Loading...
LEGAL APPROVAL DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning and Zoning Building Planning & Zoning Engineering Occupational License Community Redevelopment Apnl 9, 2001 Gerald Van-Gelder Stonehaven Homeowners AssociatIon 1699 Stonehaven Dnve Boynton Beach, Flonda 33424 Re FIle No LocatIOn. Approved mstallatIOn of gates at project entrance and masonry wall MPMD 00-007 1699 Stonehaven Dnve Dear Mr Van-Gelder Enclosed IS the CIty of Boynton Beach Development Order for MPMD 00-007, (Stonehaven PUD) whIch represents final approval of the above-referenced request subject to the condItIOn that road closure wIll not precede the completIOn of Knuth Road. Should you have any questIOns regardmg thIS matter, please feel free to contact thIS office at (561) 742-6260 Smcerely, /"z..-- ()C- MIchael W Rumpf DIrector of Plannmg & Zomng MWRlpat J \SHRDATA\Planning\SHARED\\VP\PROJECTS\ stonehaven o\\ners assoc. Letter.doc America's Gateway to tlte Gulfstream 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd., po. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 375-6260 FAX: (561) 375-6259 DEVELOPMEN _ RDER OF THE CITY COMMISSI CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OF THE ~ p~ L ~ ~~ PROJECT NAME Stonehaven Homeowners Association APPLICANT'S AGENT Gerald Van-Gelder APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 1699 Stone haven Drive DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION April 3, 2001 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT LOCATION OF PROPERTY Master Plan Modification 1699 Stonehaven Drive DRAWING(S) SEE EXHIBIT "A, B C, 0, and E" ATTACHED HERETO X 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 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 1..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 -.2L 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 DATED 4-2-01 \\\\\\1 \1111/11111 ~,,\\ O'l N T 0 I///~/. ~ " iC ............ I\t ~ ~ S 0" ....o~o~~: ~ ~ - ~ ~7~ = >- I..... , (") = : i::t= 20 i $ .",. e. ........ ~.... .. ~ ~ ............... ~ ~ F:'LOO\Ot'- ~~ "I/. n \\" 111111/1/ III \\ \ \\\\ 7 Other J \SHRDA T A \Planning\SHARED\ WP\FORMS\Blanks forms fold EXHIBIT "C" Conditions of AnProval PrOject name Stone haven Homeowners ASSOCIatIOn FIle number MPMD 00-007 Reference The plans IdentIfied as 1 sl RevIew. Master Plan ModIficatIOn. FIle # MPMD 00-007 wIth a D b 13 2000 PI d Z D d k ecem er annm\! an onm\! enartment ate stamn mar m\!. " DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS-GENERAL Comments NONE X PUBLIC WORKS-TRAFFIC Comments. I Staff finds no traffic-related JustIficatIOn for the closure of Stonehaven X Dnve at any pomt between Congress and Knuth. Staff finds lIttle eVIdence of bypass traffic through the Stonehaven Planned Umt Development (the study prOVIded by the applIcant mcluded estImates, but not documentatIOn, for the bypass traffic) Staff IS of the opmIOn that the completIOn of Knuth Road from W oolbnght to Boynton Beach Boulevard will prOVIde motonsts wIth yet another optIOn to aVOId artenal mtersectIOns. As such, the amount of bypass traffic on Stonehaven will likely decrease m the future 2 AddItIonally, staff finds that local resIdents wIthm the Stonehaven Planned X Umt Development would be most Impacted by any road closure on Stonehaven north of the canal. Therefore, m order to further conSIder a road closure, It IS ImperatIve that strong consensus from resIdents m both the smgle and multI-family developments IS garnered. The applIcant must prOVIde survey results showmg that majonty of both commumtIes favor the proposed closure Data should mclude total reSIdents and property ovvners, total number of those partlCIPatmg m survey/petItIOn, and results. 3 In addItIon to vehIcular traffic Issues, the proposed closure of Stonehaven X would elImmate pedestnan and bIcycle traffic as well. Should the CIty favorably conSIder a road closure for reasons unrelated to traffic control, PublIc Works staff suggests that pedestrIan access be mamtamed and the SIdewalk remam open. 4 See attached technIcal comments. X UTILITIES Comments. NONE X 5 PermIt applIcatIOn needs to be processed through the UtilIty Department to X msure that no water and sewer svstem components will be affected. FIRE Comments. NONE X CondItions of Approval Stonehaven Homeo\\ners Assoc doc 04/16/01 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 6 The FIre Rescue Department approval of the correspondmg permIt X applIcatIon will not be consIdered until Knuth Road IS complete and access from the south IS acceptable. BBCC 9-21F POLICE Comments. NONE X ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments NONE X BUILDING DIVISION Comments. 7 At tIme of permIt reVIew, submIt sIgned and sealed workmg drawmgs of X the proposed constructIOn. 8 Add to all plan vIew drawmgs of the sIte a labeled symbol that represents X the locatIOn and penmeter of the lImIts of constructIOn proposed wIth the subJect request. PARKS AND RECREATION Comments. NONE X FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments NONE X PLANNING AND ZONING Comments 9 Rear closure shall conSIst of an operatmg gate accessible to both commumtIes. X ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD COMMENTS 10 Comments NONE X ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION COMMENTS 11 Project approval IS subject only to the condItIon that permIts related to X closmg rear entrance shall not be issued until the Knuth Road extension is completed and open.. \\CH\MAIN\SHRDA T A,Planning\SHARED\ WP\PROJECTS\Stonehaven Homeowners Association\..\1PMD\Conditions of Approval Stonehaven Homeo'Wners Assoc.doc /- , EXHIBIT "E" CITY OF BOYi'lTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTVIE~T I~TEROFFICE lVIEl\IOR-\.J.'1DU\I TO Mike Rumpf, DIrector of Plannmg and Zonmg FRO\--I Jeffrey R. LIvergood, DIrector of PublIc Works DATE January 4, 2001 S UBJE CT PublIc \Vorks RevIew, Stonehaven Road Closure The PublIc \Vorks Staff has evaluated a request by the Stonehaven Homeo\vners ASSOCIatIOn to close Stonehaven Dnve just north of the canal Staff has evaluated the hOmeO\vller'S request as well as the traffic study completed by Gerald B Church, P.E , on behalf of the Stonehaven Homeovvllers AssocIatIOn. In order to assess the Impact of closmg Stonehaven Dnve north of the canal, It IS necessary to evaluate the eXlstmg traffic condItIOns to detenmne the Impact of the closure on local reSIdents as well as to determme the degree of mapproprIate use of Stonehaven by the those motonsts that should be utilIzmg the adjacent arterIal network m lIeu of local collector roadways wlthm the referenced development. The consultant has measured traffic volumes at three locatIons wIthm the planned unIt development. A summary of the average traffic volumes IS as follows. Stonehaven, west of Banyan Creek. = 1,602 Stonehaven, north of the canal = 1,093 Stonehaven, west of Congress = 3 092 In staffs opmIOn, the above average traffic volumes are conSIstent WIth volume typIcally assocIated WIth a collector roadway such as Stonehaven Dnve Therefore, any suggestIon that traffic volume IS excessIve at any pomt on Stonehaven Dnve IS not suffiCIent, nor reasonable, JustIficatIon for the closure of Stonehaven Dnve Staffrecogmzes that m some Instances, there may be SIgnIficant mappropnate use of a roadway suggestmg a modIficatIOn m eIther roadway deSIgn or SIgnage to deter such use Inappropnate use will often occur on a roadwav vv hen motonsts bvpass SIgnalIzed mtersectIons and Instead travel on local streets These motonsts often perceIve that they save tIme bv domg so when m fact they ma) be extendmg their travel tIme MotOrIsts often mcorrectlv belIeve that, If they are movmg mstead of standmg stIlI at a SIgnalIzed mtersectIon, they are savmg tIme The Stonehaven Homeovvllers AssOcIation has opmed that there IS m fact, a large amount ofbvpass traffic on Stonehaven and they are usmg thIS argument, aP10ng others as JustIficatIOn for road closure Thetr consultant dId not, ho\\ever adequateh evaluate or measure mappropnate traffic use In staff s OpinIOn, analYSIS of the degree of mappropnate traffic IS essentIal when consIder.ng a road closure that IS based upon traffic Impac,s Because the consultmg engmeer cortracted by the - ( - ( EXHIBIT "E" Stonehaven Homeo\vners ASSOCIatIOn did not document the degree of bypass traffic, the PublIc Works Staff conducted ItS 0\"11 analysIs. On January 3,2001, staff conducted a hcense plate survey between the hours of3 30 PM and 430 PM. As part of this study, staff placed tV/O employees at each of three locatIOns. We conducted surveys on Stonehaven west of Congress, on Stonehaven north of the canal, and on StonehavenJust east of Knuth. At each of these locatIOns we recorded lIcense plates for each vehIcle passmg the referenced locatIOns m both directIOns By collectmg thIs mformatIOn, we are able to assess the ongm and destmatIOn of vehicles enterIng and eXItmg the planned development. Furthermore, we are able to assess the amount of traffic that utIlIzes Stonehaven Dnve and has neither an ongm nor destmatIOn wlthm the study area. In other words, we are able to measure the amount of bypass traffic A summary of our findmgs IS as follows. Vehicles travelling from Congress onto westbound Stonehaven = 108 Of these 108 vehIcles, 82 were destmed m the multI-famIly housmg 17 were destmed m the smgle-family housmg 9 contmued to Knuth or bypassed (8.3%) Vehicles travelling from Knuth onto eastbound Stonehaven = 56 Of these 56 vehIcles, 17 were destmed m the multi-family housmg 33 were destmed m the smgle-famlly housmg 6 contmued to Congress or bypassed (107%) Vehicles originating in the single family homes = 41 Of these 41 vehIcles, 36 eXIted the planned development at Knuth 5 eXIted the planned development at Congress Vehicles originating in the multi family homes = 83 Of these 83 vehIcles, 8 eXIted the planned development at Knuth 75 eXIted the planned development at Congress Staffbeheves that certam data ments addItIOnal dIscussIOn. Tne hour of thIs traffic count very nearly approxImates the afternoon peak hour as depIcted by the consultmg engmeer's 24-hour traffic count. The approxImate peak hour factor IS about 0 085 and IS less than the customary standard of 10% (0 10) Dunng the hcense plate survey, staff recorded a total of 15 vehIcles that traveled through the development WIth neither an ongm nor destmatIOn III eIther the smgle or multI famIly homes Assummg a peak hour factor of 0 085, one can estImate that, on a 24-hour baSIS, 176 vehIcles would travel on Stonehaven Dnve and have neIther an ongm nor destmatlOn wlthm the development. Closmg Stonehaven Dnve as requested would certamly elImmate these 176 vehIcles and be a benefit to area reSIdents However, despIte thiS small benefit to area reSIdents, a road closure could pose a concern to many reSidents m the development that travel along Stonehaven at the pomt of the proposed road closure m order to access theIr homes For example, dunng the hour of study, 25 reSIdents passed through the pomt of proposed closure to travel either to or from their home m the multI famIly portIOn of the development. Furthermore, 22 reSidents passed the pomt of proposed closure to travel eIther to or from theIr homes m the smgle-famIly portIon of the development. Thus, a closure would negatively affect 47 vehicle trIpS dUrIng the study hour Usmg the same peak hour -... I EXHIBIT "E" factor of 0 85 would mean that on a 24-hour basIs, a total of 553 local vehIcle tnps would be forced to alter thelr'dnvmg patterns should the roadway be closed as requested. ThIS number far exceeds the reductIOn of bypass traffic of 176 vehIcles as dIscussed earlIer Staff Summary Staff finds no traffic-related JuStificatIon for the closure of Stonehaven Dnve at any pomt between Congress and Knuth. Staff finds lIttle eVIdence of bypass traffic through the Stonehaven Planned Umt Development and IS of the opmIOn that the completion of Knuth Road from WoolbrIght to Boynton Beach Blvd. WIll prOVIde motonsts With yet another optIOn to aVOId artenal mtersectIOns As such, the amount of bypass traffic on Stonehaven wIll likely decrease m the future Additionally, staff finds that local resIdents wIthm the Stonehaven Planned Umt Development would be most Impacted by any road closure on Stonehaven north of the canal Therefore, m order to further conSIder a road closure It IS ImperatIve that strong consensus from resIdents m both the smgle and multI family developments IS garnered. In additIon to vehIcular traffic Issues, the proposed closure of Stonehaven would elImmate pedestnan and bicycle traffic as well. Should the CIty favorably conSIder a road closure for reasons unrelated to traffic control, the PublIc Works Staff suggests that pedestnan access be mamtamed and the SIdewalk remam open. Staff also notes that we have not assessed the abilIty of both the PoIrce and FIre Departments to respond to emergency SItuatIOns wIthm the development should Stonehaven be closed. ThIS analYSIS IS more appropnately conducted by those agencIes Furthermore, there IS a storm dramage catch basm located directly beneath the proposed fence on the West SIde of Stonehaven. The UtilIties Department IS most qualIfied to comment on thIS matter It IS entirely possible that other reasons may eXIst for the CIty to conSIder dIvIdmg thIS development. The PublIc \Vorks Staff IS not qualIfied to comment on these matters and leaves further eval uatIOn to others ~~ili;rgd ;.( ,. . I ~, I, 1I:...~i EXHIBIT "0" PETITION STONEI-lA VEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PETITIONS THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AND THE FOLLOWING DEPARTMENTS WITHIN ITS JUIUSTICTION Boynton Beach Plannlllg and Zonlllg Department and Its dIrectors, Boynton Beach Plannlllg and Zonmg Appeals Board or similar entity, Boynton Beach City Manager, Kurt Bressner, and the current Boynton Beach CIty CouncIl members, Gerald Broelllng, Ronald Weiland, Bruce Black, William A. Sherman, and Charlie Fisher~ and any future elected coucIl members, regarding. TH[ PRIVATIZATION OF STONEHAVEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, with respect to The three pm1y agreement SIgned by Mr Winchester, Mr Schroder, and Stonehaven Homeowners ASSOCiatIon 111 1990, regardlllg the Knuth Road PCD, and the Boynton Beach PCD and ail of the requIrements to be met provided therem, as weB as the pnvate nature of our location as a PUD and all nghts afforded to Sonehaven Homeowners ASSOCiation as a result Stonehaven Homeowners ASSOCiatIOn requests that the City of Boynton honor the above three party agreement. In which condItIOns were agreed upon regardl11g the gated closure of Stonehaven Homeowners ASSOCiation among other Items. As we are a pnvate commulllty and have ownership of our roads and all real property located wlth1l1 Stonehaven PUD, Plat one, as recordcd 111 Plat Book 48, pages 1-5, It IS our nght and duty to uphold the agreement to which we lobbied for dunng 1990 City CouncIl sessIons. As of September of 2000, the Boynton Beach Plann1l1g and ZOllIng Department has refused to acknowledge our pOSitIOn and has told us verbally that we will have to take our pOSition to the Appeals Board and pOSSibly to City Council In whIch the matter III 1990 was settled and agreed upon, 111 addition to the supplementatIon of a preVIOUS petItIOn of Stonehaven Homeowners ASSOCIatIon stat1l1g that a maJomy of the members were 1/1 agreement with the pnvalIzatlon of the commullIty, we are hereby SUblllllllllg a ~ub-scqucntlal petItIOn, to further emphaSize our posltlon m our struggle With the City ThIS petItIon reiterates that the members of Stonehaven Homcowners ASSOCiation deSIre to pnvatlze our commul1lty to meet the standards based m the three party agreement. Includmg all aspects of the agreement, but most specifIcally the matter of gatl11g the commul11ty from the front entrance off of Knuth Road and sealtng off the back entrance With either a wall or gate The members of the commul1lty understand that pnvatIzatIon may cause a delayed tlll1ll1g externality With concern to emergency serVIces The commumty feels that upon completion of Knuth Road, that cmergency servIces will have another route llltO the aSSOCiation to ta!-..e the place of the route currently used as an alternative route located at Sonehaven Dnve and Congress Avenue ThiS Will give emergency services two entnes, one at Woolbnght Road and Knuth Road and onc at Boynton Beach Blvd and Knuth Road, as opposed to one at Congress Blvd and Stonehaven Dnve and one at Boynton Beach Blvd and Knuth Road The commu11lty mall1tall1s that It Will work With emergency services In lllstal!lng the necessary ~qUlpment to allow access to the commul11ty for emergency services. All members of Stonehaven Homeowners ASSOCIatIOn that are 111 agreement with the PetitIon and want our communIty to be pnvatlzed, please sign below Lot Number Date 9 Z~~uuJ &06 <7-.6-00 1 2 ~^ D~ ? ~ )-? cJ (l c1-JS ~U<1'0 C/ J-l J--~) 9/~7~O~ ~- .;J/ s;t 0 () () h2f ciu('ul ~ I C'.5 / ilb J~ /11- .:/ rC.J & " II V ,.t,t~, ~ Lot Number /.;-9 /~ 2 '\ l~ EXHIBIT "0" Date f j' Ij ) / /'zJ '( CI ;, q-Z'b 00 t!/'\ '\1i {'\ ~;. EXHIBIT "0" , SIgnature Lot Number Date 63 64 65 ,. 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73' 74 75~ ;} - c3~ 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 {I Y :;'0 e:>(l-:,. ~:" 00 y Oll.e. 3