CORRESPONDENCE
GUNSTER. YOAKLEY & STEWART, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PHILLIPS POINT. SUITE!:SOC EAST
777 SOUTH FlAGLER DRIVE:
WEST PALM BJC.A.CH. FLORIDA 3S401.-6194
P.O. BOX 4587
WEST P ALK BEACH. FLORIDA 8340.-4587
OTHER OFFICES IN:
TELEPHONE 14071 il5!5!5-1S.80
STl..lART. F1.t4lO712811l-leeo
FT. lAUOE:RMLE. F1.. I3O!5I 4eZ-2000
FAX 14071 e!5!5-!5il5?7
OUR FILE NUMBER:
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBE:R,
10305.00029
(407)650-0624
November 20, 1991
Jay D. Mussman, Esquire
Josias & Goren
3099 East commercial Boulevard
suite 200
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308
Re: stanford Park Project, Boynton Beach, Florida
Dear Jay:
I've received your November 12, 1991 correspondence as well
as W. Richard staudinger, P.E.'s correspondence of November 7,
1991, both of which are in response to my October 28, 1991 letter
to you.
In your November 12, 1991 correspondence, you asked for our
comments. To be honest with you, I am not sure what comments are
expected. Our uncertainty is based, in large part, on a lack of
certainty as to exactly what the city wants in this matter. If
the city could better delineate its desires, it may be possible
for us to better articulate a response. However, I will take the
liberty of providing you with my thoughts on Mr. staudinger's
correspondence. You should be aware that these comments are
simply our thoughts as counsel to stanford Park Realty Development
Corporation. On the date of this letter, I was unable to reach
our client as the particular representative I deal with was on the
road. However, I wanted to get a response to you because I will
be on vacation until December 2, 1991. AcCordingly, please keep
in mind that any comments made by me in this letter are still
subject to review and comment by our client.
Jay D. Mussman, Esquire
November 20, 1991
Page 2
The balance of this letter will attempt to address the
issues raised in Mr. staudinger's November 7, 1991
correspondence.
First, I would assume that Stanford Park Realty Development
Corporation's willingness to comply with Mr. williams' October,
1990 letter will, in large part, be dependent on what the City is
asking for in connection with the stanford Park Project.
second, I understand Mr. Staudinger's comment that city
codes do not differentiate between how an owner obtains title to a
development and what the owner intends to do with respect to the
future sale of the property. Clearly, we do not expect the City
to vary its codes to accommodate stanford Park Realty Development
corporation. However, in determining exactly what the city wants
with respect to the stanford Park Project, we could simply ask
that the city keep in mind that we are not asking for any ongoing
development approvals but simply holding the property for resale
to a developer. clearly, we support the protection of the
citizens and infrastructure of Boynton Beach and will cooperate in
that regard.
Third, I understand Mr. staudinger's comment regarding the
desireability of a letter of credit to secure whatever agreement
is ultimately reached between the City and Stanford Park Realty
Development Corporation. However, I think we can allay any
concern about the expiration of a letter of credit by providing
that the letter of credit would automatically renew every year
unless the city received 30 days prior written notice that the
issuer of the letter of credit would not renew it. Under
circumstances in which the issuer indicates that it will not renew
the letter of credit, the City would be entitled to draw upon the
letter of credit during the 30 day period prior to its
expiration. I believe this will accommodate the City's concerns.
The reason stanford Park Realty Development corporation would
prefer the letter of credit to a surety bond is that stanford Park
Realty Development Corporation is a SUbsidiary of a financial
institution which can issue letters of credit and could obtain
such a letter of credit much cheaper than obtaining a third party
surety.
Fourth, we agree that a field inspection of the already
complete improvements is required prior to any agreement being
reached. As I mentioned in my previous correspondence, Michael
Scorah and Associates is prepared to do such field inspection once
we reach some type of an agreement with the city.
with respect to the balance of the comments contained in Mr.
staudinger's correspondence, we have no particular objection to
his suggestions.
GUNSTER. YOAKLEY 8c STEWART
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
.
,
,
Jay D. Mussman, Esquire
November 20, 1991
Page 3
,
I
As I mentioned above, I will be out of the office until
December 2, 1991. I look forward to your response at that time.
Sincerely,
~_l~
Thomas P. Hunt
For the Firm
TPH/kpb/67
GUNSTER. YOAKLEY & STEWART
PRQF"ESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
NOV-12-'91 17:58 ID:JOSIAS qND GOREN
TEL NO:7714923
11338 P02
iJl,
-
Josu.S & GOREN, P.A,
AT'-OIlt'NIEVS AT L.6.W
BOJITE 200
30g,QI i.AeT CO""MERCIAL .OUl.tv....l)
FoaT L.....UDJI:.D....L., J1rO.ID.... BlJG08
.'f:VCN L.. ,JO.IA,
.AMYI,- 9 OO"'&N
JAMI:8 4, eM."'Oll'
OO"""LO J. 0000,.
tliiEIlU',. L. Er:..OL.
TEI.EPI"lONC (.:JOlt) 771..500
........"'" .1:....CIof (40"~ :.!18 - $400
,....C.....'I-I; 1'305l171.4ez~
;.JAY O. "1U~l!!o""A""
"..MILE M. TA("'''''
.COTT oJ. ,........1'1,
November 12, 1991
Thomas P. Hunt, Esquire
Gun.t.r, Yoakley . stewart, P.A.
Phillips Point, Suite 500 Eaat
777 South Flagler Drive
We.t Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Re: Stanford Park Pro;eat. B~vnton Beach. Florida
Dear Tom:
Enclo.ed her.with Plea.e find a copy of W. Richard Btaudinqer,
P.E.'. corre.pondence of November " 1991 in conneotion with the
matter captioned above. Please review the same with your client
and advi.. me of your co~ents at your earli..t convenience.
Should you have any que.tions, please contact me. Thank you for
your a..istanoe.
Sincerely,
~- D. MUSSMAN
JDM/jna
L\M\Stanford
Enclosure
cc: J. Scott Miller (w/en~)
Chri. Cutro (w/encl.)
Vincent Finizio (w/_ncl.)
W, Richard Staudinger, P,E. (w/o encl.)
......
-r;..,....TT""~
R~r", \' ",,".,~J
.Lo~_C-"-
"
'.
,
--
,Oil 1;5
PlANN\i'iG DEPT.
-
~J
n
'(
"
GEE&JENSON
Engl neers - Architects.
P1anners,lnc.
November 7, 1991
Mr Jay Mussman, Esq.
Josias & Goren, P.A.
3099 East Commercial Boulevard
suite 200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
Re: stanford Park project, Boynton Beach, FL
Dear Jay:
Per your recent Memorandum 91-513, I have reviewed Mr. william's
october 1990 letter and Mr. Hunt's October 28, 1991 addressing
the stanford Park project.
Mr. Hunt's letter of October 28, 1991 does not specifically state
that Stanford Park Realty Development corporation (SPRDC) is
willing to comply with the offer of October 1990 by Mr. williams.
However, I have assumed for discussion purposes that the October
1990 offer is still valid.
Initially, I think it is important to state that the city Codes
do not differentiate between how an owner obtains title to a
development or what the owner intends to do with respect to a
future sale of the property. The city is certainly willing to
work with any property owner or developer to facilitate the
completion of a project, but is must also weigh the protection of
it's citizens and infrastructure as outlined in the city's Code
of Ordinances.
with respect to the proposal by Mr. Williams
this is my first knowledge of such an offer.
modifications are in order:
in October 1990,
I suggest several
One Harvard Circle. Wesl Palm Beach, Florida 33409-1923 . 4071683-3301 . FAX 4071686-7446
n
Jay Mussman, Esq.
Josias & Goren
November 7, 1991 - Page Two
1. A Letter of Credit is not, in my opinion, the pre-
ferred instrument of surety for this type of situation,
as they typically expire within a definite time frame,
usually one (1) year or less. The City has no guaran-
tee that a third party purchaser will be located within
a year. The applicant acknowledges this potential
timing problem by the request for the applicants right
to renew. The city however, has no right to renew Let-
ter's of credit obtained by SPRDC. Also, the value of
any surety reduction should not be to the exact value
of improvements remaining to be constructed, A com-
plete field inspection of already completed improve-
ments would be required to determine their status and
possible need for reconstruction, maintenance, or
refurbishing. A surety reduction from $655,000 to a
level of 50% is the more probable outcome acceptable to
the city.
2. Any purchaser is required to substitute surety for
required improvements before the original surety can be
release, or new permits issued.
3. My comments related to this item are covered in Item 1.
4.
Work performed should
developer's engineer.
proposed.
be inspected and certified by the
I have no objection to the items
GEE & JENSON
n
Jay Mussman, Esq.
Josias , Goren
November 7, 1991 - Page Three
with respect to the closing paragraphs of Mr. williams letter,
permits are typically considered void if no activity occurs for a
six month period. The Building Official of Boynton Beach should
be consulted to ascertain the status of any existing or previous
permits for this project.
Jay, if SPRDC is serious about proceeding, I suggest you convey
my comments to Mr. Hunt, and attempt to reach a written agreement
between the parties for submission to the city commission. You
have my full support in working with the applicant to determine
the status of the required improvements and in obtaining an
equitable surety reduction to facilitate completion of the
project and sale of the project as well as protecting the City's
interests.
Please call if you have any questions.
very truly yours,
GEE , JENSON
Engineers-Architects-Planners, Inc.
(e; ~
w. 'chard staudinger, P.E.
city Engineer
WRS:kvc
91-025
c~ler
,
CEIVr.:.)
RECEIVED
.~ov 13
1991
-
pi ^l\1~~!"1~ nroT.
GEE & JENSON
fA
---
n
Re: stanford Park -- Infrastructure Bond
_ ,6",
~..'/ I<',...-,;..~,"
"-::"'i a C.:""'l:
'~1 t};, V" "iY",
~I "O''o/''.J ' <'^
0, 0" <v '" </
'f' '-1;., /~'"
C'/ (/P ()'"; .......
. '-.';;1" c;<" 7... 'f"
.:f4.-~ /.......
/' ^', "-
~''',/
1";- " ',1.;, \~/
'''- ~/
-
October 17, 1991
GEE & JENSON
Engi neers-Aichilecls-
Planners,lnc.
Mr. Jay Mussman
Josias & Goren, P.A.
3099 East Commercial Blvd.
suite 200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
Dear Jay:
Enclosed is a copy of the original Engineers opinion of Cost for
the infrastructure at Stanford Park. The $655,000 bond was based
on the 1983 estimated cost. The City does not have any actual
reports of the percentage of infrastructure installed, inspected,
or accepted. However, the building was estimated to be within 5%
of completion when construction stopped. It is the developer's
responsibility, through his Engineer of Record, to update the City
on the status of improvements and to request appropriate surety
reductions.
\
Based on my limited research and our conversations, I would
anticipate a 50% to 60% reduction in surety would be very possible
for this project, subject to the Engineer of Record providing
appropriate documentation of the installation of infrastructure.
The actual percent of facilities constructed appears to be higher
than 60%, but until City inspection and acceptance of the
utilities, I would recommend a sizeable portion of the surety
remain to cover the costs of reconstruction of facilities if they
have deteriorated subsequent to installation.
/
Please call if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
P.E.
City
WRS:tvb
91:025
c<Sl.l~
Vince Finizio
J. Scott Miller
RECEIVEi0
oCT 28
PlANNING 'Of-pl.
One Harvard Circle. West Palm Beach, Florida 33409-1923.407/683-3301. FAX 407/686-7446
rz1i.~ City of
, ~:oynton r.Becufi
100 'E. 'Boynton '1ltadl 'Boukw.rrl
P.O, 'Bo~310
'Boynton 'Buur., :JforitJa 33425.0310
(407) 738.7490
:J.5l.X: (407) 738.7459
PCanni"8 'Departl1Unt, City:Hal[ Comp~ West 'J1.i"8
July 31, 1991
Mr. Albert Socol, AIA
Frankel & Associates, Inc.
1130 Washington Avenue
8th Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Dear Albert,
As you requested, I am writing to you regarding timing for review
for proposals for Stanford Park and to provide you with
information regarding either infrastructure improvements or
impact fees owed to the City for this development.
Regarding the review of the proposal, if it were proposed to use
the structure for an ACLF the new owners would need to resubmit
for the building permits for the development. This process would
take two to four weeks dependent upon submittal requirements.
A change in the uses of the PUD that are minor would take
approximately six to eight weeks. The procedure would follow our
normal review schedule which has submittal deadlines around the
middle of each month.
'.
A major change to the PUD would take approximately nine months.
This is because such a change would require a land use plan
amendment and rezoning. The earliest an application can be filed
for such a change is October.
At this time, based on our conversations, I believe that we will
be able to review your changes to the PUD as minor amendments not
requiring full review. Assuming you are able to acquire the
original plans for the building, both the minor amendment of the
master plan and the reissuance of building permits if done
concurrently will take no longer than eight weeks.
Regarding fees owed to the City, as far as we can tell, the
project owes approximately $30,000 in traffic impact fees, and
$180,000 in water and sewer impact fees; In addition, if the
residential use is changed, it may be necessary to recompute the
recreation impact fee. A preliminary check indicates that these
fees, if the development receives no credit for on site
improvements would be approximately $90,000.
5lmuua's gateuJay to tfie gulf stream
Mr. Albert 50col
-2-
July 31, 1991
Finally, there are infrastructure improvements such as roads,
drainage, water and sewer that must be accepted by the City.
These items were valued in 1983 at $655,000, and to date, I don't
believe any have been completed and accepted by the City. I
apologize for not being able to estimate the cost to complete
these improvements but to date we have not received any progress
reports on this work.
I hope the information in this letter is of some help to you. If
you should have any questions regarding this information please
feel free to call me.
Yours truly,
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
~~
Christopher Cutro
Planning Director
CC/cmc
C:50COL
I
/
June 10, 1991
City of Boynton Beach
Planning Department
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Attn
Mr. Chris Cutro, Planning Director
RE
Stanford Park Planned Unit Development
Dear Chris:
I'd like to express my thanks, as well as my client's, for your
time and consideration in meeting with us last week regarding the
Stanford Park project. We look forward to the opportunity to
present our proposal for the project to the City Commission on June
18th, and we appreciate your efforts in enabling us to do so.
--'-
The following information is offered to memorialize the several
points of our discussions to date and to summarize the history of
the project:
The Stanford Park PUD was approved in 1983 as a mixed use project
consisting of a nursing home/convalescent center, a 6,000 square
foot medical office building and a 220 unit Adult Congregate Living
Facility.
The nursing home has been constructed and is in successful
operation. The medical office building, intended as an ancillary
use to the other two principal uses, has been constructed but is
currently unoccupied.
The Adult Congregate Living facility, consisting of 100 one bedroom
units and 120 two bedroom units, was intended to operate within a
"club fee" arrangement, whereby an elderly single person or couple
would pay a fee "up front" for a unit, and then pay monthly rent
and/or maintenance. The facility was to be licensed as an ACLF by
the State, offering personal services, on-site recreational
facilities, communal dining as well as individual kitchens, and
property management and maintenance.
~ <",~.;)
f:t '1' "v
R~CPjl. ~ ;.."
).~
- "
" \)j;.\'l.
~
~
Urban Design
Urban Planning
Land Planning
landscape Architecture
Communication Graphics
2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
Suite 600 The Concourse
West Palm Beach, Florida
33409-6582
407.689.0066
Stuart, FL
Newport Beach, CA
407.283.0022
714642.1090
Chris Cutro
June 10, 1991
Page Two
Construction of the ACLF facility was halted in early 1990 due to
defaults under the construction loan. The inability of the
developer to complete the project has resulted in a conveyance of
the property's ownership to a subsidiary of the mortgage holder.
An agent of Inter/Pro/Realty, Inc. has recently entered into a
Letter of Intent to purchase the ACLF portion of the site. Urban
Design Studio has been asked to represent Inter/Pro/Realty in the
planning and government liaison and representation work necessary
to achieve the completion of construction of the facility, for its
use as a condominium development for the elderly and retired.
The purpose of our presentation to the City Commission on June 18th
will be to bring the Commission up to date on the status of the
project, and to present our proposal for completion.
It is our intention to demonstrate to the Commission that the
operation of the facility as a condominium development reserved for
the elderly (adults 55 years and over) represents a use which is
the equivalent of what has already been reviewed and approved by
the City, and that therefore, a finding should be made that the
current residential comprehensive plan designation for the property
accommodates the use we propose. We feel that the evidence we have
discussed with you, and which we will present to the Commission,
will indicate that the only difference between what has been
approved and what is now proposed is that there is no commitment
with the present proposal to provide the personal care required for
licensing by the State as an ACLF. Personal services, on-site
recreation, security and site maintenance will be provided under
this proposal, at least equal to that which was approved with the
original development program.
We have concluded from our research, and feel you will concur, that
the condominiumization of the units is not a relevant factor in the
consideration of the use of the property. This is because the
City's ordinances make no distinction between condominium ownership
and rental occupancy of multi-family residential projects.
Similarly, the State statutes and regulations governing ACLF's make
no distinction between owner and rental occupancy of State licensed
facilities.
Chris Cutro
June 10, 1991
Page Three
We will also be prepared to present to the Commission a comparison
of impacts to show the equivalency between the ACLF "club fee"
concept approved and the condominium project proposed to justify
our request.
We feel it will be obvious that approval of the proposed change
offers certain clear benefits to the City. Certainly the most
important benefit the City will realize from the completion of
construction of the facility is the ability to tax the improvements
on the land and thereby enhance the City's ad valorem tax base.
This is contrasted with the current situation where only the land
value is taxed (since no certificate of occupancy has been issued
for the building) .
Other revenue enhancements which could be realized from completion
of the project include: personal property taxes (assessed value
of personal property of the Homeowners Association); licenses,
permits and fees (based on the value of the construction to be
completed); intergovernmental revenues (e. g., cigarette taxes,
state revenue sharing, sales tax rebates, County occupational
license revenues and a 30% share of the City's local option gas tax
revenues which are determined on a resident per capita basis);
franchise fees and utility taxes and impact fees.
We have discussed with you and your staff the alternatives to
meeting all of the normal technical requirements for an application
for PUD amendment, which you have stated is necessary to achieve
the use we propose. As you are aware, we have been unable to
obtain authorization from the other owners of property within the
PUD to submit an application for an amendment to the Stanford Park
PUD ordinance. Given this situation, we will request that the
Commission provide an opportunity for us to amend the PUD, by
waiving some of the technical requirements for an application, or
through some another avenue, such as a Developer's Agreement
executed pursuant to Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. Such an
agreement, successfully utilized in other localities, will allow
both the special circumstances of the project and limiting
conditions of approval to be set forth within a locally approved
ordinance.
Chris Cutro
June 10, 1991
Page Four
We will be very happy to meet with you or your staff about the
Stanford Park project and our proposal. Please feel free to call
me at your convenience to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
URBAN DESIGN STUDIO
~
Anna Cottrell
cc
Thomas Hunt, Gunster, Yoakley and Stewart, P.A.
Reginald Grenier, Inter/Pro/Realty, Inc.
GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PHILLIPS POINT. SUITE SOO EAST
777 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORtDA 83401-6194
P,O. BOX 4587
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 38402-4587
FAX (4071 e55-!5677
OTHER OrFIC~ IN;
STUART. FL (4071 288-1980
BOCA RATON. FL (407) ~-'952
PORT ST. LUCIE:. F'L (04071 340-ISBO
FT. l.AUDEFlDALE, F'\. l3OS1 4Q-2000
TELEPHONE 14071855-1980
OUR FILE NUMBER:
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER:
07318.00059
(407)650-0624
Hay 28, 1991
Mr. Michael Rumpf
City of Boynton Beach
Planning & Zoning Department
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
Re: Stanford Park project, Boynton Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Rumpf:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm our recent
telephone conversation in which we agreed to meet on June 6, 1991
at 10:00 A.M. in your offices to discuss the Stanford Park
Project. We would expect such meeting to last approximately one
hour.
The purpose of such meeting would be to discuss whether
there is any possible scenario to get the pending comprehensive
plan amer.drn8nt application and PUD change applic~tion back on
track so that it can be considered prior to November of this year.
As I understand from our conversation, present at this
meeting from the City of Boynton Beach will be you and Chris
Cutro. If possible, it may also be beneficial for you to have one
of the City's attorneys present at the meeting.
Also, present at the meeting will be myself and a
representa~ive of Stanford Park Realty Development Corporation,
the current fee simple owner of the Stanford Park Project. The
representative will, in all likelihood, be Linda Carter, a vice
present of Stanford Park Realty Development Corpor?tion.
RECEIVED
MAY :GiI
PLANNlj~G DEPT.
Mr. Michael Rumpf
May 28, 1991
Page 2
Also present will be a representative of the prospective
purchaser of the Stanford Park Project. Such representative will,
in all likelihood, be Reggie Grenier. Also present will be a
representative of Urban Design Studios, the planning company
retained by the prospective purchaser with respect to the
referenced applications.
We look forward to meeting with you to discuss the matters
referred to above. If, in the meantime, you should have any
questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at the phone
number listed above.
Sincerely,
~-
\~
Thomas P. Hunt
For the Firm
TPH/kpb/74
cc: Linda Carter, Vice President
Reggie Grenier
Joseph Schneider, Esquire
Anna Cottrell
GUNSTER. YOAKLEY & STEWART
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Board of County Commission"rs
Karen T. Marcus, Chair
Carole Phillips, Vice Chair
Carol A. Roberts
Carol], Elmquist
Mary McCarty
Ken Foster
Maude Ford Lee
t vl-.
It..~,,\ "oJ
County Administrator
Jan Winters
May 31, 1991
Department of Engineering
and Public \V orks
Mr. Christopher Cutro
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
RE: STANFORD PARK LAND USE AMENDMENT
Dear Mr. Cutro:
The Palm Beach County Traffi c Di vi si on has revi ewed the traffi c impact study
for the project entitled Stanford Park Land Use Amendment pursuant to the 1990
Traffic Performance Standards Code (Ord. No. 90-40). The project consists of
220 condominium units at a site previously approved for 220 congregate living
units. The County Traffic Division has determined the project meets the 1990
Traffic Performance Standards Code of Palm Beach County.
If you have any questions regarding the determination of the County Traffic
Division, please feel free to contact Dan Weisberg at 684-4030.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER
~ ft~, F"I\
Charles R. Walker, Jr., P.E.
Acting Assistant County Engineer
CRW:DW
Fil e:
TPS - Mun. - Traffic Study Review
\tE.CElVliD
J'* 4 ql
PLANNING DEPI.
-
-
H:\Traffic\DIW\Boyn4
"An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer"
BOX 2429 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402-2429 (407) 684-4000
@ printed on recycled paper
CITY OF BOYNTOtI BR^CII
planning Depa~t.ent
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Bnnch, Florida 33425-0310
F^X tltlItnRR (407) 7311-7459
OFFICE NUHBBR (401) 138-1490
FAX TRANSHITTAL COVER LETTER
.
Date:
~- ;;l:;l- 9'/
-
-Time:
/ O':Z ~ <L--<----
Fax Number Transmitting To:
~ C 1\ .f::t.u..U
Uvh--,'O~ ~
(4- 07 )6'8'9'-OS"6-j
'-- ,/
..q,
To:
Number of Pages Transmitted (including cover letter):
From:
---l ~
ta~
Remarks:
~~7ffl
(\..L 'P ~<
* -'/;/ I~/I--:-m// 'II. / ~ '// rrlu~ / h~,~
/v;t;,,~, // II? ,r~ ~nu.l"// .ZJ'!7'
CITY of
BOYNTON BEACH
(@,..
,
'~..
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
P. 0, Box 310
Boynlon B.ach. Florida 33435.0310
14071 734,B111
May 17, 1991
Ms. Anna Cottrell
Urban Design studio
2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
suite 600 The Concourse
West Palm Beach, FL 33409-6582
RE: Stanford Park - Land Use Element Amendment/Rezoning
.
Dear Ms. Cottrell:
As was communicated to you by Michael Rumpf, Assistant Planner,
of our office on April 22, 1991 and May 8, 1991, processing of
the above-referenced request cannot resume due to the incomplete
and inaccurate nature of the application submitted. The
following is a summary of the information needed to be revised
and of the materials necessary to be submitted:
1. Application, page 1, item I.2. - This application is both a
land use amendment and rezoning. As Mr. Rumpf indicated,
the Zoning Code requires that "where a rezoning application
would occur pursuant to an amendment to the future land use
map, the two applications shall be processed simultaneously
as a single application".
2. Application, page 1, item I.4. - Incomplete
3, Application, page 1, item I.6. - Incomplete; all property
owners within the PUD must be listed.
4. Application, page 2, item I.9. - Incomplete
5.
Application, page 2, item I.10. - Legal description
provided does not include the boundaries of the entire PUD.
The medical office building and the Ridge Terrace
convalescent home cannot be excluded since they are not
permitted uses under the PUD regulations if the A.C.L.F.
does not exist. Therefore, the PUD must be dissolved.
,..----
6. Application, page 2, item I.ll. - Incomplete (include entire
PUD)
--...
TO: Ms. Anna cottrell
-2-
May 17, 1991
7. Application, page 2, item I.13. - For the reasons stated in
#1 above, a zoning district needs to be requested. Due to
the diversity of the uses (convalescent home, medical office
building and multi-family dwelling units) and the problem
with the residential density which exceeds 10.8 dwelling
units per acre, the only zoning category that could legally
encompass these uses is a planned Commercial Development,
PCD.
8.
Application, page 2, item I.15. -
appropriate land use category for
Commercial, which would entail an
land use map.
Based on #7 above, the
PCD zoning is Local Retail
amendment to the future
9 .
Application, page 2, item I.16. -
the PUD.
Include all uses within
10.
Application, page 3, item II.b. - Two copies of the last
recorded warranty deed for all parcels within the PUD must
be provided.
.
11. Application, page 3, item II.c.(2) - AcCording to the
agreement submitted, the applicant is not a bona fide
contract purchaser and intends to purchase only the
A.C.L.F., which violates the code requirement for unified
control. Therefore, in this case, the applicant should be
all of the property owners as individuals or as a
corporation or partnership or an individual who has the
authority to represent all of the property owners. This
information also pertains to page 1, item I.4 of the
application.
12. Application, page 3, item II.c.(3) - Provide agent
authorization verification from all applicants, i.e. -
property owners. This relates to #11 above.
13. Application, page 3, item II.c.(5) - Based on #10 and #11
above, I am assuming that the designated applicant will
change. If not, the written "proof" submitted does not
verify Mr. schneider's delegated authority as a trustee.
14. Application, page 3, item II.d., (1) and (2) - Incomplete;
two copies needed.
15. Application, page 3, item II.e. - One copy was submitted;
two are required.
16. Application, page 5, item II.(10)(d) - Incomplete.
Reference language on the recorded plat. Review of
association documents with respect to maintenance of common
elements, recreation impact fees, provision of recreation
amenities, possible replatting, parking and a future site
-."--..-,-.,
TO: Ms. Anna cottrell
cont'd.
16. plan modification are
anticipated with this
the time of review of
-3-
May 17, 1991
some of the areas of concern
rezoning which will be addressed at
the new master plan.
17. Application, page 6, item II.(ll) - Sixteen copies of the
new master plan are needed and two copies of a market study
indicating the demand for the use proposed as opposed to an
A.C.L.F. Refer to the zoning Code, Section 6.F.8., for a
detailed list of the materials to be submitted for zoning
land to Planned Commercial Development.
18. Application, page 6, item III - As a point of information,
an additional $500 fee will be required if this request is
approved by the City Commission for transmittal to DCA.
19.
Application, page 6, item IV - All owners within the PUD
must sign this application consenting to dissolution of the
PUD effectuated by Commission approval of a land use
amendment and rezoning. This relates to item #5.
.
During Mr. Rumpf'S April 22, 1991 conversation with you, you
indicated that you would inform us by the middle of the following
week (approximately May 1, 1991) how you wished to proceed with
this application and that by the end of that week (May 3, 1991),
you would submit all missing information necessary to resume
processing. Staff agreed that if this schedule were adhered to,
this application could be accommodated as originally planned;
June public hearings before the planning and Zoning Board and
City Commission.
Having not heard from you or received any of the materials, Mr.
Rumpf called you on May 8, 1991. Due to the advertising
requirements for this application, Mr. Rumpf informed you that
it was too late to process your application in time for the June
meetings. In addition, another application was received by our
office for the April 1, 1991, twice a year deadline for "large
scale" land use amendments. consequently, staff does not have
the ability to postpone the public hearings for your request
to July, 1991, nor delay transmittal to DCA of the other
application received, until your application has been through
publiC hearings and can be transmitted simultaneously. If you
choose to pursue your request, the information itemized above
must be received no later than the next deadline which is
October 1, 1991. If you have any questions regarding this
matter, please contact Michael Rumpf.
Si~relY,
~~f2;d~Au
Senior planner
tjh
A:StanPkRj
xc: Christopher Cutro
Michael Rumpf
URBAN DESIGN STUDIO
TEL r~o.
407 689 0551 May 10,91 14:48 P,02
I
,
-' '-' '-'
fooIay 10" 1991
City Of Boynton Beach
Plannins Department
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
50ynton Beach, FL 33435
...-- ,".........-.
.'. '.
'-./ '-' '.' ....-"
"
"
v ,-'
'-'
Attn
Mr. Michael Rumpf, Planner
RE
Stanford Park Planned Unit Development
D(lar Michael:
pursuant to our conversation, I am requestin9 by this letter your
written contirmation ot t.he SCheduling requlrecl to complet.e a
proposed comprehensive plan amendment and PUD amendment. for
Stanford park, to allow the use of the ACLF portion of the project
as a conventional multi-family facilit.y. As we have discussed, we
are also requesting :four written confirmation that the
comprehensive plan ano pun amendment applications can and will be
processed concurrent.ly.
Please note that we int.end to complete our application already
submitted, and to correct the not.ed deficiencies in a timely
fashion. I WOUld very much appreciate confirmation from you that
the application will be processed as expeditiously as posaible
after the submittal of the necessary documents noted as absent from
our or191nal submittal.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
vaDAX DBalG. STUDIO
~
Anna Cottrell
project Manager
cc: Mr. Rejean Grenier
u....
DotIiI"
....'"
lIolIon.........
~_IW
2UOO Palrr\ 9h<;h LH'S eQU$lrlard
SviweQClTIo.e.;v,,,,,,,,,.'M
W~ P41hl Beach, FICllldil
33409_2
.I,ll~ ,Ulll(,I,OOI:;.C
Stll~Vl. Fir. 407' .mOO2l
"-Io".....f'>U'te.~.., eA 714.(ld2.1l)QQ
%e City of
13oynton 13eac/i
DIRECTOR
April 19, 1991
Mr. Dan Weisberg
Palm Beach Co. Engr. Dept., Traffic Div.
P.O. Box 2429
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2429
RE: Stanford Park Land Use Amendment
Dear Mr. Weisburg:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the traffic study submitted as
required for a land use amendment for a portion of the Stanford
Park Planned Unit Development. This application is scheduled
to be reviewed by the city's Planning and Zoning Board on June
11, 1991.
Please review the enclosed study for compliance with all
applicable provisions of the 1990 countywide Traffic Performance
Code.of Palm Beach County (County Ordinance No. 90-40). Since
your analysis of the traffic statement will likely be an integral
part of our review and recommendation, and in anticipation that
the statement may be deficient based upon the requirements of
County Ordinance No. 90-40, a timely response is most
appreciated.
Thank you for your assistance,
Very truly yours,
~(tt;v
Christopher cutro, AICP
Planning Director
MWR:cp
Encs.
51merica's (jateway to tHe (ju1f'trcarn
April 15, 1991
City of Boynton Beach
Planning Department
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Attn
Mr. Michael Rumpf, Planner
RE
Stanford Park Planned Unit Development
Dear Michael:
Pursuant to our conversation last week, I am requesting by this
letter your written confirmation of the vested status of the zoning
approval for the Stanford Park Planned Unit Development.
Specifically, we are seeking to confirm that there will be no
effect on the development's zoning approval if construction of the
project is completed for use as an adults-only (over 55 years of
age) condominium project. We are also requesting confirmation from
your office of any concurrency review processes necessary to renew
permits to complete construction of the project.
We would very much appreciate a response to our request as soon as
possible. If you need any further information or have any
questions, please feel free to call me.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
URBAN DESIGN STUDID
Anna Cottrell
Project Manager
Urban Urban Planning
Design Landscape Architecture
Studio Graphic Design
2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
Suite 600 The Concourse
West Palm Beach, Florida
33409-6582
407.689.0066
Stuart, FL
Newport Beach, CA
407.2830022
714.642.1090
, Kimley.Horn ,
Klmley-Horn and Associates, Inc,
ENGINEERS. PLANNERS. SURVEYORS
4431 Embarcadero Drive West Palm Beach, FlorIda 33407 401845-0665 Facsimile 407 863.8175
April I, 1991
4279T.00(07)
Mr. Reggie Grenier
Inter-Pro Really
2205 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, Florida 33020
Re: Stanford Park, Hypoluxo Road
Boynton Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Grenier:
As requested, we have evaluated the traffic generation potential of the proposed
conversion of 220 approved congregate living units to condominiums for the above referenced
project located west of High Ridge Road. The Stanford Park project was approved in 1983
which preceded the application of county traffic performance standards within the City of
Boynton Beach. Consequently, the 220 congregate living units are vested for traffic associated
with that land use.
Utilizing current trip generation criteria as outlined by Palm Beach County, the 220
approved congregate living units would have a trip generation potential of 472 daily trips.
The 220 units converted to condominiums would have a trip generation potential of 1,540 daily
trips. Consequently, there would be a potential increase of 1,068 daily trips with the proposed
conversion. Hypoluxo Road has been widened to six lanes and is only carrying an average
daily traffic volume of 28,214 trips which is well below the six-lane daily capacity of 46,300.
Consequently, Hypoluxo Road should have adequate capacity to accommodate the relatively
small increase in traffic associated with the conversion.
If you should have any questions, please call me.
Very
JBP:map
Florida Registration
Number 19562
U7OTOO-RG -LO{0191- Jbp. wp
"'"ehelm . CharloUI , DallEls . Fort Lauderdale . Fort Myers , Nashville . Orlando , Phoenix
Raleigh . San Olego . Stuarl . Tampa . Vero Beach . Virginia Beach . Weal Pelm Buch
Building client rel.llon.hlp' alnea 1987
';1
t 1"
I, '
, I
~ TY of
BOYNTON BEACH
~~
Q
120 E. Boynton Beach
28 August 1985
Hr. John Horgan
Vice President
HcHoye construction Corporation
PO Box 9019
Winter Haven, FL 33883
Dear Hr. Morgan:
The purpose of this l~tter is to respond to vour request for
a list of the anproved uses at the Stanford Park Planned unit
Development. In that regard, vou will find accompanvinq this
letter, a xerox copv of the data which appeared on the legend
of the plans which are on file in mv office and a copy of a
Final Waiver of Lien which has the legal description of record.
As noted on the site data sheet, the approved uses are as
follows:
1. A 120-bed Convalescent Center.
2. A 220-unit Adult Congregate Living Facility.
3. A medical office building.
There is one correction to the site data sheet.
City Council approval of these plans, the size of
fice building was reduced to 6,000 square feet.
As a part of the
the medical of-
If you have any questions after having read this letter, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Yours very truly,
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
C~J~
Carmen S. Annunziato
Planning Director
/bks
cc: Central File
McHOYE
CONSTRUCTION
CORP.
lIigh Ridge 11304
CIlECK No.
FINAL
WAIVER OF LIEN
KNOW ALL NEN 'BY TilE PRESENTS, that for and in
consideration of $ Dollars and other good and valuable considerations,
lawful money of the United States of America, to me in hand paid the receipt where-
of is hereby acknowledged, does hereby waLve, release, remiss and relinquish any
and all right to .claim any lien for work done or material furnished, or any kind
of class of lien whatsoever on the following described property:
A parcel of land in Section 8, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County,
Florida; said parcel being specifically described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the Nort~ line of said Section 8, at a distance of
312 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof;
Thence, Southeryl, making an. angle with said section line J measured form
Hest to South of 83" 34' 00" and along the West line of lIigh Ridge Sub-
division, according to the plat thereof, as recorded'in Plat Book 22,
page 6, public records, Palm Beach County, Florida a distance of 660 feet;
Thence, Westerly, alonK a line parallet to the right' of way line of
Hypoluxo Road, a distance of 750 feet;
Thence, Northerly, along a line parallet to the West line of HIGIl RIDGE
SUBDIVISION, to the North line of said Section 8;
Thence, Easterly, along the North line of said Section 8, to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING: 11.29 Acres.
SUBJECT TO easements, reservations, re&trictions and rights of way of
record.
DATED TillS
DAY OF
19
AT
BY
(TITLE)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE HE THIS
DAY OF
19
NORARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE
P.O. BOX 9019
.
WINTER HAVEN, FLORIDA 33880
.
PHONE: (813) 293-1303