The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA DOCUMENTS VI. PUBLIC HEARING D cc: Plan. Util, Dev PLANNING AND ZONING DEPAI MEMORANDUM NO. 95-70 Agenda Memorandum for December 19, 1995 City Commission Meeting TO: Carrie Parker City Manager ~,j Tambri J, Heyden Ij~ Planning and Zoning Director FROM: DATE: December 14, 1995 SUBJECT: Newport Place PUD (f.k.a, Stanford Park PUD) Land Use Amendment/Rezoning (LUAR 95-006) Please place the above-referenced request under Public Hearings for the December 19, 1995 City Commission agenda. DESCRIPTION: The above request was submitted by Cot leur Hearing, Inc., agent for Newport Place Associates, owner/operator of the Newport Place Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) located at the southwest corner of Hypoluxo Road and Northwest 7th Court. The request includes the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential for the 23 acre, existing Stanford Park planned unit development (PUD) and a 1.59 acre tract and to rezone the 1.59 acre tract from R-1-AAB (single-family residential) and the PUD to Planned Unit Development (PUD w/LUI=5) to add a 120-bed assisted living facility. Please see attached Planning and Zoning Department Memo No. 95-692 for further details. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Development Board, with a 7-0 vote, recommended approval subject to Exhibit "F" staff comments. TJH:dim xc: Central File a:CCAgdmen.New - - PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-692 TO: Chairman and Members Planning and Development Board Tambri J. HeYden,~ Planning and Zoning Director Michael W. Rumpf f1;-e...- Senior Planner THRU: FROM: DATE: December 8, 1995 SUBJECT: NEWPORT PLACE (LUAR 95-006) Request for Land Use Amendment/Rezoning (A.K.A. Stanford Park Planned Unit Development) INTRODUCTION Cotleur Hearing, Inc., agent for Newport Place Associates, owner/operator of the Newport Place Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF), proposes to modify the existing Stanford Park PUD (Planned Unit Development) located at the southwest corner of Hypoluxo Road and Northwest 7th Court (see Exhibit "A" -Location Map). The proposed changes include the land use reclassification of the existing PUD from Low Density Residential land use classification to High Density, the land use reclassification from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential of an adjoining tract proposed to be incorporated into the PUD, and the rezoning of this tract from R-1-AAB (Single Family Residential) and the existing PUD to PUD with LUI=5, as accompanied by a new master plan. showing the addition of a 120-bed assisted living facility (ALF) and the addition of the adjoining tract currently used for an alternative ingress/egress for the PUD. This southern entrance was created in June, 1993 following the acquisition and annexation of Lots #7 and #8 of the High Ridge Subdivision, and through the dedication of a portion of these lots for a public right-of-way between NW 7th Court and High Ridge Road. Since the lots would not be used for any purpose but ingress/egress, and to avoid modification to the PUD, when annexed, these lots were zoned comparable to the former county zoning, rather than to PUD. The use of this property will remain limited to accessway as indicated by the applicants and owner when these lots were annexed and incorporated into the traffic circulation plan of the Stanford Park PUD, who where also willing to place such limitations within the form of deed restrictions. These two lots represent 1.59 acres which would increase the size of the entire PUD from approximately 23 acres to 24.77 acres. It should be noted that the original master plan indicates total acreage as being 21.29 acres, which is apparently a discrepancy between the original and current-surveys. This smaller figure is indicated below under the description of the original master; however, based on near similarity with that recorded in the current property appraiser's map, staff concurs with this 23-acre figure and therefore has used it within this report where existing density is estimated. Despite the 120-bed proposed addition, the master plan's intensity rating remains at 5 (LUI=5). PROCEDURE Pursuant to the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Section 9- Administration and Enforcement, when a rezoning request requires an amendment to the Future Land Use Map, staff analyses shall include an evaluation of the project using the eight (8) criteria under Section 9 (C) (7). For thi~ ~nalysis please see the section below titled ISSUES/ DISCUSSION. As the applications also involve a planned zoning district, specific application requirements related to the proposed amendments to the master plan will also be analyzed. For specific information on the proposed revisions to the master plan, see the section below titled PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Also as a requirement in connection with a land use element amendment that involves property in excess of 10 acres (or density in excess of 10 units/acre), is the ultimate review by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA will conduct two reviews of this proposed amendment, first, following approval by the City Commission (prior to ordinance readings), and second, a compliance review following approval of the ordinance by the City. / Newport Place (LUAR 95-006) -2- December 8. 1995 ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING The land uses and zoning in the surrounding area vary and are presented in the table that follows: Direction Entitv Zonina- Land Use North City N/A Hypoluxo Rd. Northeast City N/A NW 7th Court Farther northeast County RS day care center East City N/A NW 7th Court Farther east County RS large lot single family homes South City R-l-AA undeveloped West City REC High Ridge Country Club APPROVED AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The applicant is proposing a new master plan to add a 120-bed assisted living facility to the Newport Place health care campus formerly known as Stanford Park. The land use intensity will remain at 5 (LUI=5). Information regarding site data for the existing Stanford Park PUD (see also Exhibit "B" - Approved Master Plan) is as follows: 1) Acreage: 21.29 acres (23 acres) 2) Land Use Classification: Low Density Residential w/4.84 units per acre 3) 4) Zoning District: Permitted Uses: PUD w/LUI:5.0 "Stanford Park" l. 2. 3. A 120-bed nursing home (Ridge Terrace) A 356-bed/220-unit ACLF (Newport Place) A medical office building 5) Current Uses: (see Exhibit "C" - Survey) Tract 1 - 120-bed convalescent center Tract 2 - open space/buffers-Iakes/ponds Tract 3 - 6,300 square foot medical office building including open space/buffers-Iakes/ponds Tract 4 - 356-bed ACLF Tract 5 - right-of-way and buffer Tract 6 open space Tract 7 - open space Wi th respect to the proposed development and request, master plan (see Attachment "D" - Proposed Master Plan) following new components: the proposed reflects the 1) A land use amendment that would change the PUD's and the 1.59-acre tract's (Lots #7 and #8, High Ridge Subdivision) existing Low Density Residential land use classification (4.84 units/acre maximum) to High Density Residential (10.8 units/acre maximum), and rezone this tract from R-1-AAB to the Stanford Park PUD w/LUI=5 as well as rezone the existing PUD (zoning designation does not change) to a~prove a new PUD master plan to incorporate this tract. 2) A two- and four-story, 120-bed assisted living facility (ALF) in the south portion of the site, which will be landscaped similar to the existing uses and contain associated parking. please note that the building setbacks as established within the approved master plan (e.g. 40 foot front (east). 25 foot rear (west), 25 foot side (south) and 15 foot side (north)), will remain unchanged; d. - ~ Newport Place (LUAR 95-006) -3- December 8, 1995 3) Two (2), two-way driveways off of the west side of N.W. 7th Court into the portion of the site proposed for the new ALF; and 4) Addition of the 1.59-acre tract that is limited to an existing 60 foot wide public right-of-way. The property is located on the east side of N.W. 7th Court, directly east of the Newport Place ACLF. The public right-of-way connects N.W. 7th Court to High Ridge Road; The proposed master plan depicts the existing and proposed site configuration including the location of existing and proposed buildings for the entire PUD plus the adjacent property proposed to be reclassified and rezoned. That portion of the PUD where the proposed ALF and two new driveways are to be located, is circled and delineated with a symbol on the master plan. The following is an analysis of the basic impacts generated by the new master plan: UTILITIES: Confirmation has been received that all utilities for the proposed development are available and will be provided by the appropriate agencies. DRAINAGE: The 1988 site plan for the existing Newport Place ACLF originally depicted parking in the area where the new ALF is proposed. This site plan was later modified to omit the parking and relocate the spaces closer to the existing ACLF. A stormwater management plan for the existing project was previously permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The impact of the proposed development will be subject to review by the South Florida Water Management District to determine whether the original SFWMD permit is to be modified. Although drainage concurrency certification is required at time of master plan approval, there is insufficient information to certify for drainage concurrency at this time. The City's engineering department agreed to allow drainage concurrency to be postponed to time of site plan review for the proposed building. The 1.59-acre tract proposed to be added to the master plan is as previously stated, an existing 60 foot wide City right-of-way and no changes are proposed to this use. ACCESS AND INTERNAL TRAFFIC FLOW: Two (2), two-way driveways to be added will impact the access points and internal traffic flow of the project. Access to Newport Place is currently provided by two existing driveways on N.W. 7th Court and two existing cross access points that allow access to the Newport Place site from the adjacent properties located in the PUD and north of the site. Three of the four existing access points, one of which is on N.W, 7th Court, provide access and traffic flow to the. north portion of the existing Newport Place ACLF. The fourth and southern-most access point, which is located on N.W. 7th Court, facilitates access to and circulation around the proposed ALF. The two (2) new driveways are located on N.W. 7th Court, south of the existing southern-most driveway and directly east of that portion of the site proposed for the new ALF. However, pursuant to city code only two (2) driveways are allowed per parcel. The applicant is requesting the necessary variance (File No. PKLV 95-006) to allow a total of four driveways to the site in order to accommodate the two new driveways. The variance request is being processed concurrently with this request. The location of the existing access points and the proposed new driveways and internal traffic flow are shown in Exhibit "0" - Proposed Master Plan. The 1.59-tract proposed for incorporation into the PUD will remain a 60 foot wide City right-of-way with open space located to the north and south of the road right-of-way (to be maintained by the Newport Place Associates). In part to accommodate access to the west-bound lane of Hypoluxo Road via the lighted intersection at High Ridge Road, which is not allowed at the project's entrance (at NW 7th Court), this additional access point was created between High Ridge Road and NW 7th Court. Lastly, traffic concurrency comments on these requests have not yet been received by the City from Palm Beach County. 3 Newport place (LUAR 95-006) -4- December 8, 1995 RECREATION: Although current city code does not require recreation for this use, private recreational opportunities are provided on site. TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS AND VEGETATION: The applicant has indicated that the soil tests taken on the proposed ALF site, determine that existing soils are suitable for construction of the proposed facilities. The tests indicate that the soils were generally in the SP or SP-SM soil groups (medium to fine sand) based on the Unified soil Classification method. The water table was observed to be approximately four (4) feet (average) below existing ground elevation. As previously stated, the area to be developed for an ALF was originally improved as a parking lot. The land is presently graded and unimproved. SCHOOLS: No impact on schools is expected given the elderly age of existing and future residents of this development. ISSUES/DISCUSSION Pursuant to Section 9.C.7 of the Land Development Regulations, staff shall evaluate land use amendment/rezoning applications with respect to the following criteria: 1) WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES. The Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan addresses land use plan amendments and specifically, the conversion of land to higher densities. The following Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies, and support document text, apply to the subject requests and are analyzed below: Obiective 1.17 - "Minimize nuisances, hazards, and other adverse impacts to the general public, to property values, and to residential environments by preventing or minimizing land use conflicts."; and Policv 1.17.8 single-family conversions to - "Maintain and improve the character and lower-density neighborhoods, by higher densities." of existing preventing (The following limitations on commercial development have also been referenced since nursing homes are construed to be commercial uses for purposes of projecting demands for commercial land within the Comprehensive Plan. That shown in ,,( )" have been inserted by staff to provide an applicable, alternative interpretationL- Future Land Use Suooort Document. oaae 40 - "Therefore the City should not change (intensify) the land use to (on) commercial categories, beyond that which is shown on the proposed Future Land Use Plan, exceot for minor boundarY adiustments, small infill parcels, or commercial uses of a highly specialized nature, which have special locational or site requirements, and therefore cannot be easily accommodated on already designated commercial areas." and "Commercial development particularly should not be located where it would adversely affect residentially-zoned property, ..." Although compatibility of the proposed reclassification with adjacent properties is addressed more completely below, Objective 1.17 and Policy 1.17.8 are best analyzed, in part, by contrasting them with the justifications for, and descriptions of ACLFs for the elderly which are also found within the Future Land Use Support Document, page 33. Although the text emphasizes the requirements of state law to allow small arouo homes within all zoning districts, it also generalizes that ACLFs/group homes for the elderly should be encouraged which is the basis on which several areas throughout the City have been labeled as ACLF density bonus sites (9.68 units per acre allowed despite the underlying land use classification). In addition, it states that "This density bonus would be limited to ACLFs for the elderly, which is reasonable, since this type of group home comprises the vast majority of .-( - ..., Newport place (LUAR 95-006) -5- December 8, 1995 group homes and Boynton Beach has a very large proportion of elderly residents. " With respect to compatibility with residential environments, the plan also indicates that "ACLFs for the elderly are also one of the more innocuous types of group homes". Lastly, the plan encourages the appropriate revisions to master plans through the following text which is also found within the Future Land Use Support Document under Demand for Land for Nursinq Homes, Group Homes, and Foster Homes: "The City should continue to allow PUD master plans to be revised to meet market demand, if the impacts of the revised plan do not substantially exceed those of the original plan, applicable design guidelines are met, and the revised plan is compatible with the surrounding properties, ". Please see Exhibit "E" for the aforementioned text from the Comprehensive plan Future Land Use Support "Document. With respect to that text referenced above which places limitations on additional, or expansions to commercial classifications, this text is also specifically addressed by the previous justifications for and descriptions of group homes and ACLFs which specifically recognize state law with respect to locations for such uses, and description within the Comprehensive plan which finds them generally compatible with conventional residential uses. 2) WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE ESTABLISHED LAND USE PATTERN OR WOULD CREATE AN ISOLATED DISTRICT UNRELATED TO ADJACENT AND NEARBY DISTRICTS, OR WOULD CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER AS CONTRASTED WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE. The original approval for the pun was based, in part, on the finding that the proposed use is consistent/compatible with the adjacent properties. Furthermore, as described in detail below, the current pun has an actual density more appropriate within the High Density Residential Classification rather than the Low Density Residential classification. When the PUD was originally approved, the project was approved at an actual density of approximately 9 dwelling units per acre. Despite the actual numbers describing the density, the City originally determined that the health care facilities were needed, and that the pun was compatible with adjacent properties. The proposed expansion of a ~20-bed ALF is consistent with the nature and type of uses within the existing pun, and represents a relatively minor expansion of the PUD, under the proposed High Density Residential land use classification, as based on impacts and performance of the proposed use. Lastly, the only adjacent uses warranting an in depth evaluation of compatibility are the single family homes to the east. Although portions of this area within the High Ridge Road~ridor may ultimately be developed/redeveloped at higher densities, the existing dwelling units are on large lots and located approximately 200 feet from the PUD, and approximately 350 feet from the ACLF and proposed ALF. Within the area which separates the buildings in the pun and the adjacent dwelling units are NW 7th Court, and a combination of vegetation on private property and that landscaping within the perimeter buffer of the PUD. This distance and the buffering is necessary to mitigate the potential affects of the four story building heights within the pun, upon the adjacent low-density residential properties. As further indicated below under Item #5, with the exception of the height of the buildings within the PUD, the typically most offensive characteristics of such uses, parking areas and rear service areas will have minimal to no affect on adjacent properties given their proximity (due to design of the master plan) to other properties, the distance between the uses, and the buffering provided by vegetation. 3) WHETHER CHANGED OR CHANGING CONDITIONS MAKE THE PROPOSED REZONING DESIRABLE. Based on the assumption that Newport place Associates has realized a need for the proposed addition, and on the above-referenced information from the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Support Document which states the need for group homes/ACLFs for the elderly, staff recognizes the possibility that changes have occurred warranting the addition of the proposed ALF, ..:) Newport Place (LUAR 95-006) -6- December 8, 1995 4) WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH UTILITY SYSTEMS, ROADWAYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES. To date, staff has not received all the reviews of other agencies on impacts on facilities; however, given the minor addition to the PUD, and the performance of nursing homes which typically include few impacts relative to other residential or commercial uses of equivalent size, the proposed rezoning and amendment is projected to have little impacts on facilities including roads, utilities, and drainage resources. Once received, such verification will be incorporated into this review process, which are also necessary elements of the report to be used to initiate a review by the DCA, 5) WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CURRENT AND FUTURE USE OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTIES, OR WOULD AFFECT THE PROPERTY VALUES OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTIES. / WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING IS OF A SCALE WHICH IS REASONABLY RELATED TO THE NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE. What should be recognized in evaluating impact and scale of the proposed amendment is the actual change that would take place with respect to density. Upon reviewing this amendment, staff determined that the original PUD proposal was not evaluated based on density, but rather based on impacts or performance compared to a conventional residential development of equivalent size (units). Criteria used in the comparison included population, lot coverage, impact on schools, water and sewer demands, traffic generation, recreation, and demand on police and fire services. Except for traffic generation, the applicant estimated that the criteria measured less impact from the proposed PUD than from a typical and comparable single-family development. As for traffic generation, more traffic was projected from the PUD, which the applicant proposed to offset through intersection and road improvements. The city accepted the analysis; however, not the method to address excess traffic. As a condition of approval, the City required that the proposed office use within the PUD be reduced from 10,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet, in order to reduce the projected traffic volume to a level comparable with that estimated for a comparable conventional residential project. Although by impacts, the uses within the PUD were found to be compatible with the Low Density Residential land use classification, the PUD does not meet the maximum density limitation of this classification. In estimating existing density of the PUD, the total beds within the ACLF, 356, are combined with the beds within the nursing home, 120, and divided by 2.3 (the City's current conversion factor for beds per unit) , and then divided by the size of the PUD, approximately 23 acres. This methodology produces an existing density of 9 units per acre. The density of the proposed PUD is estimated by al86-Fncluding the size of the proposed ALF, 120 beds, and accounting for the additional 1.59 acres being added to the PUD. The total beds now equal 596, which represents a total unit count of 259, and a density of 10.5 units per acre. If the PUD is increased to 24.77 acres and reclassified to High Density Residential (10.8 units/acre maximum), the property could contain a maximum of 615 beds. Since there already exists 476 beds, the site is currently near maximum density, and there would remain capacity for only an additional 139 beds (the proposed project contains 120 beds). In sum, the most significant approval of this site has already occurred, which is the original approval of a PUD within the Low Density Residential land use classification, at a density nearly the maximum allowed under the Medium Density Residential land use classification (at the public hearing when this original approval was reviewed, the only public comment communicated pertained to fire/EMS response times). Staff has not considered to repeat the original analysis based on performance, as no documentation remains from this analysis that staff would need to implement a consistent methodology. With respect to affect on property values, the PUD is not expected to negatively affect the values of any adjacent properties and this opinion is based on the following three statements: 1) the relatively minor magnitude of the proposed expansion; 2) the general compatible nature of health care facilities and residential uses; 3) the likelihood that the PUD will always be well maintained (for reasons related to constant / ~. - 'WI Newport Place (LUAR 95-006) -7- December 8, 1995 marketing of facilities}; 4) and since there will likely always remain appropriate distance and vegetative buffers between the PUD and the low density areas to the east. Furthermore, the typically most undesirable elements of such uses, parking and rear service areas, should have little impact on nearby residential properties. As for the parking lots, they are dispersed throughout the PUD and predominantly located farther from the adjacent residential areas than the fronts of the structures, thereby reducing total potential impacts from noise and light. With respect to the rear service areas of the uses, the ACLF and proposed ALF are oriented to the east and northeast, which leaves the rears of the buildings oriented away from the residential properties. The most undesirable aspects of such uses would therefore have no impact on adjacent residential properties. With respect to needs, please see the analysis above under CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES. 6) WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS PHYSICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY DEVELOPABLE UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING. The site within the PUD intended for the proposed ALF was originally used for parking, therefore the site has been determined to be suitable for development. There are no known unique physical characteristics which would limit further development or intensification of this site within the PUD. 7) WHETHER THERE ARE ADEQUATE SITES ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY FOR THE PROPOSED USE, IN DISTRICTS WHERE SUCH USE IS ALREADY ALLOWED. In general, nursing homes of this size are limited to the R-3 (Multi- family Residential), PUD, C-3 (Community Commercial), and PCD zoning district, which districts may be available throughout the City. However, the location has been selected based on the complimentary nature of the proposed ALF and the existing ACLF within the overall Newport Place health care campus. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis and discussions contained herein, this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations, subject to staff comments as summarized within Exhibit "F" - Administrative Conditions, and compatible with current and future uses of surrounding properties and would not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or nearby properties. Therefore, staff recommends approval of these requests for land use amendment and rezoning of Newport Place/Stanford Park PUD, and again subject to staff comments indicated within Exhibit "F". Attachments xc: Central File MISCX: NEWP. REP 7 ,- Exhibit "A" LOCATION MAP i ,-.; . LOCAt\ON tv\AP ..", --,' StANFORD PARK - ':::"~::;' ....:i~.:; .... '. .1t: .. '.:',', .:.:' ..:: \U I \ illill k. c. ~m ~ crr '3 ,,' \""'~' ~~ ~.. " .~. ~ '\""\,,,, ~ ) \j R'1AA _' ,_ __-I..- rrr~ l "' - '~ -' ' ~ \ 1 - :.. '.. f~:3' I,,', l L ,_.~- \' IT ~ " J , 111f m r,i,:~r' \ ~ I' I rr;:-"-rl '. \\,.'\dll':ll; . \'- . USl~\ JD::- ~', [n::'<..\ ,. -.. :-\ -r t..l.....Lt. ,.,'" ":'1 [tJ' , T[ \,\I~l11\' \ _ ~"j ;'''''' .. 0'" \: ' ': () n- , " "-, ,N ' . r#t ,,0<(,1, - '\ \ I c,-r"'- l'?0?:\' . tm(li ~.< }(j"f\\\\ii \ t · ,"1-'11 ~ Iii' 'l.'/f-:'\' '\ /-;t'~n"" _\' - ~~,\ I 't ~ ! 'el I ,w,' .'. ".,{, , ' I \'~"TT....i I ,\ rf .'-~, . 1{ " .. ) )~'(,.... ' ,-..21 \" 'j ~ U~, '- ,._:, '.f' ,....'1AA!^.....' :. := :1 1---1 t. \, _' hi' >"- ::-..<] ': rr ~ II" !. .-j II" -,- '( I ': 1 I - /'v Jit- - '--1 ,J,.- ::\ - 'iI . ',Ii ,'0 "..s Q, ' , '-.l-~- t-//~ '~>)' r' .-- ~-,- -p ;Jf~I' l~' \~ IT' L:- - ~r; / \...-' 'vr"') C IIPli [)', .' . : \" ~ri<~'t... # ----' .b. --,I-~o-- I,j~ I:. - 1 ~ ~ ~- _,m" '- '. ' .. / r<'-J Ii" q let ~" ,\.':, /- /.. ~ I _II (__I "~:c , '0 i/8 MILES '- \ ...., I " >--' . ::::::: SITE' ..~~::;:. I~. 'fi - ."" i; h,l , .1 .,..... .' . .::.:....' : ~ '.' :~. , ' ' , ' .~ ~ " ~ . n " , " , , ' , o ~I 1 1 ~ 'T'1 '\ I 1 .J L--- 1-'''--. .. ~ . 1:,,\ /' ;% ~1' - l- - e'f. - ;1 I-L. ,/ ~;..~ ./ ~~ ~l ,1,~~:'fi V if ~ ~ J ;\:, .L ~ ' ~ L~ 1'1- " ReC ~" \j =, fc: -"\- , TI ' 11 IT ,<lP ~"tti"", t'--.. ./ f4 r"' 0..' ,~. . fiT: --. ot ~,t7;'. c.; 1\1 't i -- - "\ \ ".' ~ ~, r>~ 1,:1 " ~ --- -- \ ~ \ R1AA 7~' 71' .I .....~ ,i- ii.!- -':- '.~- ' ~ >2''tf TI:J;q "... AR R'~__ , 9-rATir~ I 1 \~\ =--"J 1 , .~ ~, ,) _.- - --- --. .,"" EXHIBIT "B" APPROVED MASTER PLAN JC , "" .'-'t\ 'Wj . ! u /' , c1Jt----" ---- / \ ..---- 1. I I II '--- _'- b. _.~ ~ ~.. ~'.L.. _-~, !"r. , .~'''''- I --.... iJ - . S,l · '- - tiyp~ ~o RO.~ u'<::,,- _.:;;- ~. i2....-... ..' '-'\ 1 ' ,-,,", ' '/' a: .. l -:------i -.---- ......... .......~O..-=r ,tI, .' : I. ...;;;;;r ..' \ i -- -- CURRENT MASTER PLAN J . ----- "" , ; I i ,j . ......... i\\ ~ ..~~~; e't~5't~W\ I ~ ....."""-~--..,,~ . ~ I'~L J: ~~~~Jj!J~ ~ u '~~\~n' I ':... " 11l1Jl~ hi j ~ 19J!~!~ ~. ~ ~ ~ , .. "-. .... , "'- ,- "" .-:.......-J. ) .............. -.1looH.1e.....__ , , , SITE DATA \ I,AtIDUSEDA" . _ilIIVAllSUII'elN'U i. AOIllI COIICoIIIUlTllIYI...'4tlllnIACUI C. ~n'"A\Jg"lCl .04D.'.DlDltIofl.... M'YI'OI.UllCllOU IUDlIIIND'" l..<USJ'_' g'UI'.o(l/llll'nn IOTAl.ITtUU IDT.q..Ull.C1I..C....... TOUI. utU I. IT..,n . .cowuu ,_ rOUl_...IlCI TO''''' ~UIIll.Tl... QIII' .... tllll'lAI.IKlI' Clln''' ... ..... l1li. .n.," ,..... ....... _0" IlIA J.O .. 1.13 re. 1.21.c. .. .-c. 2.~ M:. l.lIt .lie.... ..1.li....... 21.21 IC. J,U .c. J.n IIC. .J!.lWc.. 21.n .. !IIllIUII 1-.1 I JU I U I ... U,. lU 1: ~ JOlI.O I 1l.JU V.S I ..4JU.. l.GI.' . \J\ Y.a.:"" C.... I . '" .-, ..- "..- ......'~"'"LI.,I..'IICII.Il"l' ... .. ~I"I" ...IIU na .. "'nlllI .-. '.UI" _I" 110 Il'lloCII t."OItM.1_HC'J~ .,l.L/I.....,,,__1l ... Ill' 1t00l.. ....,..llItu,.. ._1" ....,~: ........ 5O.ACl. ...."..10111.. ''''''IIIlt.'-'''.'' 11.n.. ..,.,'n....ac........ ..JRJI....II.. 10'''' Zl.zt C. '.O'OIUl..'.. '01'W'I"HAC"~ n_wua..".. 5,00 " . .... ) I . ..v.......... "OTI:'~"IU.... _ .. ....'" ....IJII'_I O. :~.~ o . . . o .:,. . o oK~.. ( i:f : - . l3)itaumiKD)If(dpF1Bll1'lk) ~~ EXHIBIT "C" SURVEY , " , ,~ 'II I ''''III - I ill I - , ., I 1'1 · ,II:! ( il 11';1 II 111'1 n 1111111 . !;'I'I Illhl !I II" I I 1"1 It I 'III JJl1 I ~ ~ . d ~I mill. I avail o.n'OdM' ., ,....W........I....~ -.... ," I ....:...,~..~..., ~l'........'.~..-""'. (:1 :~. :;:.=!!!!"::~~.=.:..:1 : !. . . ~.';" . ; ,,,- ,', ......" ,1 .' ,I, , ','" r"':-' -,,-', '\ t' . ,,' i , ~ . ~ \ ,'., .. ... l! . .., ) , :\}', . "'.: .. "I: j \ ',:',1 i; . '. I " : . ~:':.. '[/~" ~... --.; !'-..-j . . ... I -:..:_~.;.:.-=-=-.:.:::::.:.. "'_" _" -,.-l .. ,. . ........... iU > a: ).~ ..J(/) z> aD: :l:~ lJ~ Iii:;, @~ ~ I- o Z . ,........ l !:I.~ ~ ,,' ... -! l 1. I. I, -r , .- , !C : ,,' IiI . f I I -, ~ I ~~ i ' "~~~:,:.' i i i. ., iJi i " ' i ;;i Iii · . I" I r--.'I~--' i :,; ~ . :; , ! I! . ';'. ,'.' ./" -,' i1 'V"'f : i .. I . ----.:'.:'D=. , i -"'.:'~:----11 i ' . ; I : i :: :, ,! I i':'J: . , , J.t, : ,f./, .(, / 1~ . '_n_.,_,~..~.. , / ,'~ ... t : ~/./'..: , Ii 1/"'/: 'g' iF i!:!, r ' II .. .. -;:'.;..:". . .... \. a E. x' e! it i OJUVld JON /5 .. .......................... ...... ....!,as..l II..;U. .....;~ T , , .. i!'t ~! ! ~ ".", ~ ,I I; ~:- :' :! I i It i; ~.. .. f ;: f~ ~ i;t ... ~ !' 1: I ~ ',r 'I: I , a " ". .." !;) -I' ,i ,i l;! . I';, ~I ., t ~ ; .1 'I !:.; t!, ~ iiI i: iil~ wi 8, Q;' ~ J EXHIBIT "D" PROPOSED MASTER PLAN /~/ --- . tJ'J":: " }f ;' !~" ~, j' I! -t, '. i. . :t I - PROPOSED MASTER PLAN /) lj~~. _ "IJ . .,., "" "., ,,,~r ! f i i !'[,': ~ r i f i ' ~ J ~vt tHr ~Vn~}!: -ll~Hi'~!n15Hja~!Jr ; , !~...Jll.. ..~...l~. I .. 1'1 ~ : .c .. . u .. " ... ';;;;;! ~~iJ ; :. j - - · J ~. ;:l'i!;\~ "~H !! ,It " j ...! ..-- -. ......: ;It ~; -i .. ~ , ~ . '. , J' ~ . . : -;. ~. " ,~ :, - 4 . ~ ., , "~ h - . .. : II' .c .. .~ .. < .... Hi -. f-"- ,., c, c -Fill). .. . i' .:. ]i fh. ': Ii ! hHitti -.t fil .t lH" IU~ IJ ] .-. -'- ---. ..; ~I -I. ;.; k<' . ~~.' I~;:~; ~~ ,..J ~'[ ~. ~. ~'[ CI':J- <, ~'-= . ! I '... :,: ~ ; ~ . . . I I .. It 'j'; HIj;:f I '. t 1'1111'111 l I 1: I! 1j! \1 ,I I t I} J II' '!I.Jh!", i:;:;': : I, I I I It ~ltLl1111 ! t p Illli li!hrllll:~ j I I Ill' 1 . 1\' + '.\1 iJ , l 11~ 'i 't {i:.1t1jji\ ~ ; t! tt*.j jj II 11:: j1 ," "1' .." 1 ..1~~Hi'\h.~ ,~.:.~1 1 Ii II n H i lIt hihiH1Hll i 1: ~ t i i5 , ,,,,' ~ U ~ ,...,. ~ ~~ ~ 'i Cti: i' j :: i . 1 . ",. . C "i" ll!.1.I Ii < ~ 4j J ~. , iJ ;.~ \ ~.-. 'if. ~ ~J. .. , '1 .' ~' ~.ti i ~.t~l CQ! .'--~ - 5~;~~ ,,\.- ......!!.~- ,....,.= ~l" ';l,"~'! Z=; "l.t-,,; ::"iJll--:,;1~: ~ ,13 ;;:C~l EXHIBIT "E" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUPPORT DOCUMENT TEXT /G *EXCERPT FROM FUTURE LAND U~E SUPPORT DOCUMENT (PAGES 32 ANP 13) The unincorporatea~rea lying between Lawrenc:-'Roaa and the e;-3 cinal contains 7 mobile homes parkS which provide a total of 2,581 mobile home spaces, currently, there is only one mobile home park in this area (La Palo~a), which has 229 available spaces for lease. There are a total of 1,029 spaces out the total 2,581 spaces which are under fee simple or cooperative ownership by the resiaents, No applications for new moblle home parkS have been submitted to or approvea by Palm Beach county since 1980, which inaicates that land values have increased to a level where permanent housing allows for a higher rate of return. Due to rising lan~ values, no new mobile home parks are expected to be developed in within the CityLs-~~t~i~y-se.~tee-e.ee, and it is likely that those parks where the spaces are leased will be redeveloped for permanent housing. Therefore, no additional mobile home dwellings have been projected for the City or its utility service area, other than completion and leasing of previously approved mobile home parks. Since it is possible, however, for the City to annex existing mobile home parks, the City should permit mobile home parks-ift-tfte-e.ee-wes~-ef-eeft.pess-Aveft~e , if approved as a Planned Unit Development or mobile home subdivision. Since the City does not have specific regulations governing mobile home parks, the City should adopt the regulations used by Palm Beach county, until such time as it becomes apparent that the City needs to draft mobile home park regulations. He~iie-~eme-pepks-wftieft-e.e-e~ppeft~~r-ift-tfte-ettr--~e-the west-ef-~S-i-er-tftat-are-aftfteKea-ift-tfte-f~t~re-.fte~ia-~e-atiewea-te eeftt~ft~e-et-thetP-e~preftt-ft~m~ep-ef-eppreve4-.e~iie-fteme-speees1-~fttii s~eh-ttme-tftet-the-perk-ts-peaeveiepea-fep-etfter-~SesT Althouah mobile home Darks would be allowed in anv residential land use cateaorv. subiect to PUD or subdivision aCDroval. the future demand for mobile home sites In the City (includina reDlacement of redevelo~ed mobile home Dark sites) 1S eXDected to be zero. Due to risina land values. future mobile home site: will Drcbablv be located west of Lawrence Road. The City will serve mobile homes in this area (between Lawrence Road and the E-3 Canal) w1th utilities, However. it is uncertain as to whether the citv would be ab~e to annex these areas. ~ftese-meDiie-heme-parks-whteft-ite-aieft9-~~ST-i-sfte~ia-~e-eiiewes-~e eeft~ift~e-as-ftefteeftfer.tft9-~Ses1-wttft-the-exts'ift.-n~m~er-ef-spaees ~~eftafst~e~ea-~fttt!-s~eft-ttme-tfta'-the-.e~tie-he.e-parks-e~e-~eseveiepes fer-ethep-~sesT--8~e-te-tfte-ppe~ie.s-ef-~~prteafte-haeapa-afta-iafta-~se ifteempetiD!t~r-~fta~-~bese-me~iie-fte.e-perks-eas'~ef-~S-i-pese1-their ~eaeveiepmeftt-fer-etfter-~ses-sfte~!a-~e-enee~ra~e41-tft-eeeerseftee-wttft-the eeeste!-Hefte~emeftt-B!e.efttT--Here-speetfiea!ir1-~fte-me~i!e-fte.es-perks wftieft-!ie-~e~weeft-gTST-i-afta-~ake-Wertftflfttraeeas~e!-Waterwer-sfte~ia-~e ~e~~irea-te-De-4iseefttift~ea-wi~fttft-5-rears-ef-tfte-eaeptieft-ef-~ftis-pieft1 stftee-~ftese-.e~i!.-he.e.-v~iftere~ie-te-d..a..-fre.-.ter.-s~r.eT _/) ~&nd for Land for Nursina Homes. GrouD Homes. and Foster Homes: Nursing a~d conval~scent homes are a permitted use in commercial zoning districts and are allowed in Planned Unit Developments and Planned Commercial Developments. Since nursing homes are:.considered to be a commercial land use, the supply and demand of land for nursing homes hiS been lncorporated lnto the projections for commercial land use. 32 II Group homes are cUl.ently allowed as a permitt~d use in C-3 zoning districts and as a conditional use in the R-3 zoning district. The Housing Element Support Documents oriaina11v contain~ a detailed analysis of tha ne.d for smaller group and fostar homa., and recommende~ that these homes ~. allowed in all residential zoning districts, su~ject to limitations on the size and type of group home, and provided that these homes are separated by at least 1,800 feet. sinc~ the oriaina1 draft of the Housina Element was DreDared. the Florida Leais1atureDassed a bill which roauires the Citv the allow arOUD homes in all residential zonina districts, Therefore. the Citv's Dolicies with reseect to aroue homes should be to allow such arOUD homes. in accordance with Florida law, Since group and foster homes could be located in any type of dwelling, 1f these policies are implemented, these types of homes have not been analyzed with respect to residential density or dwelling unit type. There are a number of parcels in the Low and Hoderate Density Land use category which, due to there location, may be more suitable for group homes than for single-family housing. Host of these parcels are vacant or partly vacant. Therefore, the Future ~and Uae Hap ahow. a number of parcela, whlre it i. recommended that a density bonus equivalent to a maximum of 9.68 dwellings per ,acre be permitted for adult congregate living facilities (ACLFS) for the elderly, if approved as a conditional use, ~ThiS density bonus would be limited to ACLFs for the elderly, which is reasonable, since this type of group home comprises the vast majority of group homes and Boynton Beach has very large proportion of elderly ~residents.~CLFS for the elderly are also one of the more innocuous type3 of group homes. From the analysis above, it appears that the city's land use and zoning regulations provide for a range of densities which are sufficient for all dwelling unit types, with sufficient flexiblity to accommodate shifts in the market, It is anticipated, however, that the probable mixture for the remaining dwellings to be built in the City is 30\ single family detached. 30\ rental apartments, 35% townhous., condominium, and duplex dwellings, and 5\ mobile home and ACLF units. The City'S Planned Unit Development regulations are largely responsible for the flexibility in meeting market demands, Under the PUD regulations, the City Commission can ~rmit ~changes in the dwelling unit type without requiring rezoning.~he City should continue to allow PUD master plans to be revised meet market demands, if the impacts of the revised plan do not substantially exeeed those of the original plan, applicable d.sign gUidelnes are met, and the revised plan is compatible with the surrounding properties. Commercial Land Demand for Co~~ercial Land: The demand for commercial land has been analyzed for the Boynton Beach Market Area, which is defined as the area bounded by Hypoluxo Road, the Atlantic Ocean, Gulfstream Blvd., Lake Ida-L-30 canal, and Barwick Road-Lawrence Road (see figure 3 in AppendiX a~~-This constitutes a more reasonable market area, for the purpose of analYZing the need for conmercial land. than the existing boundary of Boynton Beach. Existing and planned commercial development which is under the jurisdiction of other local governments in this market area has been included 1n the analysis of the supply of commereial land. Demand for commercial land 15 found by calculating the demand for different types of commercial land , uses, and then adding the resulting figures, For most types of commerCld, land uses, the demand for land was calculated by mult1plying the eX1st1nq 33 /1 *EXCERPT FROM FUTURE LAND USE SUPPORT DOCUMENT (PAGES 38, 39, 40) 'W ..., TOTAL DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL LAND, AT BUILD-OUT, IN BOYNTON BEACH MARKET AREA: 831. 25 acres EXCESS SUPPLY OF COMMERCIAL LAND, OVER PROJECTED DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL LAND: EXCESS SUPPLY OF COMMERCIAL LAND AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL LAND: H6.,.8i-aerell 19'8.47 a~rQS i!h!\ 23.9% /' /1' Discusuon ol SUl:ltllv and Damand lor Com.areial Land A eomparison of the supply versus demand of commereial land shows that there may be up to i6i lii aeres of excess commercial land at bUild-out. There are three additional adjustments to this aereaqe, however, whieh may reduce this excess acreaqe: Quantum Corporate Park Commercial Aereaqe Quantum Corporate Park will eontain about 30 aeres of property at the center of the park which will be devoted to retail stores, and business services, and personal serviees. Accordinq to the Application for Development Approval whieh was submitted for Quantum Park, these u.e. will mostly .erve the tenants of the bu.ine.. park, with only limited u.e by per.ons outside of the park. This demand would not be accounted for by applyinq multipliers to the eurrent population. Sinee this commercial acreaqe would be located on a 4-lane eollector road which is less than a mile from an interchanqe, it is very possible, however, that up to 50\ of the customers for these commercial uses would be persons from outside of the park. If it assumed that 50\ of the retail commercial acreaqe in Quantum Corporate Park would be qenerated within the park, then 15 acres, could be subtracted from the supply of commercial land. Commercial property Surroundinq Boynton Beaeh Hall It is estimated that, at bUild-out, that 74\ of the population of the Boynton Beach Hall market area will lie outside of the Boynton Beach Retail Market Area. It is reasonable to assume that a smaller but siqnificant percentaqe of the demand for retail floor space will be qenerated outside of the Boynton Beach Harket Area. There are about 85 acres of existinq and potential acres of retail commercial lyinq adjacent to the reqional mall, and to the immediate north and south. Assuminq that apprOXimately 25\ of the customers for the stores would come from outside the local market area, then 21 acres could be subtracted from the supply of commercial acreaqe. Future Increase in Real Household Income The demand for land for retail uses is approximatelY proportionate to the amount of disposable income in the market area. Real per capita disposable income in Palm Beach County will have risen almost 60\ in the 1980s, while per capita retail sales will have risen almost 40\ (adjust:, 38 II for inflation). The increases in per capita retail sales have been taken into account in making the projections for retail commercial acreage, The University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research has made the following estimates and projections for populations growth and changes in real personal income for Palm Beach county: POPULATION AND INCOME PROJECTIONS FOR PALH BEACH COUNTY 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Population 760,900 799,700 840,300 873,800 903,200 932,400 Real Personal 13,209.3 14,025.2 14,912.6 15,912.8 16,603,3 17,651.1 Income (millions, in 1982 dollars) Real Per 17,360 18.931 Capita Income (dollars) Change in 2,98\ Per Capita Income over Previous Year 17,538 17,747 18,211 18,383 1,03\ 1.19\ 2.61\ 0.94\ Source: The Florida Outlook: Fourth Quarter, 1988 (BEBR), The total change in real per capita income over this five-year period is $1,571 or 9,05\. It is assumed that, since the annual rate of growth is neither increasing or decreasing, that the overall growth of real per capita income will remain the same froa 1990 through the Year 2000 as it was in the 1986-1991 pertod. Therefore, overall real per capita income is projected to increase by apprOXimately 18.1\ in the 1990.. Since projec~inq income past the vear 2000 i. less certatn, an increase of 9\ is assumed for Vear 2000-2010 period. Thu. the overall increase in real per capita income from 1990 through 2010 would be 1.181 X 1.09, or 1.296 (a 29 ,6\ increase). Since retail sales are apprOXimately proportionate to income, it can be anticipated that, if retail 8ale. per square foot are held constant, the amount of acreaqe needed for retail use. would also increase by approximately 30\. Therefore, the amount of land for Eetail uses would increase by 132 acres by the Year 2010, due to increases in real per capita income. when added together, the three adjustments which -are discussed above woul~ have the effect of reducinq the supply of commercial land by 36 acres and increasing the demand by 132 acre.. As a result, the t6f lil acres of 39 ) ,,,, ,'~ i surplus commercia~and which has been projeclrd would be reduced to a surplus of only i ~ acres by the Year 2010. From the analysis above, it appears that the supply of commercial land il the soynton S.ach Mark.t Ar.a will match the demand for this type of land us.. Th. supply for commercial land compared to the d.mand rang.s from a surplus ranging from i ~ acres to i6~ 111 acres. In terms of percentage of the total demand for commercial land, at build-out, these acreage. represent to a surplus of e, ~ to ie' 23.9t. Although the ie, 23.9t figure would be considered excessiv., it i. likely that future increases in real per capita incom. will eliminate virtually all of this surplus. The Future Lan~ Use Plan which is proposed for the City and areas to be annexed by the City will accomodat~ll of antiCipated demand for ~commercial land through bui1d-out.~herefore, the Clty should not change the land use to commercial cateqories, beyond that whlch ls shown on the proposed Future Land U.. P11n, exc.pt for minor boundary adjustments, ..all infi1l parcels, or commerclal uses of a highly specialized nature, which have special locational or sit. requirements, and therefore cannot b. easily accomodated on already designated commercial areas. Conversely, the City should refrain from changing substantial areas of property from commercial to non-commercial land use categories, beyond those changes which are recommended elsewhere in the proposed ComprehenSive plan. unless there are significant problems with land use compatibility or if roads cannot be built to accomodate the commercial development. Location of Commercial Land: The existing pattern of commerclal development was discussed under sectio.. II of this element. To summarize that section, and also, section I of the Coastal Hanagement Elem.nt, the demand for comaercial land is still somewhat exce.sive alonq U.S, Hiqhway 1, as evidenc.d by the amount of vacant commercial property, the low quality of many of the curr.nt uses, and the low rental rate.. Therefore, the Coastal Management Elem.nt includes a number of lan4 us. recommendations which would reduce th_ amount of commerCially-zoned land. The City's general poliCY with regard to comm.rcial development east of Interstate 95 should be to concentrate offic., retail, and hot.l deve!Qpment in the central business district and ~along BOynton Beach Boulevard.~o..ercial development particularly should D2t be located where it would adversely affect residentially-zoned property, or where it would create spot zones or strip development. Commercial land us.. we.t of Interstate 95 are dominated by the regional mall, and its satellite stores and offices. Neighborhood shopping centers and office buildlnq. are located in the vicinity of most major intersections. The City should continue its policy of encouraginq commercial uses to be located at intersections, and discouraging strip commercial development, due to the aesthetic and traffic safety problems that strip development creates. Furthermore, allowing additional commercial land use in the viclnity of the Boynton.-Be'ach Hall would be likely to cause traffic levels on roads ln the vicinity to fall below established levels of service. Commercial development beyond that which is shown on the proposed land use plan should b. permitted only if the 40 ....) / EXHIBIT "F" ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS ,:) c;) --- ..... EXHIBIT "F" Administrative Conditions Project name: Newport Place PUD (f,k.a, Stanford Park PUD) File number: LUAR 95-006 Reference: 2 sheets submitted bv Cotleur Hearinq identified as 2nd submittal with Planninq and Zoninq Department October 26, 1995 date stamp markinq DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS Comments: NONE UTILITIES Comments: NONE FIRE Comments: NONE POLICE Comments: NONE ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: NONE BUILDING DIVISION Comments: NONE PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: NONE FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: NONE PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: l. The master plan shall be modified to show compliance with the final determination regarding Palm Beach County Traffic Division and City '- - staff's evaluation of the applicants - - traffic statement. 2. Add a note to the master plan indicating that the project is subject to site plan review prior to permitting. 3. Specify on the rectified master plan maximum density allowed for the Stanford Park PUD, Also show on the master plan the conversion computations that verify the proposed total of 596 ACLF and Convalescent Center beds does not exceed the maximum allowed density for the entire PUD. The following City adopted conversion factor shall be used: Total gross acreage within the PUD (times) maximum allowed density per acre (times) 2.3 = maximum number of beds ')3 ,-( DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 4. The zoning code limits the maximum number of driveways from a single road to two (2) , If this maximum is to be exceeded, as indicated on the master plan, then relief from this requirement must also be requested through the variance process. A parking lot variance (File No, PKLV 95-006) to increase the number of driveways from two (2) to four (4) is being processed concurrently with this request. Amend the master plan to show the results of the variance and reference on the master plan the City Commission's action regarding the variance. 5 . Submission of a rectified master plan showing compliance with the conditions of approval for the project will be required to be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department in triplicate prior to site plan review of the project. MEH:dim xc: Central File a: 2NDSPARX. Com ,;2 1-( ,'W. _ .~~...~...- _.=--::- ::~~ . _:: ~_ __d' __... ---.. 1/W'..'Yli1rb - ,r. .'.-:;"__' .........~.,~ ';~"-- ~ .,,:,,'tf'trWO,'aalA:' \\'\ . r~ "..-^' .,', 1\t' ':'lI........=.:......- " , ,,' I ~, , j , , :\ : I i\:l,\ I' I ' 11 '_'~, ' l . \,,-,11. I . 1~":-\ ,:- a " ",:;'i!;' ;lWi H ~I ~ I ' ~' ~i ~L'\I'\ ;~lr'; ji II \U _ .'",' ," ; .. , :, ~ I ~~O~ '\ : ,', ',:\'\1', '1'\ j' l' C ._ ..",. ...1'f'~ .,." . ~ - R 4.DI '! ", ! I I .:" , 0: ~\l i ' I' .~ '!I:l\ ,:~ 1:1 * , i ;jI i \ : I t ji> q;. H' 1 I \i.l J \ ~' :, ..~l,.}, t+. I ;; . *'\ ill ~ ,~i'iH'i~ },;; \~ ~ 1 . :;.: "''':'T~' I, Ii! I I :,d 9,~1\'\l!l ~!i::' " ~ ' \ l- I ,.~ I! ~ l". i. li -- .,... 1 ~,~_._~ 1\ \ .,.~; 9 !lh'! I!l\' I~! 'i ' \ \ " 0 'tllll,\ i'l \1: ~ I'! . \ () j. t. '\1 !. I \; ~ 1;,1' . '\ " ~ . \U'llH,'~ a\ . .. t :,',;.',",'\, ~~.~~ I '\ ~n. <:i IHPW\ I~i 1 ~\ ! \:1 !"". \ I \ li!'~"Plrl\ 1\1 \ \1 ~ ~ 1 \ ;,;\ ii1!i" , "\ '1;1 ~ 1:1i!\H\ l' \ ,\ ~ 't:'i I~' ~~l~..'~ ~ i !i\ ~ '~i\,hi. IH J ~\{ I- 1 ~ _ i~~' : I ,i a) \' '\ .J. Ui , i 1\~, ~\1 ~~~,~I :':, \U\ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ \11-1 ~ \' 1~ I lUh .. I '-" J l!il~!tl . ~_ b c~ ~,jI . h :\; E t: l~i n Ul"'~1I l. ;'\ ;~!, ~~~ .. " i. .........41fi e~'C~v'\l bit i "'!liv W'.'!~~ ~ ~~~! ; ~ I -'t. x, 11: i! 'I: .. ;:...... ..~!~ ()l tL * j;' 't ... "i -" _ 'n't't~. . ". 1" 'lii- ~ ~ ",;1. I ~~<;,;.I' .I!' ;!;: ~ I \'!i!~UI; ~\, IiI I \ 1 .1111 I l"a.t~.ihllU I ; i '"I,U-' iii \ ' :, i ,l. i i I !~i l\hii'~ m 1'\ i. ,\ . n ! n~' i.tii! itMhl~\!i 1~1 "i~ l~~ Ii lillI" } ~"t. . !~i!\~d I.I~il\1 mU! it. !g~ I '1" Uii ." i~\".tiiJ v t lidl 1. '"1.-.,, ',I. 'n ~i,,}, .161\1, :,I!"l!'~l\hOll tl1l.1l 1..,1,. t.:.,Ji~!a ...1' ~ 'C:;\_R~ . L .. ~ii. ..HLU.a ..,...... I n 5 f-.. j\ l~~ 1 . 't~ :li~ n t';! i:v.I.ti \ :;1 I!;! \.\! 41 I" ~: h iJUl ~~'.. t it~i;f . ~;}. € J; ! :\ \ ' , ' , i '" i \ i I . !.~ ," ! I r I i \ ,t~"." , I '} . \ \' ' \ ~ , I I I', , , \~ , . i I. ..-_..-----_........__....._..._-_.......:.:..~........ o .. ~,,~l ll.i ~i sl\ii~ I- .> ~--------~~~--- r_.- 1""lII,Toel _.:_.._..-qq."':":"I7' ,-,,_., .. ---. .,...,.U'15 .1' ~'J/ 'i f, ;; /' . , , I. -~ ,-,,-"- ~ ;:5;"-"-"-' .._n ., ~J ., ,'\, ...... i. I ,i ". 1,0.\ ... '~ i~ ,! , . ~.!. , I' ... ", ". l~' \ ~ - ~";":"';'~~:"~~ ,( "-~..,, .. -~ ..." ....,.......6 - '-j! ~ ~2~ "I' \ \1 iil\ ~ \ 1 , ' I!~ ! I~ I, 11 .1 '\ t i~ , 'n l~l ! i,l i. llil. l'~ i i !~! I~W IIi \ j ill I \1\' Ih !~ !~ i tl,! iin il }- IIi l \"\ Il~i ,t \\ l\t~ i, \1,\\\ \\\~ i! ~ Ii i 'i1!!'1 \,t! 11\'" 0 .' lh~p\'li\'!il'\:; ;\~ ; ~-!ll~! I; l \IIi!; ~ .,,\ ~ ;J;ps ~ I I 0: ,~ -: E t ~! n 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ \ I I ~ , :"-1 i\! \ '..1, . '\'\" . , . ! 1 I \ ti\ll !\\ 'I k;, h \ II \ h\ \, ]. Itl" ."\)ll · t-II 't'.1 th !P.' !j .', , 1\ \.ll \. I ) ... \~ t t ~ ; .. \' i:'P jl j ~: t! ~~It~ t;; _ III' .lfr' " , 'ii 1 j ;1!l,l ~ ? c l~ f"\~'" t to: ~ to- ~...-" - - ." .... . ~ ..~__,4."":' ,:~;.4"""'" ....,.....,-..,..'-. -" e e III !! ... ~ ~';- (.\ ~~: (j) ~ '2 $ . .. .. ~ I ~ 1i a' .. u u ~;.. - e. ~ ~~ c= ~ ~ ~ Q iIllI: = CI Eo ~ I , ! \._" ~-'J ~ ~.. .-.,- t i- I. ~.. ,-"-'---;j f- ,-..-..- Lf of> 'f..- ; - '1 ;lQ ._ _....J.. .~.. (f' : _j I' t !l;_'_u- -i l ~ '\:1.. ,-,-"-1' '. ~ . . ~ . ~ \ r--- . I \ (f' " ~.... ~lin , : (S .< .;,J, ... ~ \!! III ! ~ ~n\ ,....... \ ., ..~. ; .. ~ ~ ~ I ~ . :'/Io"'~ I .. ,...:>0' I ; 't :;..'. ~'''''''...~ : ..' ~ , -..;:> 7.. ,:'" ~ \or l" .~.~~ 0 ~~ .',-,,;; ...l H :,.'; I i. "-1 ::J. ~. .".:'~ I : Cl. , I ~ ; ~ = 1 . '" I " j! @', ,,,.. .4 if I- :/ ,/ ,.Ij () ~~!. -J. i~i ~ ~~! }} ::i' G ~'~l t ~ ~ l\ ' . PLANNING AND ZONING DEPAR~ MEMORANDUM NO. 95-712 VI. PUBLIC HEARING E cc: Plan, Util, Dev Agenda Memorandum for December 19, 1995 City Commission Meeting TO: Carrie Parker City Manager FROM: Tambri J, Heyden ~~ Planning and Zoning Director DATE: December 14, 1995 SUBJECT: Newport Place PUD (f.k,a, Stanford Park PUD) PKLV 95-006 Parking lot variance (Increase in number of driveways) Please place the above-referenced request under Public Hearings for the December 19, 1995 City Commission agenda, DESCRIPTION: Mr. Donaldson E, Hearing, agent for Newport Place Associates, Ltd, is requesting relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 23 - Parking Lots, Article II, Section H.7 "Number of Driveways" to allow two (2) additional driveways, for a total of four, onto Northwest 7th Court. This section of the codes allows only two of the four driveways. please see attached Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. ,95-687 for a detailed description of this request, RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Development Board, with a 7-0 vote, recommended approval as requested by the applicant. It should be noted that the Technical Review Committee (TRC) recommendation to allow only one (not the center driveway) of the two requested driveways was based on two issues: ril' I:"D-(\l {'It~ a) N,W. 7th Court currently dead-ends at the south boundary of this PUD. It has not yet been extended to connect to Miner Road, since there is vacant R-lAA zoned property adjacent to the area where it could be extended. It is not known whether this property will be subdivided in such a way that would create the need for this extension and also additional entrances/driveways onto N, W. 7th Court, In the event development of this property does create such a need, the TRC felt it-~asary to adhere to code by limiting as many additional access points, as possible, onto N.W. 7th Court, unless there is an absolute need. b) The applicant has indicated that the fourth driveway is not an absolute need, but would enhance their on site traffic circulation by separating service traffic from non-service traffic, TJH:dim xc: Central File a:CCAgPKLV.New ..... ..... PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO, 95-6B7 TO: Chairman and Members Planning and Development Board FROM: Tambri J, Heyden "(ffd Planning and Zoning Director DATE: December B, 1995 SUBJECT: Newport Place - PKLV 95-006 Parking Lot Variance (Increase in Number of Driveways) NATURE OF REQUEST Chapter 23 - Parking Lots, Article I, Section 3.B,3.d, of the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, requires that when a variance to the parking lot regulations is requested, the Technical Review Committee must forward to the City Commission, a recommendation that is to be part of the public record, This change in parking lot variance procedure for Commission action only on parking lot variances become effective with the recent adoption of the land development regulations. Although this function is no longer formally a part of the Planning and Development Board's duties, the Commission has indicated that they would like the Board's comments and recommendation on a parking lot variance that is submitted concurrently and in connection with a related site plan or conditional use approval, since parking lot design is a significant part of reviewing a site plan, The information below has been prepared by staff to be made part of the record for the public hearing proceedings before the City Commission on December 19, 1995, and serves to apprise the Board of the variance that has been submitted in connection with the master plan for the Planned Unit Development for Newport Place that requires formal review by the Board (See Exhibit "A" Application) , BAC1\:GROtlND Mr, Donaldson E. Hearing, agent for Newport place Associates, Ltd., is requesting a variance to the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 23 - parking Lots, Article II, Section H,7 for the number of driveways that shall be permitted onto any public or private right-of-way, The variance is requested to allow two additional driveways in connection with a new master plan approval for the Newport Place Planned Unit Development (PUO) f.k,a, Stanford Park PUO located at 4735 rquLLhwest 7th Court; approximately 1400 feet south of the southwest corner of Hypoluxo Road and Northwest 7th Court. (see Exhibit "B" -location map and Exhibit "C" - master plan) , The existing Newport Place site contains a large 4 story building that houses 356 ALF beds including administrative offices. This building fronts on Northwest, 7th Court. A detached ancillary recreation building is located to the west of the main ALF building, Direct access to the site is provided by two existing driveways located on Northwest 7th Court, One of these driveways provides egress from the main entrance located in the middle of the main building, This area of the site also contains visitor parking. The other access driveway provides ingress/egress to the south end of the main building. This area of the site contains parking for the residents and access for delivery vehicles and sanitation vehicles to serve the recreation building, Another two- way driveway on Northwest 7th Court is located on the adjacent property (medical office building) located directly north of the Newport Place ALF, This driveway provides access to the medical office building and cross access into the Newport Place site, The access into Newport Place is two-way and connects with the previously identified egress located on Northwest 7th Court, There is direct access into the PUO from Hypoluxo Road. This I Page 2 Memorandum No. 95-687 Newport Place - PKLV 95-006 ingress/egress serves the nursing home that fronts on Hypoluxo Road. This driveway also leads to a cross access into the Newport Place site, This cross access allows traffic flow to the resident parking located on the north and west sides of the Newport Place ALF, The two proposed driveways in question are to be located as entrances into the south portion of Newport Place, The two new driveways are in connection with the development of a four (4) story 120 bed Assisted Living Facility (ALF) also located in the south portion of the Newport place site, Both of the proposed driveways are located on Northwest 7th Court. The first of the two access points would serve as the primary point of visitor access to the new assisted living facility, utilizing a drop-off turnaround area that is very similar to the one located within the existing Newport Place ALF. The applicant feels that this access point is a crucial element to the design creating a sense of entry and identity for prospective visitors and residents. The second access point is proposed as a means of convenience for services (fire, emergency, solid waste removal, food and maintenance) , ANALYSIS Chapter 23, Article II, Section H. 7, of the City of Boynton Beach, Land Development Regulations, states the following: "7. Number of driveways. No more than two (2) driveways shall be permitted from any property. Where properties abut more than one (1) public or private right-of-way, additional driveways may be permitted depending on traffic volumes, but in no instance shall the number of driveways exceed two (2) on each street," The applicant'S proposal represents an increase in the number of driveways serving the two (2) Newport Place site to a total of four (4) to accommodate the planned construction of an additional 120 beds with forty new parking spaces. RBCOMMENDATION On Tuesday, October 24, 1995, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewed the plans and documents submitted and formulated a recommendation with regard to the variance requested, After review and discussion, the TRC recommended approval of the request for one (1) additional driveway entering the southern end of the parcel to allow the ingress and egress to function efficiently for public services such as fire and rescue vehicles and sanitation vehicles. The second proposed entry way located in the center of the proposed new ALF building is not recommended because the traffic analysis submitted by the applicant did not demonstrate traffic volumes that would require an additional driveway. Therefore, the proposed center drivew~y is not needed. DCD:bme XC: Central File A; PKLOTVAR. NPP v.2. - - E X H I BIT "A" . /' '" ,-' cxn or ~ldOll BDCB, rLOItIDA PLAIIlaIlG , ZClHIIICJ so."n APPLICA'1';OII I'OR VARIAIICZS 'l'O P~Q LgJ RBGULATIOIIS This appUcat:1on 1II1I.It: be filled out aCllllplet.ly and aaourately and .uJ:a1t:t:ecl 1D two ( 2) copi.. to the Planning DepUtllleDt. lna...,.lete appUcauCJD,8 will DCIt: be proae..ed. ~le..e ftiDt: Legibly or ~ All IDfo~t1on. 1. Project: HlIm8 of Slte Upon Whicb Puk1ng Lot 1. taaatedr NEWPORT PLACE 2. Date Thi. AppUcation 1. Su!lII1ttecb Oct. 24, 1995 , 3. APPUcant...... (pu'.0Il ~ bwl1raea., a1:11:y 1D who.. DaJIla t:b1. appUaaUon 1a IllAdah Donaldson E. Hearing Addr.... 1070 E. Indiantown Rd., Ste. 402 'Jupiter, FL 33~77 Pholle r (407) 747-6336 (UP COd8r I'u, (407) 747-1377 4. AGat'. II (perBOll, if any, repnMDt!D.g appUcanth. p licant is A ent ~., ...., I ' ' I'&x, , (Up coc!8~ . A let:t:c fRIll tba appUCWlt or ower author1B1ag the agmat: 1s r~red. s. PropertY, ~'s (~~'.) ....:--=--- ~Ronald L. Avlor (Owner's ReDresen~a~iv~) .Addr..., iNewport Place, 4735 Lantana, FL 33462 N.W. 7th Court Phone, (407) 586-6455 o. Con..pol'4uae Addl:e.. U.! 4ifferat t:haD appUcut or &gat)**, .. Thi. 1. tIuI addxa.. to which all .pad.., l.tter., AD4 ot.Uc mat:u1a1a ,,111 be 1II&11ecl. PLANHING DEPr. - Jan~ 1991, A:Pk!.otVllr If I Of' I l... l ~ ~.. I .. ...... W. , .. 'W' ( 2) 7. What 1. appUQaDt:.. inter..t: iD the premJ.... aff.at:ed? Owner's Representative Agent i I c OWZUU:, B~, Le...., Bu11ct.r, Developer, eta.) I 8. St:reet: Addr... of Looat1oD of sit:e Upon Which ParkiDg Lot 18 Located. 4711i N W 7~"" ,..."""...... 9. Legal Description of Sit. Upoa Wbic:b ParJd.ng Lot ia Located. See attached Legal Descript~on 10. In1:eDd1l4 Ua.(a) of Site IJpoA Wb1ab ParJd.Dg Lot: i. Located. Assisted Livina Fa~ili~v 11. DeVelapB o~ 1Iu11d.eJ:, N"W1'U.U"~ 1)1 ",... a.a""...." ~"a., T."" 12. AzCb1~1 O/Keefe & Associates. Architects 13. ~-~~.pe ArCb1teat:1 Cot leur Hearing, Inc. 14. Site PluDUI Cot leur Hearina~ Inc. 15. Engineera Michael B. Schorah & Associates 16. Surveyara Landmar~ Surveying, Inc. -~--- 17. ~aff~a BDg'~~8C1 Yvonne Ziel Traffi~ Cnnsul~An~~ 18. con of lul: naon.4 Wa:~lIDq DeIl4 1Dolude4? (aheok) v 11. Lenu au.~i.1Dg &pDt (U UIJ') 1Dol11Ud'l (~aJl) X 20. S1t:e pl_ lUId IIIIJ:Ver (2 eopiea eaoh) at:Qabed'l (aMok) X 21. WO-"u' 01 vel-owe. 1:8IIUat:ect CD tbe foUowiDg sheeta. ..L JlJO'.rJIa A ..pu'ate ...1: ..t be a~leted f_ .aaIa QeG1fia '4~_!~""'_'Dt: (8~. 5-141) _ pua1t app11aat:.1on I: t (Sea. 5-142) to wbiaIl a va:luae 18 ~. I , A:PJcLotVar - ... ~' "" \' , ~., J:- l.(~ ~::tt ;~:,~ ~~, tJ f~ . , . ~, " " " :~" - ; ~: ~' \.. t ~, ti: ~' .' ;: , ';{ ~ " " . , " "- , ~t .... ..lI.cj'I'/.a.-r'Io::I...:..~b ~I.J I I-bU~- Hl=.H~ I. 1'.11..=- .I. N~ "''''''''' . ......I0o.I..:; ...... .....11 u,-" 1..--.... ':".J. :;I.~ .I..J._Io;..IO 4Q7747833t . . ..- , roo . ..... ......,) ,.. ,. 'M'tlll .....____~ U........ UQ~= itlt:J.t1oca "". IIl....4-..*' ...d 1I~1IIl 1Soa%4 eo arant: 1:D Ww. ....t:1..I:1, r a varianoe to AJ:'1:1a1e J[ ""~k1D; LOt:a", of Cbapl:e:lr a, uBW,1d1Dg. Boull11l and Cm.IlIt:~d_ ~A1:icma", of t.M celle of O:ccUlI.Il~.. at! the City of 8ora~ De.ob, JrJ.c:l4a, &8 11: peZ01:d.IuI 1:0 'tIa. P2:OlNIJ:tY deacs~Ule4 ~ ~ &lIPJJ.oaUOa, IID4 fm: 1:h. &'..~ .'t&1:e4 below, SeatiDn, lIuh_at:1cm, lUId 1'U.=_ ndlabe:t: of apooif1a ra(DIJ.rrmllDt to wldah vad.aJW. i. t1Iqlt..tect., e4 ___ llUl1JlZ&9tl conta1necl1%l the Code. Section 23-9 ~.7 Number ot dr1v.v~v.. No mor. thsft CZl driveways .h~l' ka pa~M.~~_~ (rom any p~operty. Where properti.. abut, mo~e tban one (1) public or privato ~ight-or-v.y, addition.l driv.vay. may be permitted, deQendi~g upon t~arrlc volumes, but in no in.bane. shall th.'nUMber or driveways exeeed bWO on each street. Nat:~. o~ Varianca Reque81:e4a Two addf~ionftl ~~~DA. Dointe ineo Planned Unit D8Vglonm.n~ o~ Newnor~ Pla~@ o,~ N.W. 7th Court. Stat~...t: of lZ>>eaia1. enqJ"UDDII, BAl'cbIh1P., aI:' o~ r...ou JWI~ ~.I~t:C VU1ano8 Cattaab84 ac!41i:lonl ~. 11 nac...a&'J'). ' See attach.d J~t1ficat1on ~tatement I I ~8IlIl ~t: ~. ~oaUOll. tIA4 .11 paptS'. or pld- Udl bIIClO11W . ~ of 1:h8 pe"'....'-t: r~ ot the .--. . Date I All?kLotVar It .~ I.~ '-' ... - Site Elements: Accesa Point.: As previously stated, the property II located adjacent to the 100 ft. Right-of-Way Hypoluxo Road and 60 ft. Right-of-Way N.W. 7th Court. Both of these roads are considered by the C~,!o be of public use. It Is Intended to propose two additional access points onto N,W. 7th Court oniy'-l'hese access points are to be located on ihe proposed development of Tract #4, The first of the two access points would selVe as the primary point of visitor access to the Assisted living Facility, utilizing a drop-off turnaround area that is very much similar to the one located within the existing Newport Place ACLF, This access point Is felt to be a crucial element to the design by way of creating a sense of entry and Identity to the facility for not only prospective visitors, but the residents themselves, The second access point Is proposed as a means of convenience to selVlce providers of the complex (I,e,: Fire, emergency, solid waste removal, food, and cl..nlng), The 10Clltlons of the.e two additional access points are designed to conform to the maximum vehicular safety standard. of the City'. Land Development regulations and would ultimately dictate a more efficient Internal vehicular circulation program throughout the project, Additionally, the proposed access points are to be located on a portion of N,W, 7th Court, which In actuality selVes only the PUD, Therefore, they would not create any undue hardship to any of the surrounding residential communities. Prepared by Cod..r H_...... G:lProjectslOenenllNwpWt 9/28195 '. 7 E X H I BIT "B" . ,"> , '0 ,- , J\I \ ~ 1 1'",\ ' 1 T 11' : 11 (iill1 J \ ~ ~t~ m l\'-./ 1='1\ ~ m ~. tt i QL .d~ '_...~: ( r;-t' I _ J ;.~\ . . ___ _.. 1 \ ~ ,," iFt :3 i \ \ ~ \ I I... J~~' ,_.t,... \ \ l~ \ " m ri', \ I " ; \ f I n~\ . II' .\1\\1'1" y, \.', I I ' -- ,) , [fI': ~ .,..;::\~ ' \ ,\\,1' ~ , \ " II, .- ~t~~ \,[1\ \1\;\'" ~~_~ ' l' :'1 ' , i. \ ~:~ l' "" N~; \ · IVY' · ~,;, ~ " '\ \ (c'"'' , - ~ '?ClrD rrt/iHl~ , \ ~' ." , \' ~ I \= l"~ I "1' \ _ ~ ~;,...J 1 I ,,\ I _ 'JJ..{. I/~ -/ ~ c, C'C 1 I-r~ / Y',f'I'\~, . ~"-~ ,~ qt l---,. i _ r--,.- .-^ \ .' 'c ,I ! it-' = U.- "" .r-' /""- rt! ' C -- _ ~c> ~ ;ID :: ~e- H~ I ~/ : ~ I- "r~)'} ,P1~' 1 c-~- ,; II. bi rr ~ " ,\ \. ,t,i<~'" j4 .-. ~ / . -\ 0 i >>'1 ' - i \' ; , \~: .-'''' , '..,/ . I I "- e,./] -,,', '\:\~ ,::\ 0-" ' '-. ", .' /-. L 'II ',' I J .,,\\ \\ '\\ M\LE\~ _"~ ~- - '~ >-" / ~ ~'O 4008~R fEE,T . ,z'o' ...-- L '11' III p.1C u. .. f: l[ ,~ l-L ~ ~ ~ -- _.J .\ - ,\ " ~), \' ~..", " :, .."'.:. / '''<. ',,""'" '\'~R '1 A P. ~-,... - ---- i- -' I:, I~ ,,' ":' ,C'-..., ,~ :'-... . , ' \. '" \ \ )- I =--,.~ -::;.- \ t='"p"A n~7rG/ ~ '7T' ',~ ~"~ ,..~ .-o.q" At=' F'utJP:f! , ~9-rAT~~ I ~" .e ->'- E X H I BIT "e" . /0 ------ ;~' !IAl -j - ~,I~ = .ja ~... If' S 'j" ,'. _ . j j {~;h' I .;i I '1,1 i Ii!' I 011', IIHdd!nf~fntHlfl: n,; .. " uH 1.1 i . = I ~il:1lii , .' a~' "' a~a~' ~i;' ~,. ' ~ J~='i!!!~~ ~!!t I < ~= . . ~ . t " I ~!. . ~ j " ~ ~ . ~" i ,11 I r' ~ l!i ; . .~ ' ! z - IT1; Ipl"" t. ., - -' 11tH}iiJ f!h ~! ~ f-4. j !ilHth ]~fi IIJI II ~' ,';' I 1 I' ::?:: I,' .,'n .. ~...:.... ... I~; :!~~ ." ------- ---w--- ....' _._-~- ~ 'I) I \1\ C' ~ :It Q. 'f j , ~ .. .. -a ! i(l)' ~ ! G t.. } . " I Ill' '1"",,1 'I " J I I I \ 4 . , ,'I W! 4 1 ! I t! 'J(WI~;11 \'; f i! t 1 I ! I Ii hlll'!ll}!l ' , ",' I ' . .,1' .1' ' ( . I ~ { I \I fp' II il, :lldll}1 j' ; : ; I ,( 1 , If C-' Ilj'llr I · t llWlj": : ,q zl (11 h !& 1'1 tlh:1jhJU ! , ;"..\ ~11. '! It llll.ll!! ~;!tjllll! i 1 \, ! : \ f5J ~l :"4 .1 , ,11 ,1IWl'II\"I"1 ; 111;:" ...' ~~,' 1..1 ",.,1 \ , . ., . " ~ , 1 ; , ~ ~ ~ ..... ,.... ::: ~ ' t ~ l1~i Q~ d:i, . I i!pt ~.i triP ~ = at HH1 i 1':~" "illS f ~,"'41 e" ;f Z s. n.~ \;.~ H ~ '~I~,r,\ o' ~ I . -- - l I" rt . c:a E:!.3 .~~.3 i ~ '1," . ... _!:. T ..I ~... i ~ ,,, . 1 1 ,~,! I \ ::J. I' \ ' ,.-.. ~ ~ "- .-. ~ , .' I (\\(1) ffil ~~ a.~ z Ii PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO, 95-687 TO: Chairman and Members Planning and Development Board FROM: Tambri J. Heyden Planning and Zoning Director DATE: December 12, 1995 SUBJECT: Newport Place - PKLV 95-006 Parking Lot Variance (Increase in Number of Driveways) NATURE OF REQUEST Chapter 23 - Parking Lots, Article I, Section 3.B.3,d. of the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, requires that when a variance to the parking lot regulations is requested, the Technical Review Committee must forward to the City Commission, a recommendation that is to be part of the public record, This change in parking lot variance procedure for Commission action only on parking lot variances become effective with the recent adoption of the land development regulations. Although this function is no longer formally a part of the Planning and Development Board's duties, the Commission has indicated that they would like the Board's comments and recommendation on a parking lot variance that is submitted concurrently and in connection with a related site plan or conditional use approval, since parking lot design is a significant part of reviewing a site plan. The information below has been prepared by staff to be made part of the record for the public hearing proceedings before the City Commission on December 19, 1995 and serves to apprise the Board of the variances that have been submitted in connection with the United Parcel Service communication Center's major site plan modification application that requires formal review by the Board (See Exhibit "A" , Application) , BACKGROUND Mr, Donaldson E. Hearing, agent for Newport place Associates, Ltd" is requesting a variance to the city of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 23 - Parking Lots, Article II, Section H,7 for the number of driveways that shall be permitted onto any public or private right-of'way as described in Article II , Required Improvements of Chapter 23 ' Parking lots (see Exhibit "B" , Article II, Chapter 23). The variance is requested to allow two additional driveways in connection with a concurrent major site plan modification application for the Newport Place Planned Unit Development (PUD) located at 4735 Northwest 7th Court; approximately 1400 feet south of the southwest corner of Hypoluxo Road and Northwest 7th Court. (see Exhibit "C" -location map and Exhibit "D" - site plan) . The two proposed driveways in question are to be located as entrances into the proposed Planned Unit Development of Newport Place off Northwest 7th Court. The first of the two access points would serve as the primary point of visitor access to the Assisted Living Facility, utilizing a drop,off turnaround area that is very similar to the one located within the existing Newport Place ACLF. The applicant feels that this access point is a crucial element to the design creating a sense of entry and identity for prospective visitors and residents. The second access point is proposed as a means of convenience to service provided to the complex (fire, emergency, solid waste removal, food and cleaning). The two access points are to be located on a portion of Northwest 7th Court, serving only the PUD. Page 2 Memorandum No. 95-687 Newport Place - PKLV 95,006 ANALYSIS Chapter 23, Article II, Section H. 7, of the City of Boynton Beach, Land Development Regulations, states the following: "7, Number of driveways, No more than two (2) driveways shall be permitted from any property, Where properties abut more than one (1) public or private right-of-way, additional driveways may be permitted depending on traffic volumes, but in no instance shall the number of driveways exceed two (2) on each street." The applicant proposes to increase from two entrances into the PUD to a total of four to accommodate the planned construction of an additional 120 beds with forty new parking spaces, including two handicapped. RECOMMENDATION On Tuesday, October 24, 1995, the Technical Review committee (TRC) reviewed the plans and documents submitted and formulated a recommendation with regard to the variance requested. After review and discussion, the TRC recommended approval of the request for one additional driveway entering the southern end of the parcel for ancillary uses connected to the Planned Unit Development, The second proposed entry way located in the center of the parcel along Northwest 7th Court is not recommended as it will create unnecessary congestion of traffic and volume into and coming out of the site. DCD:bme XC: Central File A:PKLOTVAR.NPP CJ:~ OF lIm,doN BEACH, rLOlUDA PLANNJ:NCf , ZONINCf BOARD APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES ~G LD'r REGULATIONS This application must be f1l1ed out aamp1etely aad aocurately and sw.uitted in t.wa (2) copies to the Planning Departsllen1::. :tnaa\llJPlete applications will !lot be proce.Bed. 1?leaBe Print Legibly or ~e All Information. 1. Project Name ,of Site Upon Which Parking Lot is Located: NEWPORT PLACE 2. Date This ApplicatioD is Sul:lm1tted. Oct. 24, 1995 , 3. ~11cant'. Name (pel:BOn or bU8ineBs, enti1:}' in whose D8IllII this application is made). 4. (ZlP COde) Phone I (407) 747-6336 Fax I (407) 747-1377 Agent'. Mt: (pel:SOD, if any, representing applicant)a. ......., lPE"C'" ,. Ago" I Phone: I * A letter flt'am the applicant or owner authorizing the agent , is re~ired. I property, pwner' 8 (or 'J:J:UBtee'.) NIIJIle: Donaldson E. Hearing 1070 E. Indiantown Rd., Ste. 402 Jupiter, FL 33477 Mdre... (Zip Code) FiLlI:l " 5. !Ronald L. Avlor (Owner's Reoresentativel .Addre.s. i Newport Place, 4735 Lantana, FL 33462 N.W. 7th Court Phone. (407) 586-6455 8. Coueapandenco Addre.. (if different than appl1ciU1t or agent)"': .. This 18 the address to which all agendas f letters, and other mate:r:laltl will be mailed. PLANNING DEPJ:. - Jan~ary 1991 A:PkLotVllr (2) 7. What i. appliaaot'. inter..t in the premi.es affeeted? Owner's Representative Agent I I (OWDer, B~~, Le..ee, Bv.11der, Developer, eta.) I 8. Street ~e.. of Loaaden of site Upon Which Parking Lot Is Located: 47~c;, N' tAl "to'" f"'nn....... 9. Legal Description of Site upon Which Parking Lot i. Located: See attached Legal Descript~on 10. Intended Use(s) of Site Upon Which Parking Lot is Located: Assisted Livina Fac;litv 11. Developer OJ:' Bui1deJ:" N~wnnr~ Pl~~p AQan~~~.oe T.~~ 12. Architect: ~O;Keefe & Associates. Architects 13. Landscape Architect: Cot leur Hearing, Inc. 14. Site Plannerl Cotleur Hearina. Inc. 1S. Engineer. Michael B. Schorah & Associates 16. Surveyor: Landmart Surveying, Inc. 17. Traffio Bng~Brl Yvonne Ziel Traffic ~onsu]~antR lB. COpy of last recorded Warranty Deed included? (check) v 19. Letter autharialnG aGant (if any) 1=1114ec1'l (aheold x 20. Site plan ami sw:ve3r (2 copies each) att:aahad? (aheck) X 21. Numb.r of vull1110ea requested on the following sheeu: ..L- JI~I "separate aheet IIl1IIIt 1Ma cOlllPlate4 for eaoh specific de8itID rellUiremeat (Sec. 5-141) or pexmit appUc.Uon requ1rement (Sea. 5-1.&2) to which a variance 1s reClQ.llste4. ":PkLotVar 1.' ". '."" \I:: l~.';:: .flt, l;i~i ,:; ", y'.~l l\~ 1\ \l, , , ~, ~, I', .' , ~' S; !? i ~~, ;j: 1::' r,~' ~; i i',' % r..': l';' ;l g; 1-:' " ., l1l\'I'" , ~.. "''''11 I "I'll.... _' _, ..I.. -l. : "J~::. 407'/4763:JE . ..- . II. ... ... ...(':ir.. . II" '/'h,. "..........._lu........ 'UIIII'U3f ...t.t,t1ona t-". >>J.....4....11I ....4 Ilon;l..nll Jloa2:4 ~c Q'r...nt ~D ~ ~t:.t:c;lcmer a va:rtantle to AX't1C11. x "I'll-deb; LOt.S". of Cbapt:e2: 6, "Eh.a!.lcU.nQ', BOil. Lng and Cara.st~tion llogulAt1011S". of the Code o! Orc11nanae. of t:be Cit:y of Boptorl Deaem. lFlm:ida. AS it: pe2:ta:f.r1. to 'dl. SIl:Q1>erty deacrJ.be4 iu tU. -W1ioAI:.1C1D, tm4 for tbe re&IIIO_ IItatea. belOWI Seet:l.on. Subllect:ion. and ia:ra\Jt:aph numbor of ..pecina nClUiTf'lJllltDt. to which YA%'llU1ce 1.8 rBl1"..tltCS. IUS4 e)uf,Ct lazavwag. contaJ.necl 1D the. Cl04e. Section 23-9 H.7 NU~bc~ ot driveways. No bO~. than (2) dri~Qwavs .h~1' "6 ~arM4.~~~ from any prope~ty. Where prop.rtl.. abut, more than one (1) public or privatQ rlght-o~-vaYI additional driv.waye ~fty be permitted, depending upon t~a~~1c volumes, but in no inetanee shall the'number . Of driveways exceed two on ~ach street. , Natura o~ Vlll;!iWce Requested: Iwo addi~ionbl a~~p~~ points into Planned Unit Develooment of New~ort Place off N.W. 7th Court. ~~ Btat:e1llBnt of Special ComUt:1ClDB, B4rdsh!PIJ. or ot:he;,:- reallona Juat:1fy1ngo ~h"', 1l"'<IU81l1tUlS variance (attaahad a.ddi1:1onal .beset.. 1f necBIUlla~) . See attached Ju6tificatlon statement , I I I \1) 'W.) un4es: tud 1;bat ~b1. Qpl1o.1:1on and all pape~. or plllD. aUbmitt.d nUll itlll beCOllle . :pet of the pqtlQn811t l'.cc~ of t:hs Planning and :nilo.ll RJ:.lU4. (3:) (We) her statements or herewith Il.r:a appl1oation III Slgnat\1ra of o DAte II AIPkLot:Var It 'l: Art. !, !il CHAPTER 23 PARKING LOTS Article I. Article II. In General Required Improvements ARTICLE I. IN GBNBRAL Section 1. Purpose and obj ecti ves. A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a set of regulations to govern the design and construction of parking lots within the City of Boynton Seach. It is 1nten~ed that these regulations provide a minimum set of standards to be followed when parking lots are constructed in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, Furthermore, the City of Boynton Beach recognizes the relationship of these regulations to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, B. Objectives. The objectives of these regulations include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. To provide a maximum degree of safety and protection for the public through the orderly design of parking lots; 2. To provide for a standard for construction which results in a relatively durable and nuisance free parking lot; 3. To reduce the negative environmental impacts which may result from parking lot construction; 4. To provide for storm water retention on site; 5. To provide for parking lots which are constructed in such a manner that the physically handicapped are not discriminated against; and , 6. To permit the land owner to benefit from his ownership by providing for orderly parking lot design and construction consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Section 2. Scope. These regulations shall be applicable to all permanent parking lots constructed or reconstructed in the city. In order to clarify the applicability of these regulations, compliance is required under any of the following conditions: A. When a parking lot serves an existing building(s) where said building(s) is proposed to be enlarged or when an additional building(s) is proposed to be constructed; Adopted April 4. 1"., OrdiD.Dce 0'5-02 ,.vl..d 23-1 \ Art. I, 52 B, When a change in building occupancy occurs as defined in the Standard Building Code; C. When a change in use occurs which results in additional parking being required as noted in Chapter 2, Section 11.H.16 of these Land Development Regulations; D, When compliance with the landscaping code is required; E. Reserved; F. When an existing parking lot is expanded by twenty-five (25) per cent or more in parking stalls beyond what was originally approved; and G. When any new parking stalls, driveways, access aisles or parking lots are proposed, these newly constructed areas must comply with the requirements of this chapter. Section 3. Exemptions and variances. A. Exemptions. These regulations shall not be applicable under the following conditions: 1. When temporary office trailers are proposed where the public is not invited; 2. When temporary construction or storage trailers are proposed where the public is not invited; 3. When the parking of equipment or work vehicles or the storage of materials is proposed; and 4. When the number of parking stalls in an existing parking lot is expanded by less than twenty-five (25) per cent beyond what was originally approved and no building(s) is proposed to be enlarged or constructed, the existing portion of the parking lot need not comply with the requirements of this chapter. However, any newly constructed areas must comply with the requirements of this chapter, 5. When a multi-family residential project is proposed and is designed to include units containing garages served by driveways, then these units shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter. This exemption shall not apply to multi-family units that do not contain garages. 6. When proposed modifications or renovations would not increase the number of dwelling units in an existing residential project, B. Variances. 1. Variances authorized, The City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach may grant variances to any Adopt.d April 4. 1.tS. OrdiDaac. Ot5~02 .."I...d 23-2 \ Art. I, S3 section of this chapter or any design standards referenced hereinafter by conducting a public hearing at which any party may appear in person, or through his duly authorized agent, to give testimony. a. Variances may be granted only when the granting 'of same will not be contrary to the public interest, and where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ~rovisions of this chapter would result in an unnecessary hardship not created by the applicant or his predecessor in title, use or possession. 2. Variance procedure. A variance as herein authorized shall not be considered until a written application, and an application fee, as set by the City Commission by resolution, is submitted to the planning director, demonstrating the following: a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the physical or topographical features of the land or structures, which are not applicable to other lands or structures within the city; or b. That literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the terms of this chapter; or c. That the special conditions and circumstances referred to in subsection a above do not result from the action of the applicant or his predecessors; or d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands or structures in the city. 3. Granting variances; requirements. Before granting a variance, as authorized by this chapter, the City Commission shall find as follows: a, That the requirements for a public hearing have been met; b. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of land or structure; c, That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and Adopt.d April 4. 1"5, OrdlD.ace 0'5-02 ...1..4 , \ 23-3 Art. I, li3 d, That a recommendation has been reviewed by the technical review committee of the City of Boynton Beach, and that the recommendation has been made a part of the public record. 4. Conditions. In granting a variance, the City Commission may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in order to conform with the intent of this chapter. Violation of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall cause the variance to become null and void. Section 4. Minimum sta"~8'rds. All areas proposed for parking or storage including those instances exempted in Section 3 hereinbefore shall be improved to provide a hard, duet-tree Burt ace in compliance with city requirements, Section 5. Permitting. A. When required. A permit shall be secured from the director of development prior to the construction of any parking lot. The issuance of a permit shall not relieve any party from obtaining the necessary permits which may be required by the various state, federal or local government agencies which have jurisdiction over the proposed construction, including, but not limited to, permits for paving and drainage, lighting and irrigation. Pinal inspections of the parking lot for compliance with this chapter and other city code requirements and standards are required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, B. Permit application. In connection with a request for a permit to construct a parking lot, the owner, or his authorized agent, shall submit an application which shall include, but not be limited to, information and materials as follows: 1. Permit fee; 2. A sealed survey, not older than six (6) months which shows existing elevations and/or contours; existing easements or other encumbrances; existing structures and trees; and other topographical features. In addition, the survey must show elevations of adjacent properties and rights-of-way; right-of-way widths of adjacent roadways; paving; sidewalks; elevations; utility lines; and other features; 3, Location of parking and loading facilities including calculations for the number of parking stalls required and the number of parking stalls provided, Adopted April.. l't!, Ord1aaac. 0'5.02 ..v1..d 23-4 \ Art. I, S5 and the location of handicap parking stalls, signs and access ramps; 4. A cross-section of the materials to be used in the construction of the parking lot; 5. A parking lot layout including striping; 6, proposed site plan; 7. Parking lot lighting plan, including the location of lighting standards, pole types, luminaire type., illumination levels, direction of. lighting and type of activating mechanism; B. Certified statement of conformance with Chapter 22, Streets and Sidewalks, of the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations; 9. Location of existing and proposed streets to include ultimate rights-of-way. Dedication or right-of-way is required in conformance with the city and county comprehensive plans; 10. On-site traffic plan including arrows and traffic signs; 11. Landscaping plan and tree preservation plan consistent with current city codes; 12. Outline of all buildings on site to be served by the parking lot and existing and/or proposed us. of same; 13. Paving and drainage plans with elevations, including calculations and details of the drainage system; 14. Parking lots serving uses which generate three thousand (3,000) vehicles, single-directional trips per day or two hundred fifty (250) vehicle, single- directional trips in a one-hour period shall submit a traffic impact analysis. 15. Any other engineering or technical data necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the standards referred to herein, The above-mentioned information shall be included in subdivision construction plans when applicable, and with plans submitted for site plan approval or building permit. Section 6. Non-compliance. A. Stoppage of work. Failure to comply with the plans of record or other city ordinances shall result in an order to stop work from the development director. Damage to public property resulting from work performed may result in a stop work order if a threat exists to the health and safety of the public. B, Fines and penalties. In addition to the remedies afforded in Section 6 above, the city may enforce the provisions of this chapter as follows: Adopted April 4, 1"'. Ordl...ce 0".02 ...1..4 23-5 \ Art. I, !i6 1. Violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable by up to sixty (60) days in jail and/or a five hundred dollar ($500,00) fine, and the city may prosecute violations of this chapter as such. 2. The city may seek a mandatory injunction with the circuit court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County to enjoin violations of this chapter, Any violation of this chapter shall result in the authority to enjoin' said nuisance by injunction, and may require that the land upon which the violation has been committed be returned to its condition, prior to the violation, or as close thereto .. re..onably possible. Purther, any party creating a violation of this chapter or nuisance resulting from a violation of this chapter shall be responsible for all of the city's costs, including attorney's fees, for bringing any injunctive action pursuant to this section. 3. The city may prosecute violations of this chapter through the city's code enforcement board. 4. None of the above-listed remedies shall be considered to be mutually exclusive, and the city may pursue any or all of the above-listed remedies in conjunction with each other, ARTICLE II. REQUIRED IMPROVBMBRTS. Bach parking lot constructed or reconstructed shall include improvements as follows: A. Illumination 1. General a. Lighting design, A minimum average light level of one (1) foot candle shall be provided, with no more than ten (10) per cent of the spot readings below one (1) foot candle and none below one-half (1/2) foot candle, Fixtures shall be an energy efficient type automatically controlled by photoelectric switch or other device acceptable to the director of development and are to remain on from dusk to one (1) hour after closing or 2 A.M" whichever is later. Submit documents showing, at a minimum, pole locations and details; fixture types and sizes; light contours depicting anticipated levels of illumination (in foot candles) at roadway surface; certification of compliance with the Standard Building Code and capacity to withstand a 110 m,p.h. wind load; and proposed conduit routing. Adopted April.. t"'. Ordis..aa 0'1-02 .."1..4 23-6 '., \ Art. II b. pedestrian lighting. lots to buildings or shall be lit in such safe environment. Walkways connecting parking walkways between buildings a manner as to provide a B. Traffic control 1. Plan. Bach parking lot traffic plan sball provide for stop signs at exits, directional arrows, internal traffic signs and information signs where appropriate. It is intended by these regulations that the applicant retains the responsibility for the proper and efficient movement of traffic onto and/or through the site and that additional signing may be required to accomplish the safe movement of traffic, The location and type of traffic control devices shall comply with city standards. 2. Signing and marking. All traffic signing and pavement marking shall comply with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. particular attention is directed toward Section 2A, wbich contains sign design, shape, color, mounting height and other conditions, Fire lane signs shall be maximum fifty (50) feet apart; fire lane curbing shall be painted reflective yellow; the words Fire Lane shall be painted in three (3) foot high letters {four (4) inch brush stroke} every fifty (50) feet using white traffic paint; and No Stopping or Standing signs shall be posted. C. Landscaping, Bach parking lot shall be landscaped consistent with Chapter 7.5, Article II, Landscape Code, or in the instance of the central business district, chapter 7.5, Article III, Landscape Code, D. Irrigation. Bach parking lot shall ~e irrigated consistent with Chapter 7.5, Article II, Landscape Code, or in the instance of the central business district, Chapter 7.5, Article III, Landscape Code. E. CUrbs and car stops. No more than two (2) access aisles may be traversed without interruption which shall be accomplished by the placement of wheel stops or the installation of a raised, continuous curb. Landscaped areas in parking lots shall be protected from the encroachment of vehicles by a continuous, raised curb, or in the instance of a parking stall, by a wheel stop or a raised continuous curb. Areas to be protected include all landscaped islands, landscaping adjacent to parking stalls and landscaping adjacent to curvilinear driveways where encroachment is likely to occur. CUrb shall extend six (6) inches above pavement and shall'comply with city Adopted April.. ltt5, Ordla_ace 0'1-02 ..vl..d 23-7 """ ", Art. II standards utilizing twenty-five hundred (2500) psi concrete. F, Drainage. Storm water shall be contained on site. Containment capacity shall be designated for a minimum of two and one-half (2.5) inches of rainfall in one (1) hour, Drainage structures and french drains shall comply with minimum city standards. Catch basins shall be located in grassy areas unless otherwise approved by the director of development. For imp.rviou. araa. axceeding twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet, the parking lot and facilities shall be designed and certified by a Florida registered engineer. Maximum .torag. capacity of .oil .hall be co~~idered at the rate of one (1) inch of water for each six (6) inches of soil above the water table. Drainage calculations are required in all instances. The hydraulic conductivity of soil shall be determined with tests made at the site using test procedures recommended by the South Florida Water Management District or other procedures which have been approved by the director of development. G. Reserved. H, Driveway. 1. Width. Parking lot driveways shall be a minimum width of twelve (12) feet for one-way drives and twenty (20) feet for two-way drives, at the right-of- way line. Maximum width of any drive at the right- of-way line shall be thirty-two (32) feet, unless otherwise approved by the director of development. 2. Drive 'radii. Bach parking lot driveway shall have a radius at the intersection of the vehicular traffic lanes of twenty-five (25) feet or as otherwise approved by the director of development. 3. Distance from streets. Parking lot driveways shall be constructed at least thirty (30) feet from the intersection of the right-of-way lines along local streets and one hundred eighty (180) feet along streets of a higher classification. 4. Clearance at parking stalls. Provide a safe and unobstructed space of eighteen (18) feet in length between the side of a parking stall and each of the following: a. A public or private right-of-way b, An access aisle c, An interior driveway This requirement does not apply at the egress end of an access aisle or at a driveway, access aisle or right-of-way where ninety (90) degree parking is provided. - Adopted April., 11.5. OrdlDaaca 01'.02 a.v1..d 23-8 " \ Art. II 5. Clearance at major ~riveways. The minimum distance from the street right-of-way line at any major ingress or egress driveway to any parking stall or to any interior access aisle having direct access to such driveway shall be one hundred (100) feet. 6. Intersections with county and state roads, Driveways which intersect streets owned and maintained by a governing body other than Boynton Beach must be permitted by the proper governing agency, prior to submission of plans for a building permit. 7. Number of driveways. No more than two (2) driveways shall be permitted from any property, Where properties abut more than one (1) public or private right-of-way, additional driveways may be permitted depending upon traffic volumes, but in no instance .hall the number of driveways exceed two (2) on each street. I, Parking lot layout. 1. Dimensions. Parking lots shall be designed to meet or exceed the dimensional requirements for stalls, driveways and access aisles as provided for in city standards. 2. Access. Bach parking lot or parking stall shall have sufficient access from a street, alley or other public or private way. Maneuvering and access areas shall be of sufficient size to permit vehicles to enter and exit the parking lot and parking stalls in a safe and efficient manner. In no instance shall parking lots be designed to allow vehicles to back out into any public alley or road rights-of-way, or segments of private streets which function as local or collector streets. J. Parking garages, Public or private parking garages shall comply with this chapter, with the Standard Building Code and with county-wide amendments thereto. Where appropriate, security systems may be required. K. Handicap requirements. All parking lots shall meet or exceed State Handicap Code requirements, and comply with the Standard Building Code and the county-wide amendments thereto. L. Parking lot striping. Parking stalls shall be delineated by double-line, painted stripes where parking stalls abut each other, which shall comply with city standards. M. Fire lanes. All shopping centers, retail office complexes and retail establishments in which the gross floor area of all buildings if fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet or greater shall have fire lanes along the Adopted April 4. l"S, Ordl..ace O'S~02 .....t..d 23-9 ", \ lllllillJl J L -- 'Frr~}- r\I-~~' )l i= Lf 1 ; ,~'" nil 1/ ~ flu II @= qluml, r-.... ' ,-~: I "-/,~ ' , CII.:.: ~.. ,....,~.,.~J ~ lf~~! i ~ nIT; ; '-1.: I 1-, __'._; - 18\111' I ~ r'lf; ~li~ ~ y~AI..n::~, 1 f '_~~i,' R3 I:i ~, ! ,II 1-; (: ~~'_L"'= i 7 ',:' i I-' . j ~1f1 ~; 'II[ ii I ;ir I : II ~! i jr-l"'l'lj " I f:;! I! f!! 1 Ll ~ f L \..- I , , U8l' .iJIE :1' , _\:.,\' ;1' , ' t..1 ~d I" '_ _. ff 'J1! l1'm\ !n.' 'l7~, I) 'I.- 1) , , III ,\", . "" : - ,I ~~r\.\~1 i"~/I,:'illllr~i.l.'r - , Tjf'f./if,; IIT::i II ! /, [' mf,Tt ,1'[1 Ii ~ ~~ a; ~~- -- ,:~ :.. -I ,).. '-l(" J ,J.. t sf.' 'j if / . ~ i ~- ;--"-'''iL'~' "/ljj I Lu . ,.r .--" - =.] .~ '::'~ ~ -~ ' "' ~ Ht~'I~ r'~\l' .- ~ -aL ! ,--.Jf!!1I1J '::j If f-- ~ ~" II :q~w _ 0'/1 fll/ - 1- . . ~ - ~J _ -11\ L._C~i/ 1/ /,- '1'1' ,,) ~i- ~~ r fl ---II ; --,- c!.c 1/ = i -__;' I;' rn ~( ,,','] 7'':--" I~ / - -:~ I!:,'~' ~~. t----. ,f Rric -, ~'{:!I!:~lr .~~-f.=- / 1% T \\'~ LJCATION MA~ NEWPORT PLACE "...J I .. ....:y.;;.:.:~.:.:.. j 'J'I(:"".': f J ~(fi",'" I II ',..',.,..."" '.' J-- ~.' ' , }:i, " '. . ::",'} f- _ 1-- ' 'If >- 'SIT' """:":::':",-,11 , E ::::::::::::' ./ I::::::::: :. 1--, T ) / .~~ :}}J,:' .... I - (' .. i ,!!!fii!i , .... , ' , . ......."'.f . cv, " ' '7" , , ' , ......,(' ", '. " :~.,./ 1// ~,:\ ::' f--.. . ,I' ~ / ,: ',.... :: ! ,: " \' I' 1 I " ',: :,' fr!:~( :, \ R E C '-:':,: 1..0:: I' ", ' t- f: ,,-,: , , ' " \: " " " i'. " " ~L , I " , i. , ( : II 11 I ~ o I --.- "',-- ,_' /1, 71' !/!"J./ i---~- f I~' ~ , 1---__ !]I " h" ='= ,~-+-_. .~ ~,.. ;;;J.~ " ~~ 111'l;~~A~~b , L "I ,_ E II 1(" " }- ~ I: It] - I I I i ~ ~1 ,~~[JI[ - ~~-Li. J rJ I ..1,' J; "1 R1 ^A ~ >::: ,,/ 'i)~~ I :- : - : :' .:"-'~-' , . ' . .", 1":\ " '" .. \:: \ ',\ , , , l'. , \, , '\,'\ " .\ "~-'I '<J R1AA , ."~ 1"\11011'-'" \ ~ -~J i ~ 1..-/ J '\ I ( \/~TUM-j r' I.~~~'\ . / ;" ,I r)'~#\/' I / . Y\ \.--' --- ~',:7 \ \ - f-(:) ..)r~- . ' /f-- , , '~I f '. f'--.. ,-- - - , 1......- / _ ~~v' I -' --/ y. .' : : \ \ \.' ,,~... :f '------ L_, ... '''''' \\ \ \, , , / -'-~:"^' , \ <: -" ~ . J.. I '~I- >. .0, 1/8 MILES,... I ~I -I"" 'I. ;). _'0 400, '800 FEET "- PI_AN ,.... ;. ~--; 1;2.-0"- v ,_. "".... r:L__ NOT IN CITY Z ~"tl i~ -"tl ~g im 0(0 (I)I'~ C) ~ >~ .... ~m~ I\) C) 'Il :xl Z ....1\):; I"!l me..> z ~:=~C) o cn:xlm :xl ~;:II:::xl ~~-m :S o~g "-!zJ;:;m ~~~7 ~ t i qI ~ ~ ~ .. Z. n .. ~ !l. f .!- "1) '1'- ~ \D U\ I o ~ ) ~~ ~-i p ::; :!!; !. ~ ..' ", ~ iUH ~ ~ ..:. ~ HH~ HiH I' -p ~ i~ -'I ;. !1:l~'l t . -~- , ), '. :!l 0- :1. "" s-""t ~ ~ ~ ~ <-'.l ~ ;:;:"~ I ~'. "i ~ ~~ I ~~~i ' .;.::>..- {-~~;"'''~- - : --...., . i! ItJH'lq;I~: .:' . , , . i ; ,;;di~;~ '\1' Ila { Ii' i'l ;; l' ~ , i,,'I'';'' f\ ' I I t 1\ 'i · , ,111,:;1:: 1\1 III t' " II J - rl['i,dl'" 1 "" r ,z i:liltjl.H I ,', dll!" I i Ti t ahdlt t 1't 1 ~ :; ! linll';l'; lil \', i II It 11 ~ ,;;!ldi't' 1'" 1: I~Hhh\\ III ill i \ j I. f!.d Ii' U t~ . ~ f ; T . r ; \. " ; , l ;:: I ~ ! ~ :. . J ~ l ; !? , ' ~. .: ~ ; , hi;:~f "". 1 ".;. ~ 1 !": ~~,. - ,,"', ,.; - - . I:. ~=.....l'''' ,.. ~ ...'~! ~ rlt:~. ~ tD ~ lI:~ T.' f ~;; c:: :.r.r&~':'~-'" R ::j', . ."'" -I" I ::; -'.l i .r -!: ~.~ ~ !l. ~;q!tH " I ,-; f ; ~ 1 ~ r rl ~~rj' ...- ~i i~i =tt~ r: ~~j" ;-?;l - ' , ~ ~ .. ~ ;~ it,'!. :::: '.::: ~.S ~. . I H~" !i-..,'~ - · " , .;; H t _ I~ ~ 'f ~ " I It' .n... ~ ~EiE *J:l ('\ , S'. .. ; "I'"; _ . ~ " 'H:tfFPIPP" .;, '!' <"t.J" '<h:~.FH~- <~l"'.i(-~I'. ;i':'li "1I'11;..! t- . : i ' ::- ... r~ , T 1:? " .r f~I";.- =" i ;!1.. !: . t~i2~'~S..!. :i,.,i2: {r..-!.~ ~ _' ~~=.A!3""'" ~,i:~"'l~ . [ ~= ~;l!i i Ii ~ j ~;. ! . . . I i' ~,j t ~;:; g ~~~,1 lo:! ! =! ~ , \~\\.,,: I I'" I!' \., ' ,:d,~~' '~l~~~" , ',~' _...~--~'-" .~ ~. - '. :::. \ t ,,:p; ~ I I ~ ' , '_ _ ~ , E H\I""",,,I{<,,,j' --0 .,~ ,;~ . "" ~_"JJ!. ; _:;.;... ~,- r r=- .. r- ~Ilii ".= "U ,~ ~..----""- -.----..--- ------------ r MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 19, 1995 The motion carried 4-0. E, PROJECT NAME: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Newport Place Donald E, Hearing Newport Place Associates Ltd. Southwest corner of Hypoluxo Road and NW 7th Court PARKING lOT VARIANCE - Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach LaRd Development Regulations, Chapter 23 - Parking lois, Article II, Section H.7 "Number of Driveways" to allow two (2) additional driveways onto Northwest 7th Court. Donald Hearing,.representing.Ne.wpnrtPlace, advised that this is a companion to the previous request. The City land Development Regulations within PUDs limit the number of access points that can be provided to two (2). At the present time, two access points exist on the easterly portion of the Newport Place master plan. The applicant is proposing that two additional access points be provided from NW 7th Court. Staff is recommending approval of only one additional access and has expressed concern about the second access which would be located in front of the facility. At the Planning and Development Board meeting. discussion took place regarding approval of the two access points, It is possible to make the project work with only one additional access; however, the applicant feels circulation would improve with the addition of the two accesses. Staff has recommended approval of only one additional access which will provide access to the rear of the facility where most of the services take place, The applicant would like to have the two access points in order to segregate the vehicular traffic associated with the customers from the traffic associated with services, Mr. Hearing requested the Commission's consideration of approval of the two access driveways, Ms. Heyden advised that staff is recommending approval of the southernmost driveway, not the center drive which is located in front of the building. The reasons for this decision involve the fact that the R-l-AA property in close proximity to this project is undeveloped at the present time, Staff has no way of knowing how this property will be developed. If it becomes a subdivision, there will be multiple access points. Staff feels it is in the City's best interest to limit as many additional access points onto NW 7th Court as possible at this time. In response to Mayor Taylor's question, Ms. Heyden advised that NW 7th Court presently dead~nds; however, ihe possibility exists that it could extend through to Miner Road and have multiple street connections to serve the undeveloped property. Mayor Taylor questioned how the second access drive would affect the property to the south. Ms. Heyden explained that the reason for the requirement in the Code is to limit access points so as not to negatively impact the traffic on the road. Attempts are made to channel traffic to the access points so that backlogs of traffic are on site, not on the road system. MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING, 15 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, flORIDA DECEMBER 19, 1995 Ron Ehler" Managing. and General, Partner of . Newport Place, said the curvature of the road as depicted on the map does not exist. The roadway ends at the end of the Newport Place owned property, and there is a lift station and a small fence in the location of the dead end, In looking at the size of the residential lots on High Ridge Road, Mr. Ehler pointed out that there are approximately six lots, In a normal subdivision situation, if NW 7th Court were to be the road to serve the subdivision, there would be 12 curb cuts (six on each side of the road), Because the applicant owns a 50' buffer strip on the east side of the road, there are no curb cuts and the applicant has provided a highly vegetated buffer between the project and the homes on High Ridge Road, On the west side of NW 7th Court, there are only two curb cuts, With the two additional access drives requested, there would be a total of only four curb cuts compared to conceivably having 12 curb cuts. Newport Place is the only project located on this section. This tract of land is approximately 600' long, and has only two curb cuts, By adding the additional two entrances, the properties can be segregated, At the TRC meeting, only one staff department expressed concern, and that opinion was that the project could be accomplished with only one access. The Planning and Development Board unanimously approved the request with two curb cuts, Ms, Heyden referred back to the map and pointed out that the undeveloped property could conceivably be developed with 90 to 100 units, Commissioner Rosen felt a sufficient case had been made for one additional entrance, Commissioner Jaskiewicz questioned whether the center entrance would present a hazard with emergency vehicles entering the project. Mr. Hearing used the map to show the entrances requested, One entrance would be designated for the residence area, and the back entrance would be designated for services. The applicant feels that if only one access point is approved, the center access would be the preferable choice, He further requested that if only one access point is approved, the Commission consider allowing an "egress only" in the southernmost location. This would permit the service vehicles to service the site and then leave the project. Mr, Ehler added that one of the curb cuts currently being counted is an "egress only", Mayor Pro Tem Matson read from the Planning and Development Board meeting minutes of December 12, 1995, where it mentions the applicant's desire to use the driveway that staff wishes to eliminate as the main entrance drive directly in front of the building. It points out that the entrance will be well marked and maintained. It further states that because of the age of the clientele, there is greater need for emergency service vehicles. Therefore, they would like to eliminate the possibility of "fighting" with service vehicles when emergency vehicles are required. Mayor Pro Tem Matson feels that since the applicant is requesting the two access points to provide a means of increased traffic circulation, she does not see the reason for arbitrarily saying no, She feels the applicant has the right to develop the property as requested, and sees no impact due to the fact that the road dead-ends, She would support the request with the two additional driveways, Commissioner Jaskiewicz said the Commission must also be concerned with the precedent which will be set in this case. She will agree to the second driveway being "egress only", 16 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 19, 1995 Commissioner Rosen inquired about the distance between the ingresses and egresses, Mr, Hearing explained that the proposed egress would be 250' from the entrance, The entrance to the new location is approximately 160' from the existing location, then 300', 200' and 200', Commissioner Rosen feels there are quite a few entrances and egresses based on the possible traffic flow in the future, There will be traffic interruption based on the number. After some explanation from the applicant with respect to how the service vehicles would circulate through the site, Mayor Taylor was uncomfortable having trash trucks pulling up to the front door, He would not have a problem with the southernmost drive being approved as an "egress only", Motion Commissioner Rosen moved to approve a request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach land Development Regulations, Chapter 23 - Parking lots, Article II, Section H.7, "Number of Driveways" to allow two (2) additional driveways onto NW 7th Court, providing that the southernmost driveway is an "egress only" driveway, Mayor Pro Tem Matson seconded the motion which carried 4-0. Mr. Hearing thanked staff for the time and effort they expended on this application. They did a good job and the applicant appreciates their help, F. PROJECT NAME: Cedar Ridge PUD and High Ridge Commerce Park PID (buffer easement) Richard Harris of Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan, Barra & Jorgensen, P.A. Condor Investments of Palm Beach County, Inc. South perimeter of lots 15, 16, 17 and 18 within the High Ridge Commerce Park PID ABANDONMENT - Request for abandonment of a 25 foot wide buffer easement. AGENT: OWNER: lOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Rick.Harris,.Attomey fnr the applicant. said the lots in this request will be part of a site plan for Waste Management which will appear later in the meeting. The reason for the 25' buffer in this area is eliminated if the site plan is approved, The conditions imposed by staff are related to the approval the Commission already considered except for the condition that the Board of Adjustment request be granted allowing the elimination of the 25' peripheral greenbelt. The Board of Adjustment was supposed to have met last night, but failed to do so for lack of a quorum, Attorney Cherof advised that this item would be difficult to handle without con.sidering Item D under Development Plans, He suggested that this public hearing be conducted, but that the vote be delayed until the site plan modification is reviewed. Then both items can be considered. Using the map, Ms, Heyden showed the location of the abandonment. MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. 17 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 9, 1996 Motion Vice Chairman Golden moved to approve the minutes of the December 12, 1995 meeting, Mr. Wische seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Report from the Planning and Zoning Department (1) Final disposition of last month's agenda items Ms. Heyden reported on the following items: Tara Oaks PUD Master Modification - In the past, master plan modifications have not gone back to the City Commission after being reviewed by the Planning and Development Board, However, the Land Development Regulations were changed last April, and master plan modifications are now going back to the City Commission after being reviewed by tile Planning and Development Board. In this case, the City Commission approved the revisions to the conditions that were brought up by the applicant, as well as clarification regarding the traffic issue, Newport Place PUD Land Use Amendment and Rezoning - This was approved by the City Commission and will be forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs. High Ridge Commerce Park PID Use Approval - The City Commission approved this, subject to all staff comments, Waste Management of Palm Beach South Major Site Plan Modification - The City Commission agreed with tile Planning and Development Board's recommendation for approval, subject to staff comments, with the exception of the comments that dealt with platting and rezoning, Newport Place Parking Lot Variance - The applicant requested two additional driveways onto N, W, 7th Court. The City Commission allowed tbe northernmost driveway, but the southern driveway has to be one way only. 2 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL @J MEMORANDlJM To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 7B2 From: Staff Date: May 17, 1996 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Adopted Amendments to the City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan; DCA Reference #96-1 Introduction Pursuant to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's contract with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the Council must review comprehensive plan amendments after their adoption. The City of Boynton Beach has submitted an adopted amendment to DCA, which in turn is seeking Council's comments, Council's review of the information provided is to focus on the consistency of the adopted amendments with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (RCPP), A written report containing a determination of consistency with the RCPP is to be provided to DCA within 30 calendar days of receipt of the plan, elements or amendments. Backi1round The draft (proposed) amendment to the City of Boynton Beach's Comprehensive Plan was reviewed by Council on March 15, 1996 (see Exhibit A), The amendment consists of one Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment. The City did not request the preparation of an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, Evaluation Council had no objections and no comments to the proposed amendment and did not recommend the preparation of an ORC Report, On February 28, 1996, DCA issued a letter determining a formal review (ORC Report) would not be issued, The City adopted the amendments on April 16, 1996, -.- .------------ - ..., Conclusion Based on the information received by Council the adopted amendments are considered CONSISTENT with the goals and policies contained in the RCPP. Recommendation Council should adopt the comments outlined above and approve their transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs in fulfillment of the requirements of the 1995-1996 contract with the Department of Community Affairs, Attachments 2 EXHIBIT A TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 6AI From: Staff Date: Match 15,1996 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Draft Amendment to the City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan; DCA Reference #96-1 Introduction Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Council must be provided an opportunity to review comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption, Under the provisions of Chapter 163, F.S" local government plans will not be subject to the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report process unless: I) specifically requested by the local government; 2) deemed necessary by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA); or 3) requested by the Regional Planning Councilor an affected person, Council's review of the proposeq amendment is limited to the effects on regional resources or facilities and extrajunsdictional impacts. If an ORC Report is requested by the local government, a written report containing any objections, recommendations for modification and comments (as defined in Chapter 9J-II, Florida Administrative Code) is to be provided to the DCA within 30 days of receipt of the amendment. Backwound The City of Boynton Beach has proposed one Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment. The City has not requested the preparation of an ORC Report. Council's responsibility is to review the amendment and make a recommendation as to whether an ORC Report should be prepared, The deadline for Council's recommendation is February 28, 1996. 3 - ., Evaluation FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment is shown on the attached map and summarized in Table 1. The proposed FLUM amendment is for 23 acres located at the southwest comer of Hypoluxo Road and NW 7th Court The property has a FLUM designation of Low Density Residential (4.8 dulacre). The property is developed with a " l20-bed convalescent center, medical office building and 356-bed adult congregate living facility, The FLUM amendment would allow additional development, specifically a 120- bed assisted living facility. The surrounding FLUM designations include Low Density Residential (2 dulacre) and Institutional (hospital with underlying land use of High Density Residential- 12 dulacre) to the north, Low Density Residential to the south, east and west. Existing uses on surrounding properties include' hospital and single family residential to the north, cultivated agricultural to the south and east, and single family residential to the west. TABLE 1 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT DCA REFERENCE ##96-1 ;;."itlllll1l,llllfltl\l: ;:;;';", ,', Newpon Place 23 acres Low Density High Density Residential Southwest comer of Residential (10,8 dulacre) Hypoluxo Road and (4.8 dulacre) NW 7th Coon Extraiurisdictional Impact~ The amendments were processed through the Palm Beach County Interloca1 Plan Amendment Review Committee (IP ARC) process. According to the Clearinghouse Coordinator, no formal objections were received (see attached correspondence), Effects on Reiional Resources or Facilities No detrimental effects are expected on significant regional resources or fBcilities. Obiections Recommendations for Modification and Comments None 4 = r .-.." Conclusion Based on the lack of identified extra jurisdictional impacts or effects on regional resources or facilities, Council does not recommend that the DCA prepare an ORC Report, Recommendation Council should adopt the comments outlined above and aPProve their transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs, Attachments 5 50UTHILO.'O... , "',RGROt'I'IIDS ,...,v".......' COfF COURSE ~' ~~- .~~ " ~ ;-I'..-x~ ... PI...",OC I-.:WRO""'/M'...'....l .SClI...Cf CI..HR &umm!l ..... I'DIIUT 10' ... 1/ A. GREENACRES " CITY ..... .. " 102 LA . '. .ll tUCfa"'E lAklS lllialeUcl .. GOlf COURSE Urttlfll .. " 'lW 2nd /!tv 804 WUI Bueh BtYd ... ~ it a: II: :::. ... .IU~GlS 01 QlllOn Pulol,o. 1'1 Well All' COIf COUIl'SI j(,...'C5POI/l.t- COlf cOLlm- '" C Q i o ~ Cllnl ~ \Ie 'PI. ~ .... ~~iI. .l. 1\".)1"'''''' . . . U Moor! Ad II BOC.... RA.TO,.. UN/OP;.L Ok., J U"/'..;fDY MEMO.,,,,,, HOS,.,rAt. PALM''''CH , iOVNT~A'U: UnIant ~ "'I;fIOlfr /~ .,. U.I" "6 0500,'M 812 HypOlUIlO II ~ ! 0" 00 Ot.'AIL RIOC;E C;OU COURSE . WOOIbri,l'It Ad J Go" VlL..LAQI DO ...... ." VILi'" pHR...." COif COURSE i IF i ~ .... ~ ii, II . 806 .1UIfTI DELRAY BEACH llntotl . f"'IRO<\j(S Huspn"'t """'o~ 80' ,"I It BOCA RATON Nw_ .._.Il'~" ~ "AtM' lEACH ~~ctO.!. COUJl'lfno_.n ~ , i ! CHOlLE STATE . LA 107 8D)'"10II ...c J OCEAN iRIDGE .. I; i ;~ o. f . I & If I GULF II EAM .. ~!~ I .. . !, ~, a . . , .. ... 1 ... . . r.~lantlc mOc.ean.. .. . .. ! " ! . " . . sw """ l. ,. , " 1 COt, COuaE IGHLAND BEACH .,.., 6 - .It LAN\.) USE. DE.SIGNA,IONS : . ....... \ I \ '_ .1' , R , , . . I , , . .' YUBJECT PRoPt;RTY: CURRENT \.Jlo.ND USE: LOR LOR . , I I I , LAND USE CAn:GORIES: Cl'1'Y R:RECREATIONAL LDR:LOW DENSITY RESIOENTW- couN1'f R-2 RESIDENTlAL 2 R-3 RESIDENTIAL 3 R-5 RESloEN11AL 5 C-5 COMMERCIAl 5 \1{' II \\-1)' 1-96 p\.Jlo.NNING DEPT. 1"..400' 7 . . . . : . . . . . : . . . . i\ C-5 R-2 CI~"f 1-1""'1'~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . r ~ I R-5 - ... Memorandum Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Coordination Program Clearinghouse 500 Greynolds Circle Lantana, FL 33462 To: From: Date: Subject: Tambri Heyden, Planning and Zoning Director Anna Yeskey, Clearinghouse ~ December 19, 1995 BOY -7 Please be advised that as of December 19, 1995 the Clearinghouse has not received any formal objections to BOY -7 from any participants in the lnterloca1 Plan Amendment Review Program, cc: Terry Hess, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 8 o South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road. W cst Palm Beach, Florida 33406. (407) 686-8800 . F1. W A TS 1-800-432-2045 GOV 10-28 February 20, 1996 If;', :~-\~: ~.: - . h""",' ~ I I'A"-.'--'.~-' _ ""V" u , i:. FEB;:; p le~3 ....2 Mr. Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager plan Review and DRI Processing Team Department of Community Affa!rs 2740 Centerview Drive - Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 ~l!R:: .'X ~\~... h~:".~.,....... Pl.ANrm... COtm:::tL Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Local Government: DCA Amendment #: Preliminary Review Recommendation City of Boynton Beach 96-1 Staff has reviewed the subject document, We do not recommend that a formal review of the proposed amendments be undertaken. Please call us if you have any questions or require more information. Sjncere~ ~~~ :a~ry~arson, AICP Director Comprehensive Planning Division Planning Department LP/RLlng c: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director, City of Boyton Beach Michael Busha, Executive Director, TCRPC 9 Gf)'f)"mng BOJmt V..lcric: Bnvd. Ch~lirman Frank WiliiJ.m..no. Jr., Vice Ch:urm:;an William E. Graham \Vi.Uia.m Hammond Bcrsv Krant Rich.rd A. Machek Eugene K. Pettis N.....nicl P. Reed Miriam Sinll'" Samuel E. Poole 111, Executive Di~r Michael Slayton. Depury EllCCUtM: Dim:to, TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL /~ ( , -f1 Le. {i< S cJoJ t~ (JJ(j..,..t~f f!~ MEMORANDUM To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 6AI , From: Staff Date: March 15, 1996 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Draft Amendment to the City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan; DCA Reference #96-1 Introduction Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Council must be provided an opportunity to review comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption. Under the provisions of Chapter 163, F.S., local government plans will not be subject to the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report process unless: I) specifically requested by the local government; 2) deemed necessary by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA); or 3) requested by the Regional Planning Council or an affected person, Council's review of the proposed amendment is limited to the effects on regional resources or facilities and extra jurisdictional impacts, If an ORC Report is requested by the local government, a written report containing any objections, recommendations for modification and comments (as defined in Chapter 9J-II, Florida Administrative Code) is to be provided to the DCA within 30 days of receipt of the amendment. Backvround The City of Boynton Beach has proposed one Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment, The City has not requested the preparation of an ORC Report, Council's responsibility is to review the amendment and make a recommendation as to whether an ORC Report should be prepared, The deadline for Council's recommendation is February 28,1996. ~ ... - '- Evaluation FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT The Future Land Use Map (pLUM) amendment is shown on the attached map and summarized in Table 1. The proposed FLUM amendment is for 23 acres located at the southwest comer of Hypoluxo Road and NW 7th Court, The property has a FLUM designation of Low Density Residential (4.8 dulacre), The property is developed with a l20-bed convalescent center, medical office building and 356-bed adult congregate living facility. The FLUM amendment would allow additional development, specifically a 120- bed assisted living facility, The surrounding FLUM designations include Low Density Residential (2 dulacre) and Institutional (hospital with underlying land use of High Density Residential - 12 dulacre) to the north, Low Density Residential to the south, east and west. Existing uses on surrounding properties include' hospital and single family residential to the north, cultivated agricultura1 to the south and east, and single family residential to the west, TABLE 1 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT DCA REFERENCE #96-1 :1lI1.ll! 1:11111 " '..liI ~111.'_lli 111.'.'1111 ................................._, .-........................ Newport Place 23 acres Low Density High Density Residential Southwest comer of Residential ( I 0, 8 dulacre) Hypoluxo Road and (4 8 dulacre) NW 7th Court Extraiurisdictional Impacts The amendments were processed through the Palm Beach County Interlocal Plan Amendment Review Committee (IP ARC) process, According to the Clearinghouse Coordinator, no formal objections were received (see attached correspondence). Effects on Rel1ional Resources or Facilities ~ No detrimental effects are expected on significant regional resources or facilities. Obiections Recommendations for Modification and Comments None 2 ~ Conclusion Based on the lack of identified extra jurisdictional impacts or effects on regional resources or facilities, Council does not recommend that the DCA prepare an ORC Report. Recommendation Council should adopt the comments outlined above and approve their transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs, Attachments 3 . .. SOUTH FLO./DII 111/1I'''.0(......D5 BANYIIN GOlf COURSE ..... - " "" ' ~ \ .!l WCERNE LAKES GOLF COURSE Lantana Ad 11 NW 2nd Av 804 Wesl Beach Blvd ... lIII: i: ~ II: ::l ... V/U"'Ci5 Of ORIOLE PiAZ'" ;! VIU,,", OlLilA\' Calf COURSl PINl roc IN\'IRO,",'IMl''iJ-'\i .SOfNCfCl...JlR SummIT GREENACRES CITY 802 MelaltLICI. 'f--? "" 98 8l" ~REST arkRdGret '01' i 'PAlMBEA.CH ) .: GOLF COURSE__ A, Ln -- ~ M.'....:, , 'A E W 'l OHI'>. f ~E''''lD\' MEMORIAL HOSP/rALe TLANTI ) ~ (' p.r: ) EACH n , NAln! I . i; \ I: ; 18LNALAPAN _Ji i ,~ !! ,''::; I ;:; I' ~', 812 lantlnl Hypolux;o " II . . . ! ".' '.1,r." Old Boynlon .OYNT N .DC QVII/L RIDGE GOlf COURSE . OCEAN 'RIDGE Woolbright I ~ Goll VILLAGE 01' GOLF " GlJLFSTREAM OLF COURSE .."IHY ."EEn. Rid .wood + , Ad i ~ m i ji: "a lak. 1I ,. , . . r.~lantlc Ocean. .. i ! I 1 EO. GOLF COURSE HIGHLAND BEACH. 4 ~ R I' . , , . , I , . , , , SUBJECT PR()PI;RTV: CURRENT LAND USE: LOR LAND USE CATEGORIES: Cln' R:RECREATIONAL LDR:u:>W DENSITY RESIDENllAL couNTY R-2 RESIDENTIAL 2 R-3 RESIOENT1AL 3 R-5 RESIOENT\AL 5 C-5 COMMERCIAL 5 LOR ", \ \ \ \ (I) 1-96 PLANNING DEPT. 1" ::400' -- 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . it C-5 R-2 .' . . . . . . :,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 R-5 ~ ~ ...., Memorandum Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Coordination Program Clearinghouse 500 Greynolds Circle Lantana, FL 33462 To: From: Date: Subject: Tambri Heyden, Planning and Zoning Director Anna Yeskey, Clearinghouse O\W& December 19, 1995 BOY-7 Please be advised that as of December 19, 1995 the Clearinghouse has not received any formal objections to BOY-7 from any participants in the lnterlocal Plan Amendment Review Program, cc: Terry Hess, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council ~ 6 South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road. W cst Palm Beach. Florida 33406. (407) 686-8800 . FL W A TS 1-800-432-2045 GOV 10-28 February 20, 1996 ~;'. -:;-_ ,-;-:;:,' - -, """7- '-f\ ~ \ ';" ;: : l.I .?t- \..... ",' !t..'" "._.-' -",'_0 --- _ J,. "" ' Ii I'" i b FEB" Q '1":3 ,..:J f, (. ...... Mr. Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager plan Review and DRI Processing Team Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive ' Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 'TREA3i.!.R:: :.x ,.\[~. h~~"'~I'N. ptA;~i;~ COUN:tL Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Local Government: DCA Amendment #: Preliminary Review Recommendation City of Boynton Beach 96-1 Staff has reviewed the subject document, We do not recommend that a formal review of the proposed amendments be undertaken. Please call us if you have any questions or require more information. Sincere~~ ~."on, Alep Director Comprehensive Planning Division Planning Department LP/RLlng ~ c: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director, City of Boy ton Beach Michael Busha, Executive Director, TCRPC Gov~rrring Board: Valerie: Bovd, Chairman Frank Wiliiam.;on, Jr., Vice: Chairman William E. Cr;lh;lm \ViUiam Hammond Betsv Kranr 7 Richard A. Machck Eugene K. Pettis Nathaniel p, Rced Miriam Singer Samuel E. Poole III. Executive Director Michael Slayton. Deputy Executive Director treQ/ure COC\f.t regional planniQ9 council ill MAY 2 I I~;;) ~ @ I~ Ii \,1i:-;--~~ .'--' ,_1_1.__. PLANNING AND ZONING DEPt I May 17,1996 ~. Me, D, Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Local Planning Plan Processing Team, Room 252 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Subject: Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Adopted Amendments - DCA Reference #96-1 Dear Me, Eubanks: Under the Council's contract with the Department of Community Affairs, Council is to make an overall finding of consistency or inconsistency of local plan amendments with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (RCPP), This finding is to be made following the local government's adoption of the amendments and by formal action of the CounciL Attached is a copy of the complete report as approved by the Council at its May 17, 1996 meeting, In brief, the adopted amendments for the City of Boynton Beach were found to be CONSISTENT with the RCPP. If you need additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to calL Sincerely, ~,~ Michael 1. Busha, AICP Executive Director MJB:pt Enclosure cc: MJ, Tambri 1. Heyden, Planning and Zoning Director 6algopa 3228 s.w. morfln downs blvd. suite 205 . p.o. box 1529 palm city, tlonda 34990 phone (407) 221-4060 sc 269-4060 lax (407) 221,4067 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 7B2 From: Staff Date: May 17, 1996 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Adopted Amendments to the City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan; DCA Reference #96-1 Introduction Pursuant to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's contract with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the Council must review comprehensive plan amendments after their adoption, The City of Boynton Beach has submitted an adopted amendment to DCA, which in turn is seeking Council's comments. Council's review of the information provided is to focus on the consistency of the adopted amendments with the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (RCPP), A written report containing a determination of consistency with the RCPP is to be provided to DCA within 30 calendar days of receipt of the plan, elements or amendments, Backtil"ollnd The draft (proposed) amendment to the City of Boynton Beach's Comprehensive Plan was reviewed by Council on March 15, 1996 (see Exhibit A). The amendment consists of one Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment. The City did not request the preparation of an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, Evaluation Council had no objections and no comments to the proposed amendment and did not recommend the preparation of an ORC Report, On February 28, 1996, DCA issued a letter determining a formal review (ORC Report) would not be issued, The City adopted the amendments on April16, 1996, ,., ...., Conclusion Based on the information received by Council the adopted amendments are considered CONSISTENT with the goals and policies contained in the RCPP. Recommendation Council should adopt the comments outlined above and approve their transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs in fulfillment of the requirements of the 1995-1996 contract with the Department of Community Affairs, Attachments 2 EXHIBIT A TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MF:MORANDTJM To: Council Members AGENDA I1EM 6AI From: Staff Date: Match 15, 1996 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Draft Amendment to the City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan; DCA Reference #96- I Introduction Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Council must be provided an opportunity to review comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption, Under the provisions of Chapter 163, F.S., local government plans will not be subject to the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report process unless: 1) specifically requested by the local government; 2) deemed necessary by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA); or 3) requested by the Regional Planning Council or an affected person. Council's review of the proposed amendment is limited to the effects on regional resources or facilities and extrajunsdictional impacts, If an ORC Report is requested by the local government, a written report containing any objections, recommendations for modification and comments (as defined in Chapter 9J-I I, Florida Administrative Code) is to be provided to the DCA within 30 days of receipt of the amendment. Backwound The City of Boynton Beach has proposed one Future Land Use Map (PLUM) amendment. The City has not requested the preparation of an ORC Report Council's responsibility is to review the amendment and make a recommendation as to whether an ORC Report should be prepared, The deadline for Council's recommendation is February 28,1996. 3 - - Evaluation FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT The Future Land Use Map (pLUM) amendment is shown on the attached map and summarized in Table L The proposed FLUM amendment is for 23 acres located at the southwest comer of Hypoluxo Road and NW 7th Court, The property has a FLUM designation of Low Density Residential (4.8 dulacre). The property is developed with a , l20-bed convalescent center, medical office building and 356-bed adult congregate living facility. The FLUM amendment would allow additional development, specifically a 120- bed assisted living facility, The surrounding FLUM designations include Low Density Residential (2 dulacre) and Institutional (hospital with underlying land use of High Density Residential- 12 dulacre) to the north, Low Density Residential to the south, east and west. Existing uses on surrounding properties include. hospital and single family residential to the north, cultivated agricultural to the south and east, and single family residential to the west. TABLEl CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT DCA REFERENCE #96-1 :;::_.It_ri~.~~I~~..;:;,i~~::,..~.~: Newport Place 23 acres Low Density High Density Residential Southwest comer of Residential (10.8 dulacre) Hypoluxo Road and (4.8 dulacre) NW 7th Court Extraiurisdictional Impacts The amendments were processed through the Palm Beach County lnterlocal Plan Amendment Review Committee (IP ARC) process, According to the Clearinghouse Coordinator, no fonnal objections were received (see attached correspondence). Effects on Re"ional Resources or Facilities No detrimental effects are expected on significant regional resources or fucilities, Obiections, Recommendations for Modification and Comments None 4 = ""' Conclusion Based on the lack of identified extra jurisdictional impacts or effects on regional resources or facilities, Council does not recommend that the DCA prepare an ORC Report, Recnmmendation Council should adopt the comments outlined above and approve their transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs, Attachments 5 OH., J 1'1""-'lDY ""'MOttrAL , HaS"'FAt. PAL M lEACH TLANTI "FOUftJT",,,,U: LanIInI ~ A~fOn ~- ., U",. 46 Olba:~ r-o?- ... iOIftH 110.'DA , "'''G.O~ 'NOS 91 '-' PI"'! IOC E""~'IRO,.."1IA1..7...t .SClIl'.CfO..HR SummIT IIYd 'A";'!'...1\,' COlf COURSE '~x , ~.~."Mix' .......,. ;;:..,:.......... 112 "''''ES ~~.. ~~ ~"~ 109 .... .. - i! GREENACIl.8 CITY 102 or lOt " \ ~ welRHE t....KES COlfCOUI!:Sf 1I.,.teuc:I l.ft "nIO.. Ad 112 " ~ f ! ;'14 2nll ~v Old Boynton _O'f'JIT N .pC 104 WeSI alien Blvd QllAIL RIOCI GOlf COURSE . W",bnttl' Ad Gotl Ad VlUAQI J Of ... GO.. :oc ii: ~ !S .id ... Ad ... - i . Vll'A OlLRAY i l; GOLf cOUlur ~ Ln. ,.. if ~, \.lli~GIS Of OR/Olf "VUII E . COI F COURSt ., WesT "'" 106 ,l;;1""C~ "OI"T. COli (Dum' <l . 1""ROo\/($ ".,P"...... rlOSP!TII/ .. P...,., , ~ "U,ioH.>M e . ! II: . 0 u 109 it Moore Ad Chnt or " 60CA RATON UN.!g!,,~l ......... DELRAY BEACH ~ I ') fl., Ii" , i "ALM lEACH ~lCDt'-.COUlfJl_.._... .. VUE WOltTH HOSP"", ... ..... 102 I '1 , HypoIuxo 107 ' J OCEAN fRIDGE ,. ClJLlSTREAM i. oU' COultS( .. I"''''' "- Ad h ;1; '~ If '/ TREAII M : ~;;, I ~ ~i ~ . , l i , i !GULF + .. " .. . t. r,;/an.1C ",Ocean.. .. ':2 r , '. sw 10Itl Ay 1 --- ..It C-5 . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . R :-.~ . . . . I . , . R-2 I , _SUBJECT PR~RTV: CURRENT LAND USE: l.DR \ , LAND USE CAlEGOFUES: Cln' R:RECREATIONAL LDR:LDW DENSITY RESIDENTh'L COUNTY R-2 RESIDENllAl. 2 R-3 RESIOENTlAL 3 R-5 RESloENTtAL 5 C-5 COMMERCIAL 5 l.DR '\ \ I , . , . .. c; /'f'f ../~IT~ " . . \00 1-96 PLANNING DEPT. 1'=400' -- 7 ----------_._-----~.- .----_._-~ . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , . , . r ~ R-5 - ..., Memorandum Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Coordination Program Clearinghouse 500 Greynolds Circ:le Lantana, FL 33462 To: Tambri Heyden, Planning and Zoning Director Anna Yeskey, Clearinghouse ~ December 19, 1995 BOY -7 From: Date: Subject: Please be advised that as ofDec:ember 19, 1995 the Clearinghouse has not received any fonnal objections to BOY -7 from any participants in the InterlocaI Plan Amendment Review Program, cc: Terry Hess, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 8 : South Florida Water Management District ~:" 3301 Gun Club Road, Wcsr Palm Beach, Florida 33406' (407) 686-8800' FL WATS 1-800-432-2045 GOV 10-28 February 20. 1996 ~;" n:- \~: ,~' . ..~' ,--='> .' I~A ..-' --..- - 1\1V ;': ~ _ ,--... .....2 FED t f' 1::::.:1 Mr. Ray Eubanks, Planning Manager plan Review and DRI Processing Team Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive . Tallahassee, FL 32399.2100 TREASl!R:: 'X :\~... ;~~:'.~.\N.. F'tANt\lt~ cotm:tL Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Local Government: DCA Amendment #: Preliminary Review Recommendation City of Boynton Beach 96-1 Staff has reviewed the subject document. We do not recommend that a formal review of the proposed amendments be undertaken. Please call us if you have any questions or require more information. SincerejU; ~,,~ :a~ry~arson. AICP Director Comprehensive Planning Division Planning Department LP/RL/ng c: Tambri Heyden, Planning III Zoning Director, City of Boyton Beach Michael Busha. Executive Director, TCRPC 9 GtN"nm.r; 801m{- V;llcrie BnvJ. Chairman Frank Wilii:lm..lIn.)r., Vice Chairman William E. Graham \ ViUiam Hammond Bersv Krant Richard A, M.chck Eugene K. Pettis Nathaniel P. Reed Miriam Singu Sunuel E. Poole Ill. Exealli.. Di=tOl' Michael Slayton. Deputy Execuu.. Dil'OClOr treQ/ure COQf.t regional planning council I ~ ~, ;; ~ ill \ D ~ MAY I 3 1996 .J PLANNING AND ZONING DEPT. May 10,1996 -1Le- Ms. Tambri 1. Heyden Planning and Zoning Director City of Boynton Beach P.O. Box310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Subject: Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Adopted Amendments - DCA Reference #96-1 Dear Ms, Heyden: Council staff has completed its review of the adopted amendments to your Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Council's contract with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and has prepared a report for the Council's consideration, This report will be presented to the Council at its meeting on May 17, 1996, You are invited to attend the meeting and address the Council if you wish, We have enclosed the meeting agenda and the staff's report, Following the meeting, the report as approved by the Council will be forwarded to DCA If you would like to discuss the staff report or Council's procedures for plan amendment review, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ~~~~CW2 Patricia A Tobin, AICP Regional Planner PAT:pt Enclosure Salgcpa 3228 s.w. martin downs blvd. suite 205 . p.o. box 1529 palm city, florlda 34990 phone (407) 221.4060 sc 269-4060 fax (407) 221-4067 TREA, iU: COAST REGIONAL PLANNING l.JUNCIL Agenda Friday, May 17, 1996 - 9:30 a.m. Howard Johnson Motor Lodge 950 U.S. Highway One, Stuart 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda 3. Minutes 4, Financial Reports A, Financial Statement for Period Ending February 29, 1996 B. Financial Statement for Period Ending March 31, 1996 C. Proposed Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year 1995-96 5. Presentation to Council by James F, Murley, Secretary of Department of Community Affairs 6. Developments of Regional Impact A, Forest HilVS.R. 7 Development of Regional Impact Assessment Report 7, Local Government Comprehensive Plan Reviews A, Plan Amendments - Draft I) Town of Jupiter B. Plan Amendments - Adopted I) City of Boca Raton 2) City of Boynton Beach 3) Indian River County 4) City ofPahokee 5) City of Port St. Lucie 6) City of Stuart 8. Berman Road Landfill (Okeechobee County) Expansion and Proposed Cypress Creek Land Acquisition by St. Lucie County 9. Project Reviews A. ICR Log 10. Ecosystem Management Initiatives - Ex-Officio Member Melissa Meeker, FDEP II, Public Comment 12, Staff Comment 13, Chairman's Comment 14, Council Comment 15, Adjournment It is requested that there be no smoking in the meeting room. EXHIBIT "F" Administrative Conditions Project name: Newport Place PUD (f.k.a. Stanford Park PUD) File number: LUAR 95,006 Reference: 2 sheets submitted bv Cotleur Hearinq identified as 2nd submittal with Planninq and Zoninq Department October 26, 1995 date stamp markinq I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE REJECT I PUBLIC WORKS I Comments: NONE I UTILITIES I Comments: NONE I FIRE I Comments: NONE I POLICE I Comments: NONE I ENGINEERING DIVISION I Comments: NONE I BUILDING DIVISION I Comments: NONE I PARKS AND RECREATION I Comments: NONE FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: NONE PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. The master plan shall be modified to show compliance with the final determination regarding Palm Beach County Traffic Division and City staff's evaluation of the applicants traffic statement. 2. Add a note to the master plan indicating that the project is subject to site plan review prior to permitting. 3 . Specify on the rectified master plan maximum density allowed for the Stanford Park PUD. Also show on the master plan the conversion computations that verify the proposed total of 596 ACLF and Convalescent Center beds does not exceed the maximum allowed density for the entire PUD. The following City adopted conversion factor shall be used: Total gross acreage within the PUD (times) maximum allowed density per acre (times) 2.3 = maximum number of beds I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I 4. The zoning code limits the maximum number of driveways from a single road to two (2) . If this maximum is to be exceeded, as indicated on the master plan, then relief from this requirement must also be requested through the variance process. A parking lot variance (File No. PKLV 95,006) to increase the number of driveways from two (2) to four (4) is being processed concurrently with this request. Amend the master plan to show the results of the variance and reference on the master plan the City Commission's action regarding the variance. 5, Submission of a rectified master plan showing compliance with the conditions of approval for the project will be required to be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department in triplicate prior to site plan review of the project. MEH:dim xc: Central File a:2NDSPARK.Com EXHIBIT II f II Administrative Conditions " \", \" (->tJD Project name: ,),A,.Jt"D.,P C,Rl<'. File number: /'t/Ag 7'5'.00'" (rc.f~reRee 1>11 ~:r:.awJ.n~#' s.t ;:,,; ~PL^J:';' -, St{t.<=1> R, ,0, I!Jf!. Ie.A,{//Yv J _1~1):""r;k-,.:!: L4,v"-';.\.-.... ~""~hF" t.'rl ~ O,;fr;>t...':A 2 G /79)- b(}r"! sr~/HI cY,~1l.."h'v(.. 1,"'C-......,.- , , ti 5:vc;. }lJifl' (,6 r..;I?t""l.diJi. ".." r,t) DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS ;W (-0.........,....., C'li TS' Comments: Recommendations: UTILITIES ..w . J...- ..::..-t/l'V\."A-6...../i j Comments: Recommendations FIRE /'1.,/ ":Ol"'l"'" "\"1 tr..;!\ Comments: Recommendations: POLICE /V,;> '::CO/l,/YIfl.vtr Comments: Recommendations: ENGINEERING DIVISION .M:> .::0"", ~1l Comments: Recommendations: BUILDING DIVISION jVD '::OJYO,.,/Ie/1/"f> Comments: Recommendations: PARKS AND RECREATION )t.i> ~ n1 i'! -un Comments: Recommendations: FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST /',/i) Co.... r"" -{ rt',.-::- Comments: Recommendations: PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: V6~" Recommendations: /dim a ComDept.Frm/p&d DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 97-439 TO: AI Newbold Acting Development Services Director FROM: Jerzy Lewicki Acting Senior Planner Tambri J, Heyden, AICP 774- Planning and Zoning Director THRU: DATE: SUBJECT: August 21, 1997 Newport Place Accompanying this memorandum you will find documents for your departmental records regarding the master plan that has received final sign-off. PROJECT NAME: NEWPORT PLACE Type of Application: LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT/REZONING Planning and Zoning Department File No,: LUAR 95-006 Control Plans (Rectified Master Plan): 1 Sheet of 1 City Commission Approval: 12-19-95 Meeting Minutes and Conditions of Approval JL:T JH:bme Attachments S:\SHARE\PROJECTSINEWPORT PLACEILUARITrsmlPln -,I.). .1", , -\ DEVELOPMENTSERVlCESDEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 97-289 TO: Milan Knor Director of Development Services Tambri Heyden, AICP /;;4) Planning & Zoning Direcfur' FROM: DATE: June 23, 1997 SUBJECT: GIS Development and Data Acquisition Update As you requested during my June 5th budget meeting with you, this memorandum serves to provide a chronology relating to the city's unsuccessful attempts at obtaining Palm Beach County's GIS parcel map layers, Planning for a Geographic Information System began in 1993 with a budget request to purchase a very basic computerized mapping system. This original system was not acquired, but instead was upgraded in the 1995 budget to a more usable Sun system capable of running ARC/INFO software, At this same time, the City was planning for the replacement of old personal computers with new generation hardware and Windows operating systems. This planning effort included a city-wide committee, which yielded the GIS subcommittee intended to begin generating and discussing the anticipated list of GIS-related needs. With respect to other data collection, the Utilities Department had already started computerizing mapping on relatively sophisticated computer equipment, and purchasing information that would be used to create a digital map including utility data, roadways, and buildings, This effort was directly related to the ability to levy a city-wide drainage (stormwater) fee, Knowing that a GIS system would require a parcel map, which the Utilities Department would not acquire from ADR (which was the company that would convert aerial photographs to digital data for computer use), staff began to more seriously consider the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's office as a source for this information. In October 1995, Steve Poplawski and Roger Kuver of the Utilities Department and Jose Alfaro and Dan DeCarlo of the Planning and Zoning Department met with representatives of the Property Appraiser's office to discuss the status of the County's mapping program (development of a parcel map layer) and how our efforts could be coordinated, Of course, we assumed that if their data was available, obtaining it at this point would be well-timed with the planned acquisition of our system, Mr. Enck of Palm Beach County demonstrated their system and showed us a section of Leisureville where parcel maps had been completed. At that time, Mr, Enck anticipated that the County's consultants would be finished with sections within Boynton Beach during the summer of 1996, On a monthly basis (from January 1996 through October 1996), Mr. DeCarlo contacted Mr, Enck about the status of the Planning and Zoning Department's acquisition of a GIS system and how the data could be shared between both parties, It was agreed that the County would provide us with the parcel maps and in exchange, we would supply them with the layers with polygons and data base including PCN numbers in ARCfINFO format (to be created by Jose Alfaro). It was logical to assume this task, as it would be too onerous for the County to complete, prior to delivering the parcel layer to us by Oct. 1996, On April 15, 1997, Planning and Zoning staff met with ITS and the Utilities Department regarding the completion of the needs assessment and contract with our consultant (ESS - Engineering Software Page 2 Memorandum No. 97-289 GIS Development and Data Acquisition Update Services) and the acquisition of parcel map layers. At this meeting it was decided that the Utilities Department would take the lead role in obtaining the information from the County, Steve Poplawski was able to finally reach Mr. Enck at the beginning of June, Me, Enck promised to forward, via the internet, DXF files of those completed sections (sections with all parcel lines entered) of the City of Boynton Beach. Once received, Mr. Poplawski would then "down-load" these DXF files into Planning and Zoning's system. Since no city staff knows how to perform this function, Utilities agreed to arrange for ESS to teach both Utilities and Planning and Zoning how to do this, This training is necessary because as of June 9th, the status of the County's progress in entering parcel lines for all the 35 sections that are wholly or partially within the City's boundary, is summarized as follows: II sections are completed (all parcel lines have been entered); 15 sections are estimated to be 90% complete, 3 sections are 50% complete, and the County has not initiated any work on 6 sections, As of June 17th, Mr, Poplawski reported that the completed sections have been placed on disk for him (rather than receiving it via the internet) and are ready for him to pick up, He will have to examine the data to determine to what extent a corresponding parcel data base has been established. He also indicated that this data is being received without out obligation to provide any data or service to the County in return. With respect to subsequent activity, Mr. Poplawski informed us that he will regularly contact Mr, Enck to coordinate acquisition of the remaining sections as they are completed. In conclusion, even after the parcel data has been finally received from Palm Beach County, Planning and Zoning's use of the parcel data information will still be delayed if we must wait to have it "examined", before it is down-loaded into our system, TJH:bme S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\CORRESP\Dev Serv Dept\GIS.doc EXHIBIT "F" Administrative Conditions Project name: Newport place PUD (f.k.a, Stanford Park PUD) File number: LUAR 95-006 Reference: 2 sheets submitted by Cotleur Hearina identified as 2nd submittal with Plannina and Zonina Denartment October 26, 1995 date stamn markina C?u DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS Comments: NONE UTILITIES Comments: NONE FIRE Comments: NONE POLICE Comments: NONE ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: NONE BUILDING DIVISION Comments: NONE I PARKS AND RECREATION I I I Comments: NONE FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: NONE PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1- The master plan shall be modified to show compliance with the final determination regarding Palm Beach County Traffic Division and City staff's evaluation of the applicants traffic statement. 2, Add a note to the master plan indicating that the project is subject to site plan review prior to permitting. 3, Specify on the rectified master plan m~ximum density allowed for the Stanford Park PUD. Also show on the master plan the conversion computations that verify the proposed total of 596 ACLF and Convalescent Center beds does not exceed the maximum allowed density for the entire PUD, The following City adopted conversion factor shall be used: Total gross acreage within the PUD (times) maximum allowed density per acre (times) 2.3 = maximum number of beds ( D<; ["~(J DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 4. The zoning code limits the maximum number of driveways from a single road to two (2) . If this maximum is to be exceeded, as indicated on the master plan, then relief from this requirement must also be requested through the variance process. A parking lot variance (File No, PKLV 95-006) to increase the number of driveways from two (2) to four (4) is being processed concurrently with this request. Amend the master plan to show the results of the variance and reference on the master plan the City Commission's action regarding the variance, 5, Submission of a rectified master plan showing compliance with the conditions of approval for the project will be required to be submitted to the planning and Zoning Department in triplicate prior to site plan review of the project, MEH:dim xc: Central File a:2NDSPARK.Com