AGENDA DOCUMENTS
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Requested City Commission Date Final Fonn Must be Turned
Meeting Dates in to CitY Clerk's Office
Requested City Commission
Meeting Dates
Date Final Fonn Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
0 March 21, 2000
0 April 4, 2000
0 April 18, 2000
0 May 2, 2000
March 8,2000 (5:00 p.m.)
o May 16, 2000
o June 6, 2000
IZI June 20, 2000
o July 5, 2000
May 3, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
March 22, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
May 17, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
April 5,2000 (5:00 p.m.)
June 7, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
April 19, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
June 21, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
NATURE OF
AGENDA ITEM
o Administrative
o Consent Agenda
o Public Hearing
o Bids
o Announcement
o Development Plans
o New Business
IZI Legal
o Unfmished Business
o Presentation
RECOMMENDATION: Please place the attached ordinance, pertaining to the request below on the June 20, 2000 City
Commission meeting agenda under Legal- Ordinance 2nd reading. As you may recall, this request was approved at the
June 6, 2000 City Commission meeting on 151 reading of the Ordinance. This request to rezone from C-3 Community
Commercial to R-3 High Density Residential was approved at the December 21,1999 City Commission meeting for
transmittal to the State. The State's objections are being addressed with additional information intended to clarify the
location of the subject property in proximity to the Coastal High Hazard Area. The amendments may now be adopted and
returned to the State for fmal compliance review. Staff continues to recommend that this request be approved.
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT NAME:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Villa Del Sol
Bradley Miller
Grove Partners Limited
Intersection of Federal Highway (US 1) and Old Dixie Highway
Request to rezone from C-3 Community Commercial to R-3 High Density Residential.
PROGRAMIMPACT:N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
City Manager's Signature
Department of Development Director
r-L.- Z..I 7~
Planning and Zon' g rrector
City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources
liCH\MAlN\SHRDATAIPLANNINGISHAREDIWP\PROlECTS\VILLA DEL SOL CPTA lit. LUARIAGENDA REQUEST FOR CC 6-20-00 REZONE .DOC
Response to Objections, Recommendations And Comments Report
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
City of Boynton Beach
Amendment 00-1 ER
I. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule 9J-5 & 9-11, F.A.C.
The City of Boynton Beach, in Palm Beach County, has proposed a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, based on the City's Evaluation and Appraisal
Report (EAR) adopted on April 1, 1997. The proposed Amendment consists of
updating all of the Elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan as anticipated in
the EAR. The proposed EAR-based Amendment includes four Future Land Use
Maps (FLCM) changes. The City has also proposed a non-EAR related FLUM
change. The City proposed to adopt this Amendment in May of June of 2000. The
Department has identified the following objections to the proposed Amendment:
A. EAR-based Amendment
Transportation Element
Objection 1. The Transportation Element does not include future transportation
maps identifying the major public transit trip generators and attractors
based upon the future land use map; and the projected peak hour levels of
service for transportation facilities for \vhich level of service standards are
established.
Response: The MPO generated 2020 throughfare system and 2020 pedestrian
facilities are included as support documents. The Public Transit System
Map implicitly indicates the location of major public transit trip generators
and attractors at various terminals. The map \vill be expanded, however, to
explicitly indicate the trip generators and attractors based on the Future
Land Use Map. The projected peak hour level of service is contained in
the Evaluation and Appraisal Report as Map 2.9.
Objection 2. The Transportation Element support documentation indicated that
transit market share for Tri-County Rail and Palm- Tran, as well as
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, would have to increase in the City
through transportation demand management (TD;'v1) strategies in order to
modify peak-hour travel demand. How'ever, the City did not include a
policy in this Element establishing TDM programs.
Response: An explicit TDM oriented policy to establish a transportation
management organization as an implementing vehicle for the TDM will be
added above and beyond what is implicitly indicated in Objective 2.7 and
2.8, pending the City's concurrence with the costs and Staff implication of
a TDM public/private partnership and responsibilities.
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
Response to Objections, Recommendations, & Comments Report
Amendment 00- I ER
Date: June 6, 2000
Page I of 5
Objection 3. Proposed Objective 2.4 of the Transportation Element states: The
City shall develop and maintain a safe, convenient, and energy efficient
multi-modal transportation system l,vhich will meet jilfure as well as
current trans needs. The City has provided an inventory of existing
intermodal facilities, but not an analysis of the deficiencies or projected
needs. These data and analysis will assist the City in addressing the need
for additional terminals, connections, high occupancy vehicle lanes; and
pedestrian, bicycle, park-and-ride and other facilities based on land use
projections to facilitate effective implementation of this objective.
Response: The analysis presented within the EAR is adequate and it will be
incorporated in the text and maps of the support documents by reference.
Additionally, transportation concurrency management map(s) will be
expanded to address the Department's concerns.
Comment. The transportation map series do not include the appropriate titles,
legend, map scale and the preparation or revision date. The inclusion of
this information will improve the usefulness of these maps in the City's
planning efforts and enhance citizen's understanding of these maps,
because the maps can be properly referenced.
Response: The map series \vere intended to update and/or augment the maps
already in the EAR and not necessarily to substitute them. The maps
presented however, did and do contain appropriate titles and legends. They
will be expanded and improved upon, however, to adequately address the
Department's concerns.
Planning Timeframe
Comment. The City projected its population and public facility capacities and
needs to 2015 in the EAR. The proposed Comprehensive Plan EAR-based
Amendment and support data and analysis have been based on the 2015
timeframe. However, the City did not include in the plan or on the FLUM
any planning timeframe, either short-term, medium-term, or long-term, toe
support the proposed goals, objectives and policies in the Comprehensive
Plan. We recommend the City should include at least tv\'O planning periods
in the Comprehensive Plan, one for at least the first five-year period and
one for at least an overall ten-year period.
Response: The Transportation Element addresses appropriate planning
timeframes (Policy 2.2.1) for transportation improvements.
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
Response to Objections, Recommendations, & Comments Report
Amendment OO-lER
Date: June 6, 2000
Page 2 of5
B. Non EAR-based Amendment
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Amendment (LUAR #99-005: Villa Del Sol)
Objection. The Amendment does not restrict development activities where such
activities do not protect human life by directing population concentrations
away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas. Additionally, the
proposed Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 1.21.1 of the
Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan which
requires the City to obtain written approvals from the Palm Beach County
Division of Emergency Management and the City of Boynton Beach Risk
Management Officer, "prior to approving any increase in residential
densities in the Hurricane Evacuation Zone...if the proposed density
increase \vould result in an increase of 50 or more dwellings." The Citv
- ..
has not supported the proposed FLUM Amendment with such written
approvals. Moreover, the City has not demonstrated the consistency of the
proposed FLUM Amendment with Objective 7.6 of the Coastal
Management Element of its Comprehensive Plan, regarding the City's
commitment to maintain or reduce current estimated hurricane evacuation
times if development increases in the coastal high-hazard area of the City.
The City did not provide analysis of the projected impact of anticipated
population density of the proposed additional 148 dwelling units and
potential evacuation needs of the population on hurricane evacuation
planning.
Response: City staff made two errors in its review comments on the application
for amendment. The first was to reference the location of the amendment
as being a part of Map location # 16 in Table 24 of the Coastal
Management Element. The referenced map location is on the east of U. S.
Highway 1, while the subject parcel is on the west of that thoroughfare. In
an early draft of support documents for the Coastal Management Element,
the subject property was identified as Map location #17 and corresponding
policy direction in Table 24 provided setback requirements for
development of the site under a Special High Density Residential
designation. The map and policy references were removed from the final
version of the support documents \vhen it was decided to recognize the
development order in place for the property in 1989 and maintain the
commercial land use designation on the site.
Staff s second error was to recommend that the proposed amendment
\vould be forwarded to the County EMD for review. This is required
when a site is located within the Hurricane High Hazard Zone and impacts
of the increased density reach thresholds established in the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. \vnile the parcel is \V'ithin the City's
adopted Coastal Planning Area, it is \vest of the line delineating the
Hurricane High Hazard Zone. It is staffs understanding that under Rule
9J-5.003(18), F.A.C., the coastal planning area does not need to be
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
Response to Objections, Recommendations, & Comments Report
Amendment 00-1 ER
Date: June 6, 2000
Page 3 of5
coterminous with the Coastal High Hazard Area so long as all of the
Coastal High Hazard Area is included within the planning area.
Emergency Support Function 18 - PUBLIC SAFETY of the Palm Beach
County Comprehensive Emergency J-lanagement Plan details the
geographic areas contained within each Traffic Evacuation Zone for
hurricane evacuation. The boundaries for each zone are repeated from the
Treasure Coast Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study. Zones 11, 12 and
13 encompass areas of the City of Boynton Beach; however, the zone in
closest proximity to the subject parcel is Zone 13. Its boundaries are
described as, "South of Ocean A venue, east of U. S. 1, north of Gulf
Stream Golf Course, west of Atlantic Ocean." Evacuation Zone 13 is
classified as the Storm Surge Vulnerable Zone for all hurricanes. (See
Attachment A)
The subject parcel is located west of U.S. Highv:ay 1, and therefore is not
within the Hurricane High Hazard area, defined in Rule 91-5.003(17),
F .A.C. as "the evacuation zone for a Category 1 hurricane as established
in the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the local
govemment."
Even though the property is not located within the Hurricane High Hazard
area, staff requested that the Palm Beach County Emergency Management
Division review the amendment and provide comments. Their response
indicates that the site is not designated as an evacuation area in the event
of a Category 1 storm. (See Attachment B, paragraph 4)
II. Consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan
The proposed Amendment does not adequately address and further the following
goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, F.S.:
1. Goal (7) Public Safety. Policy 25, regarding local governments adopting
plans and policies to protect public and private property and human lives
from the effects of natural disasters.
Response: Evacuation routes, as shol"vn, addresses the concerns contained with
this Goal as it relates to transportation.
2. Goal (20) Transportation. Policies 1 0 & 15, regarding promotion of ride
sharing by public and private sector employees; and promotion of
effective coordination among various modes of transportation in urban
areas to assist urban development and redevelopment efforts.
Response: An explicit TDJ'vl oriented policy to establish a transportation
management organization as an implementing vehicle for the TDM will be
added above and beyond what is implicitly indicated in Objective 2.7 and
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
Response to Objections, Recommendations, & Comments Report
Amendment OO-IER
Date: June 6, 2000
Page 4 of 5
2.8, pending the City's concurrence with the costs and Staff implication of
a TDM public/private partnership and responsibilities.
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
Response to Objections, Recommendations, & Comments Report
Amendment 00-1 ER
Date: June 6, 2000
Page 5 of5
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Requested City Commission Date Final Fonn Must be Turned
Meetinl!: Dates in to City Clerk's Office
Requested City Commission
Meetinl!: Dates
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
0 March 21, 2000
0 April 4, 2000
0 April 18, 2000
0 May 2, 2000
March 8, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
o May 16, 2000
IZI June 6, 2000
o June 20, 2000
o July 5, 2000
May 3, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
March 22,2000 (5:00 p.m.)
May 17,2000 (5:00 p.m.)
April 5,2000 (5:00 p.m.)
June 7, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
April 19,2000 (5:00 p.m.)
June 21, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
NATURE OF
AGENDA ITEM
o Administrative
o Consent Agenda
o Public Hearing
o Bids
o Announcement
o Development Plans
o New Business
IZI Legal
o Unfinished Business
o Presentation
RECOMMENDATION: Please place the attached ordinance, pertaining to the request below on the June 6, 2000 City
Commission meeting agenda under Legal - Ordinance 1" reading. This request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Fumre
Land Use Support Document Planning Area l.p., to support the reclassification from Local Retail Commercial land use to
Special High Density Residential, was approved at the December 21, 1999 City Commission meeting for transmittal to the
State. The State has completed its review of this proposal, and their objections are being addressed with additional
information intended to clarify the location of the subject property in proximity to the Coastal High Hazard Area. The
amendments may now be adopted and returned to the State for fmal compliance review. Staff continues to recommend that
this request be approved.
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT NAME:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Villa Del Sol
Bradley Miller
Grove Partners Limited
Intersection of Federal Highway (US 1) and Old Dixie Highway
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Support Document Planning Area
l.p., to support the reclassification from Local Retail Commercial land use to Special High
Density Residential to encourage development and revitalization of this area of the City.
PROGRAM IMPACT: NM
FISCAL IMP ACT: N/ A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
Department of Development Director
City Manager's Signamre
1
~(l~~
lanning and Zoni => irector City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources
J\SHRDATAIPLANNlNGISHAREDlWP'PROlECTS\V1LLA DEL SOL CPTA lit. LUARIAGEI'iDA REQUEST FOR CC 6-6-00 DOC
Non EAR-Based Amendment
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Amendment (LUAR #99-005: Villa Del Sol)
Objection. The amendment does not restrict development activities where such
activities do not protect human life by directing population concentrations away from
known or predicted coastal high hazard areas. Additionally, the proposed amendment is
internally inconsistent with Policy 1.12.1 of the Future Land Use Element of the City's
comprehensive plan which requires the City to obtain written approvals from the Palm
Beach County Division of Emergency Management and the City of Boynton Beach Risk
Management Officer, "prior to approving any increase in residential densities in the
Hurricane Evacuation Zone.. .ifthe proposed density would result in an increase of 50 or
more dwellings." The City has not supported the proposed FLUM admendment with
such written approvals. Moreover, the City has not demonstrated the consistency of the
proposed FLUM amendment with Objective 7.6 of the Coastal Management Element of
its comprehensive plan, regarding the City's commitment to maintain or reduce current
estimated hurricane evacuation times if development increases in the coastal high-hazard
area of the City. The city did not provide analysis of the projected impact of anticipated
population density of the proposed additional 148 dwelling units and potential evacuation
needs of the population on hurricane evacuation planning. [Chapter 163.3177(21);
163.3 I 77(6)(g)7; 163.3177(j)6; & 163.3178(1), F. S. and Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), 9J-
5.005(5); 9J-5.012(2)(e)1., 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. & 7.; and 9J-5.019(3)(c), F. A. C.]
Response. City staff made two errors in its review comments on the application
for amendment. The first was to reference the location of the amendment as being a part
of Map location #16 in Table 24 of the Coastal Management Element. The referenced
map location is on the east of U. S. Highway I, while the subject parcel is on the west of
that thoroughfare. In an early draft of support documents for the Coastal Management
Element, the subject property was identified as Map location #17 and corresponding
policy direction in Table 24 provided setback requirements for development of the site
under a Special High Density Residential designation. The map and policy references
were removed from the final version of the support documents when it was decided to
recognize the development order in place for the property in 1989 and maintain the
commercial land use designation on the site.
Staffs second error was to recommend that the proposed amendment would be
forwarded to the County EMD for review. This is required when a site is located within
the Hurricane High Hazard Zone and impacts of the increased density reach thresholds
established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. While the parcel is
within the City's adopted Coastal Planning Area, it is west of the line delineating the
Hurricane High Hazard Zone. It is staffs understanding that under Rule 9J-5.003(18),
F.A.C., the coastal planning area does not need to be coterminous with the Coastal High
Hazard Area so long as all of the Coastal High Hazard Area is included within the
planning area.
Emergency Support Function 18 - PUBLIC SAFETY of the Palm Beach County
Comorehensive Emergency Management Plan details the geographic areas contained
within each Traffic Evacuation Zone for hurricane evacuation. The boundaries for each
zone are repeated from the Treasure Coast Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study. Zones
11, 12 and 13 encompass areas of the City of Boynton Beach; however, the zone in
closest proximity to the subject parcel is Zone 13. Its boundaries are described as, "South
of Ocean Avenue, east of U. S. 1, north of Gulf Stream Golf Course, west of Atlantic
Ocean." Evacuation Zone 13 is classified as the Storm Surge Vulnerable Zone for all
hurricanes. (See Attachment A)
The subject parcel is located west of U.S. Highway 1, and therefore is not within the
Hurricane High Hazard area, defined in Rule 9J-5.003(17), F.A.C. as "the evacuation
zone for a Category 1 hurricane as established in the regional hurricane evacuation study
applicable to the local government."
The subject property is within Traffic Evacuation Zone 43 which is not listed even as a
Storm Surge Vulnerable Zone for Categories 4 and 5 hurricanes. It is presumed,
therefore, that development of the parcel will not impact the evacuation times or potential
evacuation needs of the population; nor will it impact the demand for hurricane shelter
space in the event of a Category 1 hurricane.
· 1-'
.--- I
.
.
___--1
IIINER FIl
E2 ----- :
~ L__-,
i 2"Z AVE
~ '
I
.
.
,_J
/
.
BOYNTON FIJ
?.:r-1
BOYNTON: B CH
Ei
~ j
.
.
I
.
.
L,
.
.
I
l
,
---..
,____________.1
.
I
.
e ·
~ I
~ :
Dl.
L-_______________
------ CITY LIMITS
HYPOLUXO AD
· / 'L
' .
V ;1i1
.r .
'", .
19~
r-l'
I I
r--.J :
'---
Iii
,
L -l i
I Ii
I
!.
NINeI
/
- -
a:
a:
x
en
u
BLVD
w
>
~
en
en
w
a:
UJ
:z:
Q
t.I 1I00UlRIGHT AD
LO
C"l
I
1-1
23 AVE
LEGEND
If-f.~ HURRICANE EVACUATION ZONE
BOYNTON BEACH COASTAL NANAGENENT ELEMENT
ATTACHMENT A
I
I
~
~
~
c:.;,
~
c:.;,
'"
J..,.
~
~
'.J
J..,.
~
~
N. T.S.
FIGURE 19 - HURRICANE EVACUATION ZONE
WALTER H. KELLER JR., INC.
Consultjn~ Ei1~jneers ; PliJ/1/1ers
Coral SlJrin~s. Florida
-96-
Requested City Cornmission
Meetinl!: Dates
o Novernber 16,1999
o December 7, 1999
IZI December 21, 1999
o January 4, 2000
NATURE OF
AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF BOYNTON BEA__n
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
~
Date Final Form Must be Turned Requested City Commission
in to Citv Clerk's Office Meetinl!: Dates
Date final form Must be Turned
in to Citv Clerk's Office
November 3, 1999 (5:00 p.m.) 0 January 18,2000
November 17,1999 (5:00 p.m,) 0 February 1,2000
December 8, 1999 (5:00 p.m.) 0 February 15,2000
December 22,1999 (5:00 p,m.) 0 March 7, 2000
January 5,2000 (5:00 p.m.)
January 19,2000 (5:00 p.m.)
February 2, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
February 16,2000 (5:00 p.m.)
o Administrative
o Consent Agenda
IZI Public Hearing
o Bids
o Announcement
o . Development Plans
o New Business
o Legal
o Unfmished Business
o Presentation
RECOMMENDATION: Please place the request below on the December 21, 1999 City Commission agenda under Public
Hearing. The Planning and Development Board with a 5-1 (1 abstain) vote, recommended approval with no additional staff
comments. For further details pertaining to this request see attached Department of Development Memorandum No. PZ 99-
302.
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT NAME:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Villa Del Sol
Bradley Miller
Grove Partners Limited
Intersection of Federal Highway (US 1) and Old Dixie Highway
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Support Document Planning Area
I.p., to support the reclassification from Local Retail Commercial land use to Special High
Density Residential to encourage development and revitalization of this area of the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
PROGRAMIMWACT: N~
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
City Manager's Signature
Department of Development Acting Director
-:15/ c-~
Planning and Zoning Director
City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources
IICH\MAlN\SHRDA T AIPLANNINGISHAREDIVIIPIPROlECTSI"lLLA DEL SOL CPT A lit. LUARIAGENDA CC lTEMS2- 12-21.99 .DOC
7.A.5
VILLA DEL SOL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 99-302
TO: Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
FROM: Michael W. Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
DATE: December 10, 1999
SUBJECT: Villa del Sol (LUAR # 99-005, CPT A # 99-002)
Amendment to Comprehensive PlanText and Future Land Use Map and
Rezoning
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project/Applicant:
Villa del Sol/Grove Partners, L TD
Agent:
Bradley D. Miller, AICP
Owner:
Grove Partners, L TD
Location:
Northwest comer ofthe intersection of Federal Highway
(US 1) and Old Dixie Highway; the subject property is
located within the expanded CRA area (see Exhibit A).
File No:
Land Use Amendment/Rezoning (LUAR 99-005)
Text Amendment (CPT A 99-002)
Property Description:
Vacant property consisting of 16 acres classified Local
Retail Commercial (LRC) on the Future Land Use Map and
zoned C-3 (Community Commercial)
Proposed change/use:
To amend the Future Land Use Map from LRC to Special
High Density Residential (SH), and rezone from C-3 to R-
3, Multi-family Residential. The applicant, Grove Partners,
L TD, is proposing these changes in order to develop the
subject property as a residential rental project named Villa
del Sol. The proposed land use change qualifies as a large
scale amendment pursuant to Chapter 163 F.S. This
proposed amendment is being reviewed for transmittal to
the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
1
Proposed change!
text amendment:
After transmittal and DCA review, the proposed
amendment may be scheduled for adoption in Mayor June
of2000.
The Comprehensive Plan text amendment will apply to
Planning Area l.p., as described in Section VIII, Land Use
Problems and Opportunities of the Future Land Use
Element Support Document (pages 89 and 90). Section
VIII was adopted into the Plan by Policy 1.17.3 of the
Future Land Use Element.
The text currently reads as follows:
"1.p. Parcels at Northwest Comer of U.S. 1 and Old Dixie
Highwav
Due to the limited demand for commercial floor space
along this segment of U.S. 1, the Coastal Management
Element originally recommended that these parcels be
taken out of the Local Retail Commercial land use
category, and placed in the Special High Density
Residential category. However, because a site plan and
construction drawings for a shopping center on this site
have been approved by the City, the City Commission
decided to keep these parcels in the Local Retail
Commercial land use category."
The proposed text reads:
"1.p. Parcels at Northwest Comer of U.S. 1 and Old Dixie
Highwav
Due to the limited demand for commercial floor space
along this segment of U.S. 1, an initial recommendation of
the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1989 was that these
parcels be taken out of the Local Retail Commercial land
use category, and placed in the Special High Density
Residential category. This recommendation was not
enacted because a site plan and construction drawings for a
shopping center on this site have been approved by the
City. The shopping center has not been developed and
the site plan and construction plan approvals have
expired. Therefore, these parcels should be taken out of
the Local Retail Commercial land use category and
placed in the Special High Density Residential category
to encourage development and revitalization of this area
of the City."
2
This text amendment and map amendment would allow for the conversion of the current
LRC classification of the subject property to the SH classification. The SH classification,
with the maximum density of 20 dwellings per acre, originated in the Coastal
Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage infill development south
of Woolbright Road; the application of this land use category is limited to the Coastal
Area.
In connection with this amendment, Table # 24 - Site Specific Future Land Use and
Design Considerations - within the Coastal Management Support Document is to be
amended to show the 16 acre increase of the SH classification (Map Area # 16). Table #
24 was adopted into the Plan by Policy 7.9.6, and in part, describes the size of the area to
which the SH classification and design recommendations apply (see reference. map and
Table #24 within Exhibit B). These specific design recommendations are intended to
mitigate any potential impacts generated by development at this higher density. The
design considerations include expanded setbacks, which increase with building height
(e.g. 3- story -75 feet, and 4- story - 100 feet). Logically, if the SH area is expanded to
include the subject property, the corresponding design recommendations should apply to
the new area, and Table #24 should be revised to accurately describe the property within
map Area # 16.
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
Subdivision/Use Existing Use FLU Zoning
Name
North: Homing Inn Residential Local Retail C-3 (NE)
(NE) (NE) R-3 (NW)
Los Mangos High Density
(NW) Residential
(NW)
South: T exaco/ Gas Station/ Local Retail C-3 (SE)
Shopping Shopping (SE) R-l (SW)
Center (SE) Center (SE) Medium
Scattered Single Family Density
Single Family Residential Residential
(SW) (SW) (SW)
East: Colonial Club 2 & 3 Story High Density R-3
Condominiums Residential Residential
Condominium
s
West FEC Railroad Railroad ROW N/A N/A
Farther Agricultural use mango farm Medium R-2
West: Density
Residential
3
PROJECT ANALYSIS
The criteria used to review Comprehensive Plan amendments are listed in Land
Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Section 9, Administration and Enforcement, Item
C, Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Rezonings. These criteria are required to be part of
a staff analysis when the proposed change includes an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map.
a. Wltetlter tlte proposed rezoning would be consistent witlt applicable
compreltensive plan policies including but not limited to, a proltibition against
any increase in dwelling unit density exceeding 50 in tlte Iturricane evacuation
zone witltout written approval of tlte Palm Beaclt County Emergency Planning
Division and tlte City's risk manager. Tlte planning department sltall also
recommend limitations or requirements, wlticlt would Itave to be imposed on
subsequent development of tlte property, in order to comply witlt policies
contained in tlte compreltensive plan.
With regard to the aforementioned written approvals of the Palm Beach County
Emergency Planning Division and the City's risk manager, there is an inconsistency
between the criteria specified in the Land Development Regulations and the
Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.12./, such written
approvals are required if the proposed density increase results in the increase of 50 or
more dwelling units. Since the proposed density increase for the subject property will
result in a potential increase of 148 dwelling units, the application will be forwarded to
the Palm Beach County Emergency Planning Division for review.
The proposed rezoning is generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan objectives and
policies regarding compatibility of the proposed land use classification with adjacent land
uses, the availability of service capacity, and the Comprehensive Plan's projected surplus
of commercial land.
In particular, the proposed amendment /rezoning must comply with the following
policies:
1. Policies requiring the consistency with the Coastal Management Element and
encouraging infill development compatible with the Community Redevelopment
Plan:
Policy 1.9.1 {Future Land Use Element} - "Implement the land
use and redevelopment policies contained within the Coastal
Management Element"
Policy 1.13.3(Future Land Use Element} - "Encourage infi//
development and redevelopment by adopting and
implementing the Community Redevelopment Plans, and the
policies contained in the Coastal Management Element".
4
The subject property is located within the Coastal Area as described
within the Coastal Management Element Support Documents. The SH
classification was established in the Plan to encourage development and
redevelopment in the Coastal Management Area (see Exhibit C - except
from Future Land Use Support Document). The subject property, as
indicated in the Comprehensive Plan text, was originally recommended
for the proposed SH designation.
2. Policies calling for monitoring of commercial land uses for consistency with
demand for such uses:
Policy 1.19.6 (Future Land Use Element) - "...do not af/ow
commercial acreaqe which is qreater than the demand which
has been proiected... "
Policy 1.19.7 (Future Land Use Element) - "In areas where the
demand for commercial uses will not increase, particularly in
the Coastal Area, subsequent to Plan adoption change the
land use and zoning to permit only residential or other non-
commercial uses".
The replacement of this commercial use with a residential classification is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as the analysis of data in the
Coastal Management Support Document does not project an increase of
demand for commercial uses in that area. The Plan recommends, where
appropriate, the replacement of commercial uses with residential uses.
The results of the analysis - a suggested surplus of commercial land- are
consistent with the history of the subject property: it was never developed
within its current Local Retail Commercial designation, in spite of the
previous site plan approval for a shopping center. Staff has not evaluated
the current demand for commercial uses~ however, the Commercial
Needs Assessment report, completed by the Palm Beach County Planning
Division in August of 1999, provides future (2015) projections of need for
commercial space and compares the need to the existing and potential
supply. According to the study, the subject area shows a surplus of both
retail and office space.
3. The following additional objectives and policies addressed below
are either typically referenced by the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), or required by them to be analyzed in the
review of proposed amendments:
5
Obiective 1.2 (Future Land Use Element - "Coordinate future land
uses with soil conditions so that urban land uses are prohibited in
locations where it is not economical to remove or treat unsuitable
soils..."; and
Policy 1. 2. 2fFuture Land Use Element - "...prohibit development of urban
land uses where the removal or treatment of unsuitable soils would be
uneconomical, provide that unstable soils shall be removed in all construction
and land development sites where soils would affect the performance of
infrastructure, drainage... "
No extreme soil conditions are known to be characteristic of this property. Furthermore,
policies such as those above will ensure the use of proper development techniques.
Obiective 4.4(Conservation Element) - "The City shall, .....protect all remaining
areas of substantive native upland and wetland vegetation and eliminate
undesirable exotic tree species. ";
Policy 4.5.1 (Conservation Element) - "In the event that a site survey indicates
the existence of a representative plant of animal species designated as
endangered or threatened on Federal, State or Florida Committee on Rare and
Endangered Plants and Animal lists, the developer shall prepare a plan in
consultation with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and the
Us. Fish and Wildlife Services for protecting the resident population.
Preservation should be provided to the satisfaction of the City Planning Staff in
consultation with the Federal and State agencies. "
Policy 1.11.14 (Future Land Use Element) - "... provide for open space
preservation by requiring the preservation of25% of all "A ", "B ", and "C"
rated sites... ".
Except for the trees shown on the survey, the site has been predominately
cleared of vegetation. The site is not listed as a natural resource area (an
"A", "B" or "C" site) in the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan and there are no wetlands or known wildlife on the property.
However, actions indicated in policy 4.5.1. will be undertaken should a
subsequent site survey prove otherwise.
Obiective 1. 11 (Future Land Use Element) - "... future land uses shaff
include provisions for the protection of .. . archeological resources
and historic buildings..."
There are no archeological amenities known to exist on the subject
property.
6
b. 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 proposed rezoning is reasonably consistent with the established land
use patterns. The adjacent properties are predominantly zoned
residential, except for the two C-3-zoned parcels to the north-and
southeast of the subject property. However, the first of the two properties
is developed as the Homing Inn - a use equivalent to high density
residential. Although the proposed amendment represents a rather
extreme contrast in intensity compared to the adjacent single family
homes, enhanced setbacks and buffering would minimize direct impacts,
and traffic impacts should be minimal as the adjacent neighborhoods are
isolated without through streets, and project traffic will predominantly
follow a direct route to US- 1 .
c. Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning
desirable.
After the attempt to develop a shopping center on the subject property
failed, it has remained vacant for over 10 years. Based on this history and
the request to rezone the subject property, its commercial value may be
declining. The proposed zoning is also desirable in view of the increasingly
active efforts to redirect development from areas next to the Everglades
towards Southeast Florida's existing urban core. The Eastward Hol
initiative, which focuses on such efforts, was recommended by the
Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida in its October 1995
Initial Report (see Exhibit D). Given the high population growth projected
for the next decade, one of the program's main objectives is for the
eastern urban restoration and redevelopment to capture a greatest
possible percentage of that projected growth. Accordingly, Palm Beach
County proposes increased concentrations of residential uses within this
area. Moreover, higher density residential uses are also more efficient,
particularly in terms of infrastructure, which makes the proposed
reclassification and rezoning consistent with the Eastward Ho! goal of
advancing the efficient use of land. Higher densities and increased
populations (particular of a diverse age and income class) in eastern
areas will provide support for economic revitalization and downtown
redevelopment.
d. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with utility systems,
roadways, and other public facilities.
7
to a comprehensive plan, and that the maximum potential demand upon
public facilities be determined.
The following Comprehensive Plan policies specify general requirements concerning the
availability of services, in particular with regard to infill development as in the case of the
subject property:
Policy 1.3.3. (Future Land Use Element) - ".. . limit the type,
intensity, extent and location of land uses to those which the
traffic generated by same can be accommodated ... without
exceeding the levels of service set forth... "
Policy 1.4.4. (Future Land Use Element) - ".. . limit the type,
intensity, extent and location of land uses to those which the
traffic generated by same can be accommodated by the
potable water system... "
Policy 1.4.5. (Future Land Use Element) - " residential densities
shall not be increased above those which were assumed in
projecting water demand in the Potable Water Sub-Element
unless it can be demonstrated that capacity will be obtained
by reducing the land use density or intensity elsewhere... "
Policy 1.5.4. (Future Land Use Element) - "...limit the type,
intensity, extent and location of land uses to those which the
traffic generated by same can be accommodated by the
sanitary sewer system... "
Policy 1.5.5. (Future Land Use Element) - II residential densities
shall not be increased above those which were assumed in
projecting sewer flows in the Potable Water Sub-Element unless
it can be demonstrated that capacity will be obtained by
reducing the land use density or intensity elsewhere..."
Policy 3.A.5.1. (Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element) "In fill
development and redevelopment will be encouraged only in
areas presently served adequately by sanitary sewer facilities".
Policy 3.e.5.1. (Potable Water Sub-Element) "/nfill
development and redevelopment will be encouraged only in
areas presently served adequately by potable water facilities".
Policy 1.5.5. has been determined to be unrealistic and overly restrictive
as it would prevent any intensification of land use changes despite the
8
magnitude of change or facility capacity. The EAR recommended that
this policy be deleted and that the intent be addressed by the
modification of Policy 1.5.4. to include "density" as a development
characteristic tied to capacity.
The following facilities were analyzed in order to ensure that capacity is
available:
1) Roads: The traffic statement has been submitted and indicates that
the proposed amendment will represent a reduction of 6,412 average
daily trips and therefore lower demand on the immediate roadway
network (see Exhibit H). Moreover, the location and the proposed
zoning qualify the subject property for Coastal Residential Exception
under the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards
Ordinance (Section 15. (I) L). The Coastal Residential exception to the
level of service requirements as defined by the subject ordinance is a
policy tool intended to promote urban infill and redevelopment, and
deter urban sprawl. It allows residential projects located in the area
delineated by the ordinance to receive a Site Specific Development
Order notwithstanding the standards set by the said ordinance.
Consequently, the submitted traffic statement will be submitted to the
County for informational purposes only.
2) Water/Sewer: The City's Utility Department reviewed the proposed
amendment and indicated that water and sewer capacities are
available to serve the maximum demands to be generated on this site
(see Exhibit E).
3) Solid Waste: The Solid Waste Authority issues an annual notice relative
to operating capacity. Ample capacity currently exist to serve the
future solid waste collection and disposal needs generated on this site.
This limited, non-quantitative review by the Solid Waste Authority is
provided through a standard letter that they request be used for
availability of facility analysis until subsequent notice is received from
them (see Exhibit F).
4) Drainage: An analysis of drainage facilities from the Lake Worth
Drainage District is pending. Development of this site must comply with
both the City's drainage requirements and those imposed by the Lake
Worth Drainage District; and
5) Recreation: The reclassification to SH represents an increase of 147
dwelling units above that considered for residential development
9
within the current designation and zoning. This increase equates to an
estimated 243 persons (147 units multiplied by 1.65 persons per unit, an
average number of persons per household in this Census tract as
estimated by Palm Beach County).
a) NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS - The 1989 Comprehensive Plan
designated 20 different geographic areas for evaluating level of
service for neighborhood parks. The proposed amendment site is
located in area # 18. Neighborhood park levels of service will
likely be met on site. As with nearly all comparable coastal area
developments, on site recreation facilities will likely include open
space, gym, swimming pool and possibly tennis courts.
Furthermore, a recreation impact fee will be collected at the site
plan review stage which will contribute to the
construction/improvement of recreation resources which serve
the area.
b) DISTRICT PARKS - The needs analysis for district parks was
updated as part of the EAR. Using the adopted level of service
standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons, the City, in 1996,
experienced a surplus of 10 acres of district parks. The proposed
amendment will not have a negative impact on adopted LOS
standards.
c) RECREATION FACILITIES - The 1989 Comprehensive Plan adopted
LOS standards for 18 recreation facilities. The EAR updated the
needs analysis for these facilities and found them to meet or
exceed the adopted LOS standards. The proposed amendment
will provide recreation amenities on site. The adopted LOS will
not be adversely impacted.
E) SCHOOLS - Palm Beach County School Board has been
notified and review is pending.
e. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with current and future use of
adjacent and nearby properties, or would affect property values of adjacent
properties.
Changing the land use and zoning for this site represents a slight
deintensification of the property compared to the current permitted
commercial use, as traffic generation is projected to decrease. The
proposed residential use is generally consistent with the abutting
residential properties except for the existing commercial development to
10
the south and the contrast in densities. As for compatibility with adjacent
uses regarding the proposed SH classification, the special design
considerations will be applied to this classification to offset the potential
impacts of the higher density upon adjacent properties. It should be
noted that the actual densities vary greatly along the City's coastal area,
ranging between 18.8 dwellings units per acre to 45.7 dwellings per acre
(including a number of residential developments south of Woolbright
Road) as documented in the Comprehensive Plan (see Exhibit G).
According to the Plan, the Colonial Club condominiums east of the
subject property have a legal. non-conforming density of 21 dwelling units
per acre.
f. whether the property is physically and economically developable under the existing
zoning.
Since a shopping center has previously been approved for the site, it is not
likely that any unique physical constraints would limit development.
However, under the current Local Retail Commercial land used
designation, the subject property has been vacant for over 10 years. This
indicates that even though it is physically developable, its development,
either as a commercial property, or a residential development at a
conventional High Density Residential classification with a density of 10.8
units per acre, has not been economically feasible.
g. whether the proposed rezoning is of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs
of the neighborhood and the city as a whole.
Criteria for evaluating the relationship between the proposed
amendments and development related to the needs of the
neighborhood and the City include service demands, density, use, value
and accomplishment of, and consistency with, Comprehensive Plan
policies. As indicated above, ample capacity exists to serve the maximum
potential service needs generated by this proposed project. and the
maximum density is midway between the densities existing throughout the
City's coastal area. The amendment request would comply with the initial
intent of the Comprehensive Plan through the residential development of
this area. The adjacent property values would be enhanced through
application of the more stringent design standards for the proposed
project. Also, as indicated in the Palm Beach County Commercial Needs
Assessment Report of August 1999, a surplus of commercial space exists in
the area and extends north to Boynton Beach Boulvard, west to 1- 95 and
south well beyond the City's limits (to the Palm Beach County border). The
total surplus of the retail and office space for this area has been
11
estimated to be 1,927,830 square feet, based on comparison of the 2015
estimates of need and the existing and potential supply.
h. W"et"er t"ere are adequate sites elsew"ere in t"e city for t"e proposed use, in
districts w"ere sue" use is already allowed.
No vacant parcels of equal or similar size with designations allowing
densities over 10.8 dwelling units per acre and with a similar location -
close to U.S. 1 and the Intracoastal Waterway - are currently available in
either of these locations. The multiple parcels currently classified SH (e.g.
Gentleman Jim's/Merkel's), has recently been assembled and is
anticipated to soon be the subject of a site plan application by a
different party.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Division recommends that the applications
submitted by Grove Partners, LTD for Special High Density Residential land
use and R-3 (High Density Residential) zoning be approved, based on the
following:
1. The proposed amendments and zoning would be consistent with
Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies;
2. The proposed amendments would not be contrary to the
established land use pattern, nor would they create an isolated
district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, and nor would it
constitute a grant of special privileges to an individual property;
3. The proposed land use and zoning would be compatible with
capacities of utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities;
4. The proposed land use and zoning would be compatible with the
current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, and
would not affect negatively the property values of adjacent or
nearby properties;
5. The proposed land use and zoning relates in a reasonable way to
the needs of the neighborhood and the City as a whole;
6. The proposed land use and zoning is consistent with the goals and
policies of the Eastward Ho! movement, which seeks to revitalize
12
urban areas, contain urban sprawl and promote infill and
redevelopment.
7. The value of the proposed residential rental project, which would
target higher income households, will significantly increase the eRA
area tax base.
This recommendation is subject to the conditions of approval listed in
Exhibit "I", which require that the text amendment includes corresponding
site specific design considerations within Table 24 intended to reduce the
appearance of density from adjacent rights-of-way and adjacent
properties. Such design requirements include the following:
1. Variable north and south setbacks based on project height (e.g.
north side adjacent to residential district only; 1 story - 40 feet; 2
stories - 45 feet; 3 stories - 60 feet; and 4 story - 100 feet. South side
adjacent to residential district, only; 1 story - 40 feet; 2 stories - 50
feet; 3 stories - 75 feet; 4 stories - 100 feet).
2. Perimeter landscaping on the north and south sides shall be both
visually pleasing and shall include at minimum, a hedge, 1 canopy
tree spaced no greater than 20 feet, and additional landscaping of
varying height placed between rights-of-way shall include a small
serpentine berm varying in height. The landscaping should include
a combination of palm and deciduous/canopy trees densely
spaced with a diversity of plant materials from ground covers at
varying height placed within the buffer.
3. Signage shall be compatible (in scale) with adjacent residential
properties and be designed in conjunction with materials to be
repeated along the perimeter such as posts, fence elements, small
monument features, etc.
J:\SHRDATA\PLANNING\SHARED\WP\PROJECTSIVILLA DEL SOL CPTA & LUARIVILLADELSOLSTAFFREPORT.DOC
13
EXHIBIT A
LOCATION MAP
Woolbright Road
Golf Road/SE 23rd Ave.
:: SITE ~/)
,---4
I
f i
"0, --~
tar
fi
-'
-'
ta:
crf
wi
LU:
LL.!
>.
ta
~
.c
.9'
%:
.!M
~
Q
J2
o
.'~
. . """
a'"
,f>
)t.
,",,- .
j'
'"
.0
u'
,S:
0'
,.,.....;
_,1"0",
"'", .:
".
,~-
",0:-. :.~,
.~" -~
~;- .-,. ".}"
. "
;;\'::'1;
~
1::i
0'
z
VILLA DEL SOL
LAND USE AMENDMENT ApPLICATION
, II
TOIIt " HYfG.1IllD
LE5END
EXHIBIT B
~
.
.
.
I
TlMc "
\ l4/IIW..AI' AN
I
I i
, I
!j1
~..""
@
~= =-L:
.
.
.
c 1
--=;::' I i I
.......::~ '!;:r:-,_l
I /
I /
I /
I
/
/
I
/
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
It
..
...
'"
~
- DIlEX IIMEIl rI SITES IHAE EXISTH
~m EXl:EElII M\A! UHI \.IE PUH llENSm
sm IllUOAIlT
-
-
(
\
I
I
I
I
'"
..
...
It
..
...
...
..
.z_
:u._..".......,
.t.......... ...,..,...
FlliUlE 11 - NllN-COIf'ORMINli IESlOEIITIJ,1.. JEN5~.:oS
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
COASTAL ~ANAGE~ENT ELE~ENT
..:-:-~
~
~...
-
SOURCE: Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc.
--.
-~"
_.. I- ..... A.
J
~""-.
-
-,j
QI
tII
~
:-
QI
::.:
......
.
...
C
~
.
..
..
'V
-;;
C
o
U
C
..
;;;
..
Q
'V
C
.
S
;j
'V
~
~
If .
..
o =
~- Q
. =
.. 0 ~
AoN
<
<
- C -
..- c.:
_C -
.. 0 ~
~N Y
1! -
c.:
..J
.. If .-
o .. I
.::1
0-
.. ::I
AoC. Y
..
..
::I
-
::I
~
w
c:
W
If
.
rn
~
i;;
~
.!e
JJ
~
-
5
II
.
>
a ~
:l
i:
.. ::
.. '8
..
::I
U ~
-- .
. '" .0
.. ..
.. ..
<~
-
..
~
C.~
. '" .
..J:l~
~;~'3 ~ g :"B~~ ~>." M ? - u.;:o uu..;=~
,g 0 _ a. ii.'= ~ 'C:: 'E .... U oi -E ;.:... - .~ ~ Ii: .
- ~ ... 0 ~.. e u.I 0._... "'V t: ~ .. = Y Q u" e . >
< c - Y Y ::I z';:: U .- ::I - .- 1.. a:I .... > II
..g.~ .. · ~::;:e g.,,::~ .. u=: 1C:g~U e-5~ooe-o::l
>. . .. u .Q .D - 11._ C 0 C u .- '" II e
c u ~ ." U U ~; c 0 s'. .Q _ .... .- u e ~ - u -5 u" =
o u'" ..... '-e ~ C e C - oJ: > ..
.. ::I .! _- - ~ :I - 'W; 1::1. C -::l l5 E i - . 1 II C oJ:
u~.Q 1::1 1::1 ~ioJ:~..lu::l . C~_: ~::I~~ l""'g~
II U g.. -.. - COli 'V . .. u ea:. E . _ _ ~'_ U
= -5 > - - .~ U'~ U C t c " :: g.,," .- _ .. e: '::1 5 ~ . =
Q. ::I .::: J J ~ e .. :2 II... .. = 'c "'...s ooi >. c .u 0 .5 _ 0 ;; C
~ 0 ~ .: - e >. .. -= ~ _ ... 0 C '0 -: ~ · ~ 'j - Ct.'V .. 0
~"~t '" ~ eo:~o..~t ..;~1 u-2-~~~ia ~~..:c
g g II go .~ .~ 2 \of &. .. - 5 ~. ~ ~ ::I ~.~:::. u ~ '._ M 5:a 0 "8 ~
.. > 1- - Q 0 .S e > .... .- .- j 0: u · . 11 u U e u u _ =
o g" U. U. U .. - ::I - U II - U C i! 0 .. .. .. e ... >.- -
- .5:-g. V2 en ~ ~ Q..:'c i5 ;. ~ ~;; en Q.';; C'" .~ >> = .!! 0 S E ..
.~~~~ 'V 'V >>"~:'-E~2.8 ~~~ c.:ej~U.~N~.! ~~_~~
~....'V U U JJ. OU- --~ ~a. ..J~ \of1: CUJ -
".. l:l. _ is ~ ~ it U c g 'V .. - 3 0. 0.1 .. ..= - u -0 u 0 0 .!:! ~::
-.Q U Y ."0 C -- -. ~< we: -_ ~
'V~~_ ~ ~ . .~cO;E"C ~~ UU~:l .::Iv ;~g5~
c ...-.. ; . Q ~ .. U \of Ct. ~ 0 0 ~ t '" c '" \of u.".. ~.. .: - e-
· u .- .. - 0 U U .... .. CII - - . - u .... · .. .. c u u - u Q.
U :: ~ C >. >0 cn Q..~ oS fi .: A. '" '" i ~ 'V ..; ;c 0.".2 · J!. a ~ c ::I S.
:.~~ (5 (5 lc.:-~ ec..... NM..SC~UC!::"!'V. O.""~;;U
.. ... .. .- ;; ;; . ~ ~ .. a ...... 0 0 C .. 5 ::I .. U .. """- u CIO y" c U ..
S-e: ~u",-..;~ --0.~uue~0.8e: eOJ::I
.. .8':" M N ~ U .. = · ~ ~ u .= .= .... _:2 c.:Q :' E ~ · ! >. u c.!:!
.8; . ~ 5 egg .; ~ ~ :;] : ~.~ ~ .~ ! ..2 ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 - ~ .S .~ :g
U ~.. _ _ ~ ".zJ. U - c. - E <:I C e y t e U'- .. :0.. :a- Cl Q.
- ~ ~ ; ii.'- '-e _ 1 ; >0. ~ ~ .. .!:! oS ~.:.: u Q U - .." - ;; ~ 4 Q .!.;':!p
'E- ...- 0 ~ E u .::1 E ""- U - II a. lS · ..= - 0 >o! e'- E to- G t 1'- 1i.2
Cl ~ .. u;oJ 'V ::i V\ 0._ c .:: .... C '=.:::1 . Ao . >.1 U :lO 5 _
::i ;;. _..: .;; . e r. IC ~ Co') g ::I.. C C i ~ .. ~ .g' c -= . · u 0 Ct. e g
Q U ~ g'~ Q : Q:2 ~ t l E ~'; ~ .5~ ~:2! .. ~.~ 7. a .i 0 -: :: -s :-; ~ 5 ~ u..'E
.. ~ - ............ 0 - ..." .- '" .. ~ .- .-.. -..... .- - ~ - 0
::IUU.C~-- 0_- _..- e:uuu~-~-1'~-2;;.~Ao"'''~
- .: - .- ~ ." Q" ;; it - ~] 0 u ~._ 0 .. ... - c :: _ CJ &'" 'oc u = .S
Q'V ::I. >.- 5 - v < .. - e 0 ~ U >0 >o-s l5 -;. 0 ." - 0 1 U QUe: · Q .. . ;;
~ C i J -:: IE i: ~ C"t .. e :: ~... 5:::: 11....._ . - .. c.: .. 0 .9 = .. ~ 0
v S ell: ~ 1i.5 i.s "S2 0 ~ .x.~ " g .. ..:; ! ! : in ~ ~ l = !.s ..!I.s 1 ! U ; _ e .
-~ :;. . i! t: .. :; - C : ; g u 0 c '5 ... - J5.... ~ y C 3'; !I >0 0 "" ~ ~.~ e_
>.'; 0 ~ ~ 'i I ~ ':e -3 g . C .~ ... '&' _ :S :i.~ ~ Z5 Ct.~ :; U ~.K'i ~ G ~ Ct." e -I.:'
- a.:: ~ - Z5 - Z5 .. .. : .Q v e · 2 ::I ii 5 ;; :s.; ...... = 0' R .... '!! 'I: U ~ ..... i 'V
~g~e!~~~~~eg:<~~Oj~~>;;N~~~~<~~~~~;5~~j
...
C
,g
..
..
..
'V
-=
C
o
U
i
..
e
~
o
-;
~
..
Q
.!
ii5
l'"\ '"" "
. .
c.: ell: ell:
< <
< <
- - '"" .
c.: ~ ~
! r-:''':''':'
c.:c.:c.:
~ <
<
'"" -
E E
~ ~~~
y yyy
S
I:lI:
.. ---
12 eec.
~ D :: D
c.:",,,,
- - -
c._c. a
:r :r a
~ ~ iii
l
I
=
1
:2
i! i5 ii
. . iI
U \of U
. . .
> > >
i!
.
u
.
>
i
:i
>
..
U
.. I
.5 0
en ::
..
i!i!J!
iII"~
~:i~
>>..
b
l
~ C"'! c-:
-
-
r--:
00
.-..0 -Q
"':roi. """""
N '"" ..
'"
..0..... "'2
-77-
Q-
~Qc
-
\of
-5
..
Q
J
u
Z
Q
lZl
CJ
~
~~
y~
'"
.!
..
.
>
Q
f3
-
'"
..J
-
~
.
I
I
~
5
II
>
..
,.;
N
~
"
:I
'"" .~
J;
- ~
...
-
'"
..J
Ed
c3~
-
Q
>C
2:
--
1
.~
~
b
l
v
..
.5
en
I
i
'5
~
..
I
>
..
s!
II U
. .
>>
q
V\
'"
-
-
-
t~
-
-0
~
Ul
~
>
~
~
'-'
.
...
C
~
It
...
"
"
-;;
C
C)
U
C
QI
-;;
"
Q
"
c
.
..
tit
:;)
"
c::
.
~
..
..
~
-
~
w.
'"
c
W
..
A.
en
.!
Cii
~
_c::
",-
_I:
JlI 0
:&IN
l!
I ·
A."
.~
.. ~
A. '-0
..
A
.
...
-
.-
~ :
<~
~ ~~
~ ;).
.~ ." .
C C::::E
8.3
..
c::
~
Ii
..
"
"
-.;
c::
C)
U
~I
>-.c ..u 0
..oc:= j .
o .- .&I M.. 0 ~
;; >-.~ ~ j !! Do e" e: u e:-
- . ~ -- . ._ u . _ __.
N8A.c:: 8:::t ~ &0;; ,,~ :;;-::
...... _ 0 0 lit -= u._ :a t) -. \) =' .- u...... ":
~ .! Z u .; .s" "c .. ex i""''' e: u ~O WI J,D .~
c '1.:25 c .. ~ .-"5" ;; .: ~. eo Sa" 15" c' IOC
=- " u ~ "0 o. ~ e.~ v c . ~ ~ C E": '- .~ C) "
.-" =,'- > II: g a" C 0;11 .- e: J! .. 0 - _ .. - .- ..
· -- c ,. - .. .. 0 G -- H .- '" ~ .: 0 C ;; . . 0; II
~WI"em>b-~~ _M "0'" ua: ~~ ~;_. ~
"">g,,- .e- ~ ." ",D" ..... _ e:- ~ c
>-. ~ < D - 8 if ~ .~.. ~..; ..2..! g = 0 ~ u; ~ i! ..
~ ';;.! ~ . i.! - a..! N 5.5 ~ ~ -! ; ~ &. - l · ~
.- !I - 0 u ~ E ~ '2 a ..;; !:I WI.." ,1 0 ~ =
~ 5 ~ - '" ~.- =s ~ 0" &' 3.. .;:C . a. g ~ ~::: 1 'i a.... ~
~ e '" ~ g ::! ;II ,,::: u o;'~!:f .5 . ~ ~ u.. ~ '"; ~ ::: -3 c .a :s
! .- _ T ~ .8 - l: 0 = .= a 0 · ~ ~ ,D 0 u. u. '"'
" .- 1 ~ - <or > ..=... . e S "u ~ - ~..", ,D ~
; 5o-a.:g:1 l! S.2i~i5.. tJ l = ~ 8 i!!I 11-:;.~ .~
"e>-._ 5~ =~~~~ec"'5 :oE~B ~..~ ~
.~ C .!! !I i e V"\ ~ ~ .o.! :a (5 a- C) ~ l.: ; C 0 "e ~ .8 g ~ 2 .~
= -.. ~ .. ~,.. :a ~ C - -.,g V'= "0 .. - .;" .. :l:J ~ oJ
C).;; '0'- S ,II.. " .. .= ~..!! "0 u ; ~ c ~ U ~ :.: g ~ - -5 0 ~ .. c
" c .. " ,,~ "'''' 5 is .. e: > u" "'::I U :! .- =' 6 ~... .- ~
--" S ~: >" :ao..:I ~"- ;; 5 .. -8 'ii ..;; c; ~ 5 u ..c 1 - :.: H I:
- ..... -' - _ Q. . III C" U .- Q. ~ ~ ~.. .. ,D is. Q.
'=c ~! ~ "I ~ ~ 5 e "> N .: -!'! Q .2 ~:a ~ u g - .;;.! c: : ~ ~ ... S
.8e::.:- u -,.- -~ ,,_..c ...o..ay" u"
,,~ " ~~":lo'~~E~V"\o ....~-~~~Ug" ->
."= ~ > C _ :;' e =. - - u c,.. - :; c ~'u S u@... ~ : ~
~ > aD < .!!' >. 0 "'2 c =.~ ~ = e "0 ~ ~ Q. 0 .-e..c e: ti J := .!t lJ ~ ..:
.. - ~ U. <or eo'- .. - C .. C ~ . _ .:: >- ,,:l ~ - 0_
-- · u c ~ ~ la, C e e Q. u '1 a-... . &. 0 '; :: La' co';; 0 0 ) . 0 e
-..S: u~_ ~~u>-.._o~_-,-gouc_u eoe~
... .. = !Ii &. > .. -! 1 ... ... =' - .. -.. .- en.- ... - - 0 - .. e c
.;: So. 0 ~';.- -1 e ~ 's..!! ; ~ =s _~ ._.5 ~ u c :I" .S ~ .2i
.. - lltuiSu>"O ~..::l ~=c C c".!!uu 0-.
.- . 0 .. _ III;; 0 c: ~ .... i U .- .- -'c . - u C :I C ... ~ ...!..-
Q :' c.g ~ =',...:! ~ · b'; .!..!!:a 5 ~ l5 ) 0 :. ~ :. H t ~ ~ b ~.J
- 0 - = 8 . "0 b'- C - .. u .......'" i! ... · ... -- < - >-.:1 '.--
~ ..': Ie: '" .: · - i'E !; -3 2.5 ) ~ - 0 ~ !t ~ ~ : ~ : u ~ g e.a ~
:;) ~ 0 0" - c ,,. 0'" u e.~ .. ,', c" .. > , \ ~ . > .... .=,~ ;; 9
=' a- >- > ".. .. - (;.- c - ='''' Q.'" .: .., """ 'Q ~ 0 u -.... ..
"u U = La ~ ;II C .&I . 3 ;; ~ .: ceo ".. II) >... '-"
" · ~.= II ~.- o. ,,-.- -.- ) u -8'- ) U ) :'2 - ill -- - E c ~ - J! U
IC E ; g. 0 ,&j:S u oW : 1 :. 19 S :::'!j E S > ,g ~ :.,g ..'e u ) .~ : : e
~:ae~8i~~;~~e-3~~~~~~~g:~~~i~A~~~
-
C
"
e
C)
";
~
..
Q
~
:i5
.~
..
;;
is
:a
U
Z
.~
:::
..
is
C':'~
~z
~
0;
..
Q
"! ~
CJZ
.i
..
;;
is
,
"
Z
~
aC
II)
~
u
~ <or
c.J c.J
~
~
U
..,
u~
--
zz
~
Z
..,
~
Q
z
..,
~
u
-
z
..,
U
utJ
--
zz
..,
~
u
z
..,
~
.....
~
~
-
.....
~
..J
-
.....
~
..J
-
-
o
-
6'
ja
o :
U~
.....
:z:
ell
- -
.....
=
~
-
u
e.:
--
22
--
-.
. ..
ace.:
i
tJ
I
d
I
o
tJ
I
o
U
:
ac
at
:;)
~
l
-;
e
-
t'
I
z
l'
4
C
.
u
-
>
i
...
.
>
~~
lj
...
-.
.s .5
. -
:1>-
5"2
:1-;
>2
~
]
J!
..
.5
..
~
]
J!
.
.5
-
..
'e
i
t3
5
u
.
>
..
"EO;
:g I
]]
55
U II
. .
>>
I
:;)
1
..
2
-
c:
.,
..
..
~
U
5
u
-
>
>-.
i:
0;
~
N
00
~II
:: f:
..;
'0\0
He
-
"":
N ..,
>D.o
-
'"
.0
,..
0:..
V"\
<or
-
\0
-
-
M
-~
--
~
N
N
~~
~
.78.
( 1
"
...
:;)
"8
j
;
~
"
-5
.~
ex
II)
G
~
:;)
Q
~I!
-~
o
-
"
.
u
>..~
; ='
."
'9 ;
!j-
'ii ~ >-.
;I eo.:
· "= ~ ti
,~ ...." .C
.., C),,-
U U ~.~
g . > alI"O
en g'..:a ..
:.: -= .: .. .5
.! .. u._ C
~ ~.: l S
ClO '" -
Z ~.. C).S
M'- ! - ~
~en<el5
.s~ .... a-
... u ...
a-Q.S"~
....::co
~ ~ ~ ",' U
i!
e
"
w
c
~
"
-
..
5
~
..,
ci:
ell
, "
. -*
CJ
-
Z
-
=
en
-
::
e.:
b
!
:;
e
4
..
..
05
en
j
-
to:
...
!
u
lll:
::
!
..
~
ri
~
u
~
g
en
EXHIBIT C
There is one other portion of the Coastal Area in which commercial
redevelopment is desirable. The segment of u.s. 1 near the southern City
limit currently contains a significant number of vacant parcels, obsolete
buildings, and marginal commercial uses. In order to upgrade the
properties fronting on u.s. 1, the coastal Management Element recommend~
that the existing Local Retail land use category be maintained, rather
than permitting heavy commercial uses. Heavy commercial uses would be
limited to the parcels which front on Old Dixie Highway. In order to
absorb some of the commercial acreage along u.s. 1, the Coastal
Management Element recommends that new car sales be allowed on the C-3
zoned property south of Old Dixie Highway, on parcels that have a minimum
area of 2 acres.
There are several parcels and areas where increased residential densities
are recommended, in order to encourage infill development. There are two
small parcels, of 1.6 acres and 1.2 acres, located on the north side of
Dimmick Road and at the end of Las palmas Avenue, where it is recommended
that the land use category be changed from Low Density (4.84 dwellings
per acre) to High Density Residential (lO~ dwellings per acre). These
density increases are contingent on limiting development to two-story
townhouses.
~
In order to encourage infill development south of Woolbright Road, the
coastal Management Element recommends that the density be increased on
the largest remaining vacant multiple-family parcels. currently, the
maximum residential density in the City is 10.8 dwellings per acre. The
Coastal Management Element recommends that a Special High Density land
use category be created, with a maximum density of 20 dwellings per acre.
The application of this land use category would be limited to the Coast~'
Area, however. The parcel in question is located along the Intracoastc
Waterway and is partly occupied by mangroves. Although the mangroves ar~
protected by law, it would be pOSSible for this density to be transferred
to the upland portions of this property. It is also recommended, in this
e ement, that residential densities of up to 40 dwellings per acre be
permitted in the CBD zoning district, and that this density be applied in
addition to the commercial intensity which is permitted in the CBD zoning
district.
Many of the existing multi-family projects in the Coastal Area exceed the
maximum density which is shown on the Future Land Use Plan. The High
Density Residential category of the land use plan allows for densities up
to 10.8 dwellings per acre, whereas existing multi-family projects have
densities which range from 17 to 46 dwellings per acre. It 1s
recommended in the coastal Management Element as well as in this element
that the perpetuation of these projects at their eXisting densities be
permitted, for two reasons: First, because publiC facilities in the
Coastal Area are sufficient to serve these densities; and second, because
classifying these densities as non-conforming makes it difficult for
potential buyers of these units to obtain mortgages, which creates a
hardship for the existing owners, who are often elderly persons with
moderate incomes. It 1s not desirable, however, for the City to create
higher-density land use categories to accommodate the existing density cf
these projects, since it would then be possible for property owners in
other areas of the city to request the same density. Also, the large
49
(C{
treQlure
co~t
regional
planniQg
council
EXHIBIT D
December 7, 1999
Mr. Michael Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
City of Boynton Beach
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
,
'-...-~----.-.--- -.
Subject: Land Use Amendment/Rezoning (LUAR 99) Text Amendment (CPTA 99-002)
Dear Mr. Rumpf;
The proposed change to reclassify the above referenced subject property to Special High
Density Residential to develop a residential rental project is consistent with the Eastward
Ho! Initiative.
The proposed project meets the Eastward Ho! Initiative goal of urban revitalization by
providing infill-housing opportunities for residents of all income levels. This proposed
project may also reinforce the goal of the use of good and effective urban design
techniques and may encourage the development community to consider proximity to
mass transit and services.
Please telephone me at 561-221-4060 if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
J;~~.dr
Joan Barlow
Eastward Ho! Project Facilitator
enc
301 east ocean boulevard
suite 300
stuart. florida 34994
phone (561) 221-4060
sc 169-4060 fax (561) 221-4067
tq
EXHIBIT E
MEMORANDUM
UTILITIES DEPT. NO. 99 - 331
TO: Michael Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director
FROM: John A. Guidry, Utilities Director
DATE: December 9, 1999
SUBJECT: Property located and the northwest corner of the intersection of
Federal Highway and Old Dixie Highway
Analysis on availability of utilities relative to Request for Rezoning
In response to your memo no. PZ 99-267 we offer the following analysis:
1. The rezoning of this parcel would allow an increase of 244 residents over and
above that which is allowed by current zoning. Based upon this population
figure, the incremental increase for potable water demand is expected to be
48,800 gallons per day; the incremental increase for sanitary sewer demand is
expected to be 21,960 gallons per day. Both of these values are based upon
the City's adopted levels of service.
2. At this time, the City's water and sewage treatment facilities have sufficient
reserve capacity to service this incremental increase.
3. The adequacy of water distribution and sewage collection systems proximate
to the site will be evaluated as part of the site planning process. Any
improvements required will be the responsibility of the site developer.
I trust this response meets your needs. Please refer any additional questions on
this matter to Peter Mazzella of this office.
Attachment
JAG/PVM
Xc: File
~o
"~
Ms. Tambri Heyden
Planning and Zoning Director
City of Boynton Beach
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33435-0310
f:'J ~ @ ~ 11 ~7
~ u I ~ -
L~j
;; k
; ~ i ~ ! !
: ~ U ;
J :
~~
January 6, 1999
PLANNING AND
ZON!NG DEPI
YOl'R PART\ER FOR
SOLID \\.-\STE SOLL'TIO\S
EXHIBIT F
Subject: Availability of Solid Waste Disposal Capacity
Dear Ms. Heyden:
The Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County hereby provides certification
that the Authority has disposal capacity available to accommodate the solid waste generation for
the municipalities and unincorporated county for the coming year of 1999. This letter also
constitutes notification of sufficient capacity for concurrency management and comprehensive
planning purposes. Capacity is available for both the coming year, and the five and ten year
planning periods specified in 9J-5.005(4).
As of September 30, 1998, the Authority's North County Landfills had an estimated
35,425,321 cubic yards oflandfiU capacity remaining. Based upon the existing Palm Beach
County population, the most recently available population growth rates published by the
University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business and Research (BEBR), and projected
rates of solid waste generation, waste reduction and recycling, the Solid Waste Authority
forecasts that capacity will be available at the existing landfill through approximately the year
2023, assuming the depletion of the Class I and Class III landfills is balanced.
The Authority continues to pursue options to increase the life of its existing facilities and to
provide for all the County's current and future disposal and recycling needs. As part of its
responsibility, the Authority will provide an annual statement of disposal capacity, using the
most current BEBR projections available.
Please provide copies of this letter to your plan review and concurrency management staff.
If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Very truly yours,
Il{~~
Marc C. Bruner, Ph.D.
Director of Planning and Environmental Programs
7501 North Jog Road. West Palm Beach. Florida 33412 (561) 640-4000 FAX (561) 640-3400
~I
EXHIBIT G
Table 21. Non-Conforming Residential Densities
Map Plan Existing
Index II Density Density Comments
1 10.8 38.3 Multi-Family
2 10.8 40.0 Multi-Family
3 10.8 18.1 Multi-Family: includes
Recreation Area
4 10.8 17.9 Multi-Family
5 10.8 29.0 Multi-Family
6 10.8 45.7 Multi-Family
7 10.8 30.0 Multi-Family
8 10.8 18.0 Multi-Family
9 10.8 20.3 Multi-Family
10 10.8 18.6 Multi-Family
11 10.8 27.7 Multi-Family
12 10.8 25.4 Multi-Family
13 10.8 32.2 Multi-Family
14 10.8 21.0 Multi-Family
15- 3.0 5.3 Single Family; County
Density; City Plan
indicates Mod Density
16- 8.0 8.1 Combination Single and
multi family; County
Density
17- 8.0 9.7 Single Family
Source: Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc. Note: Asterisked sites are subject
to potential land use
modification per the
following Table 24.
Redevelopment Potential
As stated in the previous discussion, much of the coastal management study area is
characterized by established and stable land uses. Based on a historical observation
of more built-out communities further to the south, coastal area redevelopment will
probably occur on a scattered basis, and only after the regional supply of vacant land
suitable for new fIrst stage development has been effectively diminished. Considering
the available vacant land in both the study area and in the area west of 1-95, the
potential for extensive areawide redevelopment is considered low within the ten-year
planning horizon.
In terms of residential activity, existing mobile home parks and a few underdeveloped
multifamily shoreline properties have the greatest potential for redevelopment. This
potential is highest in Planning Area I due to the proximity of these sites to Lake
Worth and the Boynton Inlet. Substantial renovation or reconstruction of existing
- 6 8-
dO--
TDllN " HYfa-1IlCII
LEIOENO
.1
. !ji
~...~
@
'=
;:- L,:
- DIIEX I&.MEIl CIF S1T'E1 IIEllE EXISTINI
DEllim EXCEEIlI FUT\R UICl t.IIE PUN DEllim
sm lIllHlAIl'I
-
-
I ,
'----_ l\
r-'-' 11
~7"~= /1
=:.~ 1/
I r~~
'/" I'
: 1 I
I II
\ I!
r-"\"I
~ 1 (
, .
~....:.= 1;/
.;:;:=-=-: .:\
L.____.-: "
("'-.-.-'7.)
I j fj;
\.,
~.
i_ _ __ __l.
,--------
i
I' 7
l._,_
:.~ J
: I ',- ?
:: ,.1
I
\
1
I
TDIOI fJIf I
CIC!.6H AlDee I
J
/
.
.
.
.
I
I TtMI II'
\ ll.ltW..APAN
\ I
I i
~
.
.
! J
,
& 1
Ji f
~ .
.......::~...r,-~
J I
/ I
/ I
1
.-"
-'-
I
I
I
,
J
,
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
It
't
lo,
'"
"
'"
..
...
It
't
...
...
't
~-
:11' ...., -......
~\"I" ... -....-.,
FIliIR 1& - NllIH:CN'OIIltNli ~StOEllTIAL uE'<S: ~:ES
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
COASTAL ~AN.GE~ENT ELEMENT
..:-:-~ .
~
~ ...
-...
.-..-..----
- ---------
-------
- . -.. -.. -- -
--------#_-
SOURCE: Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc.
May 1989
-~.
_1W. Ii. ........
-;;...... ::--:..:
-67-
Q3
EXHIBIT H
b. Trip generation for the proposed future land use designation.
Based on 20 units per gross acre, the subject property will be permitted
up to 320 multi-family residential units upon approval of the proposed
land use amendment. Accordingly, the proposed development would
generate 2,053 daily trips, 163 AM peak hour trips and 192 PM peak
hour trips and based on ITE 6th Edition Generation Rates and the
calculations shown below.
Average Daily Trip Calculation:
Use: Apartments (220)
Development Potential: 320 Units
Generation Equation: T = 5.994 x 320 + 134.114
Gross Daily Trips (ADT): 2052.194 or 2053 trips
AM/PM Peak Hour Calculation:
AM Peak Equation:
AM Peak Trips:
T = 0.497 x 320 + 3.238
1 62.28 or 1 63
PM Peak Equation:
PM Peak Trips:
T = 0.541 x 320 + 18.743
191.86 or 1 92
c. Effect on traffic generation.
The proposed land use amendment will reduce the trip generation
and impact on the adjacent roadways by 6,412 as calculated below.
Proposed Daily Trips
- Vested Daily Trips
Net Effect on Traffic Generation
2,053 tpd
- 8.465 tpd
-6,412 tpd
2. MASS TRANSIT DATA AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
a. DATA REQUIREMENTS
1) Mass transit provider:
The subject property is served by Palm Tran Route 1 according
to Fred Stubbs, Special Projects Coordinator of Palm Tran.
Vi:ia De! Sol - LUA Application
City Cie Boynton Beach
Rev. December 8, 1999
c:v.... L P CPROJECTS\VWa :lei Sol (6c)'llton 15)~ua1208.wpd
14
~3
EXHIBIT "I"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: VILLA DEL SOL
File number: CPTA # 99-002
Reference:.Future Land Use Text Amendment application prepared bv Miller Land Planning Consultants, Inc.
dated October 1 1999
,
I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I
I PUBLIC WORKS I I I
Comments: None
I UTILITIES None I I I
Comments:
FIRE
Comments: None
POLICE
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None
PARKS AND RECREA nON
Comments: None
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
X
1. The site design requirernents should include variable north and south
setbacks based on project height:
a) North side adjacent to residential district only
1) 1 story - 40 feet
2) 2 stories - 45 feet
I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I
3) 3 stories - 60 feet
4) 4 stories - 100 feet
b) South side adjacent to residential district only
1) 1 story = 40 feet
2) 2 stories - 40 feet
3) 3 stories - 75 feet
4) 4 stories - 100 feet
X
2. The perimeter landscaping on the north and south sides shall include at
minimum, a hedge, 1 canopy tree spaced no greater than 20 feet, and
additional landscaping of varying height placed between trees. The
landscaping to be placed along the rights-of-way shall include serpentine
berm varying in height. A combination of palm and deciduous/canopy
trees densely spaced with a diversity of plant materials from ground covers
at varying height placed within the buffer.
X
3. Signage shall be compatible (in scale) with adjacent residential properties
and be designed in conjunction with materials to be repeated along the
perimeter such as posts, fence elements, small monument features, etc.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
4. None
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
5. To be determined.
MWR/dim
J:ISHRDATAIPLANNINGISHARED\WPIPROJECTSIVILLA DEL SOL CPTA & LUARICOND. OF APPROVAL P&D 12-14-99.DOC
NOTICE OF ZONING CHANGE
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PUBLIC HEARINGS
The City of Boynton Beach proposes to amend text within the Comprehensive Plan, change the land use
plan and rezone property indicated on the map below.
Public hearings to consider transmittal of these proposals will be held before the Planning and
Development Board on December 14, 1999, at 7:00 P.M., and before the Local Planning Agency/City
Commission on December 21, 1999, at 6:30 P.M. at City Hall in the Commission Chambers, 100 East
Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida.
~-/ II
~/ I : :: II
~
I
I r I I I :
t r
-
- r I I
I 1
I
I
I I
- I
- 1-',
..... l-t"1r
....ur
T 1"-0
I
-
I
l-
I- ,
-;;;;,
11- 'J ,
....L-J..... ' I
Tl11'11 I I
PETITIONER:
AGENT:
INTENDED USE:
LOCATION:
FI nl T 'fOU ~.~ I ~ t V Jj: !:ir-(;:&... J.1 'n. ..
I fiI: ffTilll /' '., _ 1= .....- :;.: i:;-~~-~IL::..::
"'" 'ililil..l....o' 1 0 '. "./ -ft....
\III "" !P.'J, ...:a~1 _ :;';; ,~
'It ~ - I., -", ~-
: : I If :mr !I!:; '. _.' . I- '- ! ! ;';1 . t -J 1\ b- . ..
I I nTTl -;: l !if '::~ ~I J--I'Q.----- :
, r-m :' ~:c-, .;: ':; ~..... L..._ ~ ----- .
II ~ j :: .. ~ .16'- . ;: i;: \
IIIICP : !~~ .J "'I- ,Iif ,::; ~
1IIIrrJ I, ~ = ::: .:: ,.1
t , , : I I r.. ~
11111 ::.- - ......_ it;.:! ~
~:'".
I I I 11 I ,'. i:~:':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':;~I~':':':':':':::::' ,: :: ' i 'I
I r I . .. .... .. . . . ........... ............ .~:~ . I -
I I I 1 I !::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.: .:.:.:.:.::::::::l l : ,: I : I-
, ~...:-;.x:::l,*""'" . ':::,': I I ~-
Tll , ...................................:.:.:~::.. : j . : i:
llT1 : t~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.. I T E : ,! : :
.'" . . . . . . . ................... /1 t . . II ~--
, j~............... . . . . . . I I . ,
I . ......................... .. , , I I
-1....1 - ~ .............. ~ A ' : ~ .
1,:=1 00 I,'l I I I I i/j.::'i'- ~ - -~ '..
, "-iH ,,::'f~ ~ ...
..- L q:;, ~ ;"
~ - ~..~ ~ " ''TJ' ., .; i if;, - ~
1 ~ -, IJ-::! ;..! ~
~-; ~T ...... f .....
TT , I~:;:~::.:.:o..,---.. .---'"
I I I II -: ~ ., ".- .-. -. -. I. . .
~,!.. '"'' ~A' , ;n~!~!!L- ..(,::: ~ 1----..
s · ,:,~'n..:::::.._'~; i:~ III L O'L :.
:,l-rl#J__ . " II T~~:{ !a'o. ::::':;f- '- T'-rf~:
cr. -t--- _. I, ' I I' _ I'
0/ I :: !.~.--:.-:-::' :.: ,7 -:;::
If: ~ · : : ! ,.;:::::'j: ,:':: 1 7- I : .
. ::: ~ ::. . ',,' J: _ :K -- L : : :
, ,.-of- ::,;:,J- ,':.,.::---,- , I '"
; r- :;, ': tJ- '. : :.: 1-_ 1------ " .
fj r1 &. "'~jH~!!i 11ft-II I f J .J -11", 1"
!, 't::2.~ I:! "~, ,--r.... I I __ I I'.
1.
I- ~~r
~
1..
" .
Grove Partners, L TD.
Bradley D. Miller, AICP
Multi-family residential
Northwest comer of the intersection of Federal Highway (US 1) and Old Dixie
Highway
LEGAL:
Complete legal description on file in the Planning and Zoning Division, 100
East Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida
AMEND FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
From - Local Retail Commercial
To - Special High Density Residential (20 dwelling units/acre)
REZONE
From - C-3 Community Commercial
To - R-3 High Density Residential
AMEND TEXT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Amend Section l.p., page 89 and 90 of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Support Document. The current text is provided below.
l.p Parcels at Northwest Comer of U.S. 1 and Old Dixie Highway
Due to the limited demand for commercial floor space along this segment of U.S.
1, the Coastal Management Element originally recommended that these parcels
be taken out of the Local Retail Commercial land use category, and placed in the
Special High Density Residential category. However, because a site plan and
construction drawings for a shopping center on this site have been approved by
the City, the City Commission decided to keep these parcels in the Local Retail
Commercial land use category.
REQUEST:
REQUEST:
REQUEST:
The proposed text read as follows:
l.p Parcels at Northwest Comer of U.S. 1 and Old Dixie Highway
Due to the limited demand for commercial floor space along this segment of U.S.
1, an initial recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1989 was
that these parcels be taken out of the Local Retail Commercial land use category,
and placed in the Special High Density Residential category. This
recommendation was not enacted because a site plan and construction drawings
for a shopping center on this site had been approved by the City. The shopping
center has not been developed and the site plan and construction plan approvals
have expired. Therefore, these parcels should be taken out of the Local Retail
Commercial land use category and placed in the Special High Density
Residential category to encourage development and revitalization of this area of
the City.
A COPY OF THESE APPLICATIONS AND CORRESPONDING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ARE
A V AILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION, MONDA Y
THROUGH FRIDAY, 8:00 A.M. TO 5:30 P.M.
ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED TO APPEAR AT SAID HEARINGS IN PERSON
OR BY ATTORNEY AND BE HEARD. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY
DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OR CITY COMMISSION WITH
RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THESE MEETINGS WILL NEED TO ENSURE
THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
(561) 742-6260
\\CH\MAIN\SHRDA TA\PLANNING\SHARED\ WPlPROJECTSWILLA DEL SOL CPT A & LUAR\UP ADA TEDLEGAL.DOC