7~ Michael W. Rumpf Acting Director of Planning and Zoning MWR:bme cc: Central File s:\projects\Firs~; Baptist Church\corres\ORC memo America's Gateway to rhe Gulfstream 100 East Boyntoo Beach Blvd.. P.O. Box 310 Boyntoo Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 375-6260 FAX: (561) 375-6259 OBJECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 98.1 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH I. CONSISTENCY WITH RULES 9J-5 AND 9J-ll., F.A.C., & CHAPTER 163., F.S. The City of Boynton Beach has proposed three amendments to its Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The Department has identified some concerns with all the amendments: Case No.1: This is a requestto revise the FLUM designation on a 14.18-acre site from Moderate Density Residential which allows 4.84 to 7.26 dwelling units per acre to Local Retail Commercial. Objection: I. The public facility analysis provided mentions only that there is existing capacity to accommodate the proposed land use change. However, the amendment is not supported by an adequate public facility analysis which utilizes the City's adopted level of service standards to determine the public facility demand created by the proposed land use designation, based on the maximum development allowed under the proposed designation and comparing it with the public facility demand under the current designation, to indicate any surplus capacity or deficit that might occur. Section 163.3177(6); Rule 9J- 5.005(2)(a) and (c), 9J-5.006(2)(a);(3)(b)I., and (3)(c)3.; 9J-5.01I(1)(f)I.; and 9J- 5.016(3)(c)6., F.A.C. 2. The proposed change is from Moderate Density Residential which allows 4.84 to 7.26 dwelling units per acre to Local Retail Commercial. However, the Local Retail designation to which it is changing is not properly defined in the plan (Future Land Use Element Policy, 1.16.1). Although this policy lists the type of uses allowed in this category, it does not indicate the intensity of use to be implemented. The category allows high density residential developments (maximum 10.8 units per acre) as well as mixed use developments without specifying the type and proportion (i.e, the percentage distribution) of the mix of uses and the intensity standards to be implemented in this land use category. Future Land Use Element, Policy 1.16.3 which attempts to establish intensity standards for non-residential uses is vague because it states that "maximum floor/area ratio in non-residential land use categories shall be limited by the maximum lot coverage, the maximum height, and the parking, landscaping, and storm water retention requirements contained in the City' > Code of Ordinances" without specifying in the plan the intensity standards to be applied. In the absence of the intensity standards to be applied to the commercial designation, as well as the proportion of mix for the mixed 1 uses, it will be impossible to conduct a public facility analysis and planning based on the maximum development allowed by the Local Retail category. Section 163.3177(6)(a); Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)1., 7.; (4)(a)2., and (4)(c), F.A.C. Recommendation: I. Include, with the amendment, an adequate data and analysis of the public facilities demands created by the proposed land use change based on the City's adopted level of service standards and the maximum development allowed under the proposed designation, and comparing the existing demand with the demand under the proposed designation, to indicate any surplus capacity or deficit that might exist. If there is a deficit the analysis, should indicate how the deficit will be addressed. 2. Revise the definition of the Local Retail Commercial category (policy 1.16.1), based on adequate and relevant data and analysis, to indicate the intensity standard to be implemented for the commercial uses allowed under this designation, Furthermore, specify the proportion (Le, the percentage distribution) of the mix of uses to be implemented in this category. In the absence of the intensity standards to be applied to the commercial designation, as well as the proportion of mix for the mixed uses, it will be impossible to conduct public facility analysis and planning based on the maximum development allowed by the Local Retail category. --- .-- Case No.2: This is a request to change the FLUM designation on a 23-acre site (yet to be annexed) from Medium Density Residential (County designation) which allows 5 dwelling units per acre to Low Density Residential which allows 4.84 dwelling units per acre. " U , ,.~.:..' - I I, Objection: According to the supporting documentation, the subject property is yet to be annexed into the City. Pursuant to Section 163.3171, Florida Statutes (F.S.). "a municipality shall exercise authority under this act for the total area under its jurisdiction". The City, by proposing land use change to an area yet to be annexed it is planning for an area that is not within its jurisdiction which is inconsistent with the law. A municipality can plan for an area outside its jurisdiction if there is a joint planning agreement formally stated and approved in appropriate official action by the governing bodies involved. Furthermore, prior to any consideration of a plan amendment by a municipal governing body pursuant to Sections 163.3184(3), 163.3187, and 163.3174(1), F.S, the local government is to provide notice and conduct a public hearing in which only affected persons (i.e., those owning property, residing, or owing and operating business within the boundaries of the local government) shall participate. Thus, conducting a public hearing, involving land outside a municipality is prohibit(d by law. Chapter 163.3171,163.3174(1), 163.3184(1)(a), and (3), and 163.3187, F.S., and 9J-5.004., 9J-5.005(8), F.A.C. 2 ! \ , Recommendation: It is recommended that the City should not adopt the proposed amendment until the annexation process has been completed. Upon completion of the annexation period, the , City can then propose to change the land use; until then the County's designation will continue to : be applicable to the annexed property. " Case No.3: This is a request to change the FLUM designation on a 66.16- acre site from Moderate Density Residential to High Density Residential. Objection: The public facility analysis provided mentions only that there is existing capacity to accommodate the proposed land use change. However, the amendment is not supported by an adequate public facility analysis which utilizes the City's adopted level of service standards to determine the public facility demand created by the proposed land use designation, based on the maximum development allowed under the proposed designation and comparing it with the public facility demand under the current designation, to indicate any surplus capacity or deficit that might occur, Section 163.3177(6); Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) and (c), 9J-5.006(2)(a);(3)(b)1., and (3)(c)3.; 9J-5.011(1)(f)1.; and 9J-5.016(3)(c)6., F.A.C. Recommendation: Include, with the amendment, an adequate data and analysis of the public facilities demands created by the proposed land use change based on the City's adopted level of service standards and the maximum development allowed under the proposed designation, and comparing the existing demand with the demand under the proposed designation, to indicate any surplus capacity or deficit that might exist. If there is a deficit the analysis, should indicate how the deficit will be addressed. II CONSISTENCY WITH STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed amendments do not adequately address and further the State Comprehensive Plan including the following goals and policies (Chapter 163.3177(9), F.S.): Land Use Goal 16(a) and Policy (b)3 and 6., regarding functional mix and the character of urban areas, and the availability of water to meet demands; and Public Facilities Goal (18)(a) and Policies (b)5., and 6., regarding the provision of public facilities. Recommendation: Revise the amendments, as indicated earlier, so as to be consistent with the above cited goals and policies for the State Comprehensive Plan. 3 LAWI'Ol'I CHILES OOVEMOK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FWRIDA Mr. Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 3400 WEST COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD FORT LAUDERDALE, f1..0RIDA 33309-3421 (954) 7774593 i ~ [% '~ ~ DIVISION OF I' 0 I ' PLANNING AND PROGRAMS I ! '1,1 e March 17, 1998 L v_,. ~, FLA",;,::;:sm '- ~~ '"'''' C'" ~J~ fD) ~ @ rn 0 W !~ ~ IJ1J toM 2 0 1998 THOMAS f. BARKY:. Jr. SECRETARY , , SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Boynton Beach 98-1 RPM BSP Pl^N pr,OC[SSI~!G F ' Dear Mr. Eubanks: The Department has reviewed the documents for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the City of Boynton Beach. The amendment proposes to reclassify 14.16 acres from moderate density residential to local retail commercial; reclassify 23 acres.from medium residential to low density residential; and reclassify 66.16 acres from moderate density residential to high density residential. There is no traffic analysis included to determine the potential impacts from these amendments. Since two of the three amendments will intensify development, the Department requests a formal review. Thank you for the opportunity to review this amendment. Sincerely, ~J~ Joseph M. Yesbeck, P.E. District Director Planning and Programs JMY/rr cc: B. Romig, FDOT Central Office R. Wilburn, DCA G. Schmidt, FDOT-4 1. Ander3on, FDOT-4 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 4B From: Staff Date: April 17, 1998 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Draft Amendments to the City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan DCA Reference No. 98-1 Introduction The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that the Council review local government comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption. Under the provisions of this law, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) prepares an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on a proposed amendment only if requested to do so by the local government, the regional planiring council, or an affected person, or if an ORC Report is otherwise deemed necessary by the DCA. If the local government requests DCA to prepare an ORC Report, then the Council must provide DCA with its own objections, recommendations for modification and comments on the proposed amendment within 30 days of its receipt. BacklITound The City of Boynton Beach has proposed three amendments to its Future Land Use Map (PLUM). Information on the properties which are subject to the proposed amendments is provided in Table 1 and the location of each property is shown on the attached maps: The City has not requested a formal review of the proposed amendments, concluding that the amendments are consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and that adopted level of service standards will not be exceeded. However, on March 27, 1998, the DCA notified the City that a formal review would he carried out. Table 1 City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendments DCA Reference No. 98-1 #2 23.0 Medium Residenti.I-5 · 66.2 Moderate Density Residential Low Density Residential High Density Residential Northeast quadrant of intersection of Miner Road and Lawrence Road Northwest quadrant of intersection of Woolbright Road and 1-95 #3 Total Acreage 103.4 · Palm Beach County FLUM Designation. Property recently annexed. Evaluation Amendments # I & 3 are evaluated together because they are part of the same original PUD and are located adjacent to each other,'in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Wood bright Road and 1-95. The property in Amendment # I is presently vacant, and is 'surrounded by a stormwater retention lake to the north, a shopping center and restaurant to the south, single-family detached homes to the west and an apartment complex (part of amendment # 3) and vacant land to the eaSt. FLUM Designations are Medium Density Residential to the north, west and east, and Local Retail Commercial to the south. Amendment # 3 includes lands which have already been developed for residential purposes (both apartments and single-family homes). Surrounding land uses include single-family detached homes to the north and west, some vacant land and a shopping center to the south, and vacant land and the rights-of-way for a rail line and 1-95 to the east. Surrounding FLUM designations include Low Density Residential to the north, Medium Density Residential to the west, Local Retail Commercial to the south, and High Density Residential to the east. The property in amendment # I belongs to a religious organization which envisioned the construction of a church and school on site. However, the organization elected to maintain its church and related facilities at its downtown location and the subject property is now to be used for a health care "campus," with a nursing home, an adult congregate liviIJ.g facility and a medical office building. Since office uses are not permissible in a residential distri:t, the City proposes to apply a designation of Local Retail Commercial to this property. The City indicates that the proposed uses are compatible with surrounding uses and that the City Housing Element promotes the approval of adult congregate living facilities if compatible with the neighborhood. Although the City Comprehensive Plan recommends against designation of additional 2 land as Local Retail Commercial, the proposed use qualifies as an exemption because of its nature. The property in amendment # 3 is subject to a settlement agreement between the City and a PUD developer. According to City staff, the controversy leading to the settlement agreement had to do with development of the commercial property to the south (originally under joint ownership) and the overall residential density to be permitted. Under the settlement agreement, the developer-has the authority-to-build 687 units, but the eJdsting FLUM designation would allow only 479 units. There are no actual impacts as a result of this amendment, since the 66 acres is already entirely developed. The proposed designation more accurately reflects the actual density as developed. Amendment # 2 is a 23 acre parcel presently used for agricultural purposes. Its existing FLUM designation is Medium Residential-S, a County designation. The property is being annexed by the City. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential homes to the north, east, and south, although a canal and right-of-way buffer the property to the south. A mobile home park is located to the west. Surrounding FLUM designations are Low Density Residential to the north, south and east, and Medium Residential-S (County designation) to the west. The City designation would allow a few less units then the County designation, if developed to the maximum density. Extrajurisdictional Impacts The amendments were reviewed through the Palm Beath Intergovenunental Plan Amendment Review Committee Process in December of 1997.' According to the Clearinghouse Coordinator, no objections were received regarding the proposed amendments. Effects on Regional Resources or Facilities There would appear to be no significant effects on regional resources and facilities as a result of these amendments. Objections, Recommendations for Modification, and Comments A. Objections I. None B. Conunents 1. The proposed land uses in amendment # I provide a positive change to the existing land use mix of the area. However, Council staff questioned the City regarding the designation of Local Retail Commercial, since no retail uses are proposed. The City's response was that Local Retail Commercial allowed for the proposed office use, that existing land designated as Local Retail Commercial was 3 located adjacent to the south, and that the City did not desire to "spot" a new designation at this location. Given the City's acknowledged overab'mdance of land designated for local retail commercial use, it would seem to be more prudent to establish a new FLUM category entitled Medical Facilities or Institutional Medical. Recommendation Council should adopt the above comments and approve their transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. Attachments 4 ...... ._- amI [LUE , . -,,---; -~)--l :<::)-> ~":t- -~ ~~'1 ~. -,., ---~ .\..._.,.""'~~~ r':."',~:>:~:, ,-\.~~',' ",,",,'.' ;.,~. .~-.r;" .. \i<';;,~!\:~~~ , l_,..,-",j:,,::,'<~t.:"~'r;"", ~/ --I ~' , , ,,' -- ._-< ~._-,_. .J-:' ~~~\ '. .~::::~~- -, - ~'. ~~~;.- :";'.'--:' .:'} . 8 '.' 1\ 0 1/8 I )V; i i III1 II o 400. 800 FEET J ' NNIN "', o:t/qg ,~~~~....; ...____.__~__~ _ ...~-'_=::.:.:~.;....,.;.:;::~:..;_.::_'~;;t,.......-.-.=:>_ "':'1' t:::'-l51.. ,,;-: :~~';RENT LAND USt::. (~":~:;,..u~ :" 'r:- ~.J ~-~~." - r --_. I. .--1--_ '" .. -- .._......-.. m_ _-'. ~:':'..,-<;.o:- :.....:..~~ .__ '.'I'7'".i~l" II . ;=-C:::::~I 1'\' \;:;~~4:":i.:e.; T:<~ '~~:l:~.'.>q==;=r-=-,-.'~,l' .:. ITEM #3, '\\'pL" ::~tR-:::8'i"i17": c:,,~ .\~~. .'" ..a:--- _r-. -... I ~ ___ '. II ~_ ,(^\~T""4'- , . ., -~.:,r,>I""-:~' ~ \',/1111, ';"'~::l ,.. 1.J..!.....:"~!:!l-;-l. r.\~'~ , :" : ~~~.::::l"""~ ' 'I,'"~ :' ..J:'.";.'\.....-1Sr--;T:'1L-.,~~~ . , ",'~~:'; ~,~'~'i" \lrli~\\h;.1:~.f!.'~:l~:'~~~~~.y~~ .~~;:. , , ' , ,i I'V~(;j : ,., ".,,,. 'I ~~.....~ ~ ~-"'::".v--'tFd,~ ~ J i,l i \ ::t:'1ii .':; 'ilil;i..l:/.'). WD "':~l1J:tITtr II I' ~..~.-M~ :.~:u.~'" ..._~ ..-. _......~ ~-J~~- . ".\..~ _ .I.....,..~ N~'" _...~...~ ~ r - ~:'-'/';__I \I! ~..I~.....~.,..~~ ~~.;i{~ W1!;", .' .~ 1\ ~lM: .'rm:;ur.~~".,-~ ., - ~~~~ b .':.fill:::":~.,',~;;;ir . .1iiI':;~~I\~\::. I,. "a'illll :: ,..M......'.., ....,..,."" . ..-- ~ . _ _ ", 1.1,. .. :-'" ~ .... ~t:t~ -ttt i.~! "\'''1..."", '10." I ,......,...,., '. 'r~ ~ .::~~.:.:::~.. ~ II' li\ mriTn~~'" ..... ,-".. ~.,......,. f-' ~,. -~x.: -- . t:: i::; l= :. .... . j~:n+H I .' ~'. I.....'.... . . .. , 'I' ,i1-- I 11 '1'_'1"'..'11 "'",' r \ . j' .:i: 7 .-- ~"',. ~, . ' -I r- \ ' : . El','........ ,.,.. n~~",' .....,. l' ,,~1ITID':-. ;"'~..' . _ \TH -_ -' 11 11 W:,: II II' _ '~~C,~';SINGLE FA;"~Y ;'ESiciENnAL fl! \ IJ ; I' i,: I I : ~ '~', I, I:: I',:: ' .: , ,Id, -- ''---'11111 11..<. HI.. ,)1 I. .II' "-'11 III . \I -- --:....... ~nJ' '1!I~I't.\"H \ l"\~ I .' ,. ~ '- ,1~'lt.I.. I 1\:' " :' .;,;.l117 l -:l-lC:' . ."'" .,,'., '\ \ "I " , ~~~Y;;;"., ~';',"I""".~_:-'~'I~~m SF:'A'NMGIL:LEy \1 '1'\ ~'\', 'I .1. I I I....:.,..,';":,, J: ::- ' ........_ ' ! I I \ I ~ ,..;"-~:'~';':~ .:. :< '" !. H . : ' ! I " I II ..L.,J,~-'-" .,' ,,' , '-<- ~:;~. :11 tt" \ RESIDENTIAL 1 I' I '1m..... .,. '11+,....-1-1,,'1' ,'i ;''':~;ToS' :" '~~i\' -H.' \ \\ ':' :' H-r... .. ...... '" . ,..,..,.,.,... ',~~ :"____", SITE <It' ".. '1""" .~I'!t:"\~.l.;.;; ~~0~fj. '. I ' .,.......... '"'''' "I U,~I ., ~, . .,~iZ.>'\.. i..... ~ ITEM #3 \ \ III "., "'''''''''''''''''''''1'"""'''''''' '. ,.\ ~,..II III ~~ .~~~,:~ ~~:_:~.~...;.. MULTi FAMILY I ,111' 11III11 "'''''' ... ...."..... '" . ". "" ........-, ").~. ~~ AL \ mi 'II i III .. ...,..'....'..1...1 '"1'\''''' ",.\...,11111 i I' '^,' '-- "',' ~ '_"c"':" "'ACANT,\ RESIDENT! I ' ,., ~"VI 'I~ I 1': II i !: .1"\............" '" "'11." '''1'1''''''''; Ill:I:: I >>:: . " '., '.., "'.'; -::~~. ~ \ I \III: I "ll 'I.n - ... ""'''.''''''U ...., ..". "1'\'\1:1 ~ .,. . "~'" =i . ; ""..:.........'.., I I I I I !'l I I I 111'1"1.: tt .~~ :";:0' \ I I '. .".. ;:~ :..~=-\ \' VACANT .~:', '..:t'~:,.\ J I 'I I . H-J I 111,,;\.\11 , l~'~'\' . ~~~:\\ \\. L: I ":.:':',:.';::.;,~:"'\I '111 111111111" -- , ' II':. . ':..9 ::::, \ I \. :":.' -:J : I I I I i-..J WI I I 1 ~" . "'(:.. 1-'\-:::;: 1_ i V~.;,':',:.;:. I! I j'-ji'-'j I I;';.' I %S- M .~-:-"c--=".',-~~..~ ; I \ \\;;~;~\)~ II~,LJ Illltl"I" k ~8~::J\'\'-~-;:;'~:; ; \\\:-~:"::';"J"','LfL"j. II\.'~ -. ",..J ~ '.\B'''' ,I, 'I ,I ,".:r,L: ~ m;i" ~i ~~l~j " ; .~~L'\, \~..:; JbJ.:-I1!TIl-1:rrrBtnfu: ... ,~ ~ . .~0' _-::::--. - -11' ......n-nnr"..- .. .'7" i?-:m. ~.""'"'.O~ ':";I"::::';;;';'M"~ ,i;~i)': ~~~ ~. .-, /\:J I ....."...:;! ,'~'n """L BN'. ~. .-n ~//"'. ':~#,;X~~ ," . ',' ~fJ~ '~ . . J:r(~b~: ,f~{ , " I BS , ; ~! l ~:IIII,'1"1 MILES //'0 400.800,..,.FEET oZ-fu, ! ==_I,!'_~~'"'&-~::~~~~,? - co ~;~---... . ~~.~'!!lI . !I--::':'~"'-' ; ~'::::..1 ~:- ; I--tt-i. .:.~ __ 1""_I~"""""""~il .: . ...;;l:::::::;~' - '=1- ,"' ., -'-1--1.+ :;;" I ~' l!:::t - ~ ; ~ , ( .. ~ .',-' DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Planning and Zoning C.ity of Boynton Beach 03/02/9& 0410319& 05/05/9& ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment (#98-1) #1 First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach (LUAR 97-002) RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.oo6(2)(a) OBJECTION: The traffic study included for this amendment did not address the impact of project traffic on 1-95 (SR-9), a Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIRS) facility. Although project traffic does not directly access 1-95, it is distributed to both Boynton Beach Boulevard and Woolbright Road which have interchanges with 1-95. The level of service (LOS) on 1-95 was not analyzed with and without the proposed amendment. The section ofI-95 between Woolbright Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard is designated "Maintain" status. Maintain means that continuing operating conditions at a level such that significant degradation does not occur based on conditions existing at the time of local government comprehensive plan adoption. Significant degradation means anything over a 10% increase in average daily two-way traffic or a 10% reduction in operating speed in the peak direction. RECOMMENDATION: Analyze the level of service (LOS) on 1-95 with and without the proposed amendment. Check the 1989 Comprehensive Plan to compare whether the 10% increas~ frnm 1989 has been exceeded. If the project negatively impacts 1-95 and the 10% increase has been exceeded, mitigation should be discussed. REVIEWED BY: Renee Rosselot PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: Gustavo Schmidt. P.E. PHONE: 954-777-4601 PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: John Anderson. AIC.? 1 - .-.-.. ----- :~~t~~~J;:):::::~~~:';;:~m~~~ DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENf OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENTS RESPOl SIBLE DIVISION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL -G0VERNMENT:' --- DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Plannine- and Zoninf C.ity of Boynton Bf".ach 03102/98 04103/98 05105/98 ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment (#98-1) #1 First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach (LUAR 97-002) RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.oo6(2)(a) OBJECTION: The traffic study for this amendment did not address the impacts to the LOS on S.W. 8th Street. Traffic from the proposed development directly accesses S.W. 8th Street which the City has set a LOS "c" per Objective 2.1 in the Traffic Circulation Element. S.W. 8th Street proVides a north-south connection between Boynton Beach Boulevard and Woolbright Road, both of which provide access to 1-95, a FillS facility. . RECOMMENDATION: Provide data and analysis which address the average daily and peak hour LOS for S.W. 8th Street with and without the proposed amendment. Provide volume to capacity data showing that the proposed development will not negatively impact the City's adopted LOS "c" for S.W. 8th Street. REVIEWED BY: Gustavo Schmidt P R PHONE: 954-777-4601 PHONE: 954-777-4601 PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: Renee Rosselot REVIEWED BY: John Anderson ATC.P 2 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Plannin!.' and Zonine- City of Boynton Bf"~ch 01/02/98 04103/98 05105/98 ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment (#98-1) #1 First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach (LUAR 97-002) RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.oo6(2)(a) OBJECTION: The traffic study prepared for this amendment fails to analyze the maximum potential impact of the proposed land use change to Local Retail Commercial. Uses permitted in this category, including Shopping Center, would generate significantly more trips than what is curnintly proposed. This potential impact may have a negative effect on the adjacent roadways, particularly SHS and FIHS facilities. Although the City indicates an intent to deed restrict the site to the uses, proposed by the applicant, the potential still exists for a more intense development based on the permitted uses allowed in the Local Retail Commercial category. FDOT notes that the City's Future Land Use Element does include an Office Commercial category which permits the uses proposed while reducing the maximum potential intensity of development. RECOMMENDATION: Provide a traffic impact analysis for both peak hour and average daily trips based on the maximum potential intensity of development with and without the proposed land use amendment. Analyze the potential impacts to Boynton Beach Boulevard and 1-95 which are SHS and FIHS facilities to ensure that these roads will not be negatively impacted by this amendment. Consider designating the site as Office Commercial which would not only accommodate the proposed use but would ultimately limit the intensity of development and enhance potential compatibility with the neighborhood residential character of the area. REVIEWED BY: Renee Ro~~elot PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: John Ander~on. AICP PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: GlI~tJIVO Schmidt. P E. PHONE: 954-777-4601 3 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Plannine- and Zoninf City of Boynton Beach 01-ffiZf98 -- -- 04/03/98 05/05/98 ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment (#98-1) #3 Woolbright Place PUD (LUAR 97-004) RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.006(2)(a) OBJECTION: The amendment application does not provide any data and analysis to support the City's claim that designating this 66 acre parcel High Density Residential (9.68 - 10.8 dulac) will not negatively impact the LOS on the affected roadways. No traffic study was provided for this amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Provide a traffic study for this amendment which will address the average daily and peak trips generated by the existing development on this site and the trips generated by the maximum allowable density under the proposed High Density Residential land use category. Determine the potential for any additional impacts on the affected roadways. Provide supporting data which ensures that this amendment will not adversely impact the LOS on the affected roadways, particularly SHS and FillS facilities. REVIEWED BY: Renee Ro~~elot PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: John Anderson AICP PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: Gll~tavo Schmidt. P E. PHONE: 954-777-4601 4 ".,,'1>."""..,~.,'.',',',.,.,'.... ~S' '~. ':-'.', . ,-' ' ,',. ~' I ' '-;'-:< ,. ~IFtoR A \ ' il, . ,," ,,' 'h',l" '.'~::~:GI;t6;rl:.~,w~t.1:;a~,t:z'::~:~,~" UwtQl\ Chiles Go....rl'lor Department of Environmen~1 Protection Marjory Stan.i""~ Dougla. !)uilding 3900 Comm""~eaIth Boulevard T .U.has.... Florida 323!W'3000 I: :~ Vlrgif'li~ I). Wcch~r~U Secretary lMJ;y 8, 1998 I' . I . , Mr. D. Ray Eubllllks! ' Depl11ment ofCollllllWlity Affairs ,. ' BilrelSl of Local PlIl1llUgI . 2~SS Shultu.rclOakBoulevaro ;, ['i Tallabassee, FlOrida 32399-2100 ;;' Re: PropoHdAmendment to the BO~Beach Jrnprehensive Plan, DCA 98-1 . 1,' Dear Mr. Eubanks: , .,', I ;l , . . Tho Office of Intergov01'lllDeplal ~ams ilf the Department ofEnvirolUl1ental Pi'otection.hasnwiewed theabove..:ofcrCl1cedamenl1ment under the required provisions of · i Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutu:1Cliapter :!9-J-5 and 9J' 1 t, Florida Administrative code. Our .commenu and Tecomm~dations !IlO pr9Vided to assist your agency in deve10pinst?e state's rcsponse.~.. ' '.1 ' WecOffi,. er no conunents on,lO, cal,'"..., ,.,. ,','.', '" " eDt,:it,em,' ,. S IWIIIberod 1 an.d 2; however, item " number 3 will represeot a sizable pOl .' . . irib:_ :in'popu1ation density. And, although it has been stated th&t all,ofthesoamendnililRts,t..Wouldinot cause the adopted levels of service . ~tandarcls to be exceeded," there ha5~noanalyilisofthe anticipated increase in water and, ~astew&ter demand to be placed "ri:th~syStems'! It is recommended .that an analysis of the mcreased demand on potable waterUld,SlIIIJtary sewer systomsbe proVIded as requIred. . I .'" Please:aU me at (850) 487.22.1Wyou ~Isny questions about this response. , :. ".,' I ' 'I Sincer~y, 1 lIZ;l~~v.~ ~-"('---'-'---- I 1 Robert W Hall ,~ Office ofIntergovermnental l Programs '~ '1 > j; ';- ; I i I: "P'oIOCC. (on""". nn<, Monelg. Flo,t, E'nvir~n",ont Nl(1 "-10,,,,,,1 ""'""1<':' . r , I .; h'lnredon l'<<ycledptJ"..,._ II ec.:.' .. .~ . . ~~-~ r /'. ~L.h" _ ,,_ '" Ceu c/o Lfllp? t::--(j3 /l-rr V>Ic'.-t-:: /1.1;':> CL.-t{d.fi? 97-ootJ y- STATE OF FLORIDA DE PAR T MEN T "0 F C OM M U NIT Y A F FA IRS "Helping Floridians create safe, vibrant, sustainable communities" LA wrON CHILES Govemor JAMES F. MURLEY Secretary June 4, 1998 00 rn@rnowrn~ 1111111, JUN _ 8 1998 i t.:J PLANNING AND ZONING DEPT. The Honorable Jerry Taylor, Mayor City of Boynton Beach 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Dear Mayor Taylor: The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the City of Boynton Beach (DCA No. 98-1), which was received on March 2, 1998. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed. I am enclosing the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-ll.010, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The issues identified in this ORC Report include inadequate public facility analysis and planning for an area not yet annexed. It is very important that the adopted plan amendment addresses these issues and all of the objections in the Department's ORC Report. Upon receipt of this letter, the City of Boynton Beach has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed amendments. The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in Section 163.3184, F.S., and Rule 9J-l1.011, F.A.C. The City must ensure that all ordinances adopting comprehen- sive plan amendments are consistent with the provisions of Section 163.3189(2)(a), F.S. Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City of Boynton Beach must submit the following to the Department: FLORIDA IDS .Ana of Critical Stale Concern Field alike 2796 Ovmeas Higllway, Suite 212 Mar.llhon, Florida 33050.2227 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399,2100 Phone: 8S0.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 8S0.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781 I nternet address: http://www.state.fl.us/comaff/dea.htm I GinN SWAMP Area of Critical Slate Concern Field Office 155 East Surnmerlin Bartow,Florilb )383(}...4Ml SOUTH FLOIIOA RECOVERY OFFIO P.O. Box 4022 860QN.W.3GlhSlreet Miami, Florida ]]159-4022 Honorable Jerry Taylor June 4, 1998 Page Two ..~ Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments; A copy of the adoption ordinance; A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; A listing of findings by the local governing body, ifany, which were not included in the ordinance; and A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's ORC Report. The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice ofintent. In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments, and pursuant to Rule 9J-I 1.01 1(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Please contact Bernard Piawah, Planning Manager; Roger Wilburn, Community Program Administrator; or Charles Gauthier, AICP, Growth Management Administrator, at (850) 487-4545 if we can be of assistance as you fonnulate your response to this Report. ;!1 'M StL:{) .1 CI.<l. Thomas Beck, Chief -; Bureau of Local Planning JTBlbp Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report Review Agency Comments cc: Mr. Michael Rumpf, Senior Planner Mr. Michael Busha, AICP, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council DEPAR~ OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS FOR THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH Amendment 98-1 June 4, 1998 Division of Resource Planning and Management Bureau of Local Planning nus report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.01O ,} INTRODUCTION The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of the City of Boynton Beach proposed 98-1 amendment to its comprehensive plan pursuant to s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Codes (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some of these objections may have initially been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection would take precedence. The local government should address each of these objections when the amendment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may result in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items which the local government considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-5.002(2), FAC., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed. The comments which follow the objections and recommendations are advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping, and reader comprehension. Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report. I~' OBJECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 98-1 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH I. CONSISTENCY WITH RULES 9J-5 AND 9J-ll., F.A.C., & CHAPTER 163., F.S. The City of Boynton Beach has proposed three amendments to its Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The Department has identified some concerns with all the amendments: " Case No.1: This is a request to revise the FLUM designation on a 14. 18-acre site from Moderate Density Residential which allows 4.84 to 7.26 dwelling units per acre to Local Retail Commercial. Objection: I. The public facility analysis provided mentions only that there is existing capacity to accommodate the proposed land use change. However, the amendment is not supported by an adequate public facility analysis which utilizes the City's adopted level of service standards to determine the public facility demand created by the proposed land use designation, based on the maximum development allowed under the proposed designation and comparing it with the public facility demand under the current designation, to indicate any surplus capacity or deficit that might occur. Section 163.3177(6); Rule 9J- 5.005(2)(a) and (c), 9J-5.006(2)(a);(3)(b)I., and (3)(c)3.; 9J-5.011(1)(f)I.; and 9J- 5.016(3)(c)6., F.A.C. 2. The proposed change is from Moderate Density Residential which allows 4.84 to 7.26 dwelling units per acre to Local Retail Commercial. However, the Local Retail designation to which it is changing is not properly defined in the plan (Future Land Use Element Policy, 1.16.1). Although this policy lists the type of uses allowed in this category, it does not indicate the intensity of use to be implemented. The category allows high density residential developments (maximum 10.8 units per acre) as well as mixed use developments without specifying the type and proportion (i.e, the percentage distribution) of the mix of uses and the intensity standards to be implemented in this land use category. Future Land Use Element, Policy 1.16.3 which attempts to establish intensity standards for non-residential uses is vague because it states that "maximum floor/area ratio in non-residential land use categories shall be limited by the maximum lot coverage, the maximum height, and the parking, landscaping, and stormwater retention requirements contained in the City's Code of Ordinances" without specifying in the plan the intensity standards to be applied. In the absence of the intensity standards to be applied to the commercial designation, as well as the proportion of mix for the mixed 1 uses, it will be impossible to conduct a public facility analysis and planning based on the maximum development al\Qwed by the Local Retail category. Section 163.3177(6)(a); Ru1e 9J-5.006(3)(c)1., 7.; (4)(a)2., and (4)(c), F.A.C. Recommendation: 1. Include, with the amendment, an adequate data and analysis of the public facilities demands created by the proposed land use change based on the City's adopted level of service standards and the maximum development allowed under the proposed designation, and comparing the existing demand with the demand under the proposed designation, to indicate any surplus capacity or deficit that might exist. If there is a deficit the analysis, should indicate how the deficit will be addressed. " 2. Revise the definition of the Local Retail Commercial category (policy 1.16.1), based on adequate and relevant data and analysis, to indicate the intensity standard to be implemented for the commercial uses allowed under this designation. Furthermore, specify the proportion (Le, the percentage distribution) of the mix of uses to be implemented in this category. In the absence of the intensity standards to be applied to the commercial designation, as well as the proportion of mix for the mixed uses, it will be impossible to conduct public facility analysis and planning based on the maximum development allowed by the Local Retail category. Case No.2: This is a request to change the FLUM designation on a 23-acre site (yet to be annexed) from Medium Density Residential (County designation) which allows 5 dwelling units per acre to Low Density Residential which allows 4.84 dwelling units per acre. Objection: According to the supporting documentation, the subject property is yet to be annexed into the City. Pursuant to Section 163.3171, Florida Statutes (F.S.). "a municipality shall exercise authority under this act for the total area under its jurisdiction". The City, by proposing land use change to an area yet to be annexed it is planning for an area that is not within its jurisdiction which is inconsistent with the law. A municipality can plan for an area outside its jurisdiction if there is a joint planning agreement formally stated and approved in appropriate official action by the governing bodies involved. Furthermore, prior to any consideration of a plan amendment by a municipal governing body pursuant to Sections 163.3184(3), 163.3187, and 163.3174(1), F.S, the local government is to provide notice and conduct a public hearing in which only affected persons (Le., those owning property, residing, or owing and operating business within the boundaries of the local government) shall participate. Thus, conducting a public hearing, involving land outside a municipality is prohibited by law. Chapter 163.3171, 163.3174(1), 163.3184(1)(a), and (3), and 163.3187, F.S., and 9J-5.004., 9J-5.005(8), F.A.C. 2 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City should not adopt the proposed amendment until the annexation process has been completed. Upon completion of the annexation period, the City can then propose to change the land use; until then the County's designation will continue to be applicable to the annexed property. Case No.3: Ibis is a request to change the FLUM designation on a 66.16- acre site from Moderate Density Residential to High Density Residential. .. Objection: The public facility analysis provided mentions only that there is existing capacity to accommodate the proposed land use change. However, the amendment is not supported by an adequate public facility analysis which utilizes the City's adopted level of service standards to determine the public facility demand created by the proposed land use designation, based on the maximum development allowed under the proposed designation and comparing it with the public facility demand under the current designation, to indicate any surplus capacity or deficit that might occur. Section 163.3177(6); Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) and (c), 9J-5.006(2)(a);(3)(b)1., and (3)(c)3.; 9J-5.011(1)(t)1.; and 9J-5.016(3)(c)6., F.A.C. Recommendation: Include, with the amendment, an adequate data and analysis of the public facilities demands created by the proposed land use change based on the City's adopted level of service standards and the maximum development allowed under the proposed designation, and comparing the existing demand with the demand under the proposed designation, to indicate any surplus capacity or deficit that might exist. If there is a deficit the analysis, should indicate how the deficit will be addressed. II CONSISTENCY WITH STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed amendments do not adequately address and further the State Comprehensive Plan including the following goals and policies (Chapter 163.3177(9), F.S.): Land Use Goal 16(a) and Policy (b)3 and 6., regarding functional mix and the character of urban areas, and the availability of water to meet demands; and Public Facilities Goal (18)(a) and Policies (b)5., and 6., regarding the provision of public facilities. Recommendation: Revise the amendments, as indicated earlier, so as to be consistent with the above cited goals and policies for the State Comprehensive Plan. 3 lA1I'TOn calLES OOWMOIl DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FWRIDA I" 3400 WEST COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309-3411 (954) 777-4593 TIIOMAS r. IWlJl't Jr. .1lC.......,. DMSlON OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMS rn .. ~@~~W~, JUN 81998 !l Mr. Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 March 17, 1998 ~ ~~ ~ PLANNING AND ZONING DEPT. 00 ~~::~r' RPM asp . PLAN PROCESSING If' SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY REvmw RECOMMENDATIONS LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Boynton Beach 98-1 Dear Mr. Eubanks: The Department has reviewed the documents for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the City of Boynton Beach. The amendment proposes to reclassify 14.16 acres from moderate density residential to local retail commercial; reclassify 23 acres. from medium residential to low density residential; and reclassify 66.16 acres from moderate density r;esidential to high density residential. There is no traffic analysis included to determine the potential impacts from these amendments. Since two of the three amendments will intensify development, the Department requests a formal review. Thank you for the opportunity to review this amendment. Sincerely, J~t Joseph M. Yesbeck, P.E. District Director Planning and Programs JMY/rr cc: B. Romig, FDOT Central Office R. Wilburn, DCA G. Schmidt, FDOT-4 J. Anderson, FDOT-4 March 9, 1998 treOlure "~fll!l"l COC\f.t I .:~;~$>~ '~nlona i"~piaifn'ng council [0) m m mow ~--" tn) M.6R' 2 1998 Mr. Tom Beck, Chief Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 RPM asp PlAN pr,OCESSING TEAM_, . , '- Subject: City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Draft Amendments - DCA Reference No. 98-1 @ \);10 ~ Dear Mr. Beck: This is to acknowledge the receipt of materials pertaining to the above-referenced amendments on 3/06/98. Staff anticipates presenting its report and recommended comments to Council at the regular meeting of 4/17/98. pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, a written report including any objections" recommendations for modification and comments will be submitted to you by 3/29/98. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, ~~ /' (.. I Te::J.H:~ '. ~, Planning Director ..' ~ TLWjkp ~ ,.', .~ 1#1.'. ~Ii ~? ~ fZ~ \,."" ..;~~~ '~..&..~~::~ 3228 s.w. martin downs blvd. suite 205 . p.O. box 1529 palm city, florlda 3499Q phone (561) 221.4060 ~::: :>6~.~O6(l ,=x r56~1 Z:!1'.'~~_7 treQ/ure ~ COOf.t I r:j reglona planniog council April 17, 1998 ~ <fh.r:'0 b?o ~~:-::,. ~-r- -\1 \P \~ \'.. ,--::--". (I'. ",e 2-..-." \r-, \'i' "J;.::-,..;.-- '_ . \ \) \ ~--;;;--=::-,. -- l ", . ..-.- -- ~~ (.IPR '2. {} \998 --." Mr. Tom Beck, Chief Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 \ BSP . R?IIICES~\IlG '{tI>.1II_-' Pl~ll ?f,Q " ------- Subject: City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Draft Amendments - DCA Reference No. 98-1 Dear Mr. Beck: Council has reviewed the above-referenced amendments in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and the Council's adopted plans, policies and review procedures. Enclosed is a copy of our report as approved by the Council at its regular meeting on April 17, 1998 pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. If you need additional information or have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, ~ !ll '-f IL-- .~ Terry L. Hess, AlCP Planning Director TLH/lg Enclosure Cc: Tambri J. Heyden, AICP . , ~ c;, .... '~"'~~ '."'j.",:.,:"~-:!o~ ..:J.~-":;'~~~ 301 cast ocean boulevard suite 300 stuart, florida 34994 phone (561) 221-4060 sc 269.[;,060 fox (561) 221-t,OG 7 r- " !"" . . 1!&.'~ " "i;...:..i.l TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL I~ MEMORANDUM To: . Council Members AGENDA ITEM 4B From: Staff Date: April 17, 1998 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review '. TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (! MEMORANDUM To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 4B From: Staff Date: April 17, 1998 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Draft Amendments to the City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan DCA Reference No. 98-1 Introduction The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that the Council review local government comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption. Under the provisions of this law, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) prepares an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on a proposed amendment only if requested to do so by the local government, the regional planDing council, or an affected person, or if an ORC Report is otherwise deemed necessary by the DCA. If the local government requests DCA to prepare an ORC Report, then the Council must provide DCA with its own objections, recommendations for modification and comments on the proposed amendment within 30 days ofits receipt. Background The City of Boynton Beach has proposed three amendments to its Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Information on the properties which are subject to the proposed amendments is provided in Table 1 and the location of each property is shown on the attached maps: The City has not requested a formal review of the proposed amendments, concluding that the amendments are consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and that adopted level of service standards will not be exceeded. However, on March 27, 1998, the DCA notified the City that a formal review would be carried out. Table 1 City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendments DCA Reference No. 98-1 Northwest quadrant of intersection of Woolbright Road and 1-95 #2 23.0 Medium Low Density Residential-S · Residential #3 66.2 Moderate Density High Density Residential Residential Total Acreage 103.4 Northeast quadrant of intersection of Miner Road and Lawrence Road . Northwest quadrant of intersection of Woolbright Road and 1-95 . Palm Beach County FLUM Designation. Property recently annexed. Evaluation Amendments # 1 & 3 are evaluated together because they are part of the same original PUD and are located adjacent to each other, in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Woodbright Road and 1-95. The property in Amendment # 1 is presently vacant, and is . surrounded by a stormwater retention lake to the north, a shopping center and restaurant to the south, single-family detached homes to the west and an apartment complex (part of amendment # 3) and vacant land to the eaSt. FLUM Designations are Medium Density Residential to the north, west and east, and Local Retail Commercial to the south. Amendment # 3 includes lands which have already been developed for residential purposes (both apartments and single-family homes). Surrounding land uses include single-family detached homes to the north and west, some vacant land and a shopping center to the south, and vacant land and the rights-of-way for a rail line and 1-95 to the east. Surrounding FLUM designations include Low Density Residential to the north, Medium Density Residential to the west, Local Retail Commercial to the south, and High Density Residential to the east. The property in amendment # I belongs to a religious organization which envisioned the construction of a church and school on site. However, the organization elected to maintain its church and related facilities at its downtown location and the subject property is now to be used for a health care "campus," with a nursing home, an adult congregate liviI)g facility and a medical office building. Since office uses are not permissible in a residential district, the City proposes to apply a designation of Local Retail Commercial to this property. The City indicates that the proposed uses are compatible with surrounding uses and that the City Housing Element promotes the approval of adult congregate living facilities if compatible with the neighborhood. Although the City Comprehensive Plan recommends against designation of additional 2 land as Local Retail Commercial, the proposed use qualifies as an exemption because of its nature. l"t The property in amendment # 3 is subject to a settlement agreement between the City and a PUD developer. According to City staff, the controversy leading to the settlement agreement had to do with development of the commercial property to the south (originally under joint ownership) and the overall residential density to be permitted. . Under the settlement agreement, the developer-has the authority-to--build 687 units, but the existing FLUM designation would allow only 479 units, There are no actual impacts as a result of this amendment, since the 66 acres is already entirely developed. The proposed designation more accurately reflects the actual density as developed. Amendment # 2 is a 23 acre parcel presently used for agricultural purposes. Its existing FLUM designation is Medium Residential-5, a County designation. The property is being annexed by the City. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential homes to the north, east, and south, although a canaI and right-of-way buffer the property to the south. A mobile home park is located to the west. Surrounding FLUM designations are Low Density Residential to the north, south and east, and Medium Residential-5 (County designation) to the west. The City designation would allow a few less units then the County designation, if developed to the maximum density. Extrajurisdictional Impacts The amendments were reviewed through the Palm Beaeh Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee Process in December of 1997.' According to the Clearinghouse Coordinator, no objections were received regarding the proposed amendments. Effects on Regional Resources or Facilities There would appear to be no significant effects on regional resources and facilities as a result of these amendments. Objections, Recommendations for Modification,-and Comments A. Objections 1. None B. Comments 1. The proposed land uses in amendment # I provide a positive change to the existing land use mix of the area. However, Council staff questioned the City regarding the designation of Local Retail Commercial, since no retail uses are proposed. The City's response was that Local Retail Commercial allowed for the proposed office use, that existing land designated as Local Retail Commercial was 3 located adjacent to the south, and that the City did not desire to "spot" a new designation at this location. Given the City's acknowledged overabundance of land designated for local'\oetail commercial use, it would seem to be more prudent to establish a new FLUM category entitled Medical Facilities or Institutional Medical. Recommendation Council should adopt the above comments and approve their transmittal. to the Department of Community Affairs. Attachments 4 D E PAR T MEN T,) 0 F iI" --... . . "! .-j ~. . "'J; \::"~/ ~ STATE OF flORIDA COMMUNITY AFFAIRS f." "Helping Floridians create safe, vibrant, sustainable communities" . . LAWTON (HIW Governor lAMES F. MURLEY Secrelory - March'2T, r998 Honorable Jerry Taylor, Mayor City of Boynton Beach 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 RC'~""--i\l- .~ t..Q'4: "''''~. """i ,,......D ~.JIhlC.u.::I' t...-, liAR 3019gB Dear Mayor Taylor: .I>CA,. 'l'\~ ~-"""....._. ,"" URt lv,.,~! ~'; :':1')'.0(, ,.. '~",I O-'-'~I.,"IL. '1.I"'1,..IN!7'. ......,.........; .... "--'Wl:\~f.. The Department has conducted a preliminazy review of the City's proposed comprehensive plan amendment received on March 2, 1998, DCA Reference No. 98-1. The Department has determined that the proposed plan amendment should be fonnally reviewed for consistency with the minimum criteria contained in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (pAC.). The Department will review the proposed amendment and issue an Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report in accordance with Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, FAC. If you have any questions, please contact Bernard Piawah, Planning Manager overseeing the review of the amendment, at (850) 487-4545. Sincerely, CJ;\ ~~ ~. CGlbp Charles Gauthier, AICP Growth Management Administrator Bureau .ofLocal~ng cc: Tambri J. Heyden, AICP, Planning & Zoning Director Michael Busha, AICP, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council flOllOAIm ~ 01 Critical SbIe Conc:em Field Oft""! 27!6 OwmeOll Hirway, Suit! 212 M,;Il3tho"F1oridjJJOSo..2211 2SSS SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD. TALLAHASSEE, FLORID.\. 32399.2100 Phone: 8S0.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: BSO.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781 J nternet address: http://www.state.(l.us/comaff/dc.a..html CI&N SWAMP ....alOiIiaIlIac......Meld_ lllEasl_ brtow. F~ ])8)0-441 o SOUTH FlOlIDA 1KlM1Y0ffICI. p.O.bm 86OON.W.J6ilSn!I Miami, Florida ))159-4011 South }< lorida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 . (561) 686-8800' FL WATS 1-800-432-2045 TOD (561) 697-2574 I~ GOV 08-28 R~ ....... r:.t\.l Jt:D t-': r t V I;. r.-"- _ 'l-~ ~gg~ t-:-!\r-''''I~~\.. __ !>.f"~ \t:~ !'" 0 1,_:. ' :.. ".,. ~~I_~~'';','l''_- ..' -...._:, \L ,...- 'N";""" .v\....... FU\:.~t ';:........ --. March 16, 1998 Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager Plan Review and DR! Processing Team Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Preliminary Review Recommendation City of Boynton Beach, DCA # 98-1 The South Florida Water Management District staffhas reviewed the subject document. we do not recommend that a formal review of the proposed amendmen~ be undertaken. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (561) 687-~779. Sincerely, ~~ P.K. Sharma, AICP Senior Planner Lower East Coast Planning Division , Planning Department PKS/mh c: Michael Busha, TCRPC Tambri Heyden, Boynton Beach Roger Wilburn, DCA GO'UtTning Board: Fnnk Williamson, Jr., Chairman Eugene K. Pettis, Vice Chairman Mitchell W. Berger Vera M. Carter 6 William E. Gt2ham William Hammond Richard A. Machek Michael D. Minton Miri2II1 Singer Samuel' E. Poole m, Executive DirectOr Michael Slayton, Deputy Executive Director Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL33416-4680 . " f \ ,~~~ .\.. \ I ~, . \ h<mAN=~ ~~\ \, /.~, ~ J_ ~~EACII \ c / ~SR60-~\.\ \ 't / &;__~~____- ____~ ~\ v\ : ~J.te . ~'\~" '\ ' I -.. ~ ", \ \ I SR68 \ ~,\, . . FORTPIERcE \ : SR'0 \~\ \ ~ ~m------L,,-, ~ \\ j ;g~l ~ '?oSTu\ \ i . ~/ ,'>:.. ,\ MARTJNCO~ ~~ \ \ \1 . ,/ ,/ \\ Sfl16. ~~\\ \.' f~~-----~\~--~O------ ~~ , I.m:OADOfOBEX J"- - - ~SR 706 J~\ \; \ : //)~ " PAUlB~~:~~~1 ...., I r. P10tcEE " GAIlDDlS '~ll" \ \:'1 ~ ) ( ~.rl ~~ THEACIIEAOE 't~J~1' ( ~~ ;' RoYAL wm I ,I, ' .' ~ "'-a PAUlBEACH PAUlBEACII J I I ~ eo....~GUDE , 'PAUlBf;ACH I I ,-/ WEWNGTON II' I! ) l ! PALM BEACH COUNTY l.AJcE 'r~iWl :) : \ I ~r,~ \ \ I ~ BOYNI'ONBEACH : ~ \ ~f/I;I I I . ~ ; ";-'- 1/1 I! I : \\ ~ rmrtn/~~) : , dJ.~W,.,1 ! \ --t---------\~:----,.- ,-ll/ (! i I TREAsURE COAST REGION I; . r I /IIF', I . , N * i MIlES =' /0 i ! I ;- ... !3 7 , . " '- - ~;;;: - ' ~1'1- // ~-'. .". ----' -- , '/I, .....'c..'l..'.. 8.10'/6.... ~,..--.:--' '.J..' [" I 'J.' . ," '. :~.,~ ~. ;ri=i:~:.,~ . ~. .,.,~.. . ~..' , .~ ,~.. _ . . . . .",' 1 '. '..'- ..' ..~' 'J'- ~~$' . ::~.< ';~,:',0 '-.\;~. .' ';-i~~ . ..~~--:'"t ~ . . :~~; .~ /'>~~. _..' --.-,.. / ",:.,~;_..,;: / f~~(:'i:~; t1{;:;pr:cl;.'-,.t. -r#' ... ., 8 . ....,.. ,,","'- ~ --- l_.. J:.i-;.'\ll ~ ::::.. ---.,: . !1 .....'/l.;HI:: LAI\JO uSE L ITEM #2~1 -~ .........._._~~. ..--_. ';V9c(.tJ7tO-- LYl. =--;;', -l:!:;.ll.p ~~..'----:-~ (-=;;;=- . ;' ~'~,T-~ r---J _II iF I ~:~ ---,.,,-- -'-J-' ~o- -i-it:: - "'" <J-- "'- ~.- ,- -.- - ~- -" . . : r- ::i !.r.o ~ I LLJ . I "'"""1 ... rr '-):-1:-: .. '. t- .it.-';'~' . f 1/8 III 'I 400. '800 FEET iVN " ... . -,_ ~,.o...ll<.I."--"d . ,..~..",...... ;.:;.:~:;:;:;:::::.:.::~:!:.!:.:.:.a.;{.~. " '::: MODERATE DENSITY ~ l ::: -.' RESIDENTIAL ,;.;, ':l ." '.' ..., ..... :.: .: :.:.: .. :.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ....,............. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ................. ................. ::;:::::::::::::: .'............... ::.:::.;.:.:.:.:. ..~ ............ :::::::::::::::::. ::.: ::::::::::::::::::::~;: ....................... ........................ .....................*=. .............,...... '. ...................~. ........................ ........................ :::::::::::::::::::.:::: :.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:::.:. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ....~.........'......... ........................ ........................ ....................... ........................ . ... .................. -"'.. .~.A....A ~ ;" '-' J " ,j I If ' .~. ")",..-... -- ~ AalR.-:-:--.. - . . .- ." i h il lQ 1(---iI~.,...\ "';.-- ~-.,---- ~l . .' .-j' . . . . .. ::::::::f:Q1""."'';'::::: : ..........~..:i ...... .::;::::;::-.:~ :-:-:- 02198' · r . ---/ I I i~~~H~~' l~i~~~(~~~~~,Ti,:~~t;J~L~~E ~<i r::;: ; i m &: ..,vsJo<-,,~o ,~ 1'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'- ITEM #2 t.....".-..o . :::;;:;:o:y::::::: i :::::::::~ - I I ~mmm~H~m ! ~r' . ,. )~!!!!!~~~~~~~~ . :~~!!~~~~~/:::::::::.:::::::: ~ >-. :- :~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~mm~~1~~~m~mm~mt ! :::::::::::::t::::: :::::::d::::::::::::::::::::i ....,.1 1/8 MILES 1111 II 400. 800 FEET /OJ N ~- &.. ..: .:'.~:;.:,::. ~.~~~ 1--.....-. :1;.:.~~lw~ . .0 '. . ". .: o:ZltJ~. .':~./~:~:-''':/;:}:i:i~i~}',:/ .:..., , ~,~ .13E ,1'~~~,7;"i0 rT I r, '" ,F]) . .6or."" South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 . (561) 686-8800. FL WATS 1-800-432-2045 ,~ TOD (561) 697-2574 MaI'Gh16, 1,998 I'PR 2 3 rnno VI,"'J I~ -'.1 ./ i ! I ,@j ~ . \9 Co ~ ~ GOV 08-28 00 ~ @ rn 0 WI ~ 1-",'" .-.....,,;: RPM SSP PLAN PROCESSING TEAM Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager Plan Review and DRl Processing Team Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Preliminary Review Recommendation City of Boynton Beach, DCA # 98-1 The South Florida Water Management District staffhas reviewed the subject document. We do not recommend that a formal review of the proposed amendments be undertaken. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (561) 687-6779. Sincerely, ~~ P.K. Sharma, AlCP Senior Planner Lower East Coast Planning Division Planning Department PKS/mh c: Michael Busha, TCRPC Tambri Heyden, Boynton Beach Roger Wilburn, DCA G(J-verning Board: Frank Williamson, Jr., Chairman Eugene K. Pettis, Vice Chairman j\1itchell W. Berger Vera M. Carter William E. Graham William Hammond Richard A. Machek Michael D. Minton Miriam Singer Samuel E. Poole III, Executive Director Michael Slayton, Deputy Executive Director Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 FLORJDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Secretary Office of International Relations Division of Administrative Services Division of Corporations Division of Cultural Affairs ~~i'-~ I \.'~ '," ~'..~i.. .t- ~ , . ,\1 ,,", i ~~t t.:~ \ '"_ .:~^Z ~! '<l;~'(J~ -<;J.' . MEMBER OF mE FLORIDA CABINIlT Division of Library & lnfonnation Services Division of Historical Resources RmgIing Museum of Art Division of Licensing Division of Elections I'} em 3:-10 /' ;> Re: Historic Preservation Review of the City of Boynton Beach (98-1) Compreh~s'jve Plan Amendment Request FLORIDA DEPARrMENf OF STATE Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of Slate DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ~ru lj~~ ;;~;~ I "PM SS? ?LAN PROCESSING TEAM Mr..Ray Eubanks _. _ __ Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: According to this agency's responsibilities under sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, we have reviewed the above document to decide if dala regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan. The three proposed Future Land Use Map amendments were reviewed to consider the potential effects of these actions on historic resources. While our cursory review suggests that the }lroposed changes may have no adverse effects on historic resources, it is the city's responsibility to ensure that the proposed revisions will not have an adverse effect on significant archaeological or historic resources in Boynton Beach. In particular, changes involving increased density or intensity of existing land uses of tracts should be checked to see if any known or potential historic resources, both archaeological sites or historic structures, would be affected by these actions. The most effective way to guarantee that historic properties are not damaged is for the city to sponsor historic resource surveys so that it can ensure its archaeological resources will be considered if any substantive changes in land use are proposed. In sum, it is our opinion that the amended comprehensive plan meets (although known and potential historic resources need to be carefully considered in the planning phases of proposed land use changes) the state of Florida's requirements as promulgated in sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, F.S., and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., regarding the identification of known historical resources within their specified area of jurisdiction, and for the establishment of policies, goals and objectives for addressing known and potentially significant historical resources in Boynton Beach. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Susan M. Harp or Laura Karmnerer of the Division's Compliance Review staffat (850) 487-2333. ~a./~ t George W. Percy, Director Division of Historical Resources DIRECTOR'S OFFICE R.A. Gray Building . 500 South Bronough Street . Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 . (850) 488-1480 FAX: (850) 488-3353 . WWW Address http://www.dos.state.fl.us o ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH GVHISTORIC PRESERVATION 0 HISTORICAL MUSEUMS (850) 487,2299 . FAX: 414-2207 (850) 487-2333 . FAX: 922-0496 (850) 488-1484 . FAX: 921-2503 South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, florida33406 . (561) 686-8800. FL WATS 1-800-432-2045 o TDD (561) 697-2574 ~\ ~ ~"~~:ii . RPM BS':--- PlW procESSmG TEAM -,- -- @ ~~ \f' GOV 08-28 Apri127,1998 Ray Eub~, Planning Manager Plan ReVIew and DRl Processing Team Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Proposed Amendment Comments City of Boynton Beach, DCA # 98-1 The South Florida Water Management District staff h' . have no water resource related comments If : reVIewed the. sU~Ject document and we information, please call me at (561) 687-6779. you ave any questions or require additional Sincerely, ffr~ - ~ P.K. Sharma, AICP Senior Planner Lower East Coast Planning Division Planning Department PKS/mh c: Michael Busha, TCRPC Tambri Heyden, Boynton Beach Roger Wilburn, DCA Gav(Tning Board: Frank Williamson, Jr., Chairman Eugene K. Pettis, Vice Chairman Mitchell W. Berger Vera M. Carter William E. Graham William Hammond Richard A. Machek Michael D. Minton Miriam Singer Samuel E. Poole III, Executive Director Michael Slayton. Deputy Executive Director Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 IAWI'On CalLES ClOYEMOIl DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FWRIDA I! 3400 WEST COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309-3411 (954) 777-4593 DIVISION OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMS TIlOIllASP.IIAIlIttJr. SI!C_ May 1, 1998 @ 10 \S'r:::: r:: . .,' __ 6 ','~~~3 i " J Mr. Ray Euban~~;"'-. : ~:.:(,:,~,~-::,~ Department of Coriirriunity Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT COMMENTS LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Boynton Beach DCA Amendment #: 98-1 The Department has reviewed the documents supporting the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments for the City of Boynton Beach. recommendations and comments for the proposed amendments are attached. Non EAR-based Our objections, Smcerely, ~(t~k' PE District Director Planning and Programs JMY:rr Enclosures cc; B. Romig, FDOT Central Office R. Wilburn, DCA G. Schmidt, FDOT J. Anderson, FDOT DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENfS RESPONsmLE DIVISION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Plannini and Zonini City of Boynton Bt-.llch 03102/98 04/03/98 05/05/98 ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment (#98-1) #1 First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach (LUAR 97-002) RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.006(2)(a) OBJECTION: The traffic study included for this amendment did not address the impact of project traffic on 1-95 (SR-9), a Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) facility. Although project traffic does not directly access 1-95, it is distributed to both Boynton Beach Boulevard and Woolbright Road which have interchanges with 1-95. The level of service (LOS) on 1-95 was not analyzed with and without the proposed amendment. The section ofI-95 between Woolbright Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard is designated "Maintain" status. Maintain means that continuing operating conditions at a level such that significant degradation does not occur based on conditions existing at the time of local government comprehensive plan adoption. Significant degradation means anything over a 10% increase in average daily two-way traffic or a 10% reduction in operating speed in the peak direction. RECOMMENDATION: Analyze the level of service (LOS) on 1-95 with and without the proposed amendment. Check the 1989 Comprehensive Plan to compare whether the 10% increase from 1989 has been exceeded. If the project negatively impacts 1-95 and the 10% increase has been exceeded, mitigation should be discussed. REVIEWED BY: Renee Rosselot PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: John Anderson AICP PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: Gustava Schmidt, P.E. PHONE: 954-777-4601 1 DISTRlCf 4, DEJ?ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENTS RESPOlSffiLE DMSION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL --coVERNMENT:- - -- DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Planninl: and 7.oninl: City of Boynton Beach 03102/98 04103/98 05/05/98 ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment (#98-1) #1 First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach (LUAR 97-002) RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.006(2)(a) OBJECTION: The traffic study for this amendment did not address the impacts to the LOS on S.W. 8th Street. Traffic from the proposed development directly accesses S.W. 8th Street which the City has set a LOS "C" per Objective 2.1 in the Traffic Circulation Element. S.W. 8th Street proVides a north-south connection between Boynton Beach Boulevard and Woolbright Road, both of which provide access to 1-95, a FillS ~~ . RECOMMENDATION: Provide data and analysis which address the average daily and peak hour LOS for S.W. 8th Street with and without the proposed amendment. Provide volume to capacity data showing that the proposed development will not negatively impact the City's adopted LOS "C" for S.W. 8th Street. REVIEWED BY: Gustavo Schmidt. P.E. PHONE: 954-777-4601 PHONE: 954-777-4601 PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: Renee Rosselot REVIEWED BY: John Anderson. ATCP 2 DISTRICT 4, DEPAATMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENTS RESPONSffiLE DIVISION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Plannini: and 7nnini: City of Boynton BE'.llch 01102/9& 04103/9& 05/05/9& ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment (#98-1) #1 First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach (LUAR 97-(02) RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.006(2)(a) OBJECTION: The traffic study prepared for this amendment fails to analyze the maximum potential impact of the proposed land use change to Local Retail Commercial. Uses pennitted in this category, including Shopping Center, would generate significantly more trips than what is currently proposed. This potential impact may have a negative effect on the adjacent roadways, particularly SHS and FIHS facilities. Although the City indicates an intent to deed restrict the site to the uses proposed by the applicant, the potential still exists for a more intense development based on the pennitted uses allowed in the Local Retail Commercial category. FOOT notes that the City's Future Land Use Element does include an Office Commercial category which pennits the uses proposed while reducing the maximum potential intensity of development. RECOMMENDATION: Provide a traffic impact analysis for both peak hour and average daily trips based on the maximum potential intensity of development with and without the proposed land use amendment. Analyze the potential impacts to Boynton Beach Boulevard and 1-95 which are SHS and FIHS facilities to ensure that these roads will not be negatively impacted by this amendment. Consider designating the site as Office Commercial which would not only accommodate the proposed use but would ultimately limit the intensity of development and enhance potential compatibility with the neighborhood residential character of the area. REVIEWED BY: Renee Rosselot PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: John Anderson, ATCP PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: Gustavo Schmidt, P E. PHONE: 954-777-4601 3 DISTRICT 4, DEP.ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOvERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Plannin~ and Zonin~ City of Boynton RP.llch 03-1ffi198 ~ ~- ~- 04/03/98 05105/98 ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment (#98-1) #3 Woolbright Place PUD (LUAR 97-004) RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.006(2)(a) OBJECTION: The amendment application does not provide any data and analysis to support the City's claim that designating this 66 acre parcel High Density Residential (9.68 - 10.8 dulac) will not negatively impact the LOS on the affected roadways. No traffic study was provided for this amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Provide a traffic study for this amendment which will address the average daily and peak trips generated by the existing development on this site and the trips generated by the maximum allowable density under the proposed High Density Residential land use category. Determine the potential for any additional impacts on the affected roadways. Provide supporting data which ensures that this amendment will not adversely impact the LOS on the affected roadways, particularly SHS and FIHS facilities. REVIEWED BY: Renee Rosselot PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: John Anderson, ATCP PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: Gustavo Schmidt, P E. PHONE: 954-777-4601 4 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENTS RESPONSffiLE DMSION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Plannin~ and Zonin~ City of Boynton RP-"ch 03/02198 04/m/98 05105198 ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment(#98-1) RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.019 OBJECTION: The City of Boynton Beach has not replaced the Traffic Circulation Element with a Transportation Element. Consequently, for review purposes, only the outdated Traffic Circulation Element is available for reference. RECOMMENDA nON: Prepare and adopt a new Transportation Element as required. Include updated data and analysis and updated Future Transportation Element maps depicting existing and projected LOS which reflect the future land use plan as amended. ' REVIEWED BY: John Anderson AICP PHONE: 954-777-4601 PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: Renee Rosselot REVIEWED BY: Gustavo Schmidt. P.E. PHONE: 954-777-4601 5 DISTRICT 4, DEFARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENTS RESPONSffiLE DMSION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Planninll' and Zoninll' City of Boynton RP.lIch m/02/98 04/03/98 05/05/98 ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment (#98-1) #2 Foster Property (LUAR 97-003) RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.oo6(4) OBJECTION: The submittal did not provide an amended Future Land Use Map showing the proposed official designations of the annexed parcel or the new jurisdictional boundaries of the City. RECOMMENDATION: Provide an updated and amended Future Land Use Map showing the City's new boundaries and the official designations for the annexed parcel. . REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: John Anderson ATCP PHONE: 954-777-4601 PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: Renee Rosselot Gllstavo Schmidt P E. PHONE: 954-777-4601 6 DISTRICT 4, DEP,j\RTMEN'f OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENfS RESPONsmLE DMSION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Plannin~ and Zonine- City of Boynton ~ch 03/02/98 04103/98 05105/98 ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment (#98-1) #1 First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach (LUAR 97-002) RULE DEFICIENCY: COMMENT: The traffic analysis provided for this amendment is not consistent with the development proposal as it was finally approved by the City Commission on January 20, 1998. The original proposal provided for a 120 bed nursing home, a 60 bed ACLF and 67,500 square feet of Medical Office. The applicant revised their proposal, reducing the Medical Office use to 39,700 square feet, which was approved by the Commission. Although the reduction in square footage for Medical Office use will also reduce the number of trips generated, the traffic study should be revised to reflect this change. REVIEWED BY: Renf'.e Rosselot PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: John Anderson, AICP PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: GIlStrlVO Schmidt P.E. PHONE: 954-777-4601 7 DISTRICT 4, D~PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENfS RESPONSffiLE DMSION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Plannin& and Zonini City of Boynton Beach 03102/98 04103/98 05/05/98 ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment (#98-1) #1 First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach (LUAR 97-002) RULE DEFICIENCY: COMMENT: The traffic analysis provided for this amendment does not specifically identify the lTE land use categories or codes which were used in the peak hour trip generation analysis. Future analyses should specify ITE land use categories and codes to determine trip generation rates for existing and proposed land use designations. Also, the traffic analysis used Palm Beach County Engineering trip generation rates to determine average daily trips and ITE to determine peak trips. To maintain a consistent analysis, FDOT recommends that the lTE Trip Generation Manual be used to determine both average daily and peak hour project trips. REVIEWED BY: Renee Rosselot PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: Gustavo Schmidt P E. PHONE: 954-777-4601 PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: John Anderson AICP 8 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENfS RESPONSIBLE DMSION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECENED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Plannine- and Zonin& City of Boynton Rfo.ach 03102/98 04103/98 05105/98 ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment (#98-1) #1 First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach (LUAR 97-002) #3 Woolbright Place PUD (LUAR 97-Q(4) RULE DEFICIENCY: COMMENT: The amendment back-up provided failed to adequately explain the connection between these two amendments. Both sites are located in the Woolbright Place PUD, which is the subject ofa settlement agreement pursuant to Tradewinds v. City of Boynton Beach. The removal cifthe 14 acre Church site, from the PUD is apparently one factor in the redesignation of the 66 acre site from Residential Moderate Density to Residential High Density. The relationship between the two amen'dments, particularly regarding density allocation, is difficult to ascertain. It is recommended that additional infonnation be provided in tabular fonn which would show the designation, allocation and density for each land use included in the Woolbright Place PUD, both existing and proposed by these two amendments. REVIEWED BY: Gustavo Schmidt P.E. PHONE: 954-777-4601 PHONE: 954-777-4601 PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: Renee Rosselot REVIEWED BY: John Anderson AICP 9 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, & COMMENTS RESPONSffiLE DMSION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Plannin~ and Zonin~ City of Boynton Rf".lIch 03/02/98 04103/98 05/05/98 ELEMENT: Future Land Use Non-EAR Based Amendment (#98-1) RULE DEFICIENCY: COMMENT: The location maps provided for the amendment sites do not clearly label the adjacent roadways. Amendment site location maps which clearly label the adjacent and surrounding roadways should be provided with all site-specific land use amendment applications. REVIEWED BY: Renee Rosselot PHONE: 954-777-4601 PHONE: 954-777-4601 REVIEWED BY: John Anderson, AICP REVIEWED BY: Gustavo Schmidt. P E. PHONE: 954-777-4601 10 Lawton Chilt!;S Governor ,. Fax:904-922-53 May 8 '98. P.Oll02 15:21 i , , Depart~entof Environ,ment~1 ~t1'otection , I . M"jory Stoneman Doual", e.Udin& 3900 Commonr.alth BoUlevard T.lloh...... Flr~' .3239'3ro i; :' ! j" i) ;i I j 'J. '1 ,. , ,t. o I i ;,1 Virginia B. Wetherell Sl(;f'CUY, . DEl" PAX ~NSMlTl'~ FORM' . I i 5' )/"'/1 ~ If ,r 7.0, f~,;.:: /~ i' '~!'\, A,:, i; t. 1\ _ ;t::" I.T' __ 1'- ...c<./" ,-""I <) ~~----- " i .' l:' 'j--" ,I ' I )(\./<9--_..\ . 'I PHONE Ii: :I NUMBEROF PAGES (including~:<,' I~):i., ~-:--- /7? ,,' '9 ~'i I:) () h. .,'... /'fl~+( L) ~-p ',Yo (io /1 ",' , -7 L-/'--t.-- '-J) ri' , I /. I 'j, , ,t PHONE; SUNCOM: . FAX: DATE: TO: 904-488-0784 278-0784 904-922-5380 ORGANIZATION ---, . ; , . , FAX Ii: FROM: OFFICE: PHONE #: '. _. I j.., IF L4NY PAGES ARE NOTCLEARtYRECBliVED, PLEASE CALL THE PERSON LISTED ABOVE. ",' '. Ii' II I " , .. COMMENTS: i ; I 1.. ~ . J ' : ~ ' I I' , i i. " ,I .1 1,,,~.,C(;ct, C"m:e,'"'re cmd Manage :F,/Ork1ai~.: ~ Er,:' MfOll'+:lC and Nawwl P"ourw" PrittleG on re~G' p;l~I.;, I'; 'I . i, ':,'i, Fax:904-922-53 Depart Environmen May 8 '.98 15:22 ent of I Protection P.02/02 Lawton Chiles GoVt!n'lor "'Marjory Stonel""r Oou1la,' llu, ilding 3900 Comm'1"'1'.oaIth Boulev.rd T .n.h...... f'loiida 32399"3000 IlMIY ll, 19911 I!' II I l I. :1 Ml.D.lUyEubanks i Department of Community Affairs I' ., BUreau of Local PllllUli~1 i1~~~t:F~o~~B3~9~~00 "; 1:1' Re: PropoaedAmeodment to the BoHBeach ~prehensive Plan, DCA 98-1 I I I. '.', ,. i' , . Tile Office of Intergov~ ~. drihe Department ofEnwonmental PrOteetion has reviewed theabove.[~~ameJ1ilment under the required provisions of . i Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes; and,Cbaptcr i9'J~5 and 9J"11. Florida Administrative COde. Our comments and reeonun~Jn. are pJVided to assist your agency ill developing'tj>e state's response,' 1,1 ' ' Wltoffer n,<l co,nunen, .,' 15 orilo:,....~ut:eot, ,~,em. S lDllnO.ered 1 an,d 2; however, item. : number { will repmeDt a siZable jl<j, . '.':~ill'populatioll density. And. a1thou~ it ba~ been stated that all <lftheseamenODiillitll,t...Wouldinot cause the adopted levels of service .' ~landards to ~ exceeded," there ha.s~)toana1y~<!fthe anticipated increase in ~ter and' : ~astewater demand to be placed pnt~ system&.: It IS recommended .that an ana1~SIS of the, ' lIlcreasecl demand on potable waterAtld,,~ sewer systems be prOVIded as requIred. 'i. ,., Please call me at (850) 487 -22.31 r you ba",~ lmY questions about this response. ,I 'I Sincerely. . II~~'~ &U:"(~__ r'lltObert w. HaD . I ,Office of Intergovermnental ' I 'i Programs I :;1 ! Vlrgini;a 8. W~l:~rell Secretary Dear Mr. Eubanks: :j' , ,'I j , , I Ii' " . . P " I' ~!l. ' I"" . . rQ:cct. ..f.lrl<.;f'I'VI'" n~.nanoge t'JOfJ~C!! ::.n~'!rOm7!~nr CdJ( :vawrc.:".:~s"'.m::(..~ Prll1t~rJ gfllWC'fCledptJpet'. Il treOlure COC\f.t regional planning council L~?v /0- fi~~ A1v'l0'l;.. - /)t-. j! I. L _'ij,/'J; u rVV-7 f;&~ . " ~.u...1J.. - cJ;'~T ~ C~d.. .~, 'lli( ~ ~::~\~ PLANNING AptND ZONING DE . April I?, 1998 Mr. Tom Beck, Chief Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Subject: City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Draft Amendments - DCA Reference No. 98-1 Dear Mr. Beck: Council has reviewed the above-referenced amendments in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and the Council's adopted plans, policies and review procedures. Enclosed is a copy of our report as approved by the Council at its regular meeting on April I? , 1998 pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. If you need additional information or have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, :!:1~=- Planning Director TLH/lg Enclosure 4 Tambri J. Heyden, AICP 301 .cst ocaan boulavard suite 300 stuart, florida 34994 phone (561) 221-4060 __~269-4060_fa% (561) 221-4067 April 17, 1998 treOlure , COOlt regional planning council Ms. Tambri J. Heyden, AICP Planning and Zoning Director City of Boynton Beach 100 Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Subject: City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Draft Amendments - DCA Reference No. 98-1 ~>t\" Dear M~den: Pursuant to the requirements of the Local Govemment Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Council reviewed the above-referenced comprehensive plan amendments at its meeting on April 17 , 1998. A review report was approved by the Council for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs as required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. A copy of the approved report is attached for consideration by your governing body prior to adoption of the amendments. Council will consider your response to any objections or comments contained in this report as an important factor in making a consistency recommendation on the adopted amendments. Please send one copy of all materials related to these amendments directly to our office once they are adopted by your governing body, pursuant to Chapter 9J-ll, Florida Administrative Code. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, T!:Jf:~ Planning Director --"""" TLH:lg Attachment 301 east ocean boulevard suite 300 stuart, florldo 34994 phone (561) 221-4060 ,~~.269-4060 lox (561) 221-4067 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 4B From: Staf)' Date: April 17, 1998 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Draft Amendments to the City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan DCA Reference No. 98-1 Introduction The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that the Council review local government comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption. Under the provisions of this law, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) prepares an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on a proposed amendment only if requested to do so by the local govemment, the regional planning council, or an affected person, or if an ORC Report is otherwise deemed necessary by the DCA. If the local govemment requests DCA to prepare an ORC Report, then the Council must provide DCA with its own objections, recommendations for modification and comments on the proposed amendment within 30 days of its receipt. Backlmlund The City of Boynton Beach has proposed three amendments to its Future Land Use Map . (pLUM). lilforrilation on the properties which are subject to the proposed amendments is provided in Table I and the location of each property is shown on the attached maps: The City has not requested a formal review of the proposed amendments, concluding that the amendments are consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and that adopted level of service standards will not be exceeded. However, on March 27, 1998, the DCA notified the City that a formal review would be carried out. ( ( , Table 1 City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendments DCA Reference No. 98-1 '~!B;r~1i' ;,j~~~":l\""! ' ~ytr~'i~iW:lt:, : ... L~~ "- 'I r '" ,~,.. -~ --4 ;t'..;:1~j- , Q ,. mrt1^ ,. ~~ '[ , . , htlL~-~tA",,",-,-' ....ll _ , " ~- . # I 14.2 Medium Density. Local Retail Northwest quadrant of intersection of Residential Commercial Woolbright Road and 1-95 , . #2 23.0 Medium Low Density Northeast quadrant of intersection of Residential-5 · Residential Miner Road and Lawrence Road #3 66.2 Moderate Density High Density Northwest quadrant of intersection of Residential Residential Woolbright Road and 1-95 Total Acreage 103.4 · Palm Beach County FLUM Designation. Property recently annexed. Evaluation Amendments # 1 & 3 are evaluated together because they are part of the same original PUD and are located adjacent to each other, in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Wood bright Road and 1-95. The property in Amendment # 1 is presently vacant, and is surrounded by a stormwater retention lake to the north, a shopping center and restaurant to the south, single-family detached homes to the west and an apartment complex (part of amendment # 3) and vacant land to the east. FLUM Designations are Medium Density Residential to the north, west and east, and Local Retail Commercial to the south. Amendment # 3 includes lands which have already been developed for residential purposes (both apartments and single-family homes), Surrounding land uses include single-family detached homes to the north and west, some vacant land and a shopping center to the south, and vacant land and the rights-of-way for a rail line and 1-95 to the east. Surrounding FLUM designations include Low Density Residential to the north, Medium Density Residential to the west, Local Retail Commercial to the south, and High Density Residential to the east. The property in amendment # 1 belongs to a religious organization which envisioned the construction of a church and school on site. However, the organization elected to maintain its church and related facilities at its downtown location and the subject property is now to be used for a health care "campus," with a nursing home, an adult congregate liviI]g facility and a medical office building. Since office uses are not permissible in a residential district, the City proposes to apply a designation of Local Retail Commercial to this property. The City indicates that the proposed uses are compatible with surrounding uses and that the City Housing Element promotes the approval of adult congregate living facilities if compatible with the neighborhood. Although the City Comprehensive Plan recommends against designation of additional 2 land as Local Retail Commercial, the proposed use qualifies as an exemption because of its nature. The property in amendment # 3 is subject to a settlement agreement between the City and a PUD developer. According to City staff, the controversy leading to the settlement agreement had to do with development of the commercial property to the south (originally under joint ownership) and the overall residential density to be permitted, Under the settlement agreement, the developer has the authority to build 687 units, but the existing FLUM designation would allow only 479 units. There are no actual impacts as a result of this amendment, since the 66 acres is already entirely developed. The- proposed designation more accurately reflects the actual density as developed. Amendment # 2 is a 23 acre parcel presently used for agricultural purposes. Its existing FLUM designation is Medium Residential-S, a County designation. The property is being annexed by the City. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential homes to the north, east, and south, although a canal and right-of-way buffer the property to the south. A mobile home park is located to the west. Surrounding FLUM designations are Low Density Residential to the north, south and east, and Medium Residential-S (County designation) to the west. The City designation would allow a few less units then the County designation, if developed to the maximum density. Extrajurisdictional Impacts The amendments were reviewed through the Palm Beach Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee Process in December of 1997. According to the Clearinghouse Coordinator, no objections were. received regarding the proposed amendments. Effects on Regional Resources or Facilities There would appear to be no significant effects on regional resources and facilities as a result of these amendments. Objections, Recommendations for Modification,-and Comments A. Objections l. None B. Comments l. The proposed land uses in amendment #' I provide a positive change to the existing land use mix of the area. However, Council staff questioned the City regarding the designation of Local Retail Commercial, since no retail uses are proposed. The City's response was that Local Retail Commercial allowed for the proposed office use, that existing land designated as Local Retail Commercial was 3 i \ ( ~~ located adjacent to the south, and that the City did not desire to "spot" a new designation at this location. Given the City's acknowledged overabundance of land designated for local retail commercial use, it would seem to be more prudent to establish a new FLUM category entitled Medical Facilities or Institutional Medical. Recommendation Council should adopt the above comments and approve their transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. Attachments 4 ~ STATE OF FlORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Helping Floridians create safe, vibrant, sustainable communities" LAWTON CHIW Governor 'AMES f. MURLEY Secmary March 27, 1998 Honorable Jerry Taylor, Mayor City of Boynton Beach 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 ReI'".... -'\/~ j;,,,, \, - f-..:. '~-D .... kt...: ,I' t.::~ HAR 8019gB iAEAsUR.. -,..,,. .-- -I..v,.~, ;". ;'::'''l'''~L Pi A."" \---"_I>I~ . "'''h,..INS :\,)~~\;:"'H . '_1.. Dear Mayor Taylor: The Department has conducted a preliminary review of the City's proposed comprehensive plan amendment received on March 2, 1998, DCA Reference No. 98-1. - The Department has detennined that the proposed plan amendment should be formally reviewed for consistency with the minimum criteria contained in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (FA C.). The Department will review the proposed amendment and issue an Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report in accordance with Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. If you have any questions, please contact Bernard Piawah, Planning Manager overseeing. the review of the amendment, at (850) 487-4545. Sincerely, tM~~ ~. CGlbp Charles Gauthier, AlCP Growth Management Administrator Bureau .of Local Elanning cc: Tambri 1. Heyden, AlCP, Planning & Zoning Director Michael Busha, AlCP, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council IIOIID4I1l1 ImalCrilial lOR "'""'" fOld or.. ll!6o..a........SuOeltl MnIm.FIoricbJ]Q5O-2227 ~~-- 2SSS SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD. TALLAHASSEE, fLORID<\. 32399.2100 Phone: 8S0.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 fAX: 8S0.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781 Internet address: http://www.slate.fl.u5/comaff/dc.i:html ClllNIWMI' ImalCriliallORC-fOId_ 155l1li_ R_~t~~'JII'J""" llllIIH IlOIIDA IKIMII' 0fIta P.o.b4lll2 IlOON.W.llIh_ South FJ.o-~da Water Manager-ent District 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 . (561)686-8800. FL WATS 1-800-432-2045 11)I>(561)697-2574 GOV 08-28 - -r:"\' 1c:.'D R'. i J"<' ~ 'f t;. ......~_. .r- Wi ~'3 ~gg\\ !\r-''""\~N. -:;~'S\Jr..t COl.r:r_."-~<:"-'\L \.,-~ ., ;"t;...... 1 ...,;V\4"" r\j\i'.fl~i:--..J - March 16, 1998 Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager Plan Review and DR! Processing Team Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Preliminary Review Recommendation City of Boynton Beach, DCA # 98-1 The South Florida Water Management District staff has reviewed the subject document. we do not recommend that a formal review of the proposed amendments be IDldertaken. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at (561) 687-6779. Sincerely, ~~ P.K. Sharma, AICP Senior Planner Lower East Coast Planning Division Planning Department PKS/mh c: Michael Busha. TCRPC Tambri Heyden, Boynton Beach Roger Wilburn, DCA Governing Board: FI2Dk Williamson, Jr., Chairman Eugene K. Pettis, Vice Chairman Mitchell W. Berger Ven. M. Carter 6 William E. Graham William Hammond Richard A. Machek Michael D. Minton Miriam Singer Samuel' E. Poole m, Executive Director Michael Slayton, Deputy Executive Director Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, Wrst Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 . ! \ ,\~~ .:\ " J ~ . I FEwYDE ~ \\ \ \ ': INDIAN RlVER. COUNTY \~ ~'. \" / D S ..... l ~?~\ ". j ~SR60-~::<\\ '// &;--~~----- ----~ ~\ \/\ ;~ -\f\' , --- ~ ", \ \ , SR6B \ "=\\'\ . 1 SR" E\\\ \ :~.IAK>B~~~~ \ I l \, I ~\ \ A1UNTIC OcEAN ~~rm____-- {-\:- ~\\ \ I ~ /'f -- ~ MARTIN COUNTY ~ ~ \ \ \! // ,," \\ SJt16/ . ~~\ \ \. " \ \.q..> \\ \ 1\ ...-------,\ ------;,>'0---___ 1'EQUIlnA I LAxEOXEECHOlJEE I ~SR 106 J ~. \ I' \ : / ;P/ "I t~;:'kNo.~~ , ' / h '1. PAUoIBIACH \\) I " I f.~rr" G.wllINS ~~.., \ . ~'i~)(I,1 I ~-%o THE~""UOE I~J~'~ ( . ~.~ ; , .' RoYAL WEsT I ,II , ... ~~. : PAUoIBEACIl PAUoIBIACH I I I . ~"O.... BEu.EG1.ADE , 'PAUoIBEACH ~J-......../ . WELLlNOTON II' 1/ 'j I '- LAxEW " I PALM BEACH COUNTY I ~I I \ I~~I -<(" ~ ~II/Ii! I ~ ~.". ~ WI! I' I \ ~ DE'JRtnf~ I \ _/mllll~1 L ' BocARA'tON ) :----------\~-----~- -iJ1fh/,I/ (I i --~ - I !M,W. I ' : TREAsURE CO~T ~~~?~, I, - N .- , . .' I MIUS = JD , " " i ~ ... ~ 7 r- i~:~~1 l..:.~' ,=:- t "J.\ --- .. .--... _.......,............... . - . __-'_ __~. .'''1ftlr _, .. ~ .~-_ ____~~ _,' _ -..... .l'll &. ---- 'l.._ ~ -." ._~-...~..':;:..Y ":J. ~f1"'''I:' ;~,..:: (" .=,. " -":"~.~"T"...--: -j- ... ~ "X;"~ .' r.-<-=;::~ ;: L~'.... I' :/i I 1\ ' ':'.:t:::'.t::;~~, :=L.: f-::~"'"" ......"eol': };~- ,:,: :~~; ~g:~tH~ - ,~. . " ,.. \":i1' L_lt :J1...lll0 :-:-:j,;.; ~"~ ." "", -""":-~;.'-"".~ ': :~, -- ITEM #1~~l;~~-j~~rTI~\:~'~,5-rF\~ h . - ~':'::l ..... . . '~JI' : , .' ~~:"'"'J':''' .-' - '-::'T'''!'!.. - "1!!:'~ .~ ~~~::;~~.:..-~ ~ j;"'I:It.:t":'::"~"'1' 'sr' .:"~~. . .~(,.ii1,,~~:W;~4 j- ~-j- .,~ i'jli:I\\,l:,S7:~ii' "~E.~~,g~~-,~. , . r.:$......::. ....; r~-:. , " ,: - . ' I '\ :;:~:.t;;J' ". ~.." I I :::~ ~;... - Bli- ..... :-:.;..y-~~. . t::.=.::I" I j', :t".~~:.~_- , ,.~, I' " r::ir:'m' . ----.1 . - .r' ./"....-: I~h .... .:. I ii' r..I.~.-:='l;' j .'. . mo'. . ". 1 : ,~- ....<.1 ... /./. ~ . ,I i\\..:.>__':.; " , '.....:; ~ ' . : li.. ~ ' ..:.;...".....'~ :.:.""~',~ l'/. .... . ,",. ...~...,...=~ . " . to.. . ,.,/. l' , '''., - = .... ~y' :iI?f1fr-=a" ."''':" :. i'l _.... . ,i.' ~'. ':.,.~ .~;:~ :.".:.~: '" "'ALl" >'--lC "-"T''=:1!~' · I .',.' , -- ........ '. ......... . =nL I." k-' t ; . "'<",,'1 1.1 ,i; m '.' .... I . :';;n-u ~a;,iI: 1~"'>:i'11!~. 1'1111~. ...",...,';.. : 1ll.:\\\"1 ....., :: ..n..... ...,..... ._.....~~ ..1.: .t' .. t,:'~ :~:~';~*~~,".. "If.l'::;"'Hli~\\lli ::1':' r;;' il~-~ :~,""::~::.'" '~..... '.'''''''''', t!'-' ~[k~~'''\\I ~~.' ::,.'!."........ "... ......' ,: .' ." ~.E,.::" =' .,......... .,..n .,~ .: .. M" I ,:I~" 1'++"'-1 ' . . ::'1......... . .. . :~ - . ~. ~.~-~i~ '~~..' ", l' \. ~Jif~ :..l~jl:;:'::;.~~;~ll ...." ....:~...~:: ::1 .. i~':TI':~_ - .., .~ . . " I ~ I- I . II U ;1' rrTI IIIITIIE I' I! 'I IT 1.11llII!lIlllIlIi III 11.1.1 I 11 TlI ; 11 I' I II ' .H-F: ' m ~~;.:.?X.;/~~~I" t~H....~.;#~:,,):~~~. j'~g1i II, 'T' .~ffi~~-,;~ ~ .".;~~ ~ ,,';r., .= ',' , , . I ~ ~ ..."..... 1: ~ .:~f::_, ~}~. :5\:' ; ill ;T r.H.I...,t'IH'II.~.l-r.I-I.I,,' I\:, ~t;jIlo,"i'-O'::" ""- T' '. '~\' I "..... '''' ..........mI:HI... N~C". . '. . ~I~~;~~~,~~ ( ) r-\ MULTY FAMILY ,I . :. 1 ':1:: '~~r:..:;i::.: :.: '. '.... ..'1_ ;>-..~RESIDENTIAL~. '-i RESIDENTIAL! I I IT .1'1.............. ...... .,;aEl'Tt11 ;!~~~__. ~"'<> _.~' ~ I ~II:I' 1111111 .......... ...~..,.....~,I! ""'L~~ ".......:x.. I mi'fTl-rr .....,..'....,..1".'...:.,.. ....11111.11 . ~~~''''':1 ;" SITE ! Ii :1~I"lHi..pi",,,,,,,,,..I...',,oI... .......... l:m. . .. '. ;~ ~~~ ~~~;A~~', -- i, \ j !'~~; l.i~;:J:~; \" ..(;';.~",;"~..I~I,, u.;I.~ij~~~.J ,~ .. ~. .\~'r'f":e-.S:\:;::. . '\, VACANT I .{~>::~r~~:;~I}~ : ; : : I ~_ \;~ : :;; ~ rT .- ,.'" d:'~c'~~:\ ~..i. I ! ~ V. ;;1:~,,'--:' I: I I I ;....J W II ua::E: . " . r-::j. ~___:=' /'J3:.::. ~ ~ II ! \ \\\.':.~'i',;;:.' I ' I ' I It' "I'!-i 11"LF'\llll. ~ )::tS . . '~~~I ~{;-)~~:: COMMERCIAL : , J \ \ \'i.;fi';~~: ' , I f.+T7 -' IIT1 FTTTm:. :~il ~8"'" :'\1-1~~.:: ~RETAIL~ i'ii, ~r' \,,~~,':~:'::'F\~._;.I.~n '.:1 II ,I~;"oli -" ~ ,.,.11 ~;:.,~: ~d?"/.' . ~~J.i\! I. ''''fi j'I'J nTfl! 1 IlllIIRiI, 1iIi- t-l . = ':..' 2"~&: .:=---=::::::: - . ~,---': I i J/3:-... . t. ~~ r~.lj to Iii Inx,- . ::2 .. J'., ,-.::::-'-- n: ..- .-....-..... .... ""S' . IIIIIilOOl..or.., ":iit'''.(l ~ - . ~'l/..'-c----- -~.~. .-- . '''P' "nnnr'-7;~/'&'.. ,'n" :'i::,,,,'.;'-:.;:'m~j;~ \0''l////l C".. //;',-, : ~ '. (.....,...:~ ~~~'t3;;'\.. . ~ :.:..~. i. ~h f I I l~~.~~:~1!:" !l7~,.~< ...,-,,'V,(, 81i'16.... ,::'.: ~~/?.j,'.\ .' " , I" . . / A~;' l . t:.{~~::f1,1i.?~ ;!f~t~{ . ','.". . " 0, ,; ~ ,/ ....._..1 I - ; 1:,:::'~.~f:~iil~St~1~':: g"~.' _~.. ........../ ,'1 .,-':, ,'" ... , . 1" , I! . .:....;,.:~ I i , ; .~.., ~..,-... .~ ~ ~ ;- 1 - ,-,." ;=-=;-.~ ,:..':: ~... f ...J..,/-;;.:....-: [~.;..~.~-,..-.......1' .' '. :~ - t2~'~. ~~~!?~.~/:\':Z. , i . ....;.~- ~'-_.... \..-- :-:1:"j:';.1fl' oj; ~r:.. . - " :J". !) I' L___ _ _ _' , ",,,,pOt.v'JCO L".~ ____.__m_, -= ~ P'F......~ ~t~ _i.~/'-' I I. ~ - ~i_~ , - i -.-.,-' ~o- - .,- i>t= -~<~ - ~.- _._I==: --...., - ) U I ,:i u: j fLu )... ,~'~1. ~ U~"" r.. :'~ -, \ ' -.---. ,;h @. <= "J"'R, . I--~'-" V 11..iTiT:lll:mn :~j' --, (J/'f1~~ , ,'t:~_ /,/ '. '] r~~ - I -1\ I; r:J ....~,__ :t~F1{:~~ ~[ ri\~/~ /~J - <"~ I I I r?~ -\-1 ., \ L- ,~l..... 'J fT-., ~"h . , , /' . \ -,,~ .-,''''',,'''' z" , ~-.- ::r-! ~,i .:tl ,JI', 'I ' J.._. ~.-.. ';.:lU.l.4- i.,;io................::::: 1/8 1111 'I 400.800 FEET ...... ...........,.. _...._~ . '\Ttril ~.,:=l.;HE LAND USE LITEM #2---11 !" .....- I '1 n I (.;::rr "1r!Tm'l.1\\ . '" ~t'~:-....~H . . -: ~E~'7~ .:' \_' .r~ '''.~::CURRENT LAND U5c :4~~~~3~"~ 'f:....' i-~ ~'~ - F .~-_... . '-_ .l..." .., - ...~w I'r\~ -O:I-,~"..:Jk- r:'l-;'._ ~~1" olio . ~l=t:::~-,.~~:,.. ','i iJ';~.!.' ~ t. == ~~ ~t. _~ .. I'TEM #311\\,.~::.t=lE~cir:J~~~:;."'"'''~~ >..."1 . '. . ~C:~~ R~ Iii . . :j III I! I, /i: <"'8Rtj I..;!..L-W ~ ~"~~'S . ,,- ._~~.,,~ ' I i'n~~-'" 'lS~Ti~lOP' . ~)fut ~.~. ,~~ JI I : I . :j..~~t .'. .. .' - . - .' ..;..;.....~ :~.u;S;' ;~~ ",_,~:"_'.:.' J~",,;,'7', , .:.: h.w '.' '~J...t.pQ' ..;...~ ;~e.: . .r , - :':~bY; . "... '. . -','" . . -... .. ecr ~1~ .. _... ..,-.. MK..~" - -: '''''" d '.-;;.! . . 1 :.. . ."., .1" r :::l. il"1 ~I I~I;" :. .... ..... ... ......... ..._ -:.. .. :. .:'., . " .,. ,", ~ ~.. Ii' r ;j .-..~.. [I'.' ~ . \, mr.t:T1~"."t!-,.". r B ~.' .. [1., ~~. ...~.. . 't;;t:;:lI:t:-i~I"'''''''' . ~ , . :.:...... ~..., t \ '"l~ '~ .. i . ' g' II -J .. ,.,.-,., ....., ,"h'. ..,. . ';1:. ~ .' I'I:'1D . ',.' ,',.. -II .. f~1 tl:'" "i'.. "".""H. .~ . W;, . '." . ;;;; t'<~' SI~G~:f~~. . ~~ .', :::: ;;-~:: !;'-~ : , ~l;(w~~. . 1\\ I. I UJ.J _ U "';, - -;~ ~~'=;:';7~~,; If.!\ ''', I~(~{; I ...t- tit: \ RESIDENTIAL ~ i . .... . .r=: . ... .. . .. . ... "€i__~~ _ ~. . 3fi@@~~~t~ : I ..... .1'-t.11;;;l;;l....... ',I:t! . ~ .: ~~~J ~ SITE I I :::~~ItH: ) . .-::.::::::::~.... ITEM #3 I RE ......u .. ".. ,. ~ t. I 1ft l'l'll!' II ........ ...... II ~ .:-'\..~ p MUcri ~AMI'V I Ill'.' Itllllll".......... Of ..... f I 't;. . "':>~~~" '. ~~::~::..~:.: v.'A' CANT\ RESIDEnN"'TIA'-L"' '\ . . ....." . -.c ' III' ............... ........ .... ~ Fml~':illlt~'r1:"h""""" '''1'''\1' ..,........ ~ . ~'~ ~, ~. ~~t- ~\ 'Ii I;~;:,.~:~!~~;,::......;,...;....~...;';...I ::'~ ;:.,.A Cl ,~ '., \lACANT \ ',1!::"f.',-.''.:!:.:'':;: y", ":';,.,,r'''''''''i'' J II 11.IW I I'III'I'~! I ~ I .,.;;.-;';.:,,~;;:i; I' I t-- \to \' :::: :~..' '......r-;: .~.::ll f'. ( ........~:A~rl'.;.:.:......_::... ,.:!. I ' ,'-:::';'~f:,.,,;.!i. . '..W ._ r:~: \ j.~:t;~:i :! I.~,I...J 1I1I tllll... \ ......o;:.....~" . t ,,-, 11.1 .. - ~ ",';:'l::';;:: .U'NUU~'1i 'I '\,-~~if;;',1Tm;-~' 111.'rrnr' - ~. . ~~"'::::j .'. . . i ;=--~; "&0 ""I..J I .~~ t~}.j hi, II ttE: ~;~ '. _ ...;:..~ '-_-~ ~._._. ..*'S' __0"..... ,," "". .. '" "~ "" - y .c1n< . . ;t.i.iB;~ i'~; .. '.'~.W~~ ~ - ~.~::,:.,r,;.~....,~?,.~.". - .... -... i, ,.,.. . ,,'. . .'~Mfl. ,~~' :~ . ~ . :.~~;'t.t"-i~t-. I~~::" '. 'k, ...... ~ ." :: -. ..UlJL6""~N.. , .. - 4 I l.-. 1-- co.:~ ~_...-.: ""'JTURE LAND USE~'-::-Jr:(' .,.: '-6:7 ..e;....... ~~.',i!.::t~:i~I=:-:-:tl' "I:I'/lli:~ ~;~~ffL 'L LJ' ~~-i~~' .. . ;: . ,: I' lI't: ',' ,. r:' L " - '=i '. .~. (", ITEM#3, I "I, fJ.. M.~. t:iL ' , "ill1fi' ;jl' i; 1I111.);;,;:<d\,...4 .- , '.;" " . . I ' ; 'I";:~;i.''''~'' ~'::' ~ , .. -- ," .' I ..;II~ "., .... ..~~ ',..; ,! III, :I;~' r,' ,', ': . i L" 'Jill' 111~>.if~~H:'.. .' - '. 'U \~~~>, ',? --. ...:.~ij,,\.., Si:HcH ~V.D, -_, ._ " ..?r '" 'Tll.'.... ~:~i ~ :":'/-\i : i II it . ~J,' 1::- Ji 1 ~J~:"{I' '111/ "::i'" f) , I ....~ . )I!II : \ ,111/' '~ ; : I: j"- -i : i I '" .:;~.:i"t:l. ,. : III j"1 i, i )jj IJIt ., '0 1/8 "/'11" " '0 400.800 FEET ':/ I. ~:'":: ...:..~ :.;-:::y::..:.:~.::::.<,<<...;::.::;.:::~:.;:...: ::::;;:" iI' /8~~ 1/8 1\ I I 'I 400.800 FEET M 1+1 : D:~ -: ... :.~::f~;;~'''~i~~~f:~l~~1"~:' ...~?~~ :ii_~:;-"~J'Sj11;"'9:'~tf- .~~~--~ '~'~III~llj ~. j~ t......... ......... ........~ !>1VPo/"V'lCO ....... treOlure COC\f.t regional planning council ill ,I- , ,C,lo'"-" ,..;{).AJ~.-tV l' '>" :<f~ c{J( Ut.A/{J . ,">-.I, ~i' (lrj ...-' P{Ji {, ,~_ ?ii_'J / c.(~I'- '\ ,I,' rt;j' I--~ \ .h\J\q1 "i \l!1l" , . :fI ~ H W ~ @ I~, ~\ ~ oj) nlir~\Ji 14M , I 1996 U 11 I I ! ~'tM~~M~D March 9, 1998 Ms. Tambri Heyden Planning & Zoning Director City of Boynton Beach 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 Subject: City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Draft Amendments DCA Reference No. 98-1 1~"''''' Dear M~yden: This is to notify you that the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council will be providing a recommendation to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on the above-referenced plan amendments, which we received on 3/6/98. Council staff will review the amendments for multijurisdictional impacts and impacts on significant regional resources and facilities and provide a written report to DCA within 30 calendar days of receipt. Staff anticipates presenting its report and recommended comments to Council at the regular meeting of 4/17/98. Prior to the Council meeting, Council staff will send you a copy of the meeting agenda and the staff report and recommendations. We invite you to attend the meeting, where you will be afforded an opportunity to address the Council. Following the meeting, the recommendations as approved by the Council will be forwarded to you and to DCA. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call: Sincerely, 1lJ flJ---r Terry L. Hess, AICP Planning Director TLH/jkp 3228 s.w. martin downs blvd. suit. 205 . p.o. box 1529 palm city, florlda 34990 phon.1561)221~ sc 269.4060 fax (561) 221-4067 1\ {-~ '{t~/ STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS , ~.....:- -- ..1 ,.~. "'.... 'q "Helping Floridians create safe, vibrant, sustainJlble communities" ~ @ ~ a w '~F'~r:~a~ ", MAA - 5 9S8 LAWTON CHILES Governor March 3, 1998 m Ms. Tambri J. Heyden, AICP Planning and Zoning Director City of Boynton Beach Post Office Box 310 Boynton Teach, FL 33425-0310 PZLANNING AND ONING OEPT. J Dear Mr Heyden: Thank you for submitting copies of your proposed comprehensive plan amendment(s) for the City. We have conducted a preliminary inventory of the plan amendment package pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, to verify the inclusion of all required materials. Our reference number for this amendment package is Boynton Beach 98-1. The submission package appears to be complete, and your proposed plan amendment will be reviewed pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Once the review is underway, you may be asked to provide additional supporting documentation by the review team to ensure a thorough review The Department will conduct a preliminary review to make a determination as to whether the proposed plan amendment package should be formally reviewed. The Department will notify you when the determination has been made to review or not to review the proposed plan amendment package in accordance with Chapter 163.3184 and Rule 9J-11.008, Florida Administrative Code. The Department's notification shall specifically identify the amendment( s) that shall be reviewed and the amendments that shall not be reviewed. If you have any question please contact Roger Wilburn, the Community Program Administrator that will be overseeing the review of the amendment and assigning the amendment to the respective planner for review, at (850) 487-4545. Sincerely, -a~U~ D. Ray Eubanks Planning Manager DRE/pcr cc: Michael Rumpf, Senior Planner flOllDAKEYS Area of Critical Slale Conrem Field Office 27%O\IeIYas Highway, Suite212 Marathon. Florida 33050.2227 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 Phone: BSO.488.6466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: BSO.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781 I nternet add ress: http://www.state.fl.us(comaff/dca.htm I GREIN SWAMP AreaofCriticalSlaleConcemFieldOffice lSSEast$umlTll'flin Bartow, Florida 33830.4641 SOUTH flORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE P.Q,Box4022 8600NW36thStreel Miami, Florida 33159.4022 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning and Zoning Bulent I. KastarJak, NCARB Director Building Planning & Zoning Engineering \ Occupational License February 23, 199. ii' Community Redevelopment V Mr. John Outland Plan Review Sect., Rm. 914B Dept. of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 RE: Transmittal of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 98-1 Item #1-First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach (LUAR 97-002) Item #2-Foster Property (LUAR 97-003) Item #3-Woolbright Place PUD (LUAR 97-004) Dear Mr. Outland: Accompanying this letter you will find the City's cover letter and related support documentation as provided to the Florida Department of Community Affairs which transmits for evaluation four (4) proposed Plan amendments. You will recall receiving within a previous amendment package (93-83, December 14, 1993) our entire Comprehensive Plan and Future land Use Support Document, Section VIII. land Use Problems and Opportunities. It is my understanding that these documents will be kept current by inserting subsequent amendments. However, please be advised that these proposed amendments only affect the City's Comprehensive Plan Future land Use Map, and that no changes are proposed for any goal, objective, or policy, or to Section VIII. land Use and Opportunities of the Future land Use Support Document. Once these amendments are adopted, the City's Map will be amended and forwarded to you for your records. The transmittal letters should provide you with all the necessary information; however, if you have questions or are in need of additional information, please contact this office. Very truly yours, //) {. .".)..'1 'l.iL-Y(, "c';, J '- .' it. -/, v . .-___~~/i--;)L_ .. ..,/ Tambri J. Heyden, AICP Planning and Zoning Director TJH:mr Enclosures J:\SHRDATA\P18ming\SHARED\WP\SPECPROJ\CQMP PLAN\Project Amendments\98-1,doc\98-1 DEP.dQc America's Gateway to the Gulfstream 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.. P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach. Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 375-6260 FAX: (561) 375-6259 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning and Zoning Bulent I. Kastarlak, NCARB Director BuUding Planning & Zoning Engineering Occupational License Community Redevelopment February 23, 1998 Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning Plan Processing Section 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 RE: Transmittal of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments - 98-1 Item #1-First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach (LUAR 97-002) Item #2-Foster Property (LUAR 97-003) Item #3-Woolbright Place PUD (LUAR 97-004) To whom this may concern: Enclosed you will find six (6) copies (individual copies have been simultaneously sent to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the FOOT-District Four, the South Florida WMD, and the Department of Environmental Protection) of the required transmittal documents for three (3), proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. Each of these Items consists of only an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Descriptions of the proposed amendments are included below under General Consistency with Comprehensive Plan, and are summarized as follows: Item #1 would reclassify 14.18 acres from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, which is to be removed from an existing Planned Unit Development to allow the development plans to change from a church/school to a health care campus; Item #2 would reclassify 23 acres of land to be annexed from Medium Residential 5 in Palm Beach County to Low Density Residential to allow for the development of single family homes consistent with the proposed land use designation shown on the Future Land Use Map; and Item #3 is being processed in concert with Item #1 above, and would reclassify 66.16 acres of primarily developed land from Moderate Density Residential to High Density Residential. This amendment is necessary to offset the impact on maximum density caused by the removal of the 14.18-acre tract from the original Planned Unit Development known as the Woolbright Place Planned Unit Development (PUD). As it has been determined that the proposed amendments described herein are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would not cause the adopted levels of service standards to be exceeded, and are desirable by the Local Planning Agency and Governing Body, staff requests that these proposed amendments not be reviewed. . America's Gateway to the Gulfstream 100 East Boynton Beach Bh:d.. P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach. Flo.-ida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 375-6260 FAX: (561) 375-6259 February 23, ":;3 Proposed AmE~~ments 98-1 Page 2 The City Commission. which acts as both the local planning agency and governing body, reviewed and approved for tr;::~smittai, Items #1 and #3 on January 20, 1998, and Item #2 on January 6, 1998, both during public hearings "eld subsequent to due public notice. With respect to adoption, staff anticipates that ordinances wiil~8 adopted in Mayor June of the current year. In accordance with the requirements of Rule 9J-11.006, please be informed that the subject amendments are not in an area oj critical stats concern or the Wekiva River Protection Area, and are not related to a proposed development of regional impact or to be adopted under a joint planning agreement. Furthermore, it should be stated that the other reviewing agencies were provided with the City's entire Comprehensive Plan and related support documentation on July 6, 1994, and informed that said documents would be updated by subsequent amendments. Should you have any questions on the subject amendments, please contact Michael Rumpf, Senior Planner at: Planning and Zoning Division City of Boynton Beach, P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 Tei: (561) 375-6260 Fax: (561) 375-6259 With respect to the remaining submittal requirements outlined in the amended Rule 9J-11.006, the following has also been provided for your information; (1 )(b)(1) Six copies of two (2) maps indicating the proposed future land use map designations, property boundaries and their relation to the surrounding street and thoroughfare network are included iii Attachment "A"; (1 )(b)(1) The present land use designations of the subject and adjacent properties are shown on the maps in Attachment "A"; (1 )(b)(2) Maps indicating existing land uses on the subject property and adjacent properties are included within Exhibit "A"; (1)(b)(3) Property sizes are shown on the respective maps within Attachment "A"; (1)(b)(4) The availability of, and demand on public facilities is summarized below; (1)(b)(5) Information regarding compatibility of the Map amendments with the Comprehensive Plan, and other information relative to the basis of the recommendations is provided below; (1 )(c)Staff recommendations are as follows: Item #1 - Opposed; Item #2 - In favor; and Item #3 - Opposed. The recommendations of the local planning agency/governing body are indicated in the corresponding minutes (see Attachment "B"); and (2) NA February 23, ; 998 Proposed Amendments 98-1 Page 3 To indicate the basis on which the Future Land Use Map is to be amended, the following information has been provided whic:. further justifies the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments with respect to compliance with 8.163, F.S., Rules 9J-5 and 9J-11, FAC., and the City's Comprehensive Plan: 1. General consistency with Comprehensive Plan: a. Item #1 represents property that is owned by a church organization who no longer desires to vacate their existing property in the downtown to relocate their church and school to this alternative site. In response to this decision, the church organization has determined that an appropriate use for this site is a health care campus consisting of a nursing home, ACLF, and medical office building. As the City does not allow office uses within this residential zoning district, they are proposing that it be reclassified to commercial, consistent with the zoning and land use adjacent to this property, Local Retail Commercial. This change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the proposed project is compatible with adjacent land uses. The proposed use, an ACLF, is described by the Comprehensive Plan as being one of the more innocuous types of groups homes and therefore compatible within a residential environment (Future Land Use Support Document, page 33). This proposed commercial use would be classified as having a highly specialized nature which is one of the exceptions provided to the recommendation against land use changes to commercial categories found within the Future Land Use Support Document on page 40. Furthermore, the Housing Element Support Document, on page V-5, promotes the approval of additional ACLF's provided the sizes and types are compatible with other dwellings in the neighborhood. This proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses which includes a restaurant, a shopping center, an apartment complex with 548 units, and several single family homes which do not share a common roadway with this project. Also with respect to location, it should be noted that this site is adjacent to the City's largest retirement-age development, Leisureville, whose residents would be served by this project. Although this proposal is to increase land classified as Local Retail Commercial, which is discouraged by Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.17.1 and 1.19.6, the proposal qualifies for the exceptions listed within these policies as access is greatest, impacts on residential land uses are least, and a geographic need exists within the subject location. b. Item #2 represents a reclassification consistent with the Future Land Use Map designations for areas to be annexed subsequent to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan (see current Future Land Use Map), and represents a slight decrease in impacts/maximum density as the existing land use classification in Palm Beach County would allow 5 units per acre and the City's Low Density Residential classification allows a maximum of 4.84 units per acre. c. Item #3 is proposed in connection with Item #1, which is required to offset the impact on density caused by the removal of 14 acres from an existing Planned Unit Development. Furthermore, this amendment will also resolve the density problem that resulted from the conflict generated by the Tradewinds v City of Boynton Beach settlement agreement. This agreement required the reclassification of the property to Moderate Density Residential land use, yet mandated development to be approved on the property that exceeded the maximum density of 7.26 units per acre. In reviewing this proposed amendment, staff realized that the maximum density of the current land use classification is currently exceeded by 26 units. Intensifying this circumstance is the proposed amendment to decrease the size of the Planned Unit Development by 14.18 acres (Item #1). This amendment would increase the discrepancy between the maximum density and the existing density up to 128 units. By reclaSSifying the 66 acres of the PUD that are currently classified as Moderate Density Residential to High Density Residential, the February 23, 1998 Proposed Amendments 98-1 Page 4 maximum density of 10.8 units per acre exceeds the density of 10.41 units per acre remaining after the 14 acres are extracted. Due to the developed status of this property, no impact. .viII be generated from this amendment. Excluding the 14 acres to be removed (Item #1), ,:11 property within the PUD that is to be reclassified to High Density Residential is developed! Although the PUD contains 3.33 acres of undeveloped property, this area is currently classified High Density. It should be noted that development within this PUD has only occurred within the past three years. Although unlikely, if the entire PUD were to be redeveloped, the reclassification would allow only an additional 76 units more than currently existing on the property, and would offset the loss of 14 acres of residentially-classified land attributed to Item #1. 2. None of the three items involve property that contains environmentally sensitive or native features worthy of consideration in the City's Comprehensive Plan or the County's inventory of native ecosystems. Lastly, no site contains historic features recognized by the City or County; 3. With respect to the elimination or reduction of land uses inconsistent with the City's character and, the need to increase or decrease the intensity of land uses, all amendments are considered to be appropriate for their respective locations, clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or partially unavoidable in connection with a court order; 4. All subject properties are located within the "8" or "CO flood zones, and with respect to availability of drainage facilities, local drainage standards ensure that water quality is maximized, and offsite drainage is minimized. Maintenance of the local level of service standard is ensured through the review and permitting process of the local drainage districts. 5. With respect to Traffic Circulation Element analysis requirements, the only relevant policies in the Plan that currently apply, which regard maintaining levels of service standards, will be complied with. All impacted roadways have adequate capacity to absorb the additional traffic to be generated by the proposed amendments without lowering adopted levels of service. 6. With respect to Housing Element analysis requirements, the applicable proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Whereas Item #2 is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, the impacts from proposed amendments #1 and #3 would have offsetting effects relative to the ultimate availability of land for housing. 7. With respect to Infrastructure Element analysis requirements, there is adequate capacity within the City's utilities system to accommodate the increased needs to be generated by the proposed amendments. It should be noted that Item #2 is consistent with the recommended land use classification indicated by the Future Land Use Map for annexed properties, and therefore the anticipated future demands from the development of this parcel were included within the original data and analysis of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are consistent with all Infrastructure Element objectives and policies; 8. The subject properties are not within the coastal management area; 9. The Conservation Element is not applicable; February 23, 1998 Proposed Amendments 98-1 Page 5 10. With respect to Recreation & Open Space Element analysis requirements, Item #2 is consistent with the Future Land Use Map, and therefore, the ultimate demands to be generated by the proposed land use have already been incorporated within the data and analysis of the Comprehensive Plan. As for Items #1 and #2, the nearly offsetting impacts from thE1se two proposed amendments would result in a slight decrease in land available for housing units. Consequently, the net impacts from these two proposed amendments include a lowered demand for park acreage and recreation facilities within the City; 11. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element analysis requirements have been satisfied as proper notifications and requests for availability of facility analyses have been sent; 12. With respect to Capital Improvements Element analysis requirements, there are no impacts upon capital facilities that have not been projected within the analysis of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, levels of service are met and all other related policies are complied with; and 13. With respect to consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan, the above statements, along with the information provided within the staff report address all pertinent issues and topics within the State and Regional Plans. Such issues and topics include housing, natural systems, endangered species, levels of service, intergovernmental coordination, public facilities, historic resources, and transportation. If you have any questions concerning this amendment package, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very Truly Yours, / " - r-,1 1/ - v~; -~ ? 7- 'I4'(";Jc,G:,,-- Tambri J. Heyden, AICP Planning and Zoning Director /' , . -=::!h.."r..-{<-/.( T JH:mr Enclosures S:\Planning\SHARED\INP\SP E C PROJ\CQMP PLAN\Project Amendments\98-1.doc\98-1 DCALET. doc ATTACHMENT "A" MAPS '\ '\ " ~.,. s-- ~.'.... ----~ . V"i'';:~ 'i'i);:';;" ~~.,,--,!'/.~i ~.t".;;i,~:-: . \):H/:~~;.,,:?~ri~~~:.: '"..':)li.lrj,,..~I'~~7....... ; 1:.::~::,:1~~~iL~~M;;'l ':';~~. ,;'~:>/-: _:: //J./'~. ., 1/1. ,j-, '_ I,",',!; '~LlL. ./ "'1,A.. .:;:~;'~" .~r: '~'.~-'; .~. ,"(",_... .'.~-~:~ ~ ~~ -; - ;.,~? .1". , ' JH I'^~' r"'3"'>'''''''~ ~ .~ - -:( ~~~~-~ ,. J:~!!~~~:~;..~-:~~~J. ,./ , , J "iT!'" r---- li:;,i~ ,.........! ........., .......... f........r ~........ f H CL,",'XO IC '- ...........................................................-,- ........................................................... --, ... ,................. .. .........................,............ .................... .... ........... ..... .."... .......... .0 1/8 "1111 'I '0 400.800 FEET N N ',: ..,.,:"....; , '_"7'.4'" .."...-y-. ~ - ~;.~:~~t,~~~ :"'- : 02/~~,..~;i:;~{~jill~~~ '... . --='. 1<",:rlli'iiifr~ ! ,- - "._- rr~f r) II: H) ~.:.~' ,:'1:-~ ~~~r' L-:....;.. ~7:'?l , '--_____J ___1 L, ~~ r ~,~' ,- <';l"W~ I I I , I ,&!..J;h..,,- L;/M ,=uTURE LAND USE ITEM #2.-J I , , , I ---- ....".... ........... ..-...',' ,. " -TO.O. i----- .:.~. .... ;.~;.! ~'.' ...... ....".' ...... ',',' ~;::: ....' ..... :.:.: ....... .:.:. .::::: '..".- I 1-- , r :r~llll__ ~~:> o 1/8 TIIII II '0 400.800 FEET :::RESIDENTIAL ::::: :.' :.... , ..............'... ::::;:::=:::::=::: ................. ......,.......... ................. ..~.............. ..,..'........... ................. ................. ............,.... ::..:.:.:.:.:.:.:. II' .:::::::::::::::::.,'::: :::::::::.:::::::::.:~:. .........:.........~...: ....................~:. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:--:::.: ..,.................... ::.:.:.:.:~:.:.:.:.:.:.: ....................... ........................ :.:.:.:.:.:::.:.:.:.:.:. ':.:.:.:':'..:.:.:.:.:.: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .::::::=:::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: . . . ............. .... ~.LLl. ~-1:' fu:ti fTTTTl ' '....I,...J.J:........r ~;..,.-.~. i,., ~--,.,.~~...~,..... ~,24~Jl,.JJ..U!.~_.....,.......,.._,_,. \llflni' (''''''~'.'..'. ..,. ~ \:ll. " ".;":, ,.:-' ':,,':, '';,'~'''''' ",'-- '~'''':''''''''" .- , ' ""';:':('>'<'::';:;~)"':~1'_ .:-:":~'":'-''' - -.-----:::::::,:,.-.~ R'-'-::\'- E~ i~i:~ ~. ~ ,::'''''''''' f'"'lCl'l, L...l.i"C uSC 'c;'>lwiotjW' c..:....~.,.... ~_ .~".\', ..". y_ <~f .__ - ,__u"_- '1,-' ,.., ,~r'. .,.t". .., . '-.."' ,',. _.~_._""""-\..-..-..... ,_ ~~.\.. 4 r I' ,.' f ~'_._. ..J \' . ~ ..........~, _~ _ . .1L::o..;:;.JI ,-~o- -:;' .., -,~ I"t"\ L " ' , ,~l- -~" . LJ i::~ i".." ..' cc-.f,c " : , :-:". '~.:;,--;;:::t:::J' ITEM #3 .\"1 ,,~"ttR" ,~.-:", "'t"'l::~..'~-~; ~ _ . f", I, . 'c..l.UJ~ ,.., . iT ' '0\.../-f::~<,' __':-:ri 1'1 ~~! \ :1'" Ii:,' :~~ . rr~r.qH .. '/'\' f-M ":::: '.j-f"':" k#;;_~':':-'1;;:~ ~j .rm' II :11' iT'; .1'""":ITh~,~;2 ~ r~(:~~rt: ~,~="~; ~i:1 1 ',,":;;':\ "1E'.'1 i:~':~~':)~ L'-'l ,~.-' . ..,' L:-J .i % ~ ~ : I f';;":~l': ,j . '" ',I - -::-: A--j:'(8~, -. .--I _ """=_dU~' '," ' ~_,.;:z, .,'1. ~. . _~ .." .' e.;-',' _~;.#&;-~_ . . '~ rt..~m'T ~ .~. . .l.~~ ;"'" '.~~l,tl: !V"'-w~ ,~v\-1 '~n I ~ li\1 ,I 1'7 ..;il~~~j,. .,V ,. _._ 1,--: "-"~'lillq ,Hi'. 'T II \ ;lli1!:". ",,,oI";'1FE" '" ".,... :::::. <to "1'~~"" '. \' ~.. ' :d \ J' I,L.. "1"" n: fl, "" ""'. . ..," "j:".j.l::r. .., , ~. w,' ..",. l.oI ' , I . ..... ..,........ .__.,,'~ .;::' ,> _ .~,~ ' I' ,," ,. u ",,,,..,cr,, ;~" .,~ ::~_~. "'_.~," It~'II\ .":::,n~;:,,,~~.. H . · ., ..,K;p.films..... . ;... I " ,,, "i}.....~' ; " [f..,.' "~7'c'~'!I!p~ .>' _. ) ~* ~ I H ' , '" OF :",.~,.., .:::iEi:. ..--\>-.Cij.-:..... mll" "r.m ' J \ \ ,iTIT 'Tl '1 I 1 11 n ,...;: " ---:...-.:::;~~ rm.Jr" 'illJ' + I ~~ I' i ,i I 1'111 TI Il (" .'~~'~.~':~;'~~ij ti Hi :,\' ~;Mjr;, 1 \ .." 1:1'''.' .". . '" . , T ; . ",:..... ..." . \. ,h\+ , ",,' ;:1.. "..", ..1:<:1 rn ,1' '(<~ ~;.:.fYr' "'.' , . SITE , ' . . III 1:\ '1:lm.r-q~,Im;ttr[ :Z<~. ..~"~':-."" N ~ ITEM #3 'f'l rr' ,...i.","I'H3~mrrur:: 6':i::. . '. "- ,.....<. .1 MULTI '" 'i Ii' ,"I",,, ,"'..1''"1'''' ~ ".r.r.r.m!Mi'," ..TT. ':UY> ~~o(/>. : rAMILY ~ II' IlllfTI "I'''''' 'I'~;j,~." . n,' , . l++' ,X:<'h ~~ ~^:.y,\,,\ '" lW'- . .."", . "l:. . M?' 0-..--< ,,~. ~" X,:;".' YACANT \ RESIDENTIAL ' ' ,m"', 'I \ 111l1'''' ,....,,,.. ,I.',,, ", ..1',:\ 11\ . ~ .'<.;..' $:-.,'. '\G,':','. ~ Ii ~h\: \.111 I: 'R:" """1'''1''''''.1 fIG ,,!I . "j.I,\,::II:;! l'n .... ~ '" \'1.-\'. \1.i '_~' __ I.r .... .'1-> \"\:\ *' ~\i.~ · \ i ~::' " '; ';";',;~';;,: :;/,; '--\ ,,'..< ~'-:; ~ \\ VACANT \1:.1 ~i.",,,,..~\,,' <,' S I II IJ \~--111m I","' I _.___'O.,r:~...~\'::'r\'\ 0"" '\ \",:, "',"{(ir:": ,IIIT'l11 IIIII\!\" '~..-\ ;... ~ >-, .;. ! i \.' '; ':j, -:;'.' , ' \~\",., ,1!iiJ=JJ=l.. Illl~'T , ' _ '-~ .' ' " \ ,\....,...,., 1 1.1.,1 j -+t-! "I I '. I ',' ;....;.-: r..:." ;=1 r', c.' : I ' 1';'-" ,;;.~; --...: ' ' I.~. ::i;f:~:1 \":,~'~ \L' lli/j . "i \ \\\diF:J2~T1]j .., I,-j, . \ 1.1\1 ~'IH;I' . ',:" ?"'\...~E'; . ~,_ ; . JqJ. ' \ 1'1 \ ~ '~4..j [L~ ,lei [ \ 1\ fl . ~. ~.,;-'~,:_' '~_' . .....'-:'-::'..:___".,pJIS;; . ..,:...Lll-=, !III! ", '. ~__~ _--- ~ _, ..."",",,0'"'''''' ,.0"""" " . ...- 1#' ~';:/I ~~?; "".' 7'\ ' I ? 41' . . \:;~;i":3' ':i~,&'f;~' \/,/1 .' .:::,F'~J' \ . ,/ \'J ! ,t.,,,,;],..,! "ig.I" ~, -.,rVVJ..81l16,1.I,'" .. . '0 1/8 . '/111 " '0 400.800 FEET N :::;:::::.::::;.::::::::;:::;:;:?:::.;:;:; ::::::::::::::::;:::::.::::::~::::. 98'~ . mw ATTACHMENT "B" LPAlGOVERNING BODY RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 20,1998 VII. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 P.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE AGENDA PERMITS A. Project: Item #1: First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach (LUAE 97- 002) ... ...,. ~I ~ -. 'J I.I~_~. n -. ..- .. . Item #3: Woolbright Place PUD Land Use Amendment (LUAE 97.Q(4) Agent Unruh-Smith & Associates Owner. First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach, Boynton Beach I Ltd. Partnership, and Boynton Beach II Ltd. Partnership Location: Woolbright Place PUD (east and west sides of sw alii Street, one- quarter mile north of the intersection of SW alii Street and Woolbright Road) Description: Request to amend and rezone a 14.1a acre parcel within the Woolbright Place PUD to change the existing approved use from a church to a health care campus (TABLED FROM CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF 116198) Motion Commissioner Tillman moved to remove this item from the table. Commissioner Jaskiewicz seconded the motion that carried 5-0. Mayor Taylor reminded everyone that a great deal of input was received on this item at the last meeting, and there has been some movement since that meeting. Tonight's focus should be on that new infonnation. He urged everyone present not to rehllllh old infonnation, and suggested that the supporters and opposers select a spokesperson. Attorney Cherof administered the oath to all who would testify during these proceedings. All Commissioners divulged that representatives of both sides of this issue contacted them. Ellen Smith. of Unruh. Smith & Associates. represented First Baptist Church. She advised that a great deal of thought was given to the comments made at the last meeting. She distributed copies of a letter to City Manager Willis dated January 20, 1998 listing compromises on behalf of the applicant. Those compromises include: 13 1m rn @ rn n w'~... " ",I . MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH. FLORIDA JANUARY 20,1998 1. The proposed 67,500 medical office building will be reduced to 39,700 square feet. This reduction is not required by the traffic circulation element of the City Comprehensive Plan to maintain level of service .C' on SW 8'h Street. Rather, it is proposed to reduce total project traffic. 2. If requested by the City, a deed restriction will be recorded in the official land records limiting the intensity of development on site to: a. 34,300 square foot, 120-bed nursing home; b. a 67,500 square foot, 60-bed ClF; c. a 39,700 square foot medical office building; and d. associated infrastructure and retention. 3. Prior to the occupancy of any building on-site. the owner of the property will install traffic calming devices along the two-lane portion of SW 8th Street, if requested, as approved by the City Engineer. 4. The entrance to the medical office building shall be redesigned to only permit egress to the right (toward Woolbright Road). 5. The City shall penni! no other uses of the property other than those described in Item 2 above without City Commission approval. Ms. Smith urged the Commissioners to approve this project that will make good use of these 14 acres. Jose AQuila. 800 SW 111 Court. urged the Commissioners not to make a bad situation worse by approving this project. It is his opinion that this request is based on financial gain. A muiti- family residential development is possible for this site. and would be profitable for the Church. He also feels that if the City allows this development to exceed traffic counts, another developer will demand more for his unbuilt tracts. Mr. Aguila does not believe any traffic calming altematives are feasible because speed humps will divert the problem to SW 7th Street or leisureville Boulevard. The residents are concemed with traftic volume, Bud Meadows. 200 SW 12'" Avenue. said the proposal brought forth this evening is not based on the church developing the parcel. He requested that the Commission approve this application since the Church wants to remain in the downtown. The Church needs to separate from the PUD. The Church will be part of the drainage and infrastructure. but they do not want to build a worship center on that site, nor do they want to build a multi-family development. They have an offer to do something else and they want to move forward. The Church does not want to hurt the neighbors, and for that reason, they have made concessions recommended by staff. He urged the Commissioners to approve the changes. . Garv Brennan. attornev with Carlton-Flelds. represented the Church. He has practiced land use and zoning in Palm Beach County for 20 years. He has reviewed all of the agreements and feels the Commission is well within its legal requirements to approve the request of the applicant. Commissioner Jaskiewicz thanked the applicants for the consideration given to her remlir1<s at the last meeting. She pointed out that whatever the Church does in the downtown is irrelevant 14 MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 20,1998 to this discussion. In addition, the reference made by Mr. Aguila to Mr. Morton is also irrelevant since he has made many alterations to his agreement. Commissioner Jaskiewicz said this development will affect her personally sincf) she is a resident of Leisureville. It is her opinion that this development will present the least impact. Parts of this development are almost a passive use. She cannot imagine residential of any quality being developed across from The Home Depot. Auto Discount Store or RaceTrac. She does not feel the residents would benefit by a residential development in this area. She is sympathetic with the traffic problem that needs a solution. However, she feels this use is the least objectionable of all of the uses in this area. She appreciated the applicant's effort to reduce the size of the project, and she believes it will be an asset. Mayor Taylor reminded everyone that the neighborhood to the north existed when the road was closed. There was no traffic with the exception of local traffic. However, once the road was opened, even without development, there would have been traffic generated by people traveling from south to north. As commercial was added, traffic increased, and will continue to increase as more development is added. Mayor Taylor said he visited the site to see what could be done to solve the problem. Speed humps will slow the traffic in the area. In addition, he walked behind The Home Depot and drove through the Vinings, and believes there is room in the back for a road where truck traffic could be diverted. He recommended that staff investigate this possibility. If this road could be built, truck traffic on SW 8111 Street could be restricted. Mayor Taylor does not have a problem with this use and believes there will be no traffic generation from this use in the evening. While he understands the concerns of the residents to the north, we will look at ways to make this use as safe as possible and try to find options to reduce the traffic. Commissioner Tillman feels a perimeter road might be one way to solve the traffic problem in this area. His major concern with this project is that it came in as a shell. No construction plan or construction timetable was included. He would not want to see another project get to this point unless it includes dates and timetables. Commissioner Tillman has no problem with this project and recommends that the City look at the possibility of constructing a perimeter road. Commissioner Bradley feels the improvements plan for the existing Church sound great because it is a terrific use of the investment gains out of the property. However, he explained that the Church paid approximately $180,000 for the land 10 years ago. It is estimated that if a residential project was built, the profit would be approximately $1 million. If a commercial project is built, the profit would double to $2 million or more. More is better because you can build more. It is the Church's right to do that unless it negatively impacts other people. That is the problem with this development. There is too much traffic on SW 8111 Street today. There are still 150,000 square feet remaining to be developed after this 14-acre parcel. The recommendation for Moderate Density Residential that would have 105 or 110 units would not exceed the 750 trips vested for that property. Commissioner Bradley will not support this request. Vice Mayor Titcomb requested that the applicant explain the percentage of the increase of trips that are generated with the reduction in usage of space of the 750 vested trips. Attorney Cherof explained that the 750 was broken down. The Church school for 500 pupils was 510 trips and the 1,200 seat Church was 240 trips. 15 MEETING MINUTES REGUUR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 20,1998 Mr. Aguiia said the roadway Mayor Taylor proposes will not work. Furthermore, he questioned who would pay for the roadway if it could be built. In addition, speed humps will not work because people will drive around them and leave tire. tread marks in the lawns of the residents. He recommended the City purchase the nine homes along SW 8"' Street in order to make this a collector road. Mayor Taylor pointed out that the City is trying to work out a solution to the traffic problem, and Mr. Aguila is only offering reasons why nothing will work. Ms. Smith said the trips for the revised proposal equal 1 ,798. That is a 58% increase over what is currently proposed on the property. The building envelope of the existing 750 trips is inadequate for reasonable use of the land. Vice Mayor Titcomb questioned where these trips would come from since they are an increase over the vested number of trips on this project. In addition, he questioned whether this would open the City to litigation or challenge for the other adjacent properties. Attorney Cherof does not believe approval of this project will open the City to any litigation or challenge. The trips can come from the total number that was vested for the site, or from a recalculated figure to indicate a higher number of trips available. Today's testimony may support a higher number. Vice Mayor Titcomb inquired if this would open the door for other properties to petition the Commission for additional trips. Attorney Cherof responded affirmatively. Ms. Smith said that door is already open and any applicant can petition this Commission to add trips to SW 8"' Street. Commissioner Bradley asked for a legal opinion based on the fact that staff recommended denial of this application because of inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Cherof advised that the determination of consistency with the Comp Plan is a factual determination made by the Commission based upon the testimony heard from the applicant and staff. That testimony must be reevaluated independent of the Planning & Development Board's opinions to determine whether or not the Commission feels it is consistent. Carole Fretwell. 713 SW 3"' Avenue. said the trips increased from 750 to 1,798. This is not an increase of 58%. It is more than a 100% increase. Jeff Smith. of Slmmons.White Enolneers, explained that there are 1,798 trips of the site. Seven hundred fifty trips are vested. Therefore, the new net trips to be addressed equal 1,048. The new trips (1,048) over the total trips equal 1,798. The difference is 750 trips. When that figure (750) is divided by the 1,798, the answer is a 58% increase. Ms. Smith explained that the applicant has a project that meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan with regard to the level of service .C.. The City does not have a traffic engineer to accept the methodology used by the applicant. The applicant is using the methodology from City staff and standard methodology from Palm Beach County. 16 MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 20,1998 Vice Mayor Titcomb expressed concem about this project because it is a good project that is pitting good people against good people. He feels this project is appro~riate for this site. He explained that if it is approved, he would like the City to designate SW S Street as a "No Thru Truck" street as a way to decrease the traffic impact. He pointed out that the City could not compel homeowners to sell their homes on SW alii Street. While he is still not totally comfortable with thio; project, hs is impressed with the efforts made by the ".hurch and their agents to listen to the conditions of the approval that might be considered. Speed humps and closing the road to trucks and diverting traffic to the south will have an impact on lessening the traffic to the north. Although the traffic on this road is bad now, it will get much worse based on what is vested in this area. Vice Mayor Titcomb explained that in order for him to support this application, the applicant would have to adhere to all conditions listed. This would include that the City or applicant investigate the closure of the through-street to trucks entering the commercial projects from Boynton Beach Boulevard, and that any other calming and traffic devices deemed by the City and indicated will be implemented prior to anything going forward. This would also include the conditions that include deed restrictions. Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director, advised that staff does not recommend that the project entrance be limited to right-turn only. Staff investigated the closing of SW alii Street just north of Crystal Key. Staff learned that this would have a negative effect on the level of service of the intersection of Woolbright Road and SW Sill Street that would put it under the adopted level of service. Staff observed that the median opening aaoss from The Home Depot and Cracker Barrel is being used for 'U' turns. If the egress of the driveway is restricted to right-turn only, people will turn right and make a "U. turn further south. Motion ",.. ~/2J"1 J- Commissioner Jaskiewicz moved to amend and rezone a 14.18 aae parcel within the Woolbright Place PUD to change the existing approved use from a church to a health care campus as per all staff comments and the additional Commission comments that were agreed to in Items 1, 2, 3, and 5 submitted by Ms. Smith. In addition, Commissioner Jaskiewicz stated that if the building permit or land development permit is not obtained within an 1S-month period, the zoning would revert back. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion. In response to Mayor Taylor, Commissioner Jaskiewicz agreed that her motion includes having staff look into limiting truck traffic on SW alii Street. The motion carried 4-1. (CommIssioner Bradley dissented.) MAYOR TAYLOR DECLARED A BRIEF RECESS. THE MEETING RESUMED AT 8:52 P.M. Mayor Taylor pointed out that the last item was a three-patt item. Therefore, two additional motions are required. M tUn r---'- '. . 'II" .1 n . _J ~ ,_ 11 '. ---'1 - . ,y,.. !1._.~1. II _-<1,.1.__'&3 _.._..."~1 I.nall III """'IIIIV1o"J",,, ....aUI UI" IV\.4U'lCli;3\ .- .lllr -if....__l J ._ ~_~l -JAr,-'" rl_,-I.1__- U ..I~...,~J ,~l._..a. ..:U. _ 1,...l.IU, _,.. -"'I'u- __ ,._. IH1~"'. i" .11# '"'l'lf,"V- ~"";"""~I 17 --".-".,......--- MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 20, 1998 4v,,,,,,:~~;v,, _1----11 --"' ----lril 1..1"' ...,- -. .nin!!. liil. -;--'T to TIII,,,,," """"v,,.:Jt. ll._ ..._l;Vll ~L_l l.rril11 1. {BloJlI....:...._:_.._. B....JL] d;..,..........l_6:) -I'/f. Motion ..J ,{ {:' 0' Commissioner Jaskiewicz moved to approve the land use amendment for Woolbright Place ,y PUD as per staff comments and all those included at this Commission meeting this evening. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion that carried 4-1. (Commissioner Bradley dissented.) ;5i MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSI BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 6,1998 VII. #f~ or-' PUBLIC HEARING: ./ A. Project: -)fFoster Property (ANNX 97-001 and LUAE 97-003) Agent: Julian Bryan and Associates Owner: Roland E. and Leila M. Foster Location: North side of Miner Road, one-half mile west of Congress Avenue Description: Request for annexation, the amendment of the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from MR-5 in Palm Beach County to Low Density Residential, and to rezone the property from Agricultural Residential (AR) in Palm Beach County to Planned Unit Development with a land use intensity of 4.0 (PUD with LUI=4.0) to allow for 98 zero lot line, single-family homes Attorney Cherof administered the oath to all that would testify on this application. j'1~r" 9 MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSIC,~ BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 6, 1998 Mayor Taylor announced that the Planning & Development Board unanimously approved this item. . Martin Perry represented the applicant. He thanked staff for their cooperation during this process and advised that the applicant agrees with staff's comments. The plan is consistent and compatible with the neighborhood. This application involves 98 zero-lot line lots. The staff report discusses lot size. The average size of the lots is 6,000 square feet. However, the applicant is unable to achieve a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. All of the lots are at least 5,000 square feet. One-third of the lots are in excess of 6,000 square feet. The applicant is unable to create a housing type or style that is consistent with the goals of the City for more upscale and larger homes. The applicant has agreed to the additional condition imposed by the Planning & Development Board. The only unresolved item is the size of the street. This subdivision will have one street. The applicant is requesting that this private'street be permitted at 40' rather than 50'. Everything can fit within the 40' with the exception of one sidewalk that will be an easement outside the 40'. Julian Brvan. Plannlna Consultant and Aaent. 756 St. Albans Drive. Boca Raton. advised that there is a mobile home park in unincorporated Palm Beach County to the west, and the Meadows Subdivision on the east. Mr. Bryan said he was able to place a 20' landscape buffer around the entire community that is separate and independent from the lots. In addition, there will be two lakes on the east that will provide additional buffering. One additional staff comment requested a secondary emergency access to the community. 0 That access was initially placed in the northwest comer. After consideration, staff felt it would be more appropriate to create the emergency access at the northeast comer to allow a pedestrian access to Meadows Boulevard. This will be incorporated into the plan. Mr. Perry explained that there has been no discussion with respect to the park situation because they have set aside a small area that does not meet all of the City requirements. The applicant's intention is to utilize the Code provisions to make a contribution for whatever they do not have. In addition, tl)e applicant is providing the pedestrian access to the public park north of the Meadows. He reiterated that the applicant is in agreement with 'all conditions. The only issue subject to debate is the 40' street versus the 50' street. The project is not feasible without 40' streets because the lot sizes will be dramatically altered. There is a provision in the Code that allows the Commission to vary the street width without the applicant having to request a variance. In response to Commissioner Tillman, Mr. Perry advised that there is a 20' landscape buffer along the west property line adjacent to the mobile homes. In addition, there are the typical rear yard setbacks that average approximately 15'. There will be large shade and canopy trees in the buffer planted on 30' centers along the perimeter as well as a Ficus hedge that will grow to a height of 6' or 7'. Commissioner Bradley asked Mr. Perry to explain why the applicant cannot make the average lot size larger than 6,000 square feet. o 10 MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 6,1998 o Mr. Perry explained that, for economic reasons, the project would not be feasible if the lots are all 6,000. If the applicant constructs a 50' width street and maintains 6,000 square foot lots, he would lose 25% of the lots. Land acquisition prices will not allow this project to be feasible. The applicant would look for another vacant parcel. Mr. Perry explained that the applicant is trying to maintain a certain size and type of house to try to meet the desires of the City with respect to upgrading housing stock. To increase lot sizes and street width, the number of lots must be reduced. Therefore, a higher priced house must be built to make up the economic loss. This could put the developer out of the market because it does not make sense to build that high- priced housing project in the neighborhood. The applicant has met all of the City's requirements. Many of those requirements are in excess of what the County would require. The only things the applicant cannot do is provide a 50' width street and 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. Twenty-seven of the 98 lots exceed the minimum requirement, 35 lots are at 5,000 square feet, and the remaining lots are between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet. The applicant has made a good effort to accommodate all of the City's requirements. In response to Commissioner Bradley, Ms. Heyden explained that the LUI at the Meadows is probably six, and there are nine different pods in that subdivision. The lots in the smaller single- family pods are 5,000 square feet. The lots in the last pod that was built are approximately 6,000 to 7,000 square feet. However, the average lot size in the Meadows is 5,500 square feet. o Commissioner Bradley feels that if the Commission is adamant in requiring the minimum lot size, the City will have better housing stock. Mayor Taylor agreed with Commissioner Bradley's remarks and pointed out that one of the goals of this Commission was to upgrade housing stock in this community. He is not happy with crammed in homes with no sidewalks on narrow streets. Ms. Heyden explained that this applicant was faced with the decision of whether to go through the County process or come to the City. This property is in our Reserve Annexation Area. Even if we enter into a Water Service Agreement with the applicant, he would have to come to us at some point. Water service and annexation are done simultaneously. We wanted the applicant to come through our process so that once the property is annexed, it meets our standards. To entice the applicant to come to the City, we developed a proposal for ,the applicant to get through our process in an expeditious manner. As part of that proposal, milch negotiation took place. The original plan was for 4,500 square foot lots. This parcel of land is very small compared to other parcels within the Meadows. Staff was able to persuade the applicant to increase the lot sizes to not less than 5,000 square feet. The applicant has made an effort to comply with our housing goals while still maintaining a marketable project. . Ms. Heyden reminded the Commissioners that we now require all local streets to have sidewalks on both sides. The applicant can meet all design requirements within a 40' right-of- way. The only remaining issue is whether or not the variance process can be part of these proceedings. Mr. Perry advised that there were no letters of objection written from the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has made a significant effort and wants to meet all regulations to the best of his ability. Although the applicant does not meet the minimal 6,000 square feet on all lots, he averages 6,000 square feet. The land use intensity is less than any other development in the surrounding area. Mr. Perry urged the Commission to grant approval of this petition. 11 MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSIO.. BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 6,1998 .. Commissioner Bradley said he appreciates the applicant's efforts to comply. However, he has a problem with the 40' street width. Mr. Perry explained that the pavement meets all of the City's requirements. The applicant is able to fit one sidewalk and will construct the other sidewalk by way of an easement. He reminded the Commissioners that this street would be a private street. Commissioner Bradley feels this is too much of a project on a small site. Mr. Perry said the applicant could have gone to the County and gotten approval for 4,500 square foot lots with a 40' roadway and bulkheads instead of the cul-de-sacs. He feels the applicant has made a real effort to work with the City. Commissioner Jaskiewicz said she appreciates the efforts that were made, and she realizes that if this project went through the County process and we annex this property at a later date, we will have to deal with smaller lots than are currently being proposed. She concurs with staff that the applicant made a sincere effort, and she is in favor of this project. Commissioner Tillman expressed concern about the width of the roadway with respect to emergency vehicles, and questioned whether the applicant could improve the buffer. Mr. Perry said the proposed landscaping is in excess of City requirements. Mr. Bryan advised that since the Ficus hedge is 20' wide, nothing would be accomplished by constructing a berm. The applicant proposes a Ficus hedge at grade. In addition, there will be trees not less than 30' 0 on centers. There are clusters of trees and Palms in addition to the trees on 30' centers. One reason a decision was made not to do a berm was that there is a technical problem associated with berms related to rear yard drainage. In addition, there is not enough space available to include a 5' or 6' berm. However, the applicant can put in a 2' or 3' berm. Vice Mayor Titcomb concurred with Commissioner Bradley's feelings about house size and street size. However, he appreciated the efforts made by the applicant to meet our Code requirements, and realizes the benefit of annexation of the property at this time. He will support this project. Bulent Kastartak, Director of Development, said that in considering this subdivision, it is important to think about the final product. This plan has 2,600 square foot houses on each lot. Even if a one-car garage were removed, a 2,000 square foot house would remain. Therefore, there was no flexibility to design this project differently. He commended the designer of this project. The size of the lots is compatible and he is comfortable with the project. He recommends approval of this project. Ms. Heyden advised that this applicant is the first applicant in three years who has not included the buffer as part of the lot size. If this applicant did that, it would raise the lot size by 1,000 square feet. Although Mayor Taylor still desires better housing stock for the City, based on the comments made by Planning & Zoning, and the applicant's efforts to work with the City, he will support this project. 0 12 o MEETING MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 6,1998 Motion Commissioner Jaskiewicz moved to approve the request for annexation, the amendment of the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from MR-5 in Palm Beach County to Low Density Residential, and to rezone the property from Agricultural Residential (AR) in Palm Beach County to Planned Unit uevelopment with a land use intensity of 4.0 (PUD with LUI~.O) to allow for 98 zero lot line, single-family homes, subject to staff comments. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion that carried 5-0. /3 To: Fax: From: Date: Pages: From the desk of... Michael Rumpf Senior Planner City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach. FL 33425 561-375,6260 Fax: 561-375,6259 Pete Mazzella 731-0065 Michael Rumpf December 16, 1997 6, including cover sheet. AB discussed, please find info on two application: 1 )First Baptist Church which proposes the 14 acre church parcel within the PUD be reclassified/rezoned to allow for the health care campus consisting of a 120-bed nursing home, a 3-story, 67,500 office building, and a 60 bed CLF or ACLF; and 2)the amendment of the PUD to reclassify the remainder of the PUD from Moderate Density Residential (7.26 du/acre) to High Density Residential (10.8 du/acre) to accommodate the density increase resulting from the removal of 14 acres from the master plan. Thanks for you review and comments. Mike. FIRST Bt:.. 1ST CHURCH OF BOYNTOt:BEACH TRACT-F WOOLBRIGHT PLACE PLAT NO 1 LAND USE AMENDMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION ILLUSTRATION OF THE WA1ER DEMAND AND SEWAGE FLOW FOR DEVELOPJ\1ENT UNDER THE PROPOSED ZONING IN CONTRAST WITH DEMAND UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING. WA1ER DEMAND AND SEWAGE FLOW IS ESTIMA1ED USING THE STANDARDS ADOP1ED BY THE PALM BEACH COUN1Y HEALTH DEP ARTJ\1ENT. CURRENT PROTECTED CHANGE + WATER DEMAND 30,962 GAL/DA Y 24,707.3 GAL/DAY - 6260.7 GALmA Y SEWER DEMAND 23,016 GAL/DAY 24,707.3 GAL/DAY + 1691.3 GALmA Y METHODOLOGY: EXISTING: LAND USE DESIGNATION: MODERATE DENSITY 7.26 DU/AC (MODR) DENSITY PER SETTLEME1'\lT AGREE.J.\1ENT = 8.08 DU / AC AVERAGE POPULATION PER UNIT: 2.39 PERSONS/UNIT MAXIMUM UNITS ON 14.18 AC SITE PER SETILEMENT AGREEMENT: 115 UNITS. POPUL\TION CALCULATION (14.18 ACRES X 8.08 DU/ AC X 2.39): 274 PERSONS POTABLE WATER DEMAND (274 X 113 GAL/CAP/DAY): 30,962 GAL/CAP/DAY SANITARY SEWER DEMAND (274 X 84/GAL/CAP /DAY): 23,016 GAL/CAP/DAY PROPOSED: LAND USE DESIGNATION: MA...XThillM TOTAL FLOOR AREA: MAXL.,illM SQUARE FOOTAGE (14.18 AC X 43560 S.P. X 40%) POTABLE WATER DEMAND (247,073 S.F. X 1/10 GAL/S.p): SANITARY SEWER D&\1AND (247,073 S.P. X 1/10 GAL/S.p): GENERAL COMMERCIAL(GC) 40% 247,073 S. F. 24,707.3 GAL/CAP/DAY 24,707.3 GAL/CAP/DAY CALCUL\ TIONS BASED ON CHAPTER 10.0.6 FLOW RATES NOTICE OF LAND USE CHANGE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Development Board of THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING at CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS, 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard, on Monday, December 22, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the request described herein and submitted by Ellen Smith of Unruh, Smith and Associates, Inc., regarding a total of 66.16 acres of property located on the east and west sides of S.W. 8th Avenue, approximately one-quarter (1/4) mile north of the intersection of Woolbright Road and S. W. 81h Avenue. This request will also be considered by the City Commission of THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, on Tuesday, January 6, 1998 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the agenda permits at the CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS. .....'-/2 .. ....... -CJ - . , I'~ { 'J. ffiIRI ~" ~ ~ . ~~. RE -- WOOLBRIGHT PLACE PUD LAND USE AMENDMENT NATURE OF REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for the property shown on the attached map, from Moderate Density Residential to High Density Residential. The proposed amendment is requested in conjunction with the proposal to establish a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a 14. 18-acre parcel that is proposed to be removed from the existing Woolbright Place PUD. The subject application is not being proposed to alter the existing development as currently approved or constructed on the remaining 66.16 acres. The subject amendment would change the land use on that portion of the PUD that is currently classified as Moderate Density Residential, which would remain following extraction of the 14. 18-acre parcel. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Woolbright Place Plat 1 , according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 67, pages 47 through 49 in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida less Tract "F", a total of 14.18 acres; and less 30 feet of the original 80 foot right-of-way, transferred from Woolbright Place PUD to Woolbright Place PCD, a total of 33,900 square feel. Said lands lying and situate in Palm Beach County, Florida, containing 66.16 acres. All interested parties are notified to appear at said hearing in person or by attorney and be heard. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Planning and Development Board and/or City Commission with respect to the matter considered at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION (561) 375-6260 J:ISHRDATA\PlanningISHAREDlWPIPROJECTS\First Baptist Church of BBILUARliegalnot.doc WuOLBRIGHT PLACE pun LAND USE AMENDMENT APPLICATION WATER AND SEWER DEMAND Hypothetically, the maximum water and sewer demand, given the increase in population from 7.26 dulac to 10.8 dulac, would increase as follows: CURRENT MAX DEMAND PROTECTED MAX. DEMAND CHANGE + WA1ER 129,721 GAL/DAY 193,004 GAL/DAY + 63,283 GAL/DAY SEWER 96,432 GAL/DAY 143,472 GAL/DAY + 47,040 GAL/DAY However, because this proposal adds no actual units, the following table outlines how the current water and sewer demand would be affected: CURRENT MAX. DEMAND PROlEcrED MAX. DEMAND CHANGE + WAlER 189,767.68 GAL/DAY 189,767.68 GAL/DAY 0 SEWER 131698.56 GAL/DAY 131698.56 GAL/DAY 0 50f5 DEC-15-9? 11,29 FROM, TRAMMELL CROW/RES. 10, 561 887 8848 PACE . Trammell Crow Residential lfr~a"I...., ~ 6400 Conlress Avenue Boca Raton. FL 33487 (561) 997-9700 (561) 997-8649 (FAX) FACSIMII E TRANSMIS.WON DATE: Jz--/l,-Q1 . PLEASE D,E,LIVER TO: , . NAME: COMPANY: , FAX NO: /)2. ~I .3 J ..I-{.,:l ~ 7 COMMENTS: ~~~ /.J - / J- 'l ? d . (/ FROM: U701tV ,k.{;~1A-/ , NO, PAGES (including cover sbeet) -3 (Pfew'e notifY this office i/-,ou do not receive all the pages intlicaled above.) 'ITie City of 13oynton 13eadi -:; ( /A~h, " 100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beodi 'Boufevara P.O. 'BlJ;t310 'Boynton 'Beruh, :FforUfo. 33425-0310 City:Jiaff: (561) 375-6000 :F.9lX: (561) 375-6090 November 21. 1997 The IP ARC Clearinghouse 9835 -16 Lake Worth Road, Suite 223 Lake Worth, FL 33467 RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Woolbright Place PUD LUAR Land Use Amendment (LUAR 97-004) Attention: IP ARC Clearinghouse: The City of Boynton Beach is processing an amendment to its Future Land Use Map. Please find enclosed an executive summary and location map. The applicant is Unruh, Smith and Associates. The proposed amendment is requested in conjunction with the proposal to establish a new Planned Unit Development on a 14.18 parcel that is proposed to be removed from the existing Woolbright Place Planned Unit Development. The subject application is not being proposed to alter the existing development as currently approved or constructed on the remaining 66.16 acres. The land usc is to be changed from Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential. Public hearings on this proposed amendment will be held before the Planning and Development Board on December 22, 1997 and before the City Commission on January 6, 1998; both at 7:00 P.M. in the Commission Chambers at City Hall, 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida. Should you have any questions or need additional information, contact Dan DeCarlo. Planner at 375-6260. Sincerely, ''\:-'(\.,<..u,& (~~ rr- Tambri Heyden, AICP Planning and Zoning Director TlH:mr Enclosures 5l.rnerica'.s (jateway to tfu (juifstream NOTICE: ~F LAND USE CHAN('~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Development Board of THE CITY OF BOYNTON BE:'\CH, FLORIDA, will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING at CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS, 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard, on Monday, December 22, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the request described herein and submitted by Ellen Smith of Unruh, Smith and Associates. Inc., regarding a total of 66.16 acres of property located on the east and west sides of S.W. 8th Avenue, approximately one-quarter (1/4) mile north of the intersection of Woolbright Road and S.W. 8th Avenue. This request will also be considered by the City Commission of THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, on Tuesday, January 6, 1998 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the agenda permits at the CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS. NATURE OF REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for the property shown on the attached map, from Moderate Density Residential to High Density Residential. The proposed amendment is requested in conjunction with the proposal to establish a new Planned Unit Development on a 14.18-acre parcel that is proposed to be removed from the existing Woolbright Place Planned Unit Development. The subject application is not being proposed to alter the existing development as currently approved or constructed on the remaining 66.16 acres. The subject amendment would change the land use on that portion of the PUD that is currently classified as Moderate Density Residential, which would remain following extraction of the 14.18-acre parcel. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Woolbright Place Plat 1, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 67, pages 47 through 49 in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida less Tract "F", a total of 14.18 acres; and less 30 feet of the original 80 foot right-of-way, transferred from Woolbright Place PUD to Woolbright Place PCD, a total of 33,900 square feet. Said lands lying and situate in Palm Beach County, Florida, containing 66.16 acres. All interested parties are notified to appear at said hearing in person or by attorney and be heard. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Planning and Development Board and/or City Commission with respect to the matter considered at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION (561) 375-6260 J:\SHRDATA\PlannmgISHAREDlWP\PROJECTSIFirst Baptist Church of BBILUAR~egalnol.doc '/'!c.)\'o\,~",-\ <?'\"'U, 0v\,:) L..UA~ -', I I '" L: '.' < - ~ '" -, I \i I i'~ I I I ;J C \ - - . :~ ''''' '\ : :~~C ,. ~ r,;-'f-' I1I1I11 ftTI . . ~ 1\\1 'TON 5~AC.,:! l--0',.....,-.<>, . 1111!Ii"nl . I ~L. \. I, ~ l' nTlI'111rT "! . I ./<"~"L-... \., 0'. . IT' II "" I'll L:.:--'./ ~~;V _-l~_, " '11111\ "'"" rlf,.... (~';,..,..",V - " "':~~"'~!&.E ~ ~:~efOi--' i '"1~~'~ ~lll~ V j '. : 111 :1h, , _\. lli:4lW1l!l!liJllUl~~I\Il~~ 1= i:i ""","''''', CO): ~EC t~t" ~'=,_llIllII1llIDl ,111,lnl ill ..1''' W~ ~RI1\~" <:"TT\IIII'.:JJIll.ill C'C......N lLl\ t~rl\;\?~R,~. L.:.-..:-U lA1~ll.t' Ii '0':::tP, &Ii, -..," . ~, ,..J'!. n I ~ Ii I _fj < 'l---- .~. .. j r- ~ --,.r--: , . ----,I , . ....,.... ~ C ;...,:~- I ~ ~ ~ \Ittru 'It 13 ~ ~~~~W:II ~~f:~\If;"!f 'iil .,. \: ~":'~\..!~~ \ ~ :J~~~~)~-f"<~)~~ ~~.~ .j l' .t. .ir"j/., {"'~. 1'<'.",,' -:" "L- I' ';:Y :v.. v. '- . '" . h '/,f >~~~'1<" / ~.,);.~ "'w . "J"~",,,,~.~. .Joe'.... '. :/:~~ . . '. ''/0:/ ,~(" / ..."" .' ':~, "\~ .") .".. ,0-.-<. ." .:,,\'- ,t " 4.18 acre :/~""'';:/~' ;:"..... ,'. ~\~" ..\ \:~ Iract ."... ,J".' . \ "" ~ ','\\\ )'A~ .' ?.. I ~ l\ \ \ R " .~, .. of #'. =.' :' . c . \ " l.J.(").\ . ' , . \''i';'~ C:::: '11 ;;;;;:.-~\ ' " ~~ S I""lr-~ , . JJ1 \ 111111 \, ,-::.:.~~ ~ ~ I-~. :-r:- -- ! , :, .~';'..lE6l'-'- H"T ~c..(1~ ~ )". "i'l ' I' .;>;1 \." I J ~ , \, ~ ~ l~l ~ '_ ~~ ;;1 ;: i 1 i ~ ~; ~ - ~-, L . , ,,' rn ~-' I" j 9 '--'" , 1 ,-,--- . , .. ",' Ur I -- (o!. r.< I ,. 'I ~I I-<'~"-+, _ ,.: " ~ ,Ilf:?" , ,--4" j ':~Jl.:' }rf"".....-- --' _/- , ~1'L;: .J I . ~ \_---~ '\ L-- ,. -~~-- liY' . " ".~.3 j ~",ol".~r ,ohcf<h---C: 1 '. C:3 -,. -" ~ ....... r I I I I I I l-l f:~JT \ r Jl III N1. ~ ,..y...'::I:R=ti 'H,( , R' 'v 1- ) I "" / l~=.~ I '-~, ."-,;,,u. , +-.:>~"':M' (1=, '" 10//' 1/8 1,:.:;-: }1 'jlf~~-~.lJ.~~!-I- -l l0 :.; 't' 0 ,i.::~'~/ f---P"~';1t3.3_Q,)!,N,.~ ,',. ~,' '~' ',L '\'111 \ I \ - i.... .. -Ie-. '/. ' ~ (L.... /.1 ~. ~ - I --4 l'- { ", \ . . <' . ~ ~i",,.(. - :"'_:i."-~El;{r.r=::==~(".,~.:.t..;::'; .~ !~IO.O 400.800 FEET - _q' ---~ ~~: '. '..Y.' .',,' r'J' fj PI-ANN/Nt'; fJEPr; 1/ 7 ~I I ~ Ill::: ~j.: ,,'" Tn' 7' L Li' )., . .' . +- - I .. lil;!~ III~, . I II ,II :,1: JUl. l-\4h-d . ,'lIltGill:' 1!1TI: ' "\ 111,i .,' ,m\::', 1~1::\'I:l:.....". - II III' Uol:.i.:.w.D1:,. . mmrrmn ' !\IT;mi'.,' I;bli'.il\\f"r"'''' '~ I " I : i ' r,I' :'I'f'''::~ ~PU '~\ :"':.~.' ~~ ~f.7' Ilr'S' f1\:: U'!F:-[ If..oI~ IS: _ . .. ....;",\1fff!7 . ~ F /~ II 1111 II f . '/~ MILESV' LOC=\TION MA~ WOOLBRIGHT PLACE PUD LUAR t- I I-- \111 ~~~, \ I \ CIH'II;""; ~c.~.~ ; 'l' "rl' '......... LJ~ ~.r- II ~. I'jld" :.:C - ~m:= BJIIlEl ~. . . HI":: IH\!I~ ". , I I! \ II' . i I.IT' L '," I i I'" "I i -. ,- I I 11II '. Lj t.. , I i 1111, ~ Page I of2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS DATE: Reference #: LUAR 97-004) General Information Initiating Local Government: CIty of Boynton Beach, FL Contact Person: Dan DeCarlo Address: 100 E Bovnton Beach Blvd, Boynton Beach, FL 33425 TelephonelFax: 561-375-6261/561-375-6259 Applicant! Agent: Unruh, Smith & Associates Telephone/Fax: 561-835-8505 / 561-655-5525 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Textual Amendments General Summary of Amendments: - amendments relating to traffic circulation or the roadway networks - amendments relating to affordable housing Amendments related to the following elements: - land use - traffic circulation - mass transit - ports and aviation - housing - infrastructure sub-elements - coastal management - conservation - recreation and open space - intergovernmental coordination - capital improvements other - Summary of addition (s) to adopted comprehensive plan: .. Page 2 of2 Summary of proposed change (s) to adopted comprehensive plan: Proposed Amendments to the Future Land U~~ Map Location of proposed map amendment (include a location map) east & west sides ofS.W.Bth Avenue, approx ! mile north of the intersection of Woolbright Rd & S.W. Bth Ave Size of Area Proposed for Change (acres) 66.16 Present Future Land Use Plan Designation (include a density/intensity definition) Moderate Density Residential (MoDR) Proposed Future Land Use Designation (include a density/intensity definition) High Density Residential (HDR) Present Zoning of Site (include a density/intensity definition) Not applicaple Proposed Zoning of Site (include a density/intensity definition) Not applicable Present Development of Site Vinings Apartment Complex Proposed Development of the Site, ifknown (Number of Dwelling Units; Commercial Square Footage; Industrial Square Footage; Other Proposed usage and intensity): no change proposed Is proposed change a Development of Regional Impact? Comprehensive Plan Change Processing DateJTimeILocation Scheduled for Local Planning Agency Public Hearing December 22, 1997/7:00PM/Boynton Beach City Council Chambers '" DatelTimeILocation Scheduled for Governing Body Public Hearing January 6, 199B/7:00PM/Boynton Beach City Council Chambers Scheduled Date for Transmittal to DCA January 16, 199B