AGENDA DOCUMENTS
Requested City Commission
Meeting Dates
o November 21, 2000
o December 5, 2000
o December 19, 2000
o January 2, 2001
NATURE OF
AGENDA ITEM
"~
'-..
. ~.-
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Date Final Form Must be Turned Requested City Commission
in to City Clerk's Office Meeting Dates
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
November 9, 2000 (5:00 p.m.) ['gJ January 16,2001
November 22,2000 (5:00 p.m.) 0 February 6, 2001
December 6,2000 (5:00 p.rn.) 0 February 20, 2001
December 20, 2000 (5:00 p.m.) 0 March 6, 2001
January 3, 2001 (5:00 p.rn.)
January 17,2001 (5:00 p.rn.)
February 7,2001 (5:00 p.rn.)
February 21, 2001 (5:00 p.m.)
o Administrative
o Consent Agenda
o Public Hearing
o Bids
o Announcement
o Development Plans
o New Business
['gJ Legal
o Unfmished Business
o Presentation
RECOMMENDATION: Please place this request on the January 16,2001 City Commission Agenda under Legal,
Ordinances - First Reading. The Planning and Development Board with a vote of 7-0 unanimously recommended that the
subject request be approved (there are no conditions recommended by staff nor the Planning and Development Board). For
further details pertaining to this request see attached Department of Development Memorandum No. PZ 00-350.
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT NAME:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
PARKING REQUIREMENTS (ONE BEDROOMfEFFICIENCY APARTMENTS)
Kilday & Associates, Inc.
Wood Partners
The west side of SW 8th Street, approximately 1/8 of a mile north of Woolbright Road.
Request to amend Chapter 2. Zoning, Section 11. H to require that minimum parking requirements
for one-bedroom and efficiency units be changed from 2 spaces for the fIrst 10 units to 1.5 spaces,
and that Chapter 2.5 Planned Unit Development, Section 9.C be amended to reference the parking
requirements within Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11.H.
PROGRAl\1 IMPACT: N/A
FISCAL IMP ACT: N/ A
ALTER.J.~ATIVES: N/A
Planning and Zoning Director
City Manager's Signature
Development Department Director
City Attorney I Finance I Human Resources
J:\SHRDA T A \Planning'SHAREDW/P'AGE1':DAS\CITYCOMM\CODE REVIEW - Parking Requirmts (I Bdnn-EffApts} Agenda Item CC 1-16-01
S:\BULLETIJ'I.'\FOR.T\1S\AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM.DOC
7.A.l
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(ONE BEDROOM/EFFICIENCY
AP ARTMENTS)
CODE REVIEW
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 00-350
TO:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
Michael W. RumPf1wR-
Director of Planning and Zoning
. (1'
Dick Hudson, Senior Planner {/ V
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
December 3,2000
SUBJECT:
CODE REVIEW CDRV 00-014
Off-street parking requirements (for efficiency and one-bedroom apartments)
NATURE OF REQUEST
Chris Kerr, of Kilday and Associates, Inc., acting as agent for Wood Partners is requesting that
off-street parking requirements for Planned Unit Developments be based on criteria that
considers the housing type, rather than the presently-required two (2) spaces per unit. (See
Exhibit "A" - statement of request). The subject request would unify the parking requirements
for all efficiency and one-bedroom apartments in multi-family developments, including those
built within Planned Unit Developments and would slightly lower the off-street parking
requirements for those types of units.
BACKGROUND
The City's Land Development Regulations Chapter 2, Section 2 (Zoning), Subsection
l1.H.(Provision of Off-street Parking Spaces), 16.a. differentiate between types of housing in the
number of spaces required for each dwelling unit as shown:
. Single-family and duplex dwellings require two (2) spaces per dwelling unit;
. apartments with two or more bedrooms require two (2) spaces per dwelling unit; and
. one-bedroom and efficiency apartments require two (2) spaces per dwelling unit for the first
ten (10) units in any single structure and one and one-half spaces per dwelling unit for all
units over ten (10) in a single building; however,
Chapter 2, Section 2.5 (Planned Unit Development), Subsection 9.C. states "Off-street parking
requirements shall in no event be less than two (2) spaces per dwelling unit."
(There are no requirements for guest parking spaces in the code.)
In addition to the subject request for Code Review, staff has recently received two separate
requests for variances from the parking requirements for multi-family developments within
PUDs.
Page 2
CDRV 00-014
(Off-street Parking Requirements)
ANALYSIS
Since the requested amendment would affect properties citywide, staffbegan the analysis with an
examination of demographic data for the City from the 1990 Census, which is the current data
available. The census of population and housing indicates that in 1990, for all housing types
there were 1.4 vehicles per household and 52 % of the City's households had access to one
vehicle, while 40% of the households had access to two or more vehicles.
For all housing units the occupancy rate in 1990, was 1.96 persons per household. The data were
not collected to compare occupancy rates for single-family units versus multi-family units;
however, the Data and Analysis section of Palm Beach County's Department of Planning, Zoning
and Building has calculated an occupancy rate of 1.815 persons per household for all multi-
family units county-wide. Since their definition of multi-family housing includes attached
single-family and duplex units, and does not consider number of bedrooms per unit, it would
likely be higher than the actual occupancy rate for efficiency and one-bedroom units. This would
support the applicants justification for code review stating that the City's requirement of two
parking spaces per unit, without consideration of the size of the unit, serves to supply parking
spaces that exceed demand.
For comparison, staff surveyed local governments to obtain their respective regulations and our
discussion will focus on the results of those findings. Staff also examined requirements for
governments in other regions of the country and has included those results to show that the
variety of requirements is not unique to our area. (See Exhibit "B" - Survey).
None of the thirteen neighboring local governments surveyed have separate off-street parking
requirements for Planned Unit Developments. The one local government in the entire survey that
did have a parking requirement specific to a PUD actually required fewer parking spaces per unit
for attached single-family units.
Four of the neighboring local governments, Lake Worth, Greenacres, Jupiter and Juno Beach,
impose a 2 space per unit minimum across the board. Juno Beach, however, reduces the
requirements to as low as 1.5 spaces per unit, based on total number of units in a development.
The remaining eight vary the required number of spaces per unit based on the number of
bedrooms. Beyond that, there is no discernable pattern to the requirements. Five of the
governments require fewer spaces for studio/efficiency units than for one-bedroom units, ranging
from 1 space (Delray) to 1.5 spaces per unit (West Palm Beach) and one-bedroom requirements
range from 1 (Palm Beach Gardens) to 1.75 (Boca Raton). Only two of the governments (Palm
Beach County and North Miami Beach) required fewer than two spaces per unit for two-bedroom
units.
As with the requirements for occupants' parking, the requirements for guests' parking follow no
discernable pattern. Three of the governments (Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale and North Miami
Beach) have no requirements for guest parking. With the other governments, the number of
guest spaces range from 1 space per 10 units (West Palm Beach) to 1 space per 2 units
Page 2
CDRV 00-014
(Off-street Parking Requirements)
(Greenacres). Three of the governments (Palm Beach Gardens, Coral Springs and Coconut
Creek) base the guest parking requirement on a percentage of the total required for occupants.
Three of the governments (Delray, Lake Worth and Jupiter) lower the required guest spaces per
unit as the number of units in the development increases.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the opinion of staff that first, there should be a recognition of the fact that the demand for
off-street parking spaces will vary with the types of housing units, with multi-family units
requiring fewer spaces per unit than single-family units. Staff also recognizes that in most
instances, the number of bedrooms in a unit will have an influence on the number of occupants of
the unit and therefore, the number of parking spaces that will be required to serve the unit.
Second, based on visual observation of parking space use in local multi-family developments and
a survey of comparable regulations, the City's existing off-street parking requirements do not
reflect demand and result in a misuse of land that could otherwise provide opportunities for
additional landscape enhancements and for aquifer recharge if the land remains pervious. Wise
utilization of land will become even more important as redevelopment and infill activities
increase in the coastal area, where assembly of large parcels for multi-family development will
be both difficult and costly.
Lastly, staff acknowledges that the rental industry, and particularly the upper end of the industry
that is prevalent in Boynton Beach, is the most appropriate source of data on this issue, and for
marketing purposes, has the incentive to accurately accommodate current renter characteristics
and demands. This is evidenced by the array of amenities being provided to attract the "renter-
by-choice" market. The industry will not jeopardize the success of a development by failing to
provide the kitchen appliances, the recreation facilities or the amount of parking that the market
demands.
Therefore, staff recommends that the subject request be approved, allowing the regulations to be
modified so that minimum off-street parking requirements for all multi-family developments
shall be uniform, whether in a Planned Unit Development or in a conventional multi-family
zoning district; and that the requirements shall be based on the number of bedrooms per unit as
proposed in Exhibit "C" (proposed amendments shown struck through and underlined.)
Exhibits
J:\SHRDA T A \PLANNlNG\HUDSON\CODE REVIEWS CDRV\CDRVST AFFREPT.DOC
NOV. 10.2000 9:54AM
~ILD~Y & ASSOCIATES
NO. 107
P. 2
Kilday & A$soclates
Landscape Architects I Planners
HIS1 Forum Place. SlJite 100A
West Palm Bud\ Florida 33401
(Se 1) 689.552.2 · Fax (561) 889-2592
www.kildayinc.eom
EXHIBIT "A"
November 10, 2000
Lucia Galav, AlCP
Senior Planner
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd., Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
RE: Code Re"iew Request; Off-street parking requirements in PUD's
Ourfile14S 1.4
Dear Mrs. Galav:
As you are aware, our office recently submitted a parking variance application on bebalf
of Wood Pcu1ners for their proposed A!fa Chase development in the Woolbright Place
PUD. Due to the fact that there have been several recent parking variances requested
and approved within PUD's in the City, and based upon my conversations with the City
staff re~--ding the parking requirements~ the most prudent course of action is to revise
our variance application into a request for a Code Review of the parldng requirements
in a PUD. Please consider the follo~ing information in your analysis oftbis issue,
The City's requirements for off~street parking within residential Planned Unit
Development Districts are found in Section 2.5, Section 9.C. It states that: "Off-STreet
parking requirements shall in no event be less than rAlO (2) spaces per dwelling unit."
Ibis requirement does not pewit the flexibility that is necessary in determining the
parking required on a particular property. A more effective requirement would be to
permit the each development the opportunity to either:
a. Amend the parkini requirement to permit parking at a rate of no less than
1.6 spaces per unit. This would allow properties to provide parking at a rate
is consistent with the development proposed; or
b. A deviation from this requirement of up to 20%. Staff would review the
applicant's justification for the deviation on a case by case basis. Staff
should consider the housl..'1.g type proposed, the site layout, and the any
additioIl21 justifications or s:udies provided by the del.eloper.
The City's Land Development Regulatior.s identify the intent and purpose of the PlJD
District: "to promote efficient and economical land use, improved amenities,
appropriate and harmoniour va,.;ety in physical developmeY'.t, creative desil!n, improved
livinz environment, order{v and economical development in the city, and the protection
elf ad;acent and eXistin$t and {uturg city development" (u.'lderline added) (Ch 2.5 Sec. 1).
NOY. ~ O. 2000 9: 55AM
UTLDAY & ASSOCIATES
NO. 107
P. 3
EXHIBIT "A"
Applyin~ a 'blanket' parking ratio of two spaces per unit to all dwelling units in the
PUD regardless of the unit type or their size fails to meet intent of the Code. The
current language has a detr..m.ental effect on the 'adjacent and existing City
development' because it often res:ults in excessive asphalt paving, which minimizes
opportunities for iI"eenspace on sites that are required to provide parking beyond what
is necessary. A degree of flexibility in the PUD regulations helps to allow for greater
'creative design' in site planning that is specifically encouraged in the PUD DistrictS.
The current Code limits this flexibility by applying a single parking ratio to all dwelling
units, regardless of size or type. There is, in fact, greater flexibility in the standard
multi-family district's parking requirements than in the PUD.
The City's off-street parking requirements for residential PUD's must be written to
balance the need for adequate parking for the residents in the development, ",;thout
encumbering the site with excessive. unused parking spaces. Over-parking creates an
unnecessary 'sea of asphalt' that is unsightly and results in a decrease in. greenspace
which increases the impervious surface areas and strains the City's stonnwater
management system.
1be primary factor in determining the number of parking spaces that should be provided
for a multi-family property is the number of units and the type of unit proposed. Tne
current off-street parking requirements for a PUD do not take these factors into account.
The Code requires the same number of parking spaces for three bedroom apartments as
it does for efficiencies. This places an undue burden upon developments with an
apartment mix that does have not as many multiple bedroom units. For example, Alta
Chase incl~des 72 one-bedroom units. 108 two-bedroom units, and 36 three-bedroom
units. Obviously, the parking o.eeds for the 72 one-bedroom units are less than those of
the three bedroom units, yet the PlJD regulations do not recognize this difference.
An additional factor that must be considered when determining the amount of parking
spaces required for an apartment community is the layout of the buildings and the
parking lot. On many properties. the parking is so dispersed throughout the site that
many of the spaces are not utilized. For example, t~e AIta Chase site plan has been
efficiently designed. The parking and the buildings are closely grouped together. The
effect of this layout is that there most of the parking spaces on the property can be used
.by renters in several different buildings. The majority of the spaces are located at an
equal distance between several buildings. Considering that none of the spaces on the
property will be 'reserved', the residents will share the spaces as they are necessary.
This helps to ensure that the spaces are fully utilized. The two spaces per unit
requirement is UMecessary and ....ill have a detrimental effect on the City as a whole.
The developer of the Alta Chase property, Wood Partners) bas built over 50,000 units
throughout the southeast Please see the letter attached with this application from the
developer that further discusses their parking needs, additional information can be
provided upon request.
~ov. 10. 2000 9: 56AM
-~ilDAY & ASSOCIAT~S
NO. 107
P. {'--'--
EXHIBIT "A"
Please review the above information in combination with the other parking variance
applieaticns that have been requested from the City and consider this request for a Code
Review by staff. Call me with al:)' questions or if you need additional information.
. s Kerr
Kilday & Associates
Cc: Jason McArthur, Wood Pa..'1ners
>.
Q)
~
::J
CI)
~
~'"
J!ici"!
'2 u) ~
:::::I:!:::: (I)
~5~
.!-~"?
.. I'll"""
"'~It)
~~~'21
co c: :::::I :::::I
~~tnrn
gj~~~'
:JQ,c.Q.
C) (I) en U)
U) '5 x
'" ~ I~~ 119_0
65c;to Q):J
i~ c: f/) ~ 50 ~
10)--=::11 ..."01_
~ ~ 5 re IS ffi :'5
1.cC:NI ,~~ ';j!.
.~ -= ~ ~ I=' E i\O
,oSl() ~ .....<<1 0>
.5Baigj .~E.~
!~o'-:'~ Cl):J I"
Q.~xQ. io::2 .~
-~!~~-~ur -
!gjEEgj~ UlO$,gj
c3 ~ 8 6> ~ !~ a:.~ c3
~
I-
m
:I:
x
W
::J
13:? '
,N
::J
'0
'N
I~
'0
'Q)
'.0
--
'::J
3:?
.10
'I'-:
I::J
'~
'......
+
en
E
'0
e
~-o
I ,~
C"l
-
~
....
.E
::J I:E
13:? N
N
:::J
'-0
N
1 ~ -5
.20
::I~
'" ~
I~ ~
~It)
",-
Q.~
iN ~
; i::>>;;
,.5 Ul ~
I~ '2 Ii;
~ ~ ::J >
_00
. (I) LO =
I Q) _ co
::I Ul ~
C>r.E:.E
E
o
e
'-0
Q)
I~
.C
o
E
:-0
-0
C'll
''5
C'll
i~
.E
o
10
Q)
>
'0
.0
C'll
1.19
'c
::J
ro
....
IS
::J
.-0
1il1
.......
,.i!j
'c
::J
,0
u;>
I~
.E
::J
3:?
10
I'-:
.i!j
I'~
o
N
~
,Et:
.....
o
I';
. -0
N
.<tl
'"
'"
1ii
la
.~
ig>
~.g
<tl,....
'~~
Ul III
i ~ g.
.(!) ~
'::I
"
o
.-
I~
.!!!
I~
ffi
Q.
u;
'"
::I
.(!)
11
~
,J:?
'-
'c
-'2
I~
ci
.!!!
'E
!~
'"
(5 .g>
e;e
a'#.
:~ ~
~(ij
Q.c:
._ 0
, en ..
~:c
(!)~
s~_
i.9 #- ~
-0::1
o It) '"
'#. c. rn i
:~ :5 E ~
.!!! '" 8 .8
I en 0 .e; _
I~ !: .8 ~
III - l!! E
:Q.uiOo>
1;) ~ E .5:
~~o~
.(,9 en ('I') C.
1?
~ ~ Is
'; s :~,
':!2 :=.. ,.,
-" ::J ::J
.. -0 -0 l!!
I ; i:O i:O .0
3:?t--: N+
N...... IN C"l
ai E
1:0 ~
Ln Q; 'C
('I') = ctI Q)
.!!! .lll " -"
I C) _ Q) (I) ctI
.:g :J ~ ."~ i
~:!2'Uigl~~
:E~8~.g'~
N""': .!!!.8'N 8
Q)
Ol
C'll
a..
l.<i
...
:.e
::I
"
N
N
::J
3:?
......
IN
I::J
3:?
N
I::J
3:?
N
-
'c
::J
-;0
'1'-:
::J
3:?
10
I'-:
::J
: -0
il1
I::J
3:?
.N
-
\~
N
::J
3:?
i~
-
'c
::J
~LO
i~
-
'c
::J
N
Q)
0,
I::
"00
!en
tIl
Q)~
'E .-
C'll E
.rJ)~
::J
3:?
10
I'-:
I::J
, -0
N
E
o
e
"
'"
-"
Ul III
.'~ i
I '" ~
,0 ~
~ "en
1-0 c:
'N 8
::J
-0
il1
::J
3:?
~
::J
-0
;0
I'-:
I......
en
~
Ol
I::
:g
tIl
C.
::J
:~
......
Q)
Ol-
C'll ::J
.... 0
C'll..c:
O):!:::
oS ~
'.- ::J
I ~ -0
, ::J i:O
-0 N
NN
Q)
en
~'::J
C'll3:?
OliN
tIl I::J tIl ~ 'tIl ,~ ~ .~
C 3:? C I:: C I:: .C C
N
!
0
'"
'"
e!
<tl
'- "'1:: I
'c, ::J ::J .::J 'c '::J .5 0 ::J ::J I::J
::J 1-0 -0 3:? ::J [-0 '" e- i::E 3:? !-o
'-- -- :C\i \N 'N 5 l3 N
iN N N N .N
1'5 i ..c:
I 'tIl '".;
Q) 'Q) .Q) (,)
m en C'll
C..c: en I..c: '..c: ..c: Ol ~ ro Q)
!~15 ~ (,) (,) E (,) I:: U 'E 'm
.tIl tIl C'll 'C
(,) IQ) en' I~ ro Q) c. 'S Q) .'E
o::~ C'll :m I:: .... a.. 'm ;:.CI) .-0
,C Q) Q) I:: '::J I.!ll
~i~ ,Q) ~'E'5. .0 U; E 51~ 8 tIl ::2
~ '1:: Q) lea ...J
'Slj tIl tIll::J ::J ~ 00 0 IlL
<9 a. <9..., ,..., 'a.. U.U u .z
>-
Q)
C:
::J
(/)
::>
,~,
I~!
.~ :J l~:
:l "C . <J) .
~~ I" i
~ III g>,
~ ~ l:g ,
E.E ~
::> ~ iil
E co, Q),
<(g.0
I
Eo
~
~
I
X
W
i
::J'
I~
,N
, ::J
I ,"
.g~
!LOi~
"'!'
,......j
, ,
l~'
It)
~!
en 1 ::J
'E~~
o 'IN
Ie' ,
, al ,.0
1 ::J'::' 1 +
"0' ,~,
I...!Ni c:1 IS'
.c .x
~, I~I ,-51
o ELO
E !8' I~I
c:
,';;;1
,-,
I'~' ::J'
''032.
NI
: CE' .
.c,
EI
::J
I~
"
Q)
Ul
('0
, IIlI
~ ~\
~ ::J
_~r!2
: l~
......
::J
i :!21
~
)
I~'
I"@
E i
!"'"'" Q)
'I ~ ' 1 ;
~ ::J'::J ::J ::J,::J
~i~i~I~!;g!;g
,('0, ('01 ('0, ('01 ('0
Ic!c: C C:'C
::J ::J ::J ::JI::J
"I"'''''' "
._""------
'('\1.(\1 C'\I ..... .....
I 1<( i
I '-0
~'l' ,tl~
'Z',O I'::J....;
-u'O iD~
cD'I'!: I :>;, 'B I ~
:~32'.!!!'c:.c:
:;' ~ -g; ~I.~
IC)!LLIu:::IU (/)
~>-~o s
E i3 ~ 109 ;;
'1:: mN I~ ffi.g
CD......e Q) 0 0
IE.,e >- .>('t)N
I.~ ~ g _ 1 ~ f! m
! g;' 5 5S -~ ~ ~
.....0.0 Elc:.e:c
"'''' . ~ :g Ul ."
'E~g.s co'Eco
'J!! ::J G; CT: Q. ::J "fi
. , "C > e 1;) <.0 <U
IE e 0 (ij I Q) ~ Q)
~~-63 c3~.E
::J
,"
-.
N
1
::J
"
'Li)
I~
'::J
I~
0...:
::> iii
Q. ~
1.5~(j)
1-6! ~
"l?; :J ::J
:i.;'al
=,Q)"5
"..<:co
iN j 16
::J
I~
,N
:::-
,6
~
I:~ 0
,::) ~
.l!l
'c
::J
'0>
,C:
1=
,0)
'~
,"
N
,CD
'0-
M
1
iil
Q)
::>
~I
.,,'
:l lO'
32 o!~
'N + c:
::J
'"
I-
'N
0::
o
'"
c:
,0)
I:@
1::
o
'Z
'0
!~~
- ~
I ~ en
E ~
. U) ~
I~ Ul_
'~en ~
'Ul ~ ~
~ 9.s
:'3 ~ g
~a;.=
i::{ 8 ~
1-6
'Lq
Q)
'"
~
co
Cl
~
I~
Q)
."
. os;
e
Q.
iil
::>
!~
cT
Ul
o
o
.,
N
c:
1:5
a;
:Cii
Q)
0,
Ul
o
."
c:
'8
iti
~
"
N
::J
j::E
~
I~
::>,
it"
si
,~
J,
Ii
Ul,
iil
~I
::J
::E
,It)
'N -51
-.
N
!
::J'
"I
'N
, ::J'
I~::J!
""
;,... il5:
I~
::J
~I
::J
,"
'N
('0
:c
::J ::J
~ \~
1
o <(
U U
~ ,g
E 2
,g IIIl
l-so::ffi
'~ O,(/)
I~ ~i~
c: C:,C:
::J ::J ::J
"I" "
NNN
<(
U' <(
I:::-<(IU.
'c: U, 0
::J' -"
,o:t:c:
'O.2i 5,
c: '1lIl Q)
'C ," (/)
('OQ)_
~o::w
."
ai",
1-5 ~
:lO g
I.~ :g
'- co
0"<:
- 0
'~ fJl
co ~
I 0.. J2
,Ul
- Q)
Ul 0
Q) '" Ul
'5 g. :J! ~
... ...... "C C)
::J
::E
,N
~
~
~
,Ei
,lJ!'
l~,
E
Il!.
'Ul
Q)
16,
~
,'E
,lJ!
.:.w :::::JI
1'5 ."
'E '"
.-g ~
~ ~ 1
.!!l '"
Q.Q.
::> Ul
.0......'
'Ul
~
I~
'Ul
.E
iil
,~ 1
'"
1-5 ,
LO
o
::J
~
It) ,
I::J NI
~
,N
1 '
::J ::J
=E~. ::J
~LOI~
N .
I~!"-
::J ::J
!~ ~I
~,
::J
::E
,......
::J
"
. -
......'
I::J
,"
:N
l:e' ::J ::J
~ ~ I~ l:e
,.-'N ,.- N
.,1
Q)
::>,
""
:Jrft
,,0
N+
1 ('0, ('0
c:c
::J
'~
!-5'-5'-5
N N-N
!
1(/)'<(
,~~ >:
1 -10,0
~U'U
EC:-"
<Il' ~I 0
~...J>-
I
'~
ti
Ul
0)
,;:E
N
0)
0>
('0
c..
!is
...
is
'::>
."
'N
::J
~
;~
::J
::E
~
i"-
!::J
~
i~
::J
"
I:;::
Ul
~
0>
c:
:;;::
L.
('0
0-
('0
c
'('0
c
I::J
~
,......
I::J
"
N
s=
,Ul :~
.~ C
I~ j.E
, 0 '.!:
l!? E
,0) 0
'~ <( .2
...., ...J,1Il
EXHIBIT "C"
Chapter 2 - ZONING
Sec. 11. Supplemental regulations
H. PROVISION OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES.
16.
a. Dwellings, lodging and other buildings for habitation:
(1) Single-family and duplex dwellings: Two (2) parking spaces per
dwelling unit.
(2) Two or more bedroom apartments: Two (2) parking spaces per
dwelling unit.
(3) One-bedroom and efficiency apartments: Two (2) parking spaces
per dwelling unit for the first ten (10) efficiency and one bedroom
apartments in a single structure; 0 On e and one half (1.5) parking
spaces per dwelling unit for each efficiency and/or one-bedroom
apartment over ten (10) units.
Chapter 2.5 - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
Section 9. Internal PUD standards.
C. OFF-STREET PARKING AND REQUIREMENTS. Off-street parking
requirements shall in no event be less than two (2) spaces per d'.velling unit.
Other off street parking and loading requirements shall be governed by the zoning
ordinance in accordance with the off-street parking requirements within Chapter 2.
Zoning. Section 11. H.
EXHIBIT "D"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: CODE REVIEW - OFF-STREET PARKING PGD
File number: CDRV 00-014
I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE REJECT I
I PUBLIC WORKS I I
Comments: NO~E
I U=ITIES I I I
Comments: NONE
I fl~ NONE I I I
Comments:
I POLICE I I I
Comments: NONE
I ENGINEERING DIVISION I I I
Comments: NONE
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: NONE
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Comments: NONE.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
1. To be determined.
MWR/
J:\SHRDATA\PLANNING\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\WOOD PARTNERS (AL TA CHASE)\CODE REVIEVV\COND, OF APPROVAL - NONE.DOC
DEVELO' 'ENT ORDER OF THE CITY COM~ ;SION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT NAME: CODE REVIEW -OFF-STREET PARKING PUD (for efficiency and one-
bedroom apartments)
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Chris Kerr, Kilday and Associates, Inc.
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 21135 White Oak Ave., Boca Raton, Florida 33428
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: January 16, 2001
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Code Review - Off-Street Parking PUD
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: The west side of SW 8th Street, approximately 1/8 of a mile north of
Woolbright Road.
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the
findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows:
OR
X THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the
relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative
staff and the public finds as follows:
1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
2. The Applicant
-L HAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set
forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included".
4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
-L GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof.
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this order.
7. Other
DATED:
City Clerk
J:ISHRDATAIPlanningISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSIWood Partners (AlIa Chase)ICODE REVIEWlDevelop.Order.doc