AGENDA DOCUMENTS
AGENDA DOCUMENTS
;
.'
,
C'
,. - ,.t', _
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Requested City Commission Date Final Fonn Must be Turned Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must he Turned
Meetim:!: Dates in to City Clerk's Office Meetin2 Dates in to City Clerk's Office
0 July 17,2001 July 5, 2001 (5;00 p.m.) 0 September 19, 2001 September 5, 2001 (5;00 p.m.)
[8J August 7, lOa 1 July 18.2001 (5;00 p.m) 0 October 2, 2001 September 20, 2001 (5:00 p.rn.)
0 August 21, 200] August 8, 2001 (5:00 p.m.) 0 October 16. 2001 October 3, 2001 (5:00 p.rn.)
0 September 4, 200 I August 22, 2001 (5:00 p.m.) 0 November 6, 2001 October 17, 2001 (5:00 p.m.)
0 Administrative 0 Development Plans
NATURE OF 0 Consent Agenda 0 New Business
AGENDA ITEM 0 Public Hearing [8J Legal
0 Bids 0 Unfinished Business
0 Announcement 0 Presentation
0 City Manager's Report
RECOMMENDATION: Please place the request on the August 7, 2001 City Commission agenda under Legal,
Ordinance-Second Reading. The City Commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning on November 19, 1996, and
the First Reading of the ordinance was approved on July 17, 2001.
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT NAME:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
East Ridge PUD
Kevin O'Riordan
Robust Development Company
Northeast of the intersection of Northeast 4th Street and Northeast 20th Avenue.
Rezoning of:t5.054 acres of property from R-3, Multiple-family Dwelling to Planned Unit
Development with a Land Use Intensity of7.0 (PUD LUI:7.0).
PROGRAM IMPACT: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
Devel
N/A
N/A
City Manager's Signature
-' /~
1'-__ _ C -;: L..--. .
Planning & 20 . g Director City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\East Ridge\REZN\CCAgenda Second Reading REZN08-7-01.dot
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Turned Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Turned
Meetini!' Dates in to City Clerk's Office Meetinl! Dates in to City Clerk's Office
~ July 17,2001 July 5, 2001 (5,00 p.m.) 0 September 19,2001 September 5, 2001 (5,00 p.m.)
0 August 7, 2001 July 18, 2001 (5,00 p.m.) 0 October 2, 2001 September 20, 2001 (5,00 p.m.)
0 August 21. 200 I August 8, 2001 (5,00 p.m.) 0 October 16, 2001 October 3, 2001 (5,00 p.m.)
0 September 4, 2001 AU8ust 22, 2001 (5,00 p.m.) 0 November 6. 2001 October 17, 2001 (5,00 p.m.)
0 Administrative 0 Development Plans
NATURE OF 0 Consent Agenda 0 New Business
AGENDA ITEM 0 Public Hearing ~ Legal
0 Bids 0 Unfinished Business
0 AnnOlUlcement 0 Presentation
0 City Manager's Report
RECOMMENDATION: Please place the request below on Ordinance, First Reading. The City Commission voted
unanimously to approve the rezoning on November 19, 1996.
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT NAME:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
East Ridge PUD
Kevin 0 'Riordan
Robust Development Company
Northeast of the intersection of Northeast 4'" Street and Northeast 20" Avenue.
Rezoning of :t5.054 acres of property from R-3, Multiple-family Dwelling to Planned Unit
Development with a Land Use Intensity 00.0 (PUD LUI:7.0).
PROGRAM IMPACT: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
ALTIRN~
e pm t Departmgirector
City Manager's Signature
~v
Planning & 20
City Attorney I Finance I Human Resources
J:\SHRDATAlJ'lanning\SffA.IlEDIW'P\PROJEcrSIEas[ kidgc\REZN1CCAgcmIa First Reading REZN01110l.dof
6.A.1
REZONING
(postponed from October 8, 1996)
EAST RIDGE
/
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-584
FROM:
Chairman and Members,
Planning and Development Board
Tambri J. Heyden, Planning and Zoning Directo~
Jerzy Lewicki, Assistant Planne~ vC~,
October 7, 1996
TO:
THRU:
DATE:
SUBJECT: East Ridge PUD (REZN 96-002)
Request to Rezone to Planned Unit Development
INTRODUCTION
John A Grant, Jr. Inc., agent for De Graf, Inc., property owner, is proposing to change the
zoning on 5.05 acres of property located on the east side of NE 4th Street, approximately
300 feet south of N.E. 22nd Avenue (see attached location map in Exhibit "A"), from R-3
(Multiple Family Dwelling District) to Planned Unit Development with a Land Use Intensity of 7
(PUD w/LUI=7). The proposed East Ridge PUD would provide for the construction of 33
single family detached homes with a gross density of 6.5 units per acre (see attached copy of
reduced master plan in Exhibit "8"). The future land use classification will remain as High
Density Residential, and continue to limit the area to a maximum gross density of 10.8 units
per acre.
PROCEDURE
Pursuant to the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Section 9 (Administration and
Enforcement), when a rezoning request does not require an amendment to the Future Land
Use Map, staff analysis is not required to include an evaluation of the project using the eight
(8) criteria under Section 9(C)(7). Since this request is only for rezoning, the above-described
analysis is not required. The analysis contained herein evaluates the performance of the
proposed master plan and includes selected portions of the above-described criteria which
pertain to impact upon municipal services, and compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and
adjacent land uses.
ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING
The land uses and zoning in the surrounding area varies and are presented in the table that
follows:
Direction Zonina Land Use
North R-3 multi-family units, VFW hall
Northeast C-2 animal clinic
East nla FEe Railroad ROW
Farther east nla U.S. Highway 1
Southwest R-3 duplex units
Southeast R-3 mobile home park
West nla N.E. 4th Street
Farther West R-1-A single family units
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (see proposed master plan - Attachment "8")
The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from R-3 (Multiple Family Dwelling
District) to Planned Unit Development with a Land Use Intensity of 7 (PUD w/LUI=7). As
defined within Chapter 2.5-Planned Unit Developments of the Land Development Regulations,
a "planned unit development:
~
Page 2
East Ridge PUD
Is land under unified control, planned and developed as a whole in a single
development operation or an approved programmed series of development operations
for dwelling units and related uses and facilities;
Includes principal and accessory uses and structures substantially related to the
character of the development itself and the surrounding area of which it is a part;
Is developed according to comprehensive and detailed plans which include streets,
utilities, lots, building sites and the like and site plans, floor plans and elevations for all
buildings except for single family homes intended to be located, constructed, used, and
related to one another, and detailed plans for other uses and improvements on the land
related to the buildings;
Includes a program for full provision, maintenance, and operation of such areas,
improvements, facilities, and unit development, but will not be provided, operated, or
maintained at public expense."
Due to intended differences between PUD developments resulting from appropriate and
harmonious variety in physical design tailored to the specific site, submittal of a site
development master plan is required at the time of request for zoning to PUD. This master
plan is attached to the zoning of the land and sets forth specific guidelines for future
development of the parcel.
The proposed use of the PUD is detached, single-family dwellings. The PUD fronts on, and is
to provided access from N.E. 4th Street. However, the traditional detached single-family
home lot is not proposed. The dwelling unit, and the parcel of land (to be subdivided) located
directly beneath the building slab, represent the only privately-owned elements within the PUD
that are to be sold fee simple. The remainder of the site, which consists of all property
surrounding each unit including driveways and front, side and rear yards, and the roadway, is
consolidated by the Unity of Title document, and held in common and maintained by the
homeowners association.
The 5.05-acre site with 33 single-family units yields a gross density of 6.5 units per acre.
The proposed PUD is also unique from the standpoint that there are not individual property
lines from which to determine and evaluate performance with respect to setbacks and lot
sizes. Therefore, the characteristics of design will be evaluated, by first using those elements
of the design not affected or determined by individual property lines, and second, for the
purpose of comparison with regulations of the existing zoning district or with other planned
unit developments, individual property lines will be imagined in the logical locations in order to
estimate minimum perceived lots sizes, setbacks, frontages, etc. The following building and
site regulations proposed for the whole PUD are as follows:
Minimum PUD perimeter setback requirements:
Front 40 feet
Side 20 feet
Rear 40 feet
Minimum living area:
garage:
total
1,088 square feet
220 square feet
1,308 square feet
Maximum structure height:
13.5 feet
Maximum net density:
6.53 units/acre
Using property lines imagined midway between each unit, staff was capable of estimating
other design characteristics as follows:
3
Page 3
East Ridge PUD
Minimum lot area:
Using Only
Proposed Unit
1,308 square feet
Using Hypothetical
Lot Lines
2,925 square feet
Minimum lot frontage:
40 feet
45 feet
Minimum lot width:
40 feet
45 feet
Minimum building setbacks:
Front
Side
Rear
o feet
o feet
o feet
11 feet
2.5 feet
7.5 feet
Minimum lot coverage:
100%
45%
This property, as currently zoned, could be developed with single family homes. The R-3
zoning district permits single family dwellings, and requires them to conform to the R-1, Single
Family Dwelling District regulations. To allow for a comparison between the proposed PUD
and the existing building and site regulations, pertinent regulations from the R-1 district are
included as follows:
Minimum lot area:
6,000 square feet
Minimum lot frontage:
60 feet
Minimum building setbacks:
Front
Side
Side (corner)
Rear
25 feet
7 1/2 feet
12.5 feet
25 feet
Minimum living area:
1,000 square feet
Maximum lot coverage:
40 percent
Maximum structure height:
25 feet
Maximum net density:
7.26 units/acre
Utilities:
Sewer - The developer is proposing to serve the site with a sewer line to be linked with an
existing sanitary sewer main located along NE 4th Street The connection with the main will
be made at the intersection of NE 4th Street and proposed East Ridge Circle North (a
proposed street within the PUD).
Water - The developer is proposing to serve the site with a water line to be linked with an
existing water main located along NE 4th Street
Drainage:
A conceptual drainage scheme has been provided which includes a network of dry retention
areas and catch basins. The grass swales provide pretreatment of the stormwater prior to
entering the drainage infrastructure. Concurrency certification for drainage is required at time
of master plan approval; however, there is insufficient information to certify for drainage
concurrency at this time. It is recommended that drainage certification be postponed to plat
review.
Access and Internal Traffic Flow:
The internal loop road consists of a 40 - 41 foot wide ingress/egress/utilities drainage
easement with 21- 22 feet of asphalt pavement, and two points of connection with NE 4th
Cj-
Page 4
East Ridge PUD
Street. The project also contains a gO-foot long cul-de-sac projecting from a south eastern
point on the loop road. Each dwelling unit is connected to the internal road with a 45 feet
access easement.
Recreation:
No private recreation facilities are proposed for this project, and as a consequence, the
developer will pay the full parks and recreation fee as required by the City's Land
Development Regulations when partial credit is not awarded in connection with the provision
of minimum private facilities. This fee is to be paid when the project is platted, which will
contribute toward public park improvements to serve this vicinity. For a specific review of
public recreation facilities within this area, please refer to the section below titled
COMPATIBILITY OF REZONING WITH PUBLIC FACILITIES.
Topography, Soils and Vegetation:
In general, the topography of the site provides a minimal slope between 0 to 8 percent. The
elevation of the site varies between 16.2 feet in the north west corner of the property to 11.4
feet in the southeast corner of the parcel. With respect to soil characteristics, the soil borings
indicate the presence of excessively drained St. Lucie sand with a water table stabilized below
a depth of six feet. The survey of the property shows scattered mature vegetation consisting
of trees and bushes to be preserved in accordance with a condition of approval.
Schools:
Pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.22.1, staff notified the Palm Beach County School
Board of the subject request, and provided them with the information on the proposed
residential project necessary to conduct an analysis of the impacts of future residents on the
racial balance of affected schools. Although the School Board's review overestimated the size
of the proposed units, by assuming 3-bedroom units rather than the proposed 2-bedroom
maximum, based on the magnitude of current overcrowding within each of the districts to be
affected by this project, their review and response would not likely have differed had the
accurate figure been used in their impact model. As a consequence of the current
overcrowding of the subject schools, the School Board requests a condition of approval
relative to placement of highly visible within the PUD and sales offices which indicates that
future children residing on the premises may not attend the nearest schools due to
overcrowding, racial balancing or other boundary policy decisions. The School Board
provides the appropriate signage for use at such developments, and the exact recommended
wording is included within the respective condition in Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval.
ISSUES/DISCUSSION
A) CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
Provided below are complete, or excerpts of objectives and policies taken from the
Comprehensive Plan that are applicable to the proposed request. These objectives and
policies were taken from the Future Land Use Element and Housing Element.
Objective 1.15: "Encourage planned development projects which are sensitive to
characteristics of the site and to surrounding land uses..."; and
Policy 1.16.2: "Subsequent to Plan adoption, modify the land development regulations
to allow planned unit developments up to the maximum density shown on the Future
Land Use Plan, if all other Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations
are complied with, and the proposed PUD is compatible with surrounding land uses."
As the proposed project, in general, presents no conflicts with the diversity of land uses which
flank this property, and as the proposed project is to be developed at a density below that
maximum density required by the High Density Residential land use classification, and
assuming that the conditions of approval are complied with, the project complies with
Objective 1.15 and Policy 1.16.2. (for further explanation of land use compatibility, see
analysis below under CONSISTENCY OF REZONING WITH ESTABLISHED LAND USE
PATTERN-Gross Density).
c
Page 5
East Ridge PUD
Objective 6.1: "Provide or assist the private sector to provide 4,590 new dwelling units
of various types, sizes, and costs by 1992, and a total of 13,228 new dwelling units by
the year 201 0, in order to meet the housing needs of the existing and anticipated
populations of the City."
The proposed project is expected to provide single family housing units at a sales price below
$85,000 per unit, and include minimal monthly maintenance costs. Given that the typical
detached single family home constructed within the City today has a sales price in excess of
$100,000 (approximately 105,000 to 130,000), and monthly maintenance fees in excess of
$50 dollars per month, the proposed project would further Objective 6.1 through the provision
of a unique housing product at a cost significantly lower than that product currently dominating
the market
Lastly, as the subject project would represent an infill development on property located east of
1-95, it would further those policies related to urban sprawl and infill development promoted
within the long-range plans of the City, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and the
State of Florida.
B) CONSISTENCY OF REZONING WITH ESTABLISHED LAND USE PATTERN
The proposed project is designed at a density of approximately 6 dwelling units per acre,
which is well below the maximum density of 10.8 units per acre allowed under the High
Density Residential land use classification. It was envisioned within the Comprehensive Plan
that this site would be appropriate for multi-family units given existence of the diverse adjacent
uses such as multi-family units, commercial uses, the mobile home park and the railroad right-
of-way. However, the proposed PUD would be more consistent with the greater development
pattern established by the large single family neighborhood located west of this site, than with
the wide variety of uses that only occupy small isolated parcels abutting the subject site.
Additional characteristics of this proposed PUD, which represent attributes of the project and
which also justify its overall consistency within this vicinity are as follows:
1. This parcel and area of the City is appropriate for this unique housing product;
2. By placing all exterior property within common rule and ownership, to be
governed by the homeowners association document(s), all property, including
property values, will be properly and uniformly maintained; and
3. This unique proposed project may offer a more desirable development
alternative to a multi-family apartment project, which use is more typical of a
location which is in close proximity to other multiple family dwellings, non-
residential uses, and particularly, a railroad right-of-way. Furthermore, this
version, or hybrid of a single family project is a more feasible development than
the minimum single family product required by the existing, R-1, zoning district
regulations.
C) COMPATIBILITY OF REZONING WITH PUBLIC FACILITIES
At the time of master plan approval, a review for concurrency certification must occur for
drainage, neighborhood parks and traffic facilities. Concurrency certification is issued after
the determination that adopted levels of service standards are currently met, and will be
maintained despite impacts of the proposed project The facilities, along with the respective
evaluations, are as follows:
Drainage: Insufficient drainage information has been submitted as required at this time to
enable the necessary certification by the Engineering Division. The Engineering Division is
recommending that this review be postponed to time of plat review.
Neighborhood Parks: The levels of service standards (LOS) for the twenty (20) neighborhood
planning areas within the City are twofold, an acreage LOS and a walking distance LOS (see
Neighborhood Park Planning Area Map in Exhibit "C"). The target LOS for all planning areas
with original adopted LOS less than the targeted standards is 2.5 acres per 1 ,000 persons
(p
Page 6
East Ridge PUD
and 1/2 mile walking distance. The subject property is within Neighborhood Park Planning
Area #11, which has standards of 1.8 acres per 1,000 persons and a 1.25 mile walking
distance. To improve this acreage deficiency within Area #11, with the goal of eventually
attaining the target LOS standards, the City had assumed development of parks at both a site
to have been dedicated in connection with the development of the site now occupied by
Boynton Bay Apartments, and on property stretching along the north side of the Boynton (C-
16) Canal. This additional park acreage, to have totaled 12.8 acres (and in part to have been
located within 1,000 feet of the subject property), will not be added to Area #11 as no land
dedication was received from the private development of either of these two sites. Therefore,
the level of service remains at 1.8 acres per 1,000 persons, and consequently, any increase in
the population within Area #11 would cause the acreage LOS to be exceeded (this analysis
has not been revised using new population figures, but population has naturally increased
since the date of adoption in 1987). The City's Comprehensive Plan precludes the approval
of any development if concurrency is jeaporidized (LOS is decreased).
However, there is actually greater recreation amenities available to this planning area and
future residents of the proposed project than indicated by the neighborhood park needs and
supply methodology. This situation is because these amenities are represented by district
parks in and outside Area #11. Ezell Hester Park represents the addition of 20 acres of park
space to Area #11, and based on the level of service standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons,
it would supply neighborhood park space for 8,000 persons (the projected Year 2000
population for Area #11 is less than 7,000). Furthermore, within the adjacent Planning Area
#12, the Boat Ramp Park and planned Intracoastal Park are both district parks located within
one-half mile from the subject site (both closer to the site than any park within Area #11, see
Exhibit "C"). However, as these parks are classified as district parks, rather than
neighborhood parks, according to the concurrency management methodology, their acreage is
not applicable to the analysis of neighborhood park needs and supply.
As a consequence of this deficiency, if this new project is to ultimately receive concurrency
certification for neighborhood parks, specific action must occur such as 1) the addition of
private recreation amenities to the subject project generally equivalent to a neighborhood
park; 2) the addition of public neighborhood park space to Area #11 to offset the addition of
the proposed 33-unit project; 3) the lowering of the adopted level of service for Area #11 to
allow for the addition of the subject project and future development; or 4) amendment of the
neighborhood park needs and supply methodology to better reflect actual park amenities
within a given neighborhood (which could include either redrawing of neighborhood park
planning area boundaries or the merging of the district park and neighborhood park needs
analysis methodologies.
It is unlikely that the City can increase the supply of parks within Area #11 in time to allow for
the certification of concurrency timed with rezoning approval, and it is unlikely that private
recreation amenities will be supplied within the subject project (due to the small size of the
project). Therefore, the logical alternative is to modify neighborhood park LOS standards
within the concurrency management system (which is represented by alternatives #3 or #4
listed above). Since this modification of the system may also be necessary to accurately
reflect the recreation amenities within several other park planning areas, alternative #4 is the
most logical alternative.
Coincidently, this issue to modify recreation standards is a recommendation proposed within
the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). This report recommends
that certain recreation facility standards not be adopted but used only for planning purposes
and removed from the concurrency management process. There may be as pressing
justifications for also removing neighborhood standards, which, as indicated above, are due to
the separation of certain parks and residents by the planning area boundaries, and the
inability to recognize a district park as also serving a "neighborhood park" purpose. Although
parks separated from residents by major roadways should not be the sole source of
neighborhood park resources, this park needs and supply may warrant additional review for
circumstances described herein. Since implementation of the EAR is required by August
1997, the City will be required, with this process, to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
1
Page 7
East Ridge PUD
implement the EAR recommendations regarding recreation standards.
Roadway Capacity Analysis: As indicated in the section above titled PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT, the traffic analysis submitted by the applicant was reviewed by Palm Beach
County who determined that the project would meet the requirements of the Palm Beach
Countywide Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. The County does not comment on
local design issues such as project circulation.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDA TIONS
Pursuant to Section 10.B.2, Chapter 2.5-Planned Unit Developments of the Land
Development Regulations, the Planning and Development Board shall determine (and advise
the City Commission) whether plans, maps and documents submitted meet the requirements
for LUI standards, unified control, locational and PUD standards and establish that:
a) The tract for the proposed PUD is suitable in terms of its relationships to the city
comprehensive plan and that the area surrounding the proposed PUD can
continue to be developed in coordination and substantial compatibility with the
PUD proposed, including overall dwelling unit density and peripheral
transactions in such density;
b) That the desirable modifications of general zoning regulations as applied to the
particular case, justify such modification of regulations and meet to at least an
equivalent degree the regulations modified, based on the design and amenities
incorporated in the site development plan; and
c) That increased open space is provided for the occupants of the proposed PUD
and the general public, and desirable natural features indigenous to the site are
preserved in the development plan presented.
The LUI and unified control documentation have been submitted with the application materials
and have been reviewed by staff and the City Attorney. The remaining requirements as
outlined above have been met or will be satisfied if this project is approved subject to those
outstanding comments included within Attachment "D", and if the City appropriately addresses
the deficiency in neighborhood parks using one of the alternatives described by staff, or an
alternative action which is also consistent with city concurrency regulations.
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), 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 the East Ridge PUD rezoning request, subject to the Conditions of Approval
contained in Exhibit "D", and in particular, the City's commitment to revising the neighborhood
park needs and supply methodology timed with implementation of the EAR recommendations.
Attachments
xc: Central File
MISCX:EASTRIDGWPD
~
EXHIBIT "A"
LOCATION MAP
CJ
f-t:1 -I~t: I---&T
T. - - .;:: .1:' ht4r:
L: ':.. L
.....' ' '
H -,
. '; v.:> ,,'
: ~\.~ ~
; I \ "
. ~'vY
IIh II' \I-\~
.12 \ tl
. \ 11111111 i"l"m 7 1 ~ I
.i'::.- I lIT II I I r I 7 U
~~ i TIT ::), L f- r i
"-. -.... ~ PL; (j'
fjjJfRr :::--' . -, \f 1 ;
fit, 7::t:t: ;::: ~ \ l!
r:: =F{ H+i-\HH; " \\ : .,
=.* ~~"~ i~':~....I:!!!I . IXT";";:
~. '-~ ['~A -. 1'.Ii,
.1.:. ,-I ~ -'I [1-- '...
J J "- f--- . I 1 .
1-- t . .., LJ' .1.J l T1( ..,
r ..' I c'- ,0 -. 811:-rin-J: I- ..,.. S~,::
ii t.....~'C, L U. TTl _;l."
r- - ':::L >,- <-, I I, ' --ll! !~- .
,-, ~ ....dT I ~~f7, ;
I- , ~ -.... J. .1 T ') .. ;:;,
_ _ . ~ Tn :~.. '"-<.1.l. I ( .
=-
..
-
..
; . ,-' ~ - ,..
.~ 1-_ . IjJ +lh
, y,~IIIT II III lrT'T': I a 111"1 i
~~ H ~1FlI ~: a..C'\ : ~c; E q ~,\.
.~\}', ! ' __ 1._' - ~ ~. '---llJ.i!
. \\. . --' .,. ~ ' ..J I 1.2:-:'
:'1,\\\1 i 1 . rsr-L . ,., ., t: S
~-, "ijL .h. 1~rtH ~"-r-, I~, II ~., T ) ~<-'~J- ~\.:
u u I ~-,' i93~~ . ~
_ ,\ 1.l" '1,'1' ~ II'" ! ....-.-J..~: S
~ '. " _ "'r- ---; r 'r 'T'J:~ " :; 1 ~"I
or_'--' +- .---- -.. ~
~ ~ '] 1.=" -1' f:.: - ' · :'. ~
"~t'~ ~~~~' rF >is ~.,,~,~;, ~ cat . . ~.. ..... fDr~~rT ~.
\-. _ ---.:. , ,,' _ ~t ~ l'l II' I' I rT' ==:i I '-- _ 3 . T .
E \- ~!, , \ ,'\- P"li 1 ITT I- ~ C3;/If I I I I ~ I
r", >, '-- .fir:! .T'lllT ~.: '" ....... TalT~ . ~..,. '. '.
" '__ TIT I : Tn . II . , ' y
IT T' ,1111' 111111 '\ . "1T.... i"I',''-''I'I'''. '1~~;
. ... -.
-
I I ., --- :
11'11 II '.~ .~ . ffi 71
l ~ 1'\ CTfi . o!!~illl .r11 " ~'- ..2:.:' 1/8 MILES V
~ ~ . I~ III ~I :::1, 1_: o:J :.~ .0\" III I . .' J
K 0 m ,0111 II =, ~!=: =:J , I. r
i::v- lIY~I-' _~~)Iill~t~ II~ ~,.=- ~~gl:I:' 16 400,'820 FEET ~e:JI.9~ dJJ.
-
LUCATION MAP
EAST RIDGE
1/~'mMt i11.l h
,d hml H- ".,...
1111 ~. .tQ;l1- ,;::; .; ..
I
I...'.....
e-....
'.:, - .- - : =-.' ~~'
lill
llil '
;:;
,i=
.-
. f-.-
IT 1~
1=
L
_ Illfl
II
-,,,,,..
III
~
J:lJ ..,
. "'(
C~
n
I.'
---.
;;.
..'
..,
'"
':'
: ~ '
,..
..
R3.....
'.'
: ~ :
e
C
I I 'I I '.
-~~.
.RE
.-- '
71.:..
\I::
III
." "'--:. ":. ,.
I' ,-
"l
z
u
..
...
..
-REG--:
5
~
z
I ~
..
o
~
~I ~
:i
T1-\l-- \1.
,! 'I /I
EXHIBIT "B"
PROPOSED MASTER PLAN
If
'"
-~-,.
- ,
."
"
"~'
r II"
\
,n'
,
~ R
::~. io1
r~~ ~
N
~I ~
....
w..;,!
z~
'"
l"
<;
z ~
---------------------1
,
,
,
:'
,
"
:'
"
"
:'
,
,
1)1\tfi.
\" jb
Ifb"" J!j ~1f"U" IUD,
Pi 1 ,II;!I
~ 7 I ~V~
,I : I KC
/
tflE
N89"40'OZ'E 607.77'
-- -- ------ - -- _..-___ -- ---- ------ -- -- -- ---- ---- --_____________ ____ __ t Jl~I~ __ _..-_-_ __ _-___ ____ -_ _-___-_ _-___-___
,.
1,07 \11l)
~
1l,'1,r"
~.l -a
, I _ .1.)
i,SR
~~
"i 27
i~,
..'
--,---
__J___
l"r1
-'
.~: ~26
L.:
J1"/'"""'
\11 I
;.\
,
'.
~
.'"
/
. .~I
,....,..
,
'.,'
.
~lf, I
'''.'1,/
.-1
~.
,
I
I
,
,
I
~U1RA""IG1
~-,
"
"
,~
."
~--
02040
IEf8ot.ClIIRlOlMEllENTlfOftPIoRCEL
-
-
-
~-"".1'lANHaI
---
--
_1Nl"1~2...11tI
~'!_'IOOOIlRlIl'I!rq~
.
1l___(RISA) oar
.....__.._..,.IM)_.,
.n
"
"
,
"
"
"
"
J'
:1 g
:Ir-.:
" m
," ..
;, 3:
:'"
,.,
/, 2
" "
" 0
/, VJ
"
:'
,
,
:'
--...1__ I,
:'
,
:'
"
"
:'
"
:'
,
"
"
,
"
,
,
,
",:::::::::.':.J
,
"
:'
,
"
"
I
I
I
I
"f ~b. J
I
I
l ,
,
I
I
Tr~
~ I ,
" I
.
'.
~
<~ c~
.~
,~. ~
,-"
~
i
:r
~
t
;;:
1
I
;03.-.::1
E~,~! '
I
I
r
,
,
I
I
PfloPOftD
"M
-
-
."
'"
."
.~
:~p;.:-:;"
l i.f L.l __.~B9"39~51"W _ 3~'128'
"'i+-r4 ~l,~.~ .. T"~ H
...~~~~. " -\.4'
. /
,-
;"
o
N
t.lDI1.\fA~l to'!' M&l~t
~
b
;.,
r
<;
z
\
l~111 DF ",., &-0'1111 JGI,' 1:,lfbW liI~
ft I f{,~,
f,) / t11~
---2t
229.80'
I~"
1'1 1~
B~~!hl ,l~~ H1PD!"n ')'J~'
v~, 1 9r. 1)1
~
-~~
_.~
~.-
Nn~,,'''!''
_OfWOTt
T'I'POl:oU,lHT~HCl.._'~"nclt
-~
_w_
PERCENTAGl!D1S1Rl8llJlOH0fSlTf
..
~
:120....,. ...oc
"I'M'" INIAC:
"
I....., 'OMM:
'A~
n.
r.,P
~-~-
--
.......-
--
~~IElENnON~
TOTAl-OCIWl'WOlI
".111"
Am.
1,11,.
q.,....
.,....11'
~
~Ull
lUll
".
An
.,.
,iiii"
_IoI_lOI......
----only.
_1ot_IIn....o,
---
80
/60
."
A"
A"
_potC8IlIoI_
____...u""'"
iIDr__.
___IFA'1)"
ap..__lOBlll
Uvng__lLSRI
/20
SCAlE 1"'40'
~.t...
/;z
ATTACHMENT "C"
EXCERPT FROM RECREATION & OPEN
SPACE ELEMENT:
MAP 1
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PLANNING AREAS
/2J
pft,ftK p\..e.NN\1'lG ft,ftE.e.S
I",'
--~.
"-
~
,
'~I
'~'lf
-~ ~.
.d-
f '
j
r!,
'"
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
w
w
.
u
.
.
.
~
~
.
::,,}I. \
IIIII \ \ ;... - I\-
._..,. _..rt"
C\\'1 ot 80'1",\0\'\ eeact\ I 1
~~.n.~\ng oe".ft",ent 4 8
__C\t~ llOUnd3'\e.
3
--I'.'~
~-
I t.f
ATTACHMENT "0"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
15
EXHIBIT "D"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: East Ridge
File number: REZN 96-002
Reference: The plans consist of 6 sheets identified as 3rd Review. Rezonina. File #REZN 96-002 with a Plannina
and Zonina Department October 1 1996 date stamp markina.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS
~ . Mr'lM<::
UTILITIES
Comments:
1. No trees, except Palm trees, will be allowed within utilities easements (Sec. 7.5-
18.1).
2. Dept of HRS permits will be required for the water and sewer systems serving
this project
3. A utilities easement must also be shown over those water and sewer lines within
the roadway access easement This may be done by also defining the access
easement as a utilities easement for water and sanitary sewer maintenance by
the City of Boynton Beach.
4. Based upon 33 single family homes with 3/4" x 5/8" meters, the capacity
reservation fee for this project will be $4,573.80. This fee is payable within 30
days of the site plan approval, or when the HRS permit applications are
submitted for approval by this office, whichever comes first (Sec. 26-34(E)).
FIRE
,..
POLICE
..-
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Comments:
6. Specify that subgrade on road sections is stabilized. Chap.6, Art.IV, Sec.10F,
pg.6-12.
7. Show positive drainage from north side of cul-de-sac to East Ridge Circle South.
Chap.6, Art.IV, Sec.5A, pg.6-7.
8. Provide detail of outfall into east retention area. Chap.6, Art.v, SecAB1a, pg.6-
19.
9. Provide sod in retention areas adjacent to lots 20 and 33. Chap.7.5, Art. II,
Sec.5C6, pg.7.5-15.
10. Revise typical road section to drain toward, not away from, valley curb, or
iustifv vour reasonina. Chao. 6, Art.IV, Sec.5A, pq.6-7.
11. Show proof that the 10ft utility easement shown on the survey has been legally
removed (Official Record Book 859, Page 752).
12. Tie all four properties together under one title (legally recorded).
13. Extend the sidewalk across lots 15 and 16 and around the circle.
14. Signs shall comply with the City's Sign Code.
15. Meet table 600 of the 1994 Standard Buiiding Code.
'" , ""o~.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments:
17. Due to the reduction of dwelling units from 34 single family units to 33 single
family dwelling units, the new recreation dedication requirement is computed as
follows:
33 s.f. D.U. x .018 acres/d.u. = .594 acres.
18. There are no plans for private recreation. The full dedication is required as cash
in lieu of land.
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments:
19. The tree management plan document must be included in the homeowner
....., . fM . d.""c
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
20. Complete the LUI computation by identifying the allowed FAR, OSR, LSR and
RSR in square feet. Also identify the proposed LUI elements in square feet
rather than acres.
21. It is recommended, that in order to minimize the negative impacts of the
adjacent railroad, the height of the proposed 2'-6" landscape buffer along the
eastern property line be increased to 6 feet.
22. Add to Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for East Ridge, Section 3.01.1
- Common Areas and Other Property, the following statement prior to the
concluding sentence:
"Under no circumstances shall the City of Boynton Beach be
responsible for the maintenance and repair of the common areas."
23. The developer shall post a notice of "annual boundary school assignments" for
students from this development on District provided 11" x 17" sign to be posted
in a clear and visible location in all sales offices and models with the following
language:
"NOTICE TO HOME BUYERSITENANTS"
"School age children in this development may not be assigned to
the most proximate public elementary, middle or high school
because of School District policies regarding overcrowding, racial
balancing or other boundary policy decisions. Please contact the
Palm Beach County School District Boundary Office at (561) 434-
8100 to verify the most current school assignment(s) for the house
addresses in this development."
24. The city commits to addressing current deficiency in neighborhood park LOS
standards by amending the needs and supply methodology to better reflect
actual park amenities serving individual neighborhoods, and in particular, Park
Planning Area #11.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
25. Reword #21 as follows: It is recommended, that in order to minimize the
negative impacts of the adjacent railroad, the height of the proposed 2'-6"
landscape buffer along the eastern property line be maintained at 6 feet and
planted at a height of 36".
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
26. To be determined.
/bme
c:easlridg,wpd