CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE (Letters)
9-31- 999 2 45PM
FRat.1 PLA.NNI\lG AND REA_ ES 56\ 434 8187
P 1
The School J)istrlct of Palm Beach County
Department of Planning & Real Estate
3320 Forest Hill Boulevard - C331
W~st Palm Beach, Fl 33406
Phone:(561)43~020
Fax.: (561) 434-8187
TO
FAX#
DATE;
Title
e&RE
Dept
fROM
~:
~ . ,"~
.s.dO(ftf\1/u
H:\l>A TA \WP51 \DOC\J'VST11oE.FAX
."
I~
"),
,CD
9-211-'999 2 46PH
FROM PLA~NI\lG AND REAL ES 561 434 8187
P 2
"THE SCHOO~ OISTAICT
OF ~AL.M BEACH COUNTY F~ORIDA
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE
3320 FOFlEST HILL BOULEVARD. C-331
WEST PAlM BEACH -L 33406-581 ~
(561) 434.ao20 FAX (581) 4$4-9187
DR. JOAN P KOWAL
Sl."8IIIIT91090T
Of SCIlOOl.S
September 1, 1999
Mr Michael Rumpf, Dire(..1or
Planning and Zoning
City of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach. FL 33425
RE. School SIte in Quantum DR!
Dear Mr Rumpf
We dIscussed the deletion of the school site from the DRl With our Attorneys. They do
not beheve that this is necessary Therefore we wIll not request that the school Site be
deleted from the DR! The real issue IS to release the School District as Omler of
property m the development, from the "Dedaratlon of Protective Covenants of Quantum
Park at Boynton Beach" We will still remain In the DRI and the Community
Development District.
J informed the Attome'Vs that I do not beheve that the Treasure Coast RegIonal Plannmg
Councilor the City of Boynton Beach would need to take an) action since it is not an
amendment to the land development condluons of the DRl It is an issue with the
Property Owners ASSociatIon. The Attorneys have asked that. both the Regional
Planning Council and the City of Bovnton Beach Sign the statement attached If there is no
objection to the School DIstrict's release from the "Declaration of Proteetrve Covenants
of Quanturn Park at Bovnton Beach." If the elt} of Boynton Beach does not object,
would you please SIgn the attached statement and fax to me at 434-8187
If there are any questions, please call me at 434-8800 Thank you for your assistance
Sincerely,
~~~
Planning SpecIalIst (EducatIonal)
c: L:nda H. Hines. Pa.m Beach County School District
A' Equal Education Opportunity Provider and Affirmative Action Employer
9-01- 999 2 46PM
FqOM PLANNI\lG AND PEAL ES 561 434 8187
P 3
The CIty of Boynton Beach has been informed of the School District's intention to seek
an amendment to the recorded Declaration of ProtectIve Covenants of Quantum Park at
Boynton Beach (ORB 5450, P 1105, as amended) (the "DeclaratIon") to release the lands
owned by the School District from the operation and effect of the DeclaratIOn.
We do not object to the proposed release of the School Distnct's lands from the
Declaration, with the understanding that those lands will remam with the bOlmdanes of
the Quantum Commumty Development Distnct and the Quantum Park DRl.
Michael W Rumpf
Planning of Planning and Zoning
eit) of Boynton Beach
Date
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
Division of Plann~ng and Zoning
Building
Planning & Zoning
Engineering
Occupational License
Community Redevelopment
August 23, 1999
Angela Usher
School DIstnct of Palm Beach County
3320 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-331
West Palm Beach, Flonda 33406
VIA FACSIMILE
Dear Ms. Usher-
Please be Informed that Staffhas revIewed the" SpeCIal Warranty Deed" and "AffidaVIt
regardIng Partial Road Closure" documents for land Included In the Boynton Beach High School
proJect, and finds that they adequately satISfy a condItIOn ofthe Quantum Park PID Master SIte
Plan ModificatIOn # 4, as wntten In PlannIng and Zorung Department Memorandum No 94-057
Comment #4 from this memorandum SImply reqmred that the portIon of Park RIdge Boulevard
to be Incorporated Into the school proJect, and be transferred to the school board via recorded
legal instrument.
If you should need any further InfOrmatIOn or clanficatIOn, please contact me at (561)
742-6260
SIncerely,
- /1..../ U?
,
Michael W Rumpf
DIrector of Planrung and Zornng
MWRlnl
nSHRDAT AIPlanning\SHARED\WP\FORMSlPalm Beach County- Boynton Beach High.doc
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd., P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 742-6260 FAX: (561) 742-6259
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
DIvIsion of Planning and Zoning
Building
Planning & Zoning
Engineering
Occupational License
Community Redevelopment
July 27, 1999
Anna Yeskey
IP ARK
9835-16 Lake Worth Road
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Dear Anna.
Attached for your notIficatIOn IS the advertIsement for the PlannIng and Development
Board and CIty CommISSIOn heanngs relatIng to reqUIrements to update the CIty of
Boynton Beach comprehensIve plan relatIng to pohcIes and objectIves for school sItmg and
IP ARC
If you have any questIOns, please contact Dan DeCarlo at 561-742-6264 In our
office Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
Michael W Rumpf
DIrector If Plannmg and Zomng
America's Gateway to the Gulfstream
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd., P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 375-6260 FAX: (561) 375-6259
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM NO PZ 99-180
TO
Sue Kruse
City Clerk
FROM
/yc,--~
Michael W Rumpf
Director of Planning and Zoning
DATE
July 16, 1999
SUBJECT
Proposed EAR - Based Comprehensive Plan Amendments
School Siting and Related Coordination
Attached please find a legal advertisements for the above-referenced proposed
amendments.
The legal advertisement for this request will be forwarded to your office after review by the
City Attorney This request is scheduled for the August 10, 1999 Planning and Development
Board meeting and the August 17, 1999 City Commission meeting Please advertise in the
newspaper accordingly
MWR.jma
Attachments
IICHIMAINISHRDATA\PLANNING\SHAREDlWP\PROJECTS\DCA LEGAL NOTICE AD\LEGLAL NOTICE BLANK FORM.DOC
REQUEST FOR PUBLISHING
LEGAL NOTICES AND/OR LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS
A completed copy of this routing slip must accompany any request to have a Legal Notice or
Legal Advertisement published and must be submitted to the Office of the City Attorney two
(2) working days prior to the first publishing date requested below
ORIGINATOR. Plannina and Zonina Division
PREPARED BY
Dan Decarlo
DATE PREPARED'
July 14. 1999
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NOTICE OR AD Amendments to text of comprehensive plan to
modify and insert aoals and obiectives pursuant to school provision and related coordination
requirements of State law.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS (Size of Headline, Type Size, Section
Placement, Black Border etc.) Standard Leaal ad with map. title to remain at 18 pt size in
ad
SEND COPIES OF AD TO.
NEWSPAPER(S) TO PUBLISH The Post
DA TE(S) TO BE PUBLISHED
July 27. 1999
LAST DATE TO FAX TO THE PAPER BY 3 00 P M
APPROVED BY
(1) - /.!L, ?" ~ _
(Originator)
(Date)
(2)
(City Attorney)
(Date)
RECEIVED BY CITY CLERK.
COMPLETED'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED EV AlUA TION & APPRAISAL REPORT EAR
AMENDMENTS FOR THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, as shown on the map in this advertisement, pursuant to state law
proposes to adopt amendments to its COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The COMPREHENSIVE PLAN was
adopted in 1989 and is being revised through a series of amendments intended to update objectives and
policies to reflect accomplishments, change in City direction. and new state laws. The proposed
amendments regard school siting, and intergovernmental coordination. The Planning and Development
Board and City Commission will hold public hearings to review the proposed amendments on August 10th ,
1999 and August 17, 1999, respectively, at 7'00 PM in the City Commission Chambers at the Boynton
Beach City Hall, 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard The public is invited to attend this meeting and
comment on the proposed amendments, and/or view them between the hours of 8'00 AM and 5 30 PM at
the Planning and Zoning Division,
.L
i
~
c:i
~
~
c-,.
I I I ~~
o t-Im ~..v
As a requirement of updating the City's comprehensive plan, the city shall modify both the Future Land Use
Element and Intergovernmental Coordination Element in accordance with Florida Statute sections
(5S1633184), (ss1633187 and (ss1633189) to adept plan amendments as defined in section
163 3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Specifically, the proposed amendments would in part, modify and add policies and objectives to the Future
Land Use Element to modify regulations relating to public schools, threshold acreage for new schools and
public facilities required for school operation The Intergovernmental Coordination Element would be
updated to facilitate optimal coordination with adjacent local governments, the school board and the Palm
Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC)
PUBLISH
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
(561 742-6260
JULY 27,1999
The Post
8-23-1999 12 03~~ cROM FLAN~IN8 AND REA~ ES 561 434 8187
. I
OR, 8..:..79 o':l 1749
Exhibit A"
TOGEMR II I TH:
THAT POllTlllH OF PARK RIDGE BOlU:VAi1D TRACT 'F' OF QUANTUM PARK AT
BOYNTON BEACH p, t.O. 'PLAT No.~. ACCORDING TO THE PlAT THEREOf ON
FILE IN THE OFfiCE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT CQURT IN AND F~
PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA RECOROED IN PLAT BOOK 57 PAl*: laB.
MORE PART I tULARL Y DESCR I BED AS FOLLOIIS:
BEGIN AT THE NORTHIIEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 53, THENCE ALONG THE
EASTERLY RIGHT.QF.IIAY OF SAID PARK RIDGE BOUlEVARD TRACT 'F' FOR
THE FOLlOll1 NG COURSES: .
THENcE SOUTHERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST. riAVING A
RADIUS OF 5752,.10 FEET, IIHERE THE RAD~Lj~ARS 586'52' 47.'11,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3'O~49' F 31~ 5~JfEET TC A POINT OF
TANGENCY; THENCE 500'02'36'11 FOR 30 . O~ET TO THE POINT OF
C~~VATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS
OF 536.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO TH~
LEn THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89' 12' 52' FOR 935. 80 FEET:
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-IIAY. 501'09'05'11 FOR
124.63 FEET TO TIlE HESTElI..Y RIGHT~OF-IIAY OF ALPHA DRIVE TRACT' A'
Of SAID OUANTUM PARK AT BOYNTON BEACH P. I D. PLAT No. 10; THENCE
ALONG SAiD WESTERLY RIGHT-or-IIAY, N42'53'48'1I FOR 34.76 FEET TO
THE WESTERLY RIGHl-OF-IIAY OF SAID PARK RIDGE BOULEVARD TR~CT 'F'
BEING A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAYING A RADIUS OF
fiS6.77 FEET IIHERE THE RADIAL LINE BEARS NDS' OS' 13'E:
THENCE ALONG SAID IIESTERlY RIGHT~OF~IlAY FOR THE fOLLOWING
COURSES:
THENCE NORTHWESTERlY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THriOUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 86'59'23' FOR 9BB,7S FEET TO A POINT or TANGEN-
CY; THENCE NOO'02'36'E FOR 300.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF CU~VATURE
OF A CURVE CONCAVE TD THE WEST riA V I NO A RAD I US OF 5652. 40 FEET;
THENCE NORTHERLY A!.ON{; SA f D CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 6'27'17' FOR 636.77 FEET'
THENCE DEPARTINS SAiD IIESTERLY R1GHT-DF~IlAY N9~'00'OO'E FOR
100.62 FEET TO THE EASTERlY RIGHT-OF-IIAY OF SAID PARK RIDGE
BOULEVARD TRACT 'F', BEING A CURVE CONCAVE TO ThE WEST, HAliNG A
RAD I US OF 5752..40 FEET, .WHERE iHE RAD I At LJ NE 8EARS 5B3' ~2' OS'II;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CURVE TO THE RIGHT
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3'10'44' FOR 319,17 FEET THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
(Tract F Parcel)
j~~
f.fr[l
~ 5
.
"="-
~-
.=:'~
GAiii&T _,
- -- ._,'
-_.
-- -- .
-
-
~I:
.
.....
--
.
~
.
.....
--
-
'::I
-
...-
..
~...
...
..M-.
--
...
..
...
--
I~d ~w.pA'o"\.
YYld.- -Ic.t..s .IJ;.s
~
t"ef~~~""'
..
~
Jate-
~~- =.~:.'~1Iiflr( ~ BLVO,,_ ;.;_-- -:.--:-
-
"":':<
-
-='="
;i
-
~
- -
--
..... ...-
..
~
j.lj
..-
~
-
"":':<
.LW.DJI. [OUAUZING CANAl. C-'.
~
~
oirrn
AMENDMENT NO 6
1 ~ ~ f# -.....: IIDC( Bl'-O 'to. WilCATtD AT TIC
.... IJ' nc. teGt4 1CIIXL ~ iii IlCCQflIWIt! IIItM
_ .........,. NO . DAJtD 4/11194
DMl_ tI 1K IlllL-'C .- U5C Cl.<SSFCAIIOIlS SHOUUl NOT [XC[ED 1><("
r~ IflIIOISIfU MHOUT f'UfI'1tO arr APPtDML;
H::-J'S'fIIIML (IIIQ.~ R a D) - 2.714.3S4 sa " CROSS FlOOR NrtA
:DWI<<FICW. (..-:&.\.aC H01U . CUll) 426'- so " CROSS I...EASA8Ll ARlA.
..aT '0 DCUD u TOtAl. ICR[s.
~ .6a.m 9:l " CRO'SS nOCR ....
eM: ttDfU fIQOM - 261 so " CIt05S L(ASAII.[ MEA COWW[R(;w.
1 1"D14. 'flV[D lIIPS fOIt THE Pft(\J(Cf SIW.L ...... 'J.~2 NJr.
L\:fS .,... 1M[ PWIU[Cr tl('$QrM.ttD flit COYWJIQtlL LAND USE MAt I[
(~/"'D.OCATtD Ih' IiIf"P'IItOYM. or tHE aN OlMIISSIDtI wm<<:JVT f\JIt1M['R DItI M:Vt('W r,ff
-.
;
,
;TER
SITE
DEVELOPMENT
PLAT
LEGEND
~-..;
-
':'
~
(or 1Ur)
-H~-'
f _
:. l..oWC(",
Off;""
,:)lfice /C:mmercici
')'f :::e '''":"tteI/Com'''''prClai
98.62 Acres
6.57 Acres
3 65 Acres
~
~
8-13-'999 11 13AM
FROM PLANNI\lG AND PEAL ES 561 434 8187
P 2
JIII-CI-" I' 20
F ROIto-
T-lar P Q2/03 F-059
AkERMAN SENiERFITT ij EIDSON P A
^TTOkNl n ....r LI'w
......."......s ""'n" ~S'T "'QY..~.
Sv,TE.OO
77"1' ~T", rlJ'\c..tll oa1VC':
"",,['~T ....."'... ~"'" r-o".o,... "'~.O-
,!l>c.~~ ~~ :...0
r...cs.MI..t ,.a., ... .:..s,
June 1, 1999
"lA F ACSfl\111 F. 414-8181
Angela U shes-
Plantung SpeclaU51
School Di$tncr ofPaltn Beach COMlY
3320 Forest HIll Boulevard
C-331
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
Re: Quantum PlII"k; Closure OfPOl'tl0n of Park Ri4se BoulevlUd
Dear Angela.
In response to your recent rcquest.l have examiueO whit appears to be all oftbe tele~ant
utle docwnents ptrtaining to the portion ofP~k Ridge Boulevard that. according to th~ School
Douet's plans for the Boynton high school. is to be closed as a right-of-way and used &5 a pen of
the sc;booJ site. Your request was prompted by lJ,l,;omment lD the May 4. 1999 letter from
Thomas Mc<hlliCllddy. as Chauman of the Qwlntwn Commwury Development District, notmg
Ute road cloSQ.Ie in rhe: Diitnct's plans and aslong ~bether lhe pial was ~ modified to refl~t
that road closur~
following IS a chronology Qfthe sipficam tnle> docum.entanoD affechng tbal pornon of
Park Riclge Boulevard that is beiuS incorporated into lhe School Oistrict's site That ponwn of
~ fonner right-of-way is rdened to below as the "Road Parcel"
319/94
Quantum Park Phst No.4 Jeco:ded In Plat Book 57. Page 189, dedicatina
Tracl F (Park lbd&t Boulevard) to the POA as a pnvate road.
The POA ~SlSQcd al1 of Its rights in Tr4Ct F under the Plat to the QCDD
by Assignment ofRc5el"\'lItJOn.$ Jecorded in Official Records Book 8) '8.
Pa~e 1324
9/10/87
WI't!~.1
weST .......... ec...c:..
rcWT ...vg~.g..",c
~....~
0.""'.....00
"r_"".._flt".s-.C1l;
T..M....
8-13- 999 11 13At.1
FROt1 PLAf\N I NG AND !=<EA,- ES 561 434 8187
P 3
JI.W-DI.08 II 18
F /lOMw
T-lt7 P 03/0a F-O"
Angela Usher
Ma.rc:h 23. 1999
Page 2
4/19/94
The City of Boynton Beach adopted an 01~ ilpprovltl& an
aJnetJdmmt to th~ DR! that allowed school uses for the propmy tbat was
to be deeded to the School Dlstnct soon u~eafier, includmg the Road
Pareel.
5/25/94
The QCDD. by a ~Ial warranty deed recorded in OfficIal ReconJs Book
8279 .Page 1746 deeded the Road Pan:elto the School Distnct,
All ofth.e parnes havmg an mteTest In the R.oad Pv<<l. whC1her under [be Plat or
uUu:rwlsc, have eithft- )omed ill or aclcnowledged the conveyance of the Read Parcel to the
Sthool Oi5p1Cl. Wltho," Te5ewching the iss~e any flU'ther at this tlme 1 do not believe that lbeorc
is a le~ reqwtement to lIIInend Plat No.4 WIder these circumstances. If, however, slICh a
requnement exists today, 1t roOst tik.ely eXlSted five yean ago when the QCDD deeded the Road
Parcel to the School Distnct. If fal.ure to replat the proPerlY in 1994 adversely affectS title to the
Road Parcel today, that failure would have to be Vle\\'eG as a bn:~h ofwlmanlle5 m the QCDD
deed to the School District an<i the ulramate responsibllu)' for replaning would he WJID tbt
QCDD
Pl~ase let me know If you would like me 10 research the tep1attms Issue fLUther In me
meantime, if }O~ have any questions QT comments about any of tile foregoing. please feel free to
callm~
Verr truly yOIU'S.
~~
TbQffia5 E. Sn-exl
For the fum
TESteb
Enclosure
cc' Karen f'lscher. fsq , School Dtsrrict of Palm Beach Cowt)'. v!a facslI11ile
Lmda limes. Planning and R~al Estate-, School District of Palm Beach Coumy "ia
facsimile
wMJQbO.1
Alea, Joann
From
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hallahan, Kevin
Tuesday, May 25 1999 11 53 AM
Alea, Joann
Nguyen, Jim
RE. RECTIFIED PLANS FOR HIGH SCHOOL
The Landscape, Irrigation and Existing trees portions of the High School set of plans were missing from the original
submittal. Do you know if the plans have now been submitted to the City?
--Original Message----
From: Alea, Joann
Sent: Tuesday May 25, 19998:31 AM
To: Hallahan, Kevin; Thompson, Lee; Mazzella, Pete; Haag, Mike; Hall, Ken; Quinn, Larry. Wildner John
Cc: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: RECTIFIED PLANS FOR HIGH SCHOOL
Need you to sign rectified plans for high school.
Thank you
1
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE
3320 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD, C-331
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406-5813
(561) 434-8020 FAX (561) 434-8187
DR. JOAN P KOWAL
SUPERINTENDENT
OF SCHOOLS
May 3, 1999
-
Mr Mike Rumpf
Plannmg and Zomng DIrector
CIty of Boynton Beach
100 E Ocean Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
RE Fmal Plans for New High School III m the CIty of Boynton Beach
Dear Mr Rumpf
The School DIstnct Plannmg and Real Estate staff IS submIttmg a set of final plans for the
new High School m the CIty of Boynton Beach.
These plans were requested at the last Techmcal ReVIew CommIttee meetmg held to
reVIew the SIte and development plans for the new school.
If there are any questIOns, please call me at 434-8800 Thank you for your aSSIstance.
Smcerely,
Angela Usher
Plannmg SpecialIst (EducatIOnal)
attachments
c Lmda H. Hines, Palm Beach County School DIstnct
An Equal Education Opportunity Provider and Affinnative Action Employer
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE
3320 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD, C-331
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406-5813
(561) 434-8020 FAX (561) 434-8187
DR. JOAN P KONAL
SUPERINTENDENT
OF SCHOOLS
Apnl21,1999
Mr Eugene Gerhca, P .E.
Mock Roos and ASSOcIates
5720 Corporate Way
West Palm Beach, FL 33407
RE. New High School m Quantum Park / RevIsed Engmeermg (Dramage) RevIew
Dear Mr Gerhca.
As engmeer for the Quantum Park Property Owners AssocIatIOn and Quantum
Commumty Development DIStnCt please find revIsed dramage plans for the new hIgh
school m Quantum Park. These plans have been approved by the South Flonda Water
Management DIstnct.
Issues that reqUired clarIficatIOn per you February 9, 1999 letter have been addressed.
The ongInal submIttal of draInage plans and the revIsed draInage plans, presently beIng
submItted, comply WIth the master stormwater management plan for the Park. ThIS IS the
only reqUirement of the deed.
If there are any questIOns, please call me at (561) 434-8800
~
Ang D Usher, AICP
Planning SpecIahst (EducatIOnal)
enclosures
c: David B Norris, Cohen, Norris, Scherer Weinberger & Wolmer
Douglas McDonald, MFT Quantum
David Tom, BRPH
Michael Rumpf, City of Boynton Beach
Thomas Streit, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A.
Linda Hines, Palm Beach County School District
Warren Haan, Palm Beach County School District
Karen Fischer, Palm Beach County School District
1rD1.rffi@to Wi :~Ml
Inl) Allft2'5 'r
! iJ :.._~ ~ ....-n
An Equal Education Opportunity Provider and Affirmative Action Efll)loyer
8-13-1999 11 14~
~;:;(Ct~ O>LA~j\jl'.G A"C REAL ES 561 .134 8187
0> 4
EXHIBIT "CO
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO 94~OS7
TO
Chair.Man and Members
Pla%U1inq an~1 De~elopllent Board
-~"",.{~tL} Jf.L.. i' c... "-
TaSbri J. He~n
Acting Plann1ng and zoning Director
FROM
DAT! March 3 1994
SUBJECT QUantUl\ park of eouarce - Flle No 813
Maater Plan Amendment .4 (hiqh school)
Plea.e be advilee of the following planning and zoning related
co...nts with respect to the above-referenced request Unless
otherwise stated, 1t 1& r.coamended that these comments be
sati.fied within 90 days of city Commission approval of the
amended develo~ent order
1 Application fe. .hell be paid prior to se~ond readinq of the
ordinance to amand the development order Applicant will be
not1fied of the amount of the fee wh1Ch will be determined
after receipt of the bill for advertising the required
publ1c hearings
2 A cro..-.ection of the requirea peripheral greenbelt (40
feet in width along the south property line where the PID
abuts relidential zoninG ana 25 feat in width along the west
property line where the PID abuts nonresidential zoningl
shall ~e prepared and sUbaitted to the City for comment or
ahall be suba1tted to Quantum A..ociate. for inclusion in.
Quantua's near future aaster plan modification application
for approval of all qreenbelts within the PID
3 For courte.y co..ents, it is recomaended that the School
Board provide the City a copy of the hiqh school site plan
prior to it ~eing finalized Subsequent to this. a final
copy for record keeping purposes would also be appreciated
to include the location, type and q~antity of all hazardous
.ated.ls used anC!. stored
4 I~ ~portion of 'ark Rid;e Boulevard 11 closed and no longer
u.~ for private road purposes, a separate instrument shall
be recorded to delete tbe plat dedication of that portion of
Park Ridge ~oulevard A recorded copy of the leqal
instrument shall be provided to the City
5 The amended .aster s~te development plan. dated February 15
199' shall be revised and sub.itted to the City to 1nclude a
qraphic scale, reconfiquration of parcels that has occurred
for the Motor Vehicle Inlpaction Station and the Tri-aail
expanSiOn and adjUstment of all parcel acreaqes (and land
use totals I to corr.spond with the tax mapa prepared by the
Palm Beach County property Appraiser'S office
tjh
xc Applicant
Central Flle
A. QPkHPMCm
,
\ Thi. Inatrument W.. Prep&r'~
~ By ArId should Be lI.etl.lrnact 'reIl
Scott G WLlliam., Saquire
SHUT'I'S .. BonN
\ 222 Lakevi.aw Aven~e
!'.:Lte lOCO
West Pa~ a.act, rlori~a )3401
MY-26-i994 4.Jt.DN..... 94-1-8694.2-
ORa e.L-l'7 P" 1 759
I; IIB".,.O.,.IIII.. Sll
AFFIDAVIT RE PARTIAL ROAD CLOSURE
STAT! OF h.~Rlofl
CCt:NTY OF ?AI.Yl '&AC'to\
8S
.1A~~~ ~ L\)Io)O"'2€~ (the "Affiant ), being
fir~t duly sworn, .poses and say. that
1 Affiant 111 t.he Cr.lIlI~H-A..i of QUAKTU!~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, a Florida Independent spe,cial
District ("oeDD")
2 QeDO is t.he owner of Tract "GH (High Ridge ROad),
Tract "Y" (High Ridge Road), and Tract "F" (Park Ridge Boulevard),
of Quantum Park at Boynton a.ach, P I 0 , Plat No 4, accordi~9 to
the Plat thereof reco~ded in Plat Book 57, Pages 186 through 188/
in the P~blic Records of palm Beach County, Florida
3 By Special Warranty Deed executed simultaneously
herewith, OCOO is conveying a portion of the aforedescribed T~act
"Y" (Park Ridge Boulevard) to The School Boare of Pa1J:l Beach
County, Florida, 11!1 legally ciescribed on EXHIBIT "A" attached
hereto and made a part hereof
4 The "Easement property" as described in (a) Ingress I
Egress Easement Agreement between Quantum Park Property Owners'
Association,. lnc and Curt G JOA, Inc recorded October 11, 1990,
in Official Records Book 6607, Page 1209, of the Public Records of
Palm Beach County, Florida, and (b) Ingress/Egress ; Easement
Agreement between Quantum Park Property Owners' Assooiation, Inc
and George J Gould and Harriet Gould, his wif.( recorded October
11, 1990, in Official Records Book 6607, Page 1215, 0: the Public
Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, nae now been reduoed ay the
subtraction of the property set forth on EXHIBIT "A" which has beer
conveyed to the School Soard of Palm Beach County, Florida
5 This Affidavit is made for the purpose of clarifying
the IItatus 0= title to said Tract "P" (Park Ridge Boulevard) and
the closure of the road upon, and conveyance of, that portion of
Park Rid.qe Boulevard set forth .:tn Exhibit "A", and the extent of
the remaining easement rights of CUrt G JOA, Inc and of George J
GO'Jld. and Harriet Gould, his wife, in and to the "EaseJ:lent
Property"
FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NAUGHT
l~~
(JURAT ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
o
~J- t{ \
/'
....
...8l8 'lEV .99 53 "'W:::'o OI'N at., I\H~'d ~~::kl.:l
1^J'it'
1 66f -21-9
S d
OFFICIAL NOTARIAL SEAL
ORB 8279 P9 1760
My Commission Bxpires
WEsrPALM ~71ao.' v:.a
$;23~
- 2- e.fl. {2..
l~'Z
- I ;~'RJOn~"t~Mai::LO <
'Nollry-s t . ,. Q I , 10 I "I. ~
PUblic My Com,". lap:l0104197
'I, Com""': <:(321)1I24
9 d
...818 71::7 L9S 5'3 -"''3d ;lW a~i U..rvid l'i:Jc.:l
~J"'S
I 666L-21-8
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
TIME 08/17/1999 10 02
NAME BOVNTON BEACH P & Z
FAX 5613756259
TEL 5613756260
DATE,TIME
FAx NO./NAME
DURATION
PAGE(S)
RESULT
MODE
218/17 09 59
97310065
00 02 48
07
OK
STANDARD
ECM
Facsimile
TRANSMITIAL
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEY ARD
PO BOX 310
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33425-0310
FAX. (561) 742-6259
PLANNING AND ZONING DMSION
to:
fax #.
date:
from
re:
1Ck V- ~~ a2e I (a
~\I~~~~I
(VM OJyeb A/\I\A_/
pages.
1. includmg cover sheet.
Planning and ZOnIng DIVIsion
Gty of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach. Flonda 33425
742-6260
Fax: 742-6259
--.-----------------
8-13-1999 11 12.A~1
FROM PLAN\lII',G AND REAL ES 56.' 434 8 87
P 1
-
3320 Forest Hill Boulevard, S~ite C~331
West Palm Beach, FL 33406-5613
Phone Number (561) 434-8020
Fax Number (56-) 434-8187
The School District of
Palm Beach County
Planning & Real Estate
Fax
Ten
Mike Rumpf
From: Angela D Usher
Fax: 742-6259
Pages: 10
PhwMI: 742-S260
Dater 08/13/99
Re:
1-1$111 in Ouantum Park (Roadway
Vacation)
cc:
Linda H Hines
o Urgent
D For Itev~w 0 P..... Comment X ...... Reply
[J Please Recycle
Mike:
In accordance with Ordinance 94-10, lt1e School In Quantum Park and the road closure were officially
approved by the City of Boynton Beach City Commission.
In a letter Tambri Heyden worth to the PlannIng and Devebpment Board she asked that if a portion of
Park RIdge Blvd. is closed and no longer used for private road purposes. a separate instrument shall
be recorded to delete the plat dedication of that portion of Park Ridge Blvd.>> She recommended that
this be completed within 90 days of City Com~ion approval.
The City COlTYl'lission approved Ordinance 94-10 01 AprH 19 1994 On May 25, 1994 an Affidavit for
Partial Road ClQsure" was executed and was offICially recorded in Palm Beach County ORB. We
believe that thiS is the separate instrJrN3rlt tr.at Ms. Heyden referred to in her recommendation to tlie
Planning and Zoning Board
You may recall that Pete Manella at a TRC meeting asked for proof that the portion of roadway was
vacated. We provided him with a copy of the Affidavit" and that satisfied hiS request. Please inform
me if this satisfies the condition. If ~t does !"lot, please o'Jtline what is reqUl"ed to satisfy the condition. If
it does satisfy the condItion, please respond in writng to me stating thiS. The School District would
greatly appreclatB your qui.:k response to t:-,is issue. Thank you for all your assistance.
I am attaching pertinent documentation.
~
8-20-1999 12 el~~
;:-:::10'1 "LA "qr,;G Ar,D "~A_ ES 5B1 434 8187
p :2
r/zL
/
\ .
~ Thu ::'lllluulIlent was prepllred
By And Should Be Returr~d To
Scoct G william8 &squire
SIlll'1'TS {, BOWBN
222 Ukeview Avenue
Suite 1000
W..t P.l~ le.ch, Plori4& 33401
Mh::;-1'~91t 4 4Qp~1 94-186939
. ORB 8279 pc; 1746
I .111.. .111..11111 1111
~OT' 10.00 Doc: 70
Pr~,r~ AppraiBere pa~.l :dentificacion
(Foliol N\Imb~:
SPBCIAL WARRANTY DB'ED
THIS
~ I I H ~ ~ S. I I HI
That Grantor, for and in oonside~ation of the sum of Ter.
Dollars ($10 00) and other good and valuable consideration to
Grantor in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, r.all granted, bargai:'led, and sold to
Grantee and Grantee II heirs ana a.s.signs forever, the following
describe~ real property situate, lying and being in Palm Beach
County, Florida (the "Property") to wit
SEE ~XHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HER~TO AND "'ADE A ?ART P.J:R!OF
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same ~n fee simple forever
This conveyance is made SOBJECT TO the following
1 Ad valorem real property taxes for the year 1994 a.nd
subsequent years
2 Restriction. and matters appearing on the recorded
plat of the Prop.rey
3 Reserva.tions contained in Conditional Release from
Covenants (POA), executed by Quantuw. Park ?roperty Owner's
Asscciatio~, Ine and filed on even date herewith in the Public
Records of ?alm Beach county Florida
4 Prior to construction of any improvements on the
P~operty, the final si~e plan and stormwater drainage plans for the
property shall be subject to the prier written review and approval
of the Q~antum Park Proper~y Owners Association, Inc (the
"Association") to insure compliance with the ":lIaster stormwater
ma:'lagement plan adopted from t1me to time by the Association for
':.he Quantum Corporate Park Review by the Association will ~ot be
unreasonably withheld and will be conducted within twenty (20) days
of the date the Association receives the plans If the As_=iatiO:1
fails to review the plans within said twenty (20) days, said plans
will be automatically deemed approved
CLERK'S NOTE THE CONVEYANCE BVIDUClW BY TXXS DBED IS
POR NO CONSIDERATION AND IS EX~T PROM FLORIDA
DOC"OMQiTARY STAMP TAXA'l'rON Pt1RSt1AN'l' TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF R~VENt1B HULK $12B-4 014(2)
I ({
pP.J-
8-'-:::3-"1999 ,:2 21 h+l
!==<:JtJ P~AM ING A'J:J REAL ~S 581 434 8187
" 3
ORB 8279?9 1. 747
5 Grantor, subject co t:he rights of Quantum
Associates, a Florida general partnership, reserves the right to
aw~nd at any time, and from time to time, the Quantum Corporate
Park Development of Regional Impact the Development Order relating
thereto, the Mascer Site Deve~opment P_an, the City of Boynton
Beach Zoning and/or Comprehensive plan designation and any plat of
record without any approval, consent or joinder of Gr;:t.ntee In the
event a.'1y applicable governmental body requires ~he approval,
coltseft and/or joinder of Grante. to any sucr. DRI or land
ull./zonir:g- change cr o.mendmen,t, then Grantor ill he~eby appointed as
the agent for Grantee for purpoS'ell of signing any and all documents
required by such governmental body in connection therewith an4/0r
Grantee shall be required to sign the approvals, consents a:'ld
joinders necessary to carry cut the amendments hereunder With
respect to any such amen4ments or changall, Grantor (subject to the
rights of Quantum Associates) speoifically reserve. the righe to
change the land uses on other proper;;ies wiehin the DRI ar.d/or
realign Park Ridge Boulevard provided such realignment of Park
Ridge Boulevard does not materially adversely affect vehicular
access to the Property, and Grantee hereby consents eo a:'lY such
realignment
6 The Property, together with any improvements
thereon sha~l not constitute a portio:'l 0: the System, as that term
is define4 in that certain Cen.ral Special Assessment Bond
Resolution adopted by Grantor on NOve~er 27 1991 Furthermore
the Propert:y, in aCCordance with Section 7 2D 0: the Declaration of
Protective Covenants of Quantum ?a~k at Boynton Beach
("Deo...arAtion"), which peclaratior. was recorded in Official Records
Book 5450, Page. 1105 et seq , in the Public Records of Palm Beach
County, Florida, as ~mended, shall no longer be part of the Common
Areas, as that term is defined pursuant ~o the terms o~ the
Declaration
7 Grantee shall, at its ~xpense, maint~in all common
areal of the Property in good c~ndition and repair, which
rnainee:'lance shall include, but not be limi~e4 to, the following
a Maintaining all paved surfaces in a level
smooth and evenly covered condition with the type of
s\lrfacing material originally installed or s\.:ch
substitute all shall in all respects be equal in quality
use and durability
b Removing all papers, mud and sand, debris, tilth
and refuse and thoroughly sweeping the are;!! to the exte:lt
reasonably necessary tc keep the area in a clean a.,d
orderly condition
C Placing, kee:ping in ::-ep&ir and replacing ar.y
necessary and appropriate directional sign., markers and
lines
4 Operating, keeping in r~pair and replacing,
where necessary, such artificial lighting facilities as
shall be reasonably required
e Maintaining all perimeter a~d exterio~ buildins
walls including but not limited ~c, all retaining walls
in a good conditio~ and state of repair
f ~aintaining mowing, weeding, tr imming and
wat.ering all landscaped areas and making such
replacements of shrubs and ot.her landscaping as is
necessary
9 Providing security protection for Grantee s own
land ar.d improvements
h Inspecting, maintaining, repairing and repl acing
~h8 sanitary sewer system, stormwater drainage system,
electrical, gas, water telephone and irrigation systems
2
112
OAt
8-22-1999 12 22P~
Fq8~ P~A~~I~~ A~C REAL ~S ~61 434 8187
co 4
J'fB 8279 Ps 1748.
e Development of the Property by the Grantee shall be
compatible with the existing South Florida Water Management
District permit held by the Grantor
9 Upon conveyance of the subject portion of the
property (portion of Park Ridge Boulevard) to the Grante. the
Grantor shall reserve all existing stormwater drainage easements
a~d retain existing stormwater drainage facLities located thereir:
~, I
10 In the event the Grar.tor des_res to re~ocate
dra_nage ~acilities of the Grantor c~rrently witnin the Property
euch relocation shall only be ~ade with the consent 0: and wi~hout
cost to the Grantee
11 Those matters of reco:!:d ail .specificaHy set forth i:r:.
Exr.ibit "S" attached hereto and made a part hereof
And Grantor covenants with Grantee that, except as above
~oted, at the time of the delivery of this deed said property was
free from all encumbrances :nade by Grantor and that Gra."1tor hereby
s~ecially warrants the title to said property and will defend it
against the lawful claims of all p~rsons claiming by through, or
under Grantor, but not otherwise
IN W!TN!SS W~EO', Grantor has executed this deed as of
t~e day and year first above written.
Signed sealed and
del;vered in the
pre'sence o~
!. /1
((
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
QUANTUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DISTRIC'I' a Flo::ida. !:1dependent
~~ Oi~
By ';A
ts S ;~ ~
At"str{~li' ~
RlrMIJ4. . , Trtd.Jure-r
~~IK/F
?;,jp~~ /;in~~:r
STATE OF
ss
CO~'NTY OF
~~ the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
-- ciay. 0 May, 1994, by J.AME:S L LUNDGREt;, as Chairman and
, as Secretary, of Quantum Community
nevelcpment D strict, a Flor~d.~ ~~9~2"~~~~_~p'ecial District, on
behalf of the corporation,(~ are ~ersonally known to ~or who
have produced . ar:lV~.'1'"i:"genses as
identification ,.. ., 'II I
. " .,' I J 11 A
, \1/ ['1' &( L( lU:R ()
otary J.C
/ }Y~Af:tR'i€E L. AAoUD
/ (pr nt pr type name)
:Official Notarial Se.I]
N.I..y~~~t~~;~ ~ ~(;~~~
Pub.. ~M, CO""" F.'jl:l0104197
Co~. CCJ2oea4
Cornm~ion No
My Commission Expires
WE$TPAI.M 47705,1 so.w
15/~4!94
k() frP
8-a~-1 999 1 2 03""
*-3
?f-S
~6
FRO'1 P:"A\I'.ING A~:O q:::A_ ES 561 434 8187
:::;> 6
ORB 8279 F'9 1. 750
RECORD VERIFIED DOROTHY H W1lMtl~
EXHIBIT -B" eLm, OF THE COURT - PB COUNTY, FL
1
Restrictions, covenant", c:or.diticns; and easement. a.
contained on the Plat of Quantum Park At Boynton B.ac~
? ! 0 Plat No 5, recorded in Plat Book 57, page 189, of
the ?ublic Records of Palm Beach County, Plorida
:2
lWstri~lons COIIWnaI'lts CCl1d1tiar.s an::!. ~t.s as cantamed an the
Plat 01' Quantum i'ark A"; ~ton Beach P : D Plat No 10, ~ .in
Pl.ot !look 00 p...,:s4, of 1;.'" Publ!.c Records of Pal:! 3eed'l County,
FloridA
... I
~~1~r.~~~.
4
~t in favor of 1I'l0%'1da ~r Vld Light ~ OCI'ItaJned in
~t dated August 29 li61 and ~ August 30, 1961 m Otf.tcllil
Book 672, pege 40 of the Public Records of fa.lm BNch "'-_+...
~n~ . ~.~~
~~r:'"'t'='::'6~=~-;::.
.~:~~~~'iir'!.S'
7 Ea.sement in favor of Southern Florida Flood Control
District contained in verdict dated July 29, 1964 and
:z;ecorded July 29, 1964 in Official Records Book 1064,
page 45, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County,
Florida
a
Restl:'ictions, covenlInts anci CCl'lo:llt1cr.s as cc:ntamed .in tIw .tlevel~t
Order dated AF11 26 1985 and recorded Hay 2 li8ti jn O1'Ue1al ReccrCls
500k 46:34, page 1728, '.:CIl"ther with t:hit m:xl.if!.::at1c:n, as recorded in
Off.1clal Recoras ~ 5584, p;lQe 1273, all of t.~ Public Records of Pa.ll:I
8eac.1t County, Florida.
"\SS'rfALM 4JrioSoS' $OW
\,.1 <
-\
p.V
8-20-1999 12 00PM
FROM PLANNING AND REA~ ES 561 434 8187
P 1
The School District of Palm Beach County
Department of Planning & Real Estate
3320 Forest Hill Boulevard - C331
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
Phone: (561) 434-8020
Fax: (561) 434-8187
FROM;
TRANSMITT AL
of Pages sent (including CfNet' Page) - ~ -
FACSIMILE
TO
FAX#
DATE
Title Dept
t-e. L r
cc:
W:\DA T.... \ WP51\l>OC\J\J$T'T'He.f AX
Facsimile
TRANSMllTAL
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD
PO BOX 310
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33425-0310
FAX. (561) 742-6259
PLANNING AND ZONING DMSION
to:
fax #.
date:
from.
re:
f;r-i!;rl' f
7 -,;( ( - 79
yYJ; K.c 3:~) '''''If'
e rD 7L:./-/n
.
c _';'
/r.-> ",. -h-..>r /,,'_ Lar.e. /' L.-<5 / ,.-
r'-l.r'._~/"".~~ t2_~ ~'- ~ tJ.!?!-
pages:
_ including cover sheet.
Planning and ZonIng DIVIsion
Gty of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach. Ronda 33425
742-6260
Fax: 742-6259
The City of
Boynton Beach
Ciry Clerk s Office
100 E. Bqynton Beach Boulevard
POBox 310
Bqynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
(561) 742-6060
FAX. (561) 742-6090
CER TI FICA TION
I, JANET PRAINITO, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, do
hereby certify that attached Ordinance #094-10, consisting of four (4) pages, plus
Exhibit" A" consisting of two (2) pages, Exhibit "B" consisting of one (1) page and
Exhibit "C" consisting of six (6) pages are true and correct copies as they appear in
the records of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida.
WITNESS, my hand and the corporate seal of the CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
FLORIDA, this 21 st day of July, 1999
Ja et Prainito, Deputy City Clerk
y 21, 1999
(SE A 1.\
,\\\\\mHlIJlJll/!
:\\\ 0 Y III/,
#" ~ e N~ ~
~ 0 .......... O,A a ~
~ ~ ~QRPO... -", ~_
~ ~ 'iS~'a\cc'i~fl8ll~fo\certification janet.doc
:: .... . Yl'P"f~ tf\:::
:: 0 1 ci > ::
= i )0=
~ \1920 :J: j
~ ... ;::
~ ~ ........... ~
~/II OR,O/l>. \\~~
//11/111/111 \\\\\\
'~n Equal Opportunity/AffirmatIVe Action/ADA Employer"
ORDINANCE 094-10
AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING
FOR A DETERMINATION THAT CHANGES TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
APPROVED IN ORDINANCE NO 84-51 AND AMENDED
IN ORDINANCES NOS 86-11, 86-37 AND 88-3, DO
NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION UNDER
CHAPTER 380 06, FLORIDA STATUTES, 1994,
DETERMINING THAT NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT REVIEW IS NECESSARY
REGARDING SUCH CHANGES, APPROVING SUCH
CHANGES, AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER
(ORDINANCES NOS 84-51, 86-11, 86-37 AND 88-
3) FOR PURPOSES OF INCORPORATING THE
APPROVED CHANGES, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS,
SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, Ri teco Development Corporation, a Florida
! corporation ("Riteco") filed with the City of Boynton Beach (the
I "City") an Application for Development Approval of Comprehensive
! Development of Regional Impact (the "ADA") on May 21, 1984,
I regarding that certain property (the "Property") described in
I Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
, WHEREAS; the ADA was approved and the Development Order for
I,
the Property was granted December 18, 1984 and pursuant to
Ordinance No 84-51 (the "Development Order"); and
WHEREAS, Riteco subsequently conveyed its right, title and
interest in and to the Property to Boynton Park of Commerce,
Inc , a Florida corporation ("Boynton Park"), and, Boynton Park,
in turn, subsequently conveyed its right, title and interest in
and to the Property to Quantum Associates, a Florida general
partnership (the "Developer"); and
WHEREAS, Developer filed with the City respective
applications to amend the Development Order, which applications
, were approved by the City in Ordinance No 86-11, Ordinance No
i 86-37, and Ordinance No 88-3; and
il
I'
: i WHEREAS, the term "Development Order" includes all
:i amendments thereto; and
Ii
Ii
I WHEREAS, Quantum Associates, a Florida general partnership
I' ("Developer") is the current owner and developer of the
I remaining vacant land wi thin the project commonly known as
I Quantum Corporate Park at Boynton Beach Development of Regional
Impact (sometimes hereinafter called the "Quantum Park DR!");
and
WHEREAS, Developer has submitted to the City a Notification
I of Proposed Change to a Previously Approved Development of
: Regional Impact requesting a further amendment to the
i Development Order for the purpose of revising the Master Site
Development Plan to reflect the use of a portion of the Property
i previously designated for industrial, research and development
II!,' and roadway purposes for a public high school operated by the
Palm Beach County School Board; and
II
II
ji
I
I
I
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach,
as the governing body having jurisdiction, is authorized and
empowered to consider applications for amendments to development
orders approving developments of regional impact pursuant to
I Chapter 380 06, Florida Statues (1994); and
I
I
i!
I
1
II
!i
Ii
WHEREAS, upon publication and furnishing of due notice, a
public hearing on these proceedings was held the 5th day of
April, 1994, before the City Commission of Boynton Beach; and
WHEREAS, said City Commission has considered the testimony,
reports and other documentary evidence submitted at said public
hearing by Developer, the City staff and the public, and the
city Planning and Development Board's recommendations of the 8th
day of March, 1994; and
WHEREAS, said City Commission has considered all of the
foregoing
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT
Section 1 A notice of public hearing in the
proceedings was duly published on the 21st day of March, 1994,
in The Post, a newspaper of general circulation in Boynton
Beach, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 380 06, Florida Statutes,
and proof of said publication has been duly filed in these
proceedings
Section 2 Developer has requested that the Development
Order be amended as follows
A That the Amended Master Site Development Plan
I ("Amended Master Site Development Plan"), attached hereto as
Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof, which reflects the siting of
a 46 38 acre school site and a reduction of 30 29 acres of
industrial, 12 54 acres of research and development, and 3 55
acres of roadway, as well as the redesignation .of Tract 40 as
, office/governmental and institutional and Tract 41-A as research
and development/governmental and institutional, and which plan
reflects the location of the public high school site in the
southwest portion of the Quantum Park DRI, replace and supersede
the Master Site Development Plan currently approved in the
Ii Development Order
B That Section 4(1) of the Development Order be amended
by adding the following subparagraph (f)"
(f) Quantum Corporate Park Amended Master
Site Development Plan dated March 28, 1994
C That references throughout the Development Order be
revised to conform to the Amended Master Site Development Plan
ii
I
Ii Section 3 Upon consideration of all matters described
! in Section 380 06, Florida Statutes (1994), it is hereby
determined that
A The amendments proposed by Developer do not
unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of
I i the adopted state land development plan applicable to this area
I
!
I
I:
!
"
I'
II
il
I
!
B The amendments proposed by Developer are consistent
with the local comprehensive plan and local land development
regulations
C The amendments proposed by Developer are consistent
with the recommendations of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
" Council on file in these proceedings
D The amendments proposed by Developer do not constitute
2
a substantial deviation under Chapter 380 06, Florida Statutes
(1994)
E The amendments proposed by Developer do not require
further development of regional impact review
F The use of that portion of the Property described in
the Amended Master Site Development Plan as a public high school
site is permitted educational/institutional use allowed under
the current Planned Industrial District zoning classification of
the Property
Section 4 The City Commission has concluded as a
matter of law that these proceedings have been duly conducted
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 380 06, Florida Statutes
(1994), that Developer is entitled to the relief prayed and
applied for, and that the Development Order is hereby amended
incorporating the amendments proposed by Developer as set forth
I in Section 2 above, subject to the following special conditions
with which the Developer agrees to comply
I
'I
(1) Satisfaction of the conditions set forth in the
Development Order
(2) Compliance with Utilities Department Memorandum Nos
94-055 and 94-068, Public Works Department No 94-059
(Comment No 2), Recreation and Parks Department Memorandum
No 94-074, and Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum
No 94-057 (attached hereto as composite Exhibit "c" and
made a part hereof)
(3) Implementation of the emergency access management
plan, dated February 28, 1994, presented by the School
Board to the City at the City Commission meeting on April
5, 1994 (attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and made a part
hereof)
(4) Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection
of Gateway Boulevard and Park Ridge Boulevard,
approximately 500 feet east of the L W D D E-4 Canal
Said traffic signal shall be operational by the opening
date of the proposed school within Quantum Park and the
cost of which shall be shared equally by the Developer,
the Palm Beach County School Board and the City of
Boynton Beach
Ii
II
Section 5 Within one (1) year from the effective date
of this ordinance, the Developer shall submit an application to
further amend the Development Order for the purpose of including
within the Quantum Park DRI Lots 80, 81 and 82 consisting of
approximately fourteen (14) acres and situated in the southeast
quadrant of the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Park Ridge
Boulevard and for the further purpose of addressing additional
I i land use and acreage changes
I
I'
I As part of the next DRI amendment, the Developer agrees to
! f
i: per orm a transportation analysis of the intersection of Gateway
i' Boulevard and High Ridge Road Said analysis shall be based
I
I upon the most recently proposed land uses within the DRI and
shall be acceptable to the City, the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council and the Department of Community Affairs If
the transportation analysis projects a deficient level of
service at said intersection, the Developer shall perform such
mitigation as necessary to bring the intersection operation up
to an acceptable level of service Such mitigation may include
intersection improvements or preferably, additional roadway
access to Gateway Boulevard for the lots in the southeast
Ii portion of the project
I
3
Section 6 Except as otherwise amended herein, the
Development Order shall remain in full force and effect
Section 7 A copy of this Ordinance shall be
transmitted by first class U S Mail, certified return receipt
requested, to the Bureau of Land and Water Management, the
Department of Community Affairs, Quantum Associates (the
owner/developer) and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council
Section 8 This Ordinance and the terms herein set
forth shall not be effective until the recording of a deed in
the Palm Beach County Public Records transferring title to the
proposed high school site, as set forth in the Amended Master
Si te Development Plan, from the Developer to the Palm Beach
County School Board Upon the recording of such deed, this
Ordinance and the amendments to the Development Order described
herein shall automatically take effect and be operative without
further action by the City or any other party In the event a
deed conveying the school site from Developer to the Palm Beach
County School Board is not recorded within six (6) months from
the date of final adoption of this Ordinance, this Ordinance
shall automatically expire and be thereafter null and void for
all purposes
Section 9 That all ordinances or parts of ordinances
in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed
Section 10 Should any section or provision of this
I ordinance or portion hereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be
. declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
such decision shall not affect the remainder of this ordinance
Section 11 This ordinance shall become effective
pursuant to Section 8 above
FIRST READING this ~
day of April, 1994
SECOND, FINAL READING AND PASSAGE this
I April, 1994
,I
I
/~
day of
i
,I
I
FLORIDA
! ATTEST
I
~Cl~~k(h ~.-~ ~~
(Corporate Seal)
Commissioner
Dev Ord
3/28/94.Rev 4/15/94
4
EXHIBIT "A"
OVERALL BOUNDARY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A Tract of land lying partially in Sections 16, 17, 20 and 21,
Township 45 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida,
said Tract being more particularly described as follows
commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 17, thence
North 1044' 39" East, along the West line of Section 17, a
distance of 1318 10 feet to a point in the intersection with the
centerline of N W 22nd Avenue, as recorded in 0 R Book 1738,
Page 1686, of the Public Records of Palm Beach county, Florida,
thence with a bearing of North 89004'32" East, along the
centerline of N W 22nd Avenue, a distance of 778 37 feet to the
Point of Beginning, thence North 1044'39" East, a distance of
1247 06 feet to the South right of way line of L W D D Lateral
21, thence North 89008' 49" East along the South right of way
line L W D D Lateral 21, as recorded in 0 R Book 1732, page
612, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, a
distance of 635 93 feet to the centerline of the L W D D
Equalizing Canal E-4, as recorded in 0 R Book 1732, Page 612,
of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, thence
along the centerline of the above described E-4 Canal with a
curve to the right having a chord bearing of North 10032'52"
East, a radius of 750 00 feet, a central angle of 4004'17", and
an arc length of 53 29 feet, thence continue along the
centerline of the E-4 Canal, with a bearing of North 12035'00"
East, a distance of 320 69 feet to a point of curve, thence with
a curve to the left having a radius of 6500 00, a central angle
of 3028' 30", and an arc length of 394 23 feet, thence North
9006' 30" East, a distance of 1979 16 feet to a point on the
North Line of Section 17, thence with a bearing of North
89016'39" East, along the North line of section 17, a distance
of 1964 50 feet, thence South 0002' 11" East, a distance of
2625 18 feet, thence North 89008'49" East, a distance of 368 96
feet to a point on the North right of way line of N W 22nd
Avenue as recorded in 0 R Book 1738, Page 1686 of the Public
Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, thence South 19027' 31"
East, a distance of 50 00 feet to the centerline of N W 22nd
Avenue, thence with a curve to the right having a chord bearing
of North 75029'49" East, a radius of 1637 02 feet, a central
[angle of 905J'58", and an arc length of 282 85 feet to a point,
thence north 12002'41" East, a distance of 915 72 feet, thence
~orth 0031'11" East, a distance of 39970 feet, thence North
89012'37" East, a distance of 413 21 feet, then South 88022'56"
East, a distance of 1349 70 feet to a point on the West right of
way line of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad, thence South
0028'21" East, along the West right of way line of the Railroad,
a distance of 1309 09 feet to a point on the centerline of N W
22nd Avenue, thence North 88027'31" West, along the centerline
of N W 22nd Avenue a distance of 672 97 feet, thence South
0033'53" East, a distance of 1306 69 feet, thence South
88045'31" East, a distance of 333 51 feet to a point on the West
right of way of the Seaboard coastline Railroad, thence with a
bearing of South 14008'23" West, along the West right of way of
the railroad, a distance of 1312 49 feet, thence South 0033'53"
East, a distance of 26 69 feet, thence South 13015'22" West, a
distance of 920 57 feet, thence North 88050'04" west, a distance
of 187 60 feet, thence with a bearing North 0049'21" West, a
distance of 200 00 feet, thence North 88050'04" West, a distance
of 218 00 feet, thence South 0049'21" East, a distance of 200 00
feet, thence North 88050' 04" West, a distance of 40 00 feet,
thence South 0049'21" East, a distance of 556 84 feet, thence
North 88050'04" West, a distance of 3617 26 feet to a point on
the centerline of the above described centerline of the E-4
Canal, thence with a bearing of North 5018'14" West, a distance
of 153 13 feet, thence with a curve to the right having a radius
of 450 00 feet, a central angle of 15036'44", and an arc length
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Continued)
of 122 62 feet, thence North 10018' 30" East, a distance of
988 60 feet to a point of curve, thence with a curve to the left
having a radius of 450 00 feet, a central angle of 18020'00",
and an arc length of 143 99 feet, thence with a bearing of North
8001' 30" West, a distance of 1255 14 feet to a point on the
centerline ot N W 22nd Avenue, thence with a bearing of South
89004'32" West, along the centerline of N W 22nd Avenue a
distance of 817 85 feet more or less to the Point of Beginning
Containing 591 55 acres more or less and subject to easements
and rights of way of record
I ~
[I
\
I
j
I
I
I
I
!
:1
1\
I
!
I
I
I
Ii
I'
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
,I
1:
II
II
'\
EXHIBIT B
..
f~
==t.III~ ~M(t;ll' .
~
;
;
i
II~
'.11:
\~~-~
MASTER PlAN AMENDMENT NO. 4 (Rl"VlSEO)
,.,....,.--' )
"_1'-'
.....- --...-. ..--.......-..- -
~
'" I. .'
, .1
~ .\
n ;..
MARCH 28. 1994
,~
MASTER SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4
KEY PLAN LEGEND
~.', ,.,. .....
'f" ......
Lr-,'"
..,.... .....
II
...." I....
/ J a....t.,
.... ..... .....
I I
.'rU", .....
fI
....... .....
.t. "......... ~
'-'
CU>
~
0IIce
0IIIce/Qtd
-
_.~-
~
-..-.....-
CIIlon _
....
~
-
Scr<l__
-
3..OC;J
26.....
2t.Jae
129.4 ac
3.9ac
125.2...
.......
Uoc
"'.9ac
lClll.2...
MSP-l
f=::1
~-
r--._-
1.-
....
'I I UO' 2UU
.....
.....
-
,-
I
-.
TO'....
..... -'-WI' ","fICA ..... -...c. ro_
..,.,. '. ........ ~.l .,. '..... COIiIf'____'..
<<1.0...
37.6ac
-""
aa. _..
Quantum Associates
~9"'lf
4,S,$;ac
U.1QC
6.0'"
QUANTUM
j 8 i
~ : .
0. . .b !
u.I i Z
t-
en Ii
u ...
..
~ ~ I
...
= ri CJ
,. . 100'-0" II
@'o1l)TIPl ...
lJOIlUO
FXHIBIT C
---::---
~_.
\ I
I
\ \
\
\
\
\ I (.)=~ '::"\.~c~ - ~\
. I + \
\ '\'1 \\Lo: BAiSEBALL
\' \ 1 \ __J /
I ~I ____-:--;'_C"
~ --L~---:::-------
1\- - - -~. - --
\\J
I
I
r----- ---
I
I
II
\ I
II
\ \
,
, I
II
II
1\
, I
II
I'
II
II
I I-~' -
I
I
,
===-===--
r t----- -
\ \
, \ \
"~ \-- -
I ~SOIfTBALL
\' \ \ \
}\ ~.\, 0 ~.J ~=
I ,~_.<="!"- j-":'- -,
,"
t I~-rl
I f~' --
r r;r. --==--r
:; ] -- I . II
j t~ofT8~LLPLAY ,
!! I I FIELD
I 1 J
11"t ; / JI
!,f- __L.---,--- ---
-- -FIRE------
--L-ANE-
,"-
'0
r,
I
I
I
I:
:/
'I
I.
11
I
1
,
I
I
I
I I
L...J
--
I
'r- fl I, .!
I" ;" i II /
! I I ~I ~-~ !
I II 1.'/
: - OJ,
I r /:
BASi<.ETBAll.
/ ,/ il,/ t/ I
I ~ f :
I i r iJJ -1 i \
" J" nil
Ii U::J ilLjj J \
I i;-::::-:'~ \
/LID J ,;Ji \ ..
, : -;.--:..1 I \ \I. V.
mOUET..JALL \':r WER
~' :--1-.:.1 FIRE
L L.~E
A/~~--~-i
,
"
I.'
(. i ~'t1
\ I I
\ ----~-~~~
FIRE .
'LANEi
I I !!
i
I ii" II! ii'
I I ~ I . !
, '
'-', I I "'I' i I i I
", ", I _ ; I I ,i! J
'\. "I t ~ I I ,I I r I. i
, '( 1.\ i, I: I \. I · II !
, .! ! i r I I: I ~: I ./
' ,I 'I, I; I II II
'~ II,
.... . ..... r : I I Il
','" .i'U'. 't
- -J__ _
PLAY
FIELD
. F -- - "7"'--
f
,
-"----
@ SITE PLAN
01-1
II
e
I
c
i
i
I
=
i
I
cC
I: >- e
:=u....a:
:ozo
:)-'
~ ..J fi! 0 u.
~oa CJ %
gOlD ::c CJ
iXsCJcC
o.O~ ~ ~
~CI)()CD
w en -
z:Z:w:E:=i
CJ~-'C
_!-co.
%: 0.
~
s.
C,,),
FANNING/HOWEY ASSOCIATES of FLORIDA, Inc.
ARCHITECTS/PlANNERSIINTERIORS
1400 CENTREPARK BOULEVARD, SUITE 700, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 H:nrl Dili.~
TELEPHONE NO. 407/697-3660 FAX NO. 407/684-4516
TRANSMITTAL FORM
To: Tambri Heyden
Ci ty of Boynton Beach
Date: 10-1 0-94
Project No.. 93059 00
Project:
High School III
From: Mark Gustetter, AIA
Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc
Page 01 of 01
NO OF COPIES
02
DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS
Preliminary :cesign :cevelopnent Dxuments (Revised per last
TRC Review)
THE SCHOOL BOARD
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA
PLANNING CONSTRUCTION & REAL ESTATE
3320 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD SUITE C-331
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406-5813
DR. C. MONICA UHLHORN
SUPERINTENDENT
OF SCHOOlS
-,,~~~/
~~
(407) 434-8020 FAX (407) 434-8187
September 16, 1994
Mr Chris Mora
Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering Dept.
100 Australian Avenue
West Palm Beach, Fl 33401
Re: Request for Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Park Road
Dear Mr Mora.
At the last joint meeting between the Board of County Commissioners and the School Board, Oilt::
of the items that was specifically discussed was the issue of school related traffic. After detailed
discussions on this topic, the County Commissioners stressed a new willingness to respond to
requests for traffic signals at school sites. This new spirit of cooperation will benefit our public
responsibili ties.
This is a request by the School Board of Palm Beach County for the construction of a traffic signal
at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Park Ridge Boulevard (see enclosed map) This
request is based on the construction of a new high school at the south end of Park Ridge
Boulevard.
The School Board request that the traffic signal be installed and ready for operation on the first
day of school.
Recognizing that the Countywide traffic signal construction demand is very high and at times
requires a length of time to accomplish, the School Board urges the construction of this signal
prior to the school opening date.
This process would allow the county to schedule the light on a regular time schedule instead of the
rush order state. Another advantage of advanced scheduling would be for the motorist to become
informed of the pending operational traffic signal.
Your cooperation to this matter is greatly appreciated.
ill
SEP 2. , ~
m ~,
AAH.jj
Enclosure
c:
Lawrence Zabik
Michael Murgio
Carrie Parker
Vince Finizio
Charlie Walker
Bill Hukill
Tambri Heyden
H:\data\ wpSl \doc\sps.uti
0'>
~
-------
-----
~8~anrung/Howey
AssOcIates, mc.
Architects Engineers Consultants
lie. #M COO1552
Name
SIgn-In Sheet ~~ (3 (cfQ4-
~ / \ /"l_ u..
I e&t VIIi CAJ t:2e V\ ~ L...tJ loot ..... 1 rr~<-
1')y2e-fi~ .z ~. _i~lLvJ
Affiliation/Department Telephone Number
-;;O}/".,J VVI...... ,b}jr- Z
f(ev/y] /fa II ct hli'1
/1/ $?-),jt:' / cJ
-:J;tpvtrs GriM /.v4 S
-tIll, '{tAler tL
L,~ IlAFIlo.;J.,J
I \
--,;;N~ ~y~
,cl/iJct... 6 IrMA'
Uff G + r~~~
p.~c (- ?~lle..
? 7 L - / . '1 !
;J..; I..?U-\J--~
-F Mb(L-
"3 7J--~JJ-?
.."?75-6'Y 72.
37S- (,1&.$
';77,-~2f I
,&,~~ -'Jr~
H/'ce &PI
r u ~-' I v 1...1 0..... k.1
11 ~- (.,2.00
~""'\l""\ G 'it "?' ......kJ, foJ~
~ Y"r7--
.~..,5.- ~:z" 0
57> - bd60
- rIce
6S'9-oS54
",8'"1.-05:;4-
5"TGJE 1IJ6i$S
/' V TI /-l G (5 j1f r !--/~JAS i
t.Lyck SXJ/:7 /f;~~
W1/L/JY /)e~t
31S-/P~o7
1400 Centre park Bouievard
""II1II
SUite 700
""II1II
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
""II1II
(407) 697 3660
.:III.. 07- 2-b-q1
~[JlfanrungIHowey
U ~LJ~ AsSOcIates, mc.
Architects Engineers Consultants
we. #M C001552
Sign-In Sheet
Name
Affiliation/Department
Telephone Number
A<M.J<. ~uS~""fb.A.
~,J/;eJ6 /f-Jo~
I
~, B ~ \3 ,J1L\ltll G-- O"-fT.
C;'$lc l.J&~ $5 R055/ .f l'f/rtAJ~1 :P~
.x:1/~r ~ZJe/?Jo;IV Zs:>/;/' /$tl.AV.45/
'"- s: .tnt::i/~~s/ 1oss/ f ftd~~'i
CL de ~KJf' Clr= wC,; tlr;'t,C;
697- .5 '-bO
.:s7S- - b~ bO
73>')"--02-7 L
373 &;:;0/
~o
c..
~~~( ~l ~~~Zr;epr:
14.n,,,,:'- frf'&~4- '1"7'0
UQ-C1S:5'4
6 ~9 - c S\j~5f-
en - 0 ~5'f-
t 37.5- ~~o7
0/- -12-
4-3>+ - E!Jo IS-
"'r~/6-bZbD
1400 Centre park Boulevard
SUite 700 "'IIIll
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 "'IIIll (407) 6973660
"'IIIll
THE SCHOOL BOARli
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA
PLANNING CONSTRUCTION & REAL ESTATE
3320 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD SUITE C-331
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406-5813
DR. C. MONICA UHLHORN
SUPERINTENDENT
OF SCHOOlS
(407) 434-8020 FAX (407) 434-8187
September 19, 1994
Mark Gusteter
Fanning/Howey AlA
1400 Centre Park Boulevard
Suite 700
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Re: High School Site III - Site Survey Boundary and Topographic Drawings
Dear Mr Gusteter.
Pursuant to our comments at the Boynton Beach TRC meeting on the topic of site surveys.
Enclosed please find a five (5) page set of drawings on this topic.
Our engineering consultants will use these survey drawings when meeting with SFWMD and
other engineering related agencies.
The Planning and Real Estate Department will also provide copies of these drawings to the
City of Boynton Beach for their files.
AAH.lm
Attachment
c:
Lawrence G Zabik
Gary Shea
Santiago Malavasi
Ray Manning
Bill Hukill
Vince Finizi< \ I~ '-
TambrlHayd ~~
H :\data\ wpSl \doc\hs\site. iii
rz1ie City o.:F
".Boynt:on ~eac.1i
@.._.,~
, . '.' .
, , ,
". ..' '. 'I
.rOD 'l!:. ':BOJP&_n ':B..-:/i. ':Bo;uU...-.rd"
!r.0 "BD~.f~O
':IJoyn_n ':8~ ~ "'.f4::S-O.f~O
CI*Y:J'{aJZ: ,407> :117."6-6000
7Ji1f..X: ("407) 3 7~
FAC$IM~LE T~~aM~SSION
FAX NO
4dU~+1~ H~.fPA-'7a-nde~
G-ov.e.Je ^" Y'Y"IPArlT l '-12- i <: I'rl'I..... ~ a>n y-d ~
,y'07.-~3 ~ - 'ir/g7
J""'\ I k p_ ~l"?r.lI '!
q - ;;;z..3 ._ '? q
._~\~~.. $c-1nn>o \___ -=:=;I~ -rrr=,.
C-rt? e.. e~ I ~ efl:? \ 'V\ -J r~PF r+ Vltl D.N'.-::;t '.J ~cL-
~fF<-....e l"'~~V.vle.~-L-<:;: ~r~e.d -T-n II'J~;....."")
TO
"B'ROM
DAT!!:
RE:
NUMe~R OF PAGES XNCLUDXNU THXS COVER aHEET
.3
c :rA.llO:.Tft.ANlES ~1'b
.::Jf.."ne;'I""U;q. s g~eU-'ClY to tii.e q....ifs".....Q.17J.
TRANSMISSION REPORT
THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE)
WAS SENT
** COUNT **
# 3
*** SEND ***
~~EMOT~_ ~,ATION
LL_.__~!:7 434
I 0 ---r--- 3T~RT TIME
8'8~3-84 e 5iAM
;
DURATION ~AGES
1 50 1-_ 3
o G 50 3
~
I
COMMENT
TJTAL
XEROX TELECOPIER 7020
q"Fie City of,
"B nt:.on 2J
@.'.."-.";
, . .....
\.' ,
. "Boyn_ ~ '.BpuU-.a;
!lI'. 0. '.Zh>>I{.~ ~ D
-:I!Ioyn-.-.. -:I!I.......n,. ~~ ~~42S.0.!l~O
C#y ~ (4D7) .117$-6000
:FAX: ('4D~ 37S.6il')'pO
FAC$IMIL2 TRANSMISSION
TO
___.M Ovr "l<-. G-I..LS +p -H-P P
_L a. Vll Y\ \ YLQ. / H 011.J (?4 4~i:3 C:..
"",,-1 "
ijt) 7 - .h R-q - ::/-5""/1_
)=>1.,., V"' "'"' , ... ~ ~ n D r-f .. ,~ '; -4 a..{~ R~ 'jY"l~ ')5.eo..~ ~
Q - f ~ - 9'-/ .
. I
\..\- \ ~ '^ ~ r .k. t'.D D I .._--rn-::....".
FAX NO
EROM.
DA'rB
RE.
NUH.E<ER OF PAGES LNCLUDING THIS CavER. SHEET ~
r;:.. FAXT1:~S :I!%'"b
..A!.......,n.:o=$ t;;Tale-.:vay to "lie quLf:st....~CJUH
TRANSMISSION REPORT
THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE)
WAS SENT
** COUNT **
# 2
*** SEND ***
S-. RE'MOTc_ STA':ION I 0
l 1 i ~l'7 664 4516
START
'IME ~ION I.':"AGES I
1 07PM~__2._28 J .~==.J
I OT.A.L 0 01 28 2
COMMENT
9-16-94
XEROX TELECOPIER 702U
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO
Robert Eichorst, Public works Director
Al Newbold, Depl:ty Build...ng Official
William Cavanaugh, Fire Prevention Officer
Sgt Jim Cummings, Police Department
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent
Yevin Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist
Clyde "Skip" Milor, "Jtilities Chief Field Insp
Office of the City Engineer
Vincent FinlJ!~ Deputy City Engineer
Micha~ oning & Site Development Administrator
sePtember~ 1994
FROM
DATE
RE
Technical Review Committee Meeting
Tuesday, September 13, 1994
Please be advised that the Technical Review Committee will meet on
Tuesday, September :3, 1994, at 9 00 A M in Conference Room "c" (West
Wing) to discuss the following
I LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDERS (other than site plans)
Direct written comments and plans to the Planning and Zoning
Director by 5 00 P M September 16, 1994, (three (3) working
days following the TRC meeting) unless otherwise noted
below
A MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION
1
PROJECT
Boynton Nurseries PUD
LOCATION
Lawrence Road and LWDD, L-21 canal
DESCRIPTION
Second review of amended master plan
showing a revision to the number of
units from 400 to 376, change in type of
units from 162 single-family units on
6,000 square foot lots and 238 multi-
family units to 233 "z" lot units on
4,000 square foot lots and 143 zero lot
line units on 5,000 square foot lots, an
increase in traffic impact, (traffic
statement attached), change in road
widths and public/private ownership of
same, altered layout and size of
preserve area and revised master
drainage, utilities and landscape plans
B CONDITIONAL USE
1
PROJECT
Yachtman's Cove
LOCATION
1406 N Federal Highway
DESCRIPTION
Existing bUilding and site previously
used for retail sales of boats
Proposed to reinstate the retail sale of
boats conditional use
Note 1st review comments due September
9, 1994 See Memorandum #94-274
page 2
Technical Review Committee Meeting
september 2, 1994
II REVIEW OF TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
AND PLANS RECEIVED
A None
III OTHER
A
1
PROJECT
New Boynton High School
LOCATION
Gateway and Parkridge Boulevard
DESCPIPTION
Courtesy review of new prototype high
school located in Quantum Park of
Commerce Note, plans are to show
compliance with previous staff comment
Note Direct written comments and plans
to the Planning and Zoning Director
Bring same to the September 13, 1994 TRC
meeting
cc MEMO ONLY
Carrie Parker, City Manager
City Commission (5)
Don Jaeger, Building Official
Floyd Jordan, Fire Chief
charles Frederick, Recreation & Parks Director
Thomas Dettman, Police Chief
John Guidry, utilities Director
Pete Mazzella, Assistant to utilities Director
Steve Campbell, Fire Department
Bob Gibson, Public Works
Central File
Gary Lanker, Lanker Engineering Service
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
Dorothy Moore, Zoning and Site Plan Reviewer
Mike Rumpf, Senior Planner
Project (each) File
Chronolog~cal File
TRC File (Original)
Bulletin
J\. -~=;"~Nt'
~Z1i.e City if
-.:Boyn ton 'Beeu;..1i
~DO 2;;. ~"'!fft""'I& ~ !1!1~
"'P.O. '.S<>>c~ 20
'Boyn~<>8 ~Ii. :rt:cri4.2. .!1.';4Z5-0-'U 0
ct~ 9fAiT.. <407.J .!1"~
_'F.PlX: (__n-.) :~75-t1i09€1
@..C\J.
- .
J'U.~1. Y ~ 5
~994
Mr Agu~~~n A H.~~nandez
l..,-;'c,,,e1. I"")Il').;,?!:l"lt Lia.:Lfiton Coor-d:1_.~ato:L.-
The Be hoo~ Be.,ard of P"~1l\ a......eh Cou.nty
P2a~n1ng conatruct~on and Rea1 Eatate
Wast Pa~m ~...a~h FL 33406-5813
RS Comments for the H1qh schoo1 s~t. ~IT
oea:L- Mr
Hernandez
p~&a~~ f~nd attaCllQa ~~~~_nts of the Department R_pr_8entat~VQa
to tria Techn~c4~ R~v1.~ comm~ttee for the H~9h echoo1 s~te XII
-=---yr€"/~~
~~
~l;)r:l J H_yd_.r:t
F1a~r1.Ln9 aad Zon1fiq D~recto1
T3H ......,
.J'1lwutri.e.o.. (iau.-u.tdg "0 "lie qu.f.:Fs,.nuz._
TRANSMISSION
REPORT
J
THIS DOCUMENT
WAS SENT
<REDUCED
SAMPLE
ABOVE)
** COUNT
# 11
**
'l'*'" 3EN~ ***
i~:::~R~~!~-;~-.~-r:;TIO~ -~-D-I STI-Pf TIME i
,-.---+--.---..---.--- -t------------ I
i " 407 434 8187 i 7-21-84 4 12P~;\ i
L__________ i .___. I
TOTAL
I -.
,
DURATION I #PAGES 1- COMMENT -~
6 32 --1 1 i I I
I
u 06 32 11
XEROX TELECOPIER 702
%e City of
'Boynton 'Beach
100 'E. 'Boynton 'BeadJ. 'BouUvara
P.O 'Bo~310
'Boynton 'Beadi, ~Coritfa 33425-0310
City:Jfafl. (407) 375-6000
~JU. (407) 375-6090
.Iu I y 15, F' CJ 4
Mr Agustin A Hernandez
Government Liaison C00rdinator
The School Board of Palm Beach County
PIs.l1lling CCl1structl.ol1 aLa Real Estate
~est Palm Beach, FL :3406-5813
RE CClmments for the Hlgh School Site III
Deal Hr Hernandez
Please find attached commerts of the Department Representatives
tc tlle TFclllllcal Revie,) '~ommittee for th..... "High Schucl 3it~ III"
~~~ Heyden
Flicring and Zoning Director
TJH/jj
9tmerica s (jateway to tlie (julfstream
PLANNl.G AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ME, JRANDUM
FRot1
prbert Eichorst, Public War} rirector
Al Newbold, Deputy Building Official
illiam Cavana~gh, Fire Prevention Officer
Sgt Jim Cummings, Police Department
John Wildner, Par) s Superintencent
Yevin Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist
Clyde "Skir" I' l:.'r, utilities Chief Field Insp
Of~~f ",1e it] ~
Mich3.e.1 Haag, Zoning & Site Development J\dministrator
TO
DATE
July 13, 1994
RE
Technical Review Committee Meeting
Tuesday, July 26, 1994
Please be advised that the Technical Feview Committee will meet on
Tuesd3.Y, J~lll 26, 1994., at 9 00 A JvI in Conference Room "e" (west
Wing) to di3cuss the following
I LAND DEVELOPME1~T ORDERS (other than site pI ans)
llone
!I REVIEW OF ~ECHNICAL REVIEh :~MMITTEE SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENT~
EE=~IVI..Q.
None
III eTHER
r
..
1
PPOJECT
New Boynton High School
LO:'J>.T!C'-l
Gateway and Parkridge Boulevard
DESCRIPTION
Courtesy review of new prototype high
~chnol l~cated in Quantum Par~ of
Commerce Note, plans are to show
corrpliancp with previous staff comment
[~,.., MEMO ONLY
Carrie Parker, city Manager
city :ommission (5)
Dr~n Jaeger, Building Official
Floyd Jcrdan, Fire chief
Charles Frederic]-, Pecreation [( Parl"s Director
Thomas Dettman, Police chief
J ~n Guidry, utilit~eE Director
?ete Mazzella, Assistant to utilities Director
Ete"'? :ampbell, Fire Department
pob Gibson, Public Works
Ce~1tr__l File
Gary Lanker, Lanker Engineering Service
T3.rn~ri Hejden, Flanning & Zoning Director
Dorothy Moore, Zoning and site Plan Reviewer
] [i}"e F'umpf, Senior Planner
Project File
.:::l1rol101 Jgical File
TRC File (Original)
,1\ TRC]\:;IJD 7:: 6
FANNING/HOWEY ASSOCIATES of FLORIDA, Inc.
ARCHITECTSIPLANNERS/lNTERIORS
1400 CENTREPARK BOULEVARD, SUITE 700, WEST PALM BEACH, FlORIDA 33401
TELEPHONE NO. 407/697-3660 FAX NO. 407/684-4516
TRANSMITTAL FORM
To: Tarnbri Heyden Date: 07-08-94
Ci ty of Boynton Beach
Project No.. 93059 00
Project High School III
From: MarkR Gustetter, AlA
Page 01 of
NO. OF COPIES
DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS
10
Preliminary Architectural and Civil Engineering Site Plans
for City of Boynton Beach utilities Department Review
Ch. 235
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
F.S. 1993
to aid in formulating plans for housing the educational
program and student population, faculty administrators,
staff and auxiliary and ancillary services of the district
or campus. Before educational plant survey of a school
district or community college that delivers vocational or
adult education programs, the Division of Vocational
Adult, and Community Education shall establish and
transmit to the Office of Educational Facilities documen-
tation of the need for additional vocational and adult
education programs and the continuation of existing pro-
grams before facility construction or renovation related
to vocational or adult education may be included in the
education plant survey Information used by the Division
of Vocational Adult, and Community Education to estab-
lish facility needs must include but need not be limited
to labor market data, needs analysis and information
submitted by the school district or community college
Each survey shall be conducted by the Department of
Education or an agency approved by the commissioner
Surveys conducted by agencies other than the Depart
ment of Education shall be reviewed and approved by
the commissioner The survey report shall include at
least an inventory of existing educational and ancillary
plants; recommendations for existing educational and
ancillary plants; recommendations for new educational
or ancillary plants, including the general location of each;
the utilization of school plants based on an extended
school day or year-round operation, and such other
information as may be required by the rules of the State
Board of Education. An official copy of each survey
report shall be filed by the board with the office This
report may be amended, if conditions warrant, at the
request of the board or commissioner Relocatables
shall be included in the school district inventory of facili-
ties, but shall only be rated at one-half of actual student
capacity for purposes of the inventory and future needs
determination.
Hlalory.-s. 915. ch. 19355. 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 892(297); s. 111 ch.65-239;
ss. 15.35. ch. 69-106; s. 1 ch. 69-300; s. 2. ch. 71-272; s. 8. ch. 77-458; s. 9. ch.
80-414. ss. 16,50,52. ch. 81-223; s. 1 ch. 84-349. ss. 9. 26, 27 ch. 65-116; ss. 1
4. ch 86-1 s. 8. ch. 90-241 s.47 ch.92-136.
'Nole.-Repealed eHective July 1 1995. by s. 27 ch. 65-116, and scheduled for
review by the Le9islature pursuant thereto. Repealed eHective July 1 1995. by s.
4. ch 86-1 and scheduled for rev",w by the Legislature before that date.
'235.155 Exception to recommendations in educa.
tional plant survey -An exception to the recommenda-
tions in the educational plant survey may be allowed if
a board, including the Board of Regents, deems that it
will be advantageous to the welfare of the educational
system or that it will make possible a substantial saving
of funds. A board requesting such an exception shall
present a full statement, in writing, setting forth all the
facts in the case to the State Board of Education through
the Commissioner of Education, who shall make a rec
ommendation on the request. The state board shall
determine whether any exception to the recommenda-
tions of the educational plant survey shall be approved.
Hlalory.-s. 9, ch. 77-458; s. 9. ch. 80-414; ss. 50. 52. ch. 81-223; s. 1 ch.
84-349; ss. 26. 27 ch 65-116; ss. 1 4. ch. 86-1
'Nole.-Repealed eHectlve July 1 1995, by s. 27 ch. 65-116. and scheduled for
review by the Legislature pursuant thereto. Repealed effective July 1 1995, by 5.
4. ch 86-1 and scheduled for review by the Le9islature before that date.
'235.16 Educational plant construction plans based
on survey -Each board including the Board of
Regents, shall adopt and submit to the office a pro-
posed long-range plan for educational plants and auxil-
iary and ancillary facilities. This plan shall, insofar as
practicable, be based upon the findings and recommen-
dations of the current survey report and shall be submit
ted in the form prescribed by the State Board of Educa-
tion. The plan may be amended by resolutions adopted
by the board provided copies of the resolutions with
supporting evidence are submitted to the office. The
office shall study the proposed plan, or amendments
thereto, of each board and shall submit it, together with
its findings and recommendations, to the commissioner
for possible inclusion in the legislative capital outlay
budget request as required in s. 235.41
Hiatory.-s. 916, ch. 19355. 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 892(298); s. 112, ch. 65-239;
ss. 15,35. ch. 69-106: s. 1 ch. 69-300; s. 8, ch. 77-458: s. 9, ch. 80-414: ss. 17
50.52. ch. 81-223: s. 1 ch. 84-349: ss. 26, 27 ch. 65-116: ss. 1 4. ch. 86-1
'Nole.-Repealed effective July 1 1995. by s. 27 ch. 85-116, and scheduled for
review by the Legislature pursuant thereto. Repealed effective July 1 1995, by s.
4. ch. 86-1 and scheduled for review by the Legislature before that date.
1235.18 Annual capital outlay budget.-Each board
including the Board of Regents, shall, each year adopt
a capital outlay budget for the ensuing year in order that
the capital outlay needs of the board for the entire year
may be well understood and, insofar as possible, provi-
sions be made for same. This capital outlay budget shall
be a part of the annual budget and shall be based upon
and be in harmony with, the educational plant and ancil-
lary facilities plan. This budget shall designate the pro-
posed capital outlay expenditures by project for the year
from all fund sources. No funds shall be expended on
any such need not included in the budget, as amended
Hiatory.-s. 918, ch. 19355. 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 892(300): s. 67 ch. 29764.
1955: s. 113, ch. 65-239: ss. 15.35. ch. 69--106: s. 1 ch. 69-300: s. 109, ch. 72-221
s. 10, ch. 77-458: s. 9. ch. 80-414; ss. 18.50,52, ch. 81-223: s. 1 ch. 84-349; ss.
26.27 ch. 65-116: ss. 1 4, ch. 86-1
'Nole.-Repealed eHeclive July 1 1995. by s. 27 ch. 65-116. and scheduled for
review by the LegIslature pursuant thereto. Repealed eHeclive July 1 1995. by s.
4, ch. 86-1 and scheduled for review by the Legislature before that date.
'235.19 Site planning and selection.-
(1) Before acquiring property for sites, each board,
including the Board of Regents, shall determine the
location of proposed educational centers or campuses
for the board. In making this determination, the board
shall consider existing and anticipated site needs and
the most economical and practicable locations of sites.
The boa coordinate with the Ion ran e or com-
prehensive plans 0 ocal, reQional, and state qovern-
mental agencies to assure the compatibility of such
_plans with site planning
(2) I he planning and selection of a new site or
improvements to an existing site shall include
(a) An investigation of the present and projected
uses of property adjacent to the proposed site to
assure that such uses are not incompatible with the
operation of the proposed educational facility.
(b) An investigation of present and projected vehicu-
lar traffic and road capabilities in the vicinity of each pro-
posed site to assure the adequacy of safetv and traffic
control devices for the protection of students: and
(C) :Such other studies as may be required by the
board.
In preparing recommendations regarding proposed
sites, the board may secure the services of the Depart
ment of Education or such other assistance as may be
found desirable to aid in making a proper selection.
1938
F.S.1993
F.S. 1993
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
Ch.235
and auxil-
Insofar as
~commen-
Je submit-
of Educa-
s adopted
ltions with
Jffice The
lendments
lether with
nmissioner
lital outlay
(3) Each new site selected shall be adequate in size
to meet the educational needs of the students to be
served The State Board of Education shall prescribe by
rule standard sizes for new sites according to categories
of students to be housed and other appropriate factors
as may be determined by the state board
(4) Sites recommended for purchase or purchased.
in accordance with the provisions of chapter 230 or
chapter 240 shall meet standards prescribed therein
and such supplementary standards as may be pre-
scribed by the state board to promote the educational
interests of the students. Each site shall be well drained
and reasonably free from mud, and the soil shall be
adaptable to landscaping and suitable for outdoor edu-
cational purposes. As provided in s. 333.03, the site shall
not be located within any path of flight approach of any
airport. Insofar as is practicable, the site shall not adjoin
a right-of-way of any railroad or through hI hwa and
a no e a Jacen 0 a r 0 er property
from which noise, odors. or other disturbances or at
which conditions. would be likely to interfere with the
educational program.
(5) It shall be the responsibility of the board to
secure the cooperation of appropriate municipal, county
regional, and state governmental agencies. in order that
all necessary traffic control and safety devices are
Installed and operatino upon, or directly adjacent to. the
site or any proposed site prior to the first day of classes
or to satisfy itself that every reasonable effort has been
made in sufficient time to secure the installation and
operation of such necessary devices prior to the first day
of classes. It shall also be the responsibility of the board
to review annually traffic control and safety device
needs and to secure all necessary changes indicated by
such review
(6) When a school board discovers or is aware of an
existing hazard on or near a publiC sidewalk, street. or
highway directly adjacent to a school site and the haz
ard endangers the life or threatens the health or safety
of students who walk or are transported regularly
between their homes and the school in which they are
enrolled. the school board shall, within 24 hours after
discovering or becoming aware of the hazard excluding
Saturdays. Sundays and legal holidays, report such
hazard to the governmental entity within the jurisdiction
of which the hazard is located. Within 5 days after receiv-
ing notification by the school board, excluding Satur
days, Sundays, and legal holidays the governmental
entity shall investigate the hazardous condition and
either correct it or provide such precautions as are prac
ticable to safeguard students until the hazard can be
permanently corrected However if the governmental
entity which has jurisdiction determines upon investiga-
tion that it is impracticable to correct the hazard or if the
entity determines that the reported condition does not
endanger the life or threaten the health or safety of stu-
dents, the entity shall, within 5 days after notification by
the school board excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays, inform the board in writing of its reasons
for not correcting the condition. After the 5-day period
has elapsed the governmental entity shall indemnify the
school board from any liability with respect to injuries.
if any arising out of the hazardous condition.
112. ch. 65-239;
80-414; ss. 17
4. ch. 86-1
,d scheduled for
'y 1 1995. by s.
at date.
ach board
tear adopt
1 order that
entire year
,ible provi-
udget shall
ased upon,
t and ancil-
ite the pro-
for the year
pended on
) amended.
s. 67 ch. 29764.
109, ch. 72-221.
ch. 84-349; ss.
nd scheduled tor
Jly 1 1995. by s.
'at date.
lach board
ermine the
campuses
the board
needs and
los of sites.
1ge or com-
ate govern-
iity of such
lew site or
de
j projected
oed site to
>Ie with the
ty.
:ted vehicu-
of each pro-
y and traffic
Its; and
Jired by the
l proposed
the Depart
1 as may be
;election.
Hlstory.-s. 919. ch. 19355. 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 892(301); s. 68. ch. 29764.
1955: ss. 15.35. ch. 69-106: s. 1 ch. 69-300; s. 4. ch. 73-338: s. 10. ch. 77-458;
s. 102. ch. 79-400: s. 2. ch. 80-279; s. 9. ch. 80-414; ss. 19.50,52. ch. 81-223: s.
1 ch. 84-349: ss. 26, 27 ch. 85-116; ss. 1.4. ch. 86-1 s.11 ch.93-164.
'Nole.-Repealed effective July 1 1995. by s. 27 ch. 85-116. and scheduled tor
review by the Legislature pursuant thereto. Repealed effective July 1 1995. by s.
4, ch. 86-1. and scheduled tor review by the Legislature before that date.
1235.193 Coordination of planning with local gov-
erning bodies.-
(1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state
to require the coordination of planning between the
school boards and local governing bodies to ensure that
plans for the construction and opening of public educa-
tional facilities are coordinated in time and place with
plans for residential development, concurrently with
other necessary services. Such planning shall include
the consideration of allowing students to attend the
school located nearest their homes when a new housing
development is constructed near a county boundary
and it is more feasible to transport the students a short
distance to an existing facility in an adjacent county than
to construct a new facility or transport students longer
distances in their county of residence. Such planning
shall also consider the effects of the location of public
education facilities, including the feasibility of keeping
central city facilities viable. in order to encourage central
city redevelopment and the efficient use of infrastruc
ture and to discourage uncontrolled urban sprawl.
(2) A school board, upon the request of a local gov-
erning body within its district. shall submit in writing to
the local governing body an official statement clearly
showing the capability or lack thereof of the existing
public school facilities in an area being considered for
development, redevelopment, or additional develop-
ment to absorb additional students without overcrowd-
ing such facilities.
(3) If there are no pUblic school facilities in existence
in the area of proposed development, the school board
is required to provide the local governing body with the
projected delivery date of such facilities in that area.
(4) The general location of public educational facili-
ties shall also be consistent with the capital improve-
ments plan found in the comprehensive plan of the
appropriate local governing body developed pursuant to
s. 163.3177(3) and in accordance with s. 163.3194(1).
(5) The School Board shall file with the local govern-
ing body which regulates land use a notice of intent 90
days prior to bidding the award of an educational facility
The notice of intent shall not be required for temporary
relocatable educational facilities. The notice of intent
must include a description of the proposed educational
facility proposed location or locations, capacity of the
facility and anticipated completion date Anv local oov-~
ern in ulates land use ma ,solei at its
option, waive all or part 0 t e -day notice period.
(6) Each local aoverninQ bony which reaulates the
use of land shall determine in writino within 00 ti.qys.. *
after receivin the nece ents, whether the
ro ose and the off
site im acts, are consistent with the local com rehen-
sive Ian and . . If the
determination is affirmative school construction may
proceed and no further local government approvals shall
be required Failure of the local governing body to make
1939
Ch.235
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
F.S. 1993
a determination within 90 days on consistency shall be
considered an approval of the school board s applica-
tion.
(7) A local governing body may not deny the site
applicant based on adequacy of the site plan as it
relates solely to the needs of the school The local gov-
ernment may consider the site plan and its adequacy as
..J--- _it relates to environmental concerns, health safety and
~ wenare otfslle ImpacI, and ettects on adjaCent prop-
~
(8) If the determination is negative the local govern-
ing body will advise the school board of the deficiencies
and make recommendations to address its concerns.
The local school board may within 90 days, resubmit
revised documents. The local governing body will have
90 days after receiving the revised documents from the
school board to make a determination as to whether the
proposed educational facility and site plan and the off-
site impacts, are consistent with the local comprehen-
sive plan and local land development regulations.
(9) Nothin herein shall rohibit a local governing
bod and IS nct school board from a reeln an es a -
lishin an alterna Ive rocess for reviewin a ropose
e uca lonal acilit and site lan, and offsite im
. . s c , s. 9, ch. 4 ss . , . ch. 81-223; s. 1 ch.
84-349. s. 25. ch. 85-55. ss. 10,26,27 ch. 85-116; ss. 1 4, ch. 86-1 s 7 ch.90-365;
s. 42. ch 93-206.
'Note.-Repealed effective July 1 1995. by s. 27 ch. 85-116, and scheduled for
review by the Legislature pursuant thereto. Repealed effective July 1 1995. by s.
4, ch. 86-1 and scheduled for review by the Legislature before that date.
1235.195 Cooperative development and use of facil-
ities by two or more boards.-
(1) Two or more boards, including district school
boards community college boards of trustees, the
Board of Trustees for the Florida School for the Deaf and
the Blind and the Board of Regents, desiring to cooper
atively establish a common educational facility to
accommodate students shall
(a) Jointly request a formal assessment by the com-
missioner State Board of Community Colleges, or Board
of Regents, as appropriate of the academic program
need and the need to build new joint-use facilities to
house approved programs. Completion of the assess-
ment and approval of the project by the Board of
Regents, the State Board of Community Colleges, or the
Commissioner of Education, as appropriate should be
done prior to conducting an educational facilities survey
(b) Demonstrate the need for construction of new
joint-use facilities involving postsecondary institutions
by those institutions presenting evidence of the pres-
ence of sufficient actual full-time equivalent enrollments
in the locale in leased, rented, or borrowed spaces to
justify the requested facility for the programs identified
in the formal assessment rather than using projected or
anticipated future full-time equivalent enrollments as
justification If the decision is made to construct new
facilities to meet this demonstrated need then building
plans should consider full-time equivalent enrollment
growth facilitated by this new construction and subse-
quent new program offerings made possible by the
existence of the new facilities.
(c) Adopt and submit to the commissioner a joint
resolution of the participating boards indicating their
commitment to the utilization of the requested facility
and designating the locale of the proposed facility The
joint resolution shall contain a statement of determina-
tion by the participating boards that alternate options.
including the use of leased, rented or borrowed space
were considered and found less appropriate than con-
struction of the proposed facility The joint resolution
shall contain assurance that the development of the pro-
posed facility has been examined in conjunction with the
programs offered by neighboring public educational
facilities offering instruction at the same level. The joint
resolution also shall contain assurance that each partici-
pating board shall provide for continuity of educational
progression. All joint resolutions shall be submitted to
the commissioner by August 1 for consideration of fund-
ing by the subsequent Legislature.
(d) Submit requests for funding of joint-use facilities
projects involving state universities and community col-
leges for approval by the Board of Regents or the State
Board of Community Colleges as appropriate The
respective boards shall determine the priority for fund-
ing these projects in relation to the priority of all other
capital outlay projects under their consideration To be
eligible for funding from the Public Education Capital
Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund under the provi-
sions of this section projects involving both state univer
sities and community colleges shall appear on the Board
of Regents and the State Board of Community Colleges
3-year capital outlay priority list required by s
235.435(4). Projects involving a state university commu-
nity college, and a public school, and in which the larger
share of the proposed facility is for the use of the state
university or the community college shall appear on the
Board of Regents and State Board of Community Col-
leges 3-year capital outlay priority list.
(e) Include in their joint resolution for the joint-use
facilities, comprehensive plans for the operation and
management of the facility upon completion Institu-
tional responsibilities for specific functions shall be iden-
tified, including designation of one participating board
as sole owner of the facility Operational funding
arrangements shall be clearly defined
(f) Request the commissioner to have an educa-
tional plant survey conducted by the office to determine
the need.
(2) The commissioner shall cause the requested
educational plant survey to be conducted within 90 days
after receiving the joint resolution and substantiating
data and shall evaluate the findings of the survey in
terms of the benefits to be obtained, the programs to be
offered, and the estimated cost of the proposed plant.
Upon completion of the educational plant survey the
participating boards may include the recommended
projects in their plan as provided in s. 235_16. Upon
approval of the project by the commissioner he shall
include up to 25 percent of the total cost of the project
in the legislative capital outlay budget request as pro-
vided in s. 23541 for educational plants. The participat
ing boards must include in their joint resolution a com-
mitment to finance the remaining funds necessary to
complete the planning construction and equipping of
the facility Funds from the Public Education Capital Out
lay and Debt Service Trust Fund may not be expended
1940
F.S. 1993
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
Ch.235
of such measures. Such contract may include repair or
replacement of existing equipment in a school, state
community college or state university plant, profes-
sional fees, and financing charges to be paid from the
energy savings less agreed-upon inflation factors, and
maintenance services where applicable
(d) 'Oualified provider" means a person or business
licensed pursuant to chapter 471 chapter 481 or chap-
ter 489 and experienced in the design implementation,
and installation of energy conservation measures
through the implementation of guaranteed energy sav-
ings contracts.
(2) ENERGY EFFICIENCY CONTRACT -A school
district, state community college or state university may
enter into a guaranteed energy savings contract with a
qualified provider to significantly reduce energy or oper
ating costs through the implementation of one or more
energy conservation measures. The qualified provider
shall be selected in compliance with s. 287.055 except
that in a case where a school district, state community
college or state university determines that fewer than
three firms are qualified to perform the required ser
vices the requirement for agency selection of three
firms, as provided in s. 287 055(4)(b) shall not apply or
the bid requirements of s 287.057 Before entering into
a contract pursuant to this section, the district school
board state community college or state university shall
provide published notice of the meeting in which it pro-
poses to award the contract, the names of the parties
to the proposed contract, and the contract's purpose
Before installation of equipment, modification, or remod-
eling, the qualified provider shall first issue a report sum-
marizing estimates of all costs of installation, modifica-
tion, or remodeling including costs of design engineer
ing installation, maintenance repairs, or debt service,
and estimates of the amounts by which energy or oper
ating costs will be reduced
(3) CONTRACT PROVISIONS -
(a) A guaranteed energy savings contract shall
include a written energy guarantee that savings will
meet or exceed the cost of energy conservation mea-
sures.
(b) The contract shall provide that all payments,
except obligations on termination of the contract before
its expiration are to be made over time, but not to
exceed 10 years from the date of complete installation
and school board state community college, or state uni-
versity acceptance, and the savings are guaranteed to
the extent necessary to make payments for the sys-
tems.
(c) A qualified provider to whom the contract is
awarded shall provide a 100-percent project value bond
to the school district, state community college, or state
university for its faithful performance, as required by
chapter 287
(4) SCHOOL DISTRICT ACTlON.-A school district,
state community college or state university may enter
into a guaranteed energy savings contract with a quali-
fied provider if after review of the report, it finds that the
amount it would spend on the energy conservation mea-
sures recommended in the report is not likely to exceed
the amount to be saved in energy and operation costs
over 10 years from the date of installation if the recom-
mendations in the report were followed and if the quali-
fied provider provides a written guarantee that the
energy or operating cost savings will meet or exceed the
costs of the system. The guaranteed energy savings
contract may provide for payments over a period of lime
not to exceed 10 years.
(5) INSTALLATION CONTRACT -A school district,
state community college or state university may enter
into an installment payment contract for the purchase
and installation of energy conservation measures. The
contract shall provide for payments of not less than one-
tenth of the price to be paid within 2 years from the date
of the complete installation and school board, state com-
munity college or state university acceptance and the
remaining costs to be paid at least quarterly not to
exceed a 10-year term.
(6) CONTRACT CONTINUANCE -Guaranteed
energy savings contracts may extend beyond the fiscal
year in which they become effective however the term
of any contract shall expire at the end of each fiscal year
and may be automatically renewed annually up to 10
years subject to a school board state community col-
lege or state university making sufficient annual appro-
priations based upon continued realized energy sav-
ings. Such contracts shall stipulate that the agreement
does not constitute a debt, liability or obligation of the
state or a school board state community college or
state university or a pledge of the faith and credit of the
state or a school board, state community college or
state university
History.-s. 2. ch. 92-123: s 1 ch.92-306.
'235.222 Repayment of loans.-
(1) Any board that has received funds under former
s. 235.221 shall officially waive 80 percent of any future
annual allocation as determined by the legislature
beginning with fiscal year 1982-1983
(2) Any university that has received funds under the
provisions of s. 7(1 )(c), chapter 80-414 laws of Florida,
shall pay back such funds to the Capital Improvement
Fee Trust Fund within 30 years at the same interest rate
as obtained in the most recent sale of Public Education
Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund bonds.
Each loan shall be amortized by approximately equal
periodic payments of combined principal and interest
over the life of the loan. Such payments shall be made
not less frequently than annually and not more fre-
quently than semiannually
History.-ss 26.52. ch. 81-223; s. 103. ch. 83-217. s 1 ch. 84-349: ss. 26. 27
ch. 85-116; ss. 1 4. ch. 86-1
'Note.-Repealed effective July 1 1995. by s. 27 ch. 85-116. and scheduled for
review by the Legislature pursuant thereto. Repealed effective July 1 1995. by s.
4. ch. 86-1. and scheduled to< review by the Legislature before that date.
'235.26 State Uniform Building Code for Public Edu-
cational Facilities Construction.- The State Board of
Education shall adopt a uniform statewide building code
for planning and construction of public educational and
ancillary plants except for Board of Regents facilities.
The code shall be entitled the State Uniform Building
Code for Public Educational Facilities Construction
Included in this code shall be flood plain management
criteria in compliance with the rules and regulations in
44 C.F.R. parts 59 and 50, established by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency effective October 1
1945
Ch. 235
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
F.S. 199~
1986 Wherever the words .Uniform Building Code
appear they shall mean the .State Uniform Building
Code for Public Educational Facilities Construction. It
shall not be the intent of the Uniform Building Code to
inhibit the use of new materials or innovative techniques,
nor shall it specify or prohibit materials by brand names.
The code shall be flexible enough to cover all phases of
construction which will afford reasonable protection for
pUblic safety health, and general welfare The office
may secure the service of other state agencies or such
other assistance as it may find desirable in the revision
of the code
(1) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE.-AII public educa-
tional and ancillary plants constructed by a board
except the Board of Regents, shall conform to the State
Uniform Building Code for Public Educational Facilities
Construction, and such plants are exempt from all other
state county district, municipal or local building codes,
interpretations, building permits, and assessments of
fees for building permits, ordinances, and impact fees
or service availability fees. Any inspection by local or
state government shall be based on the Uniform Build-
ing Code as prescribed by rule. Each board shall provide
for periodic inspection of the proposed educational plant
during each phase of construction to determine compli-
ance with the Uniform Building Code.
(2) CONFORMITY TO UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
STANDARDS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL.-A board
shall not approve any plans for the construction renova-
tion remodeling, or demolition of any educational or
ancillary plants unless these plans conform to the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code It shall also
be the responsibility of the office to develop as a part
of the Uniform Building Code, standards relating to:
(a) Prefabricated or factory-built facilities which are
designed to be portable relocatable demountable or
reconstructible are used primarily as classrooms; and
do not fall under the provisions of ss. 320.822-320.866.
(b) The sanitation of educational and ancillary plants
and the health of occupants of educational and ancillary
plants.
(c) The safety of occupants of educational and ancil-
lary plants as provided in s. 235.06.
(d) The physically handicapped
(e) Accessibility for children notwithstanding the
provisions of ss. 2553.48 and 3553.49
(f) An energy performance index which shall be a
number describing the energy requirements at the build-
ing boundary of a facility per square foot of floor space,
under defined internal and external ambient conditions
over an annual cycle As experience develops on the
energy performance achieved by the facility the energy
performance index will serve as a measure of building
performance with respect to energy consumption and
as a guide for the revision of the energy performance
index used in the design of future facilities. The energy
performance index will consider the energy efficiency of
the facility so as to minimize the consumption of energy
used in the operation and maintenance of the faCility
The office may adopt standards for the energy perform-
ance index or portions thereof already established by
the Department of Management Services under ss
255.251-255.256.
F.S. 1993
(g) The performance of life-cycle cost analyses on
alternative architectural and engineering designs to
evaluate their energy efficiencies.
1 The life-cycle cost analysis shall be the sum ot-
a. The reasonably expected fuel costs over the life
of the building that are required to maintain illumination
water heating temperature humidity ventilation, and all
other energy-consuming equipment in a facility. and
b The reasonable costs of probable maintenance
including labor and materials, and operation of the build-
ing.
2. For computation of the life-cycle costs, the office
shall develop standards that shall include but not be
limited to:
a. The orientation and integration of the facility with
respect to its physical site
b The amount and type of glass employed in the
facility and the directions of exposure
c. The effect of insulation incorporated into the facil-
ity design and the effect on solar utilization of the proper
ties of external surfaces.
d The variable occupancy and operating condi-
tions of the facility and subportions of the facility
e An energy consumption analysis of the major
equipment of the facility's heating, ventilating, and cool-
ing system; lighting system; and hot water system and
all other major energy-consuming equipment and sys-
tems as appropriate
3. Such standards shall be based on the best cur
rently available methods of analysis, including such
methods as those of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and other federal agencies and profes-
sional societies and materials developed by the Depart
ment of Management Services and the office. Provisions
shall be made for an annual updating of standards as
required
(3) ENFORCEMENT BY BOARD -It is the responsi-
bility of each board to ensure that all plans and educa-
tional and ancillary plants meet the standards of the Uni-
form Building Code and to provide for the enforcement
of this code in the areas of its jurisdiction. Each board
shall provide for the proper supervision and inspection
of the work. Each board is authorized to employ a chief
building official or inspector and such other inspectors.
certified by the office, and personnel as may be neces-
sary to administer and enforce the provisions of this
code. Boards may also utilize local building department
inspectors who are certified by the office to enforce this
code Plans or facilities that fail to meet the standards
of the Uniform Building Code shall not be approved
(4) ENFORCEMENT BY OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL
FACILITIES -As a further means of ensuring that all
educational and ancillary facilities hereafter constructed
or materially altered or added to conform to the Uniform
Building Code standards, each board which undertakes
the construction, renovation, remodeling, purchasing
lease-purchase or leasing of any educational plant or
anCillary facility the cost of which exceeds $200,000
shall submit plans to the office and receive the approval
of the office Plans for all relocatables and all plans
involving modification of fire exiting shall be submitted
to the office for review and approval regardless of the
amount 0
ects pun
approval
expendec
purchasir
tional or a
tion are ot
issued fro
itation as
been grar
4(5) OF
(a) Be1
tion, a bee.
dent to SL
board rule'
1 EdL
2. PhE
ings and p
3. Pha
a. Prel
b Prel
c Ene
d Life-
4 Pha:
struction d(
The board r
any propOSI
phase III doc
The office s
recommend
and ancillar}
submitted b'
cial receipt
office If the I
the prescribl
ing of bids a:
State Board
adopt rules
required for
type design
trict plans, ar
tions or con~
require detai
the office. A
effective for
approval. A t
within the s~
jurisdiction It.
construction
with the Unif(
fire safety he
requirements
in effect at t'
awarded.
(b) In revi
take into con:
1 The nE
2. The e(
3. The ar
4 The Jo,
5 Plans 1
6. The ty,
1946
F.S. 1993
EDUCATIONAL FACiliTIES
Ch. 235
amount of construction cost. Plans for maintenance proj-
ects pursuant to s 235.011 (11) do not require office
approval No public educational funds may legally be
expended for the construction, renovation, remodeling
purchasing lease-purchase, or leasing of any educa-
tional or ancillary plant unless the provisions of this sec
tion are observed and until a written statement has been
issued from the office within the time limits and cost lim-
itation as provided in this section, that approval has
been granted.
4(5) OFFICE APPROVAL.-
(a) Before a contract has been let for the construc
tion, a board shall require the superintendent or presi-
dent to submit to the office in accordance with state
board rules, two copies each of-
1 Educational and ancillary plant specifications.
2. Phase I documents, to include schematic draw-
ings and proposals.
3. Phase II documents, to include
a. Preliminary drawings and proposals;
b Preliminary specifications;
c Energy efficiency studies; and
d Life-cycle cost analysis.
4 Phase III documents, to include completed con-
struction documents.
The board may not proceed with the opening of bids for
any proposed construction until the written approval of
phase III documents has been received from the office.
The office shall in writing, approve, disapprove make
recommendations, or otherwise act on the educational
and ancillary plant specifications and phase documents
submitted by a board within 30 calendar days of the offi-
cial receipt of each set of phase documents by the
office If the board does not receive written notice within
the prescribed time then it may proceed with the open-
ing of bids as if written approval had been received. The
State Board of Education is empowered and directed to
adopt rules providing for exceptions to the steps
required for approval for state board-approved proto-
type design criteria, reuse of previously approved dis-
trict plans, and other plans and proposed minor renova-
tions or construction projects which do not necessarily
require detailed documentation and intense review by
the office. Approval of phase III documents shall be
effective for a 1-year period after the date of such
approval A board may reuse the plans on another site
within the same district or community college board
jurisdiction within 2 years after approval provided the
construction documents have been updated to comply
with the Uniform Building Code and any laws relating to
firesafety health and sanitation, casualty safety and
requirements for the physically handicapped which are
in effect at the time a construction contract is to be
awarded.
(b) In reviewing plans for approval, the office shall
take into consideration:
1 The need for the new facility
2. The educational and ancillary plant planning.
3. The architectural and engineering planning.
4 The location on the site.
5 Plans for future expansion.
6. The type of construction.
7 Sanitary provisions.
8. Conformity to Uniform Building Code standards.
9 The structural design and strength of materials
proposed to be used
10 The mechanical design of any heating air-
conditioning, plumbing or ventilating system. Typical
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems preap-
proved by the office for specific applications may be
used in the design of educational facilities.
11 The electrical design of educational plants Typi-
callighting configurations preapproved by the office for
specific applications may be used in the design of edu-
cational facilities.
12. The energy efficiency and conservation of the
design.
13. Life-cycle cost considerations
14 The design to accommodate physically handi-
capped persons.
15. The ratio of net to gross square footage
16 The proposed construction cost per gross
square foot.
(c) The board shall not occupy a facility until the
project has been inspected by the office to verify compli-
ance with statutes, rules, and codes affecting the health
and safety of the occupants.
(6) STATE BOARD OF APPEALS -The State Board
of Education shall be the final board of appeals for all
questions, disputes, or interpretations involving the Uni-
form Building Code and any board shall prepare in writ
ing its reasons for objecting to decisions made by the
inspectors or the office.
(7) BIENNIAL REVIEW AND UPDATE, DISSEMINA-
TION.- The office is authorized to biennially review
update, and revise the Uniform Building Code The office
shall publish and make available to each board at no
cost copies of the code and each amendment and revi-
sion thereto The office shall make additional copies
available to all interested persons at a price sufficient to
recover costs.
(8) FALLOUT SHELTERS-
(a) After the effective date of this act, a board may
require the architect concerned in the initial design,
stages of design and construction of new educational
facilities to apply for technical advice and counsel on
fallout shelter slanting and cost-reduction techniques
available without cost through the Department of Com-
munity Affairs.
(b) When the board concerned determines the appli-
cation of fallout shelter slanting and cost-reduction
techniques to be feasible and economical for the inclu-
sion of a fallout shelter in the proposed educational facil-
ity the design and construction of such educational
facility may include fallout protection which meets the
minimum standards for such protection as prescribed
by the Department of Community Affairs.
(c) Educational authorities of the state and its politi-
cal subdivisions are authorized to modify existing edu-
cational structures to incorporate fallout shelters, and
the Department of Community Affairs shall make avail-
able to such authorities the same professional services
as set forth in paragraph (a). Such authorities are further
authorized to participate in such federal assistance pro-
1947
, - . . , - -. ,. e -." ,~ . -" -'.,.
,- \
Ch.235
EDUCATIONAL FACiliTIES
F.S. 1993
F.S. 19S
grams as may be available to assist local authorities in
providing fallout protection in educational facilities_
(9) LEGAL EFFECT OF CODE.- The State Uniform
Building Code for Public Educational Facilities Construc
tion shall have the force and effect of law and shall
supersede any other code adopted by a board or any
other building code or ordinance for the construction of
educational and ancillary plants whether at the local,
county or state level and whether adopted by rule or
legislative enactment. All special acts or general laws of
local application are hereby repealed to the extent that
they conflict with this section.
(10) EDUCATION FACILITIES AS SHELTERS -The
Department of Education shall in consultation with
school boards and county and state emergency man-
agement offices assess the State Uniform Building
Code for Public Educational Facilities Construction to
determine amendments necessary to incorporate public
shelter design criteria into the Uniform Building Code.
The new criteria must be designed to ensure that new
educational facilities can serve as public shelters for
emergency management purposes The department
shall submit the proposed criteria and an estimate of the
costs associated with implementing the proposed
criteria to the Governor and the Legislature by January
1 1994 The State Board of Education shall amend the
State Uniform Building Code for Public Educational
Facilities Construction to include the proposed public-
shelter criteria by July 1 1994 A facility for which a
design contract is entered into subsequent to July 1
1994 must be built in compliance with the amended
code unless the facility or a part thereof is exempted
from using the new shelter criteria due to its location,
size or other characteristics by the applicable district
school board or community college district board of
trustees with the concurrence of the applicable local
emergency management agency or the Department of
Community Affairs.
(11) LOCAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITED -After
June 30 1985, pursuant to s 11 (a)(21) Art. III of the
State Constitution, there shall not be enacted any spe-
cial act or general law of local application which pro-
poses to amend alter or contravene any provisions of
the State Building Code adopted under the authority of
this section.
HiStory.-s. 926, ch. 19355. 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 892(312); s. 12. ch. 29754,
1955. s 10, ch. 59-371 s. 117 ch. 65-239; s. 1 ch. 67-106; ss. 15, 18, 19,35, ch.
69-106; s 1 ch. 69-300; s. 1 ch. 70-196; s. 6. ch. 70-399; s. 9, ch. 74-374; s. 1,
ch. 77-280: s 15, ch. 77-458; s. 1 ch. 78-290; s. 1 ch. 79-71. s. 103, ch. 79-400;
s. 9. ch 80-414; ss. 27 50,52. ch. 81-223; ss. 10. 14, ch. 82-240; s. 1 ch.83-163;
s 3. ch. 83-224; s. 1 ch. 84-349; ss. 16,26,27 ch. 85-116; ss. 1 4, ch. 86-1 s.
1 ch 88-202; s. 5. ch. 89-226; s. 15. ch 89-278; s. 13, ch. 90-172; s. 11 ch.90-241;
s 55. ch 90-288; s 2. ch. 90-320; s. 169. ch. 92-279; s. 55, ch. 92-326; s. 6, ch.
93-211
'Note.-Repealed effective July 1 1995, by s. 27 ch. 85-116, and scheduled for
review by the Legislature pursuant thereto. Repealed effective July 1 1995, by s.
4. ch. 86-1 and scheduled tor review by the Legislature belore lhat date.
'Note.-Repealed by s. 4, ch. 93-183.
3Note.- Transferred to s. 553.512 by s. 2, ch. 93-183.
4Note.-Section 5. ch. 89-226. purported to amend subsection (5), but did not set
out In 'ullthe amended section to include paragraphs (b) and (c). Because the omis-
sion appeared to be inadvertent rather than intentional, the full text of the section
was published pending further action of the Legislature. Paragraph (b) was amended
by s. 11 ch. 90-241
1235.30 Supervision and inspection.-Before the
construction remodeling renovation demolition or
addition to any building is started the board shall pro-
vide for the proper supervision and necessary inspec
tion of the work. Supervisory requirements for threshold
buildings shall be provided as prescribed in s. 553 79(5)
History.-s. 930. ch 19355. 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 892(316); s. 1 69-300; s 16.
ch. 77-458; s. 9. ch. 80-414, ss. 50, 52. ch. 81-223; s. 1 ch. 84-349; ss 17 26 27
ch. 85-116, ss. 1 4, ch. 86-1
'Note.-Repeaied effective July 1 1995, by s. 27 ch 85-116. and scheduled tor
review by the Legislature pursuant thereto. Repealed effective July 1 1995. by s
4. ch 86-1 and scheduled tor review by the Legislature before that date
the boar
ties whe
contain
be done
which tl1
method
contract
for any f;
The con
ance anI
with stan
percent I
is paid c
U.SC s.
by contr;
will be p~
lar constr
the Secn
Bacon AI
cor porath
tional pl~
unapproli
in accorc
rules of tt
standard:
of bond <
cient to r
need to t
to assure
guilty of ~
able as p
separate
Hislory.-s.
s 13. ch. 297E
11 ch.74-374
ss. 50. 52, ch.
ss. 1 4. ch. 8€
'Note.-Rep
review by the
4. ch. 86-1. an
'Note.- ThiS
1235.31 Advertising and awarding contracts; day-
labor projects; prequalification of contractor -
(1)(a) As soon as practicable after any bond issue
has been voted upon and authorized or funds have been
made available for the construction, remodeling, renova.
tion, demolition, or otherwise for the improvement, of
any educational or ancillary plant, and after plans for the
work have been approved by the office the board after
advertising the same in the manner prescribed by law
or rule shall award the contract for such building or
improvements to the lowest responsible bidder How-
ever if after taking all deductive alternates, the bid of the
lowest responsible bidder exceeds the construction
budget established at the phase III submittal and no
additional funds are available the board may declare an
emergency After setting forth the reasons why an emer
gency exists, the board may negotiate the construction
contract or modify the contract, including the specifica-
tions, with the lowest responsible bidder The Depart
ment of Education shall develop rules which define the
criteria for declaring such emergencies and for resub-
mission of the construction documents to determine
compliance with the Uniform Building Code The board
may within its discretion, reject all bids received if it
deems the same expedient, and may readvertise calling
for new bids. For constructing renovating or remodel-
ing, or otherwise improving educational facilities at a
cost not exceeding $200,000 the board may arrange for
the work to be done on a day-labor basis. For renovat
ing or remodeling only at a cost of over $200,000 if no
bids are received after advertising the same in the man-
ner prescribed by law the work may be done on a day-
labor basis.
(b) As an option, any county municipality commu-
nity college, or district school board may set aside up
to 10 percent of the total amount of funds allocated for
the purpose of entering into construction capital project
contracts with minority business enterprises, as defined
in s. 287.094 Such contracts shall be competitively bid
only among minority business enterprises, Such set-
aside shall be used to redress present effects of past
discriminatory practices and shall be subject to periodic
reassessment to account for changing needs and cir
cumstances.
(2) Boards may elect to come under the rules pre-
scribed by the State Board of Education for the prequali-
fication of bidders of educational facilities construction
History.-s.931 ch. 19355, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 892(317); ss. 1 2, ch. 57-396.
ss 1 2, ch. 63-5QO; s. 119, ch. 65-239; ss. 15.35, ch. 69-106; s. 1 ch. 69-300: s
10, ch. 74-374; s. 14, ch. 75-292; s. 16, ch. 77-458; s. 104, ch. 79-400; s. 9. ch
80-414; ss. 26. 50. 52. ch. 81-223; ss. 11 14, ch. 82-240; s. 104, ch. 83-217 s 106
ch. 84-336; s. 1 ch. 84-349; ss. 18,26,27 ch. 85-116; ss. 1 4, ch. 86-1 s. 6. c~
89-226; s. 16. ch. 89-278; s. 3. ch 89-381
'Note.-Repealed effective Juiy 1 1995. by 5.27 ch. 85-116, and scheduled for
review by the Legislature pursuant thereto Repealed effective July 1 1995. by s
4. ch. 86-1 and scheduled for review by the Legislature before that date.
1235.32'
after awa
(1) Aft
changes I
from cond
the award
or decrea!
posal to (
data estat
labor mat
accomplis
gin to rep
Cost data
fied archil
such pro!=
posal to c
porting co
architect (
also certif\
sonable al
work cont
ding
1235.32 Substance of contract; contractors to give
bond; penahies.-Upon accepting a satisfactory bid
1948
~8~anrung/Howey
AssOcIates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
Lie. #AA COO1552
L. /{J
~~~
p!rl $" h~
{~~
OWNERlARCmTECf MEETING
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
West Palm Beach, Florida
Date:
February 24, 1994
Re.
New Prototype High School III
The School Board of Palm Beach County
West Palm Beach, Florida
Project No. 93059.00
To:
Ervin Keel, Design Review Specialist
The following is a report of our meeting on the above date. If you find anything
with which you disagree, please let us know
Present:
Ervin Keel, The School Board of Palm Beach County
Augustin Hernandez, The School Board of Palm Beach County
Tambri Hayden, City of Boynton Beach Planning and Zoning Department
William Gulbrandsen, City of Boynton Beach Fire Department
William Cavanaugh, City of Boynton Beach Fire Department
William De Beck, City of Boynton Beach Public Works Department
Mike Kirrman, City of Boynton Beach Police Department
Mark Gustetter, FanningIHowey Associates, Inc.
Purpose.
Review of New High School III Site Requirements
1. This meeting was convened at 2:20 p.m. this date at the City of Boynton Beach Planning
and Zoning Department to review and discuss the current Schematic Design site plan being
proposed for the new High School III, to be constructed by The School Board of Palm
Beach County (PBCSB).
2. Representatives from the various City Departments had been requested by Mr Hernandez
to attend this meeting in order to review the new direction of the PBCSB in developing the
proposed Quantum Corporate Park site, and to offer their individual comments relative to
their respective department's suggestions and requirements.
3. Prior to the meeting commencing, Mr Hernandez confirmed that the project site was still
zoned as a Planned Industrial Development (PID) and was still inside the incorporated City
of Boynton Beach limits, using a Zoning Map located in the Zoning Department.
4 Mr Hernandez had brought with him, as illustrative guides, both a previous overall-
development site plan, prepared by the developer of Quantum Corporate Park, and a more
current site plan design, specifically for the High School III site, prepared by
FanningIHowey Associates, Inc.
1400 Centrepark Boulevard
~
Suite 700
~
West Pahn Beach, Florida 33401
~
(407) 697 3660
a/A Meeting (2124194)
New Prototype High School III
The School Board of Palm Beach County
Project No. 93059.00
Page 2
5 Prior to the arrival of the other meeting participants, Fire Marshal Cavanaugh opened the
meeting by stating that one of his major concerns was emergency vehicle (fire truck and
ambulance) access to all points of the project site and building. Other concerns outlined by
Fire Marshal Cavanaugh included security of the site and buildings, and monetary funding
for the project.
6. Upon review of the two site plans available, Fire Marshal Cavanaugh stated that, without
knowing too much about what was to be discussed here today, he preferred the layout and
massing of the Prototype GGG and FFF High School depicted on the developer's site plan,
as opposed to the more compact configuration of the III High School.
7 Mr Hernandez stated that the older Prototype GGG and FFF High School, depicted on
the developer's site plan, was no longer being used by the PBCSB, and that its depiction
on the developer's site plan had only been done in order to demonstrate that a
2,500-student high school was feasible on the site being proposed. Mr Hernandez added
that the high school footprint depicted on the site plan prepared by the Architects,
represented the new prototype being adopted by the PBCSB, which was to be first
constructed as Prototype High School HHH in The Village of Royal Palm Beach (VRPB),
and then as High Schools III and EEE in Boynton Beach.
8. Fire Marshal Cavanaugh explained that the issue found to be of the most concern to the
various members responsible for reviewing this project, was the elimination of part of the
loop road (Park Ridge Boulevard) serving the south half of the Quantum Corporate Park
development.
9 Fire Marshal Cavanaugh explained the two-location Fire Station service that was currently
used to provide coverage to the Boynton Beach area. The Quantum Corporate Park
development could be served by either the new fire station recently constructed on Miner
Road and Congress Avenue, or by the older station in Downtown Boynton Beach. Fire
Marshal Cavanaugh explained that, depending upon the location of the emergency situation
within the development, the emergency response could be dispatched from either, or both
stations. However, eliminating part of the loop road would "play havoc" on the Fire
Department's ability to respond in the fastest and most efficient manner, according to Fire
Marshal Cavanaugh.
10. Fire Marshal Cavanaugh also noted that the Publix facility, located immediately northeast
of the High School project site, was scheduled to expand within three years, and their
already large volume of vehicular and truck traffic was only going to grow Fire Marshal
Cavanaugh noted that limiting the Publix's travel to only an eastbound direction could cause
major traffic problems, not only for Publix, but for the ability of the Fire Department to
respond to an emergency situation occurring at the Publix, Safety Kleen or other industrial
complexes in the immediate vicinity of the new High School.
mIJ!f1anrungIHowey
U "'LJ~ AsSOCIates, mc.
Architects EngineelS Consultants
O/A Meeting (2124194)
New Prototype High School III
The School Board of Palm Beach County
Project No. 93059.00
Page 3
11. With the exception of Ms. Hayden, the other participants of the meeting arrived at
2:30 p.m., Ms Hayden arrived at approximately 2:40 p.m.
12. After a brief review of the two site plans, Mr Gulbrandsen stated that the developer of
Quantum Corporate Park was in the process of changing the development's conceptual plan
direction, in order to attract more development activity
13. Mr GulbranGsen stated that he had been the Training Officer for the Fire Department at
the time the original developer's site plan had been prepared and presented to the City for
review Mr Gulbrandsen stated that he had not seen the "new" site plan for the High
School until just recently, and had been quite surprised by the marked differences between
the two designs depicted.
14 Mr Gulbrandsen stated that he was particularly concerned over the removal of a section
of the development's loop road and the accompanying loss of dual-access service to the
Safety Kleen complex in the event of an emergency situation.
15 Mr Gulbrandsen stated that the Publix facility was a 12-acre under-roof complex that
served as the corporation's vehicle maintenance depot for the southern region.
Mr Gulbrandsen stated that, while the 20,000 to 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored at the
Publix facility might be a considerable volume of hazardous material to be located so close
to a public high school, and the 60,000 gallons of hazardous waste material temporarily
stored and handled at the Safety Kleen complex, east of the High School project site, was
an even larger volume of hazardous material, the relatively static locations of the stored
material were not what concerned him most. Mr Gulbrandsen stated that what he was most
concerned over was the "potential threat" of a "hazardous chemical spill" occurring enroute
to or from either of these facilities that would choke off the only available access route if
part of the loop road were eliminated.
16. Mr Gulbrandsen inquired of Mr Hernandez as to why the PBCSB changed the design of
the High School site, specifically, why did the "old" developer's design depict a different
school footprint and the loop road remaining intact, and the "new" design depict a new
school footprint and the loop road as being partially removed?
17 Mr Hernandez explained the following conditions relative to the two site plan designs:
a. The "old" site plan had been prepared by the developer as a means to "sell" the
development. The old PBCSB FFF and GGG Prototype in use at that time
(November 1993) was the only High School footprint to which the developer had
access for illustration purposes.
rlSleJlfanrungIHowey
U "lIILJ~ AsSOCIates, mc.
Architects Engineers Consultants
O/A Meeting (2n.4/94)
New Prototype High School III
The School Board of Palm Beach County
Project No. 93059.00
Page 4
b. The "new" site plan had been prepared by FanningIHowey Associates, Inc. for the
PBCSB, and depicted the new, compact design of the proposed High School
Prototype HHH, as designed by Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. for The Village of
Royal Palm Beach (VRPB), and for reuse on this site as High School III. The new
Prototype would house the same number of students as the old (2,500), however,
it required much less land area to do so.
c. The~'old" site plan depicted the loop road as being undisturbed, because the
developer was not aware of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC), Chapter 6A-2,
Section 2.039 (3) requirement stating that students shall not cross vehicular drives
in order to access school facilities.
d. The "new" site plan depicted the loop road as being broken, and a portion of it
removed. This was done to meet the requirements of FAC, Chapter 6A-2, Section
2.039, and in order to obtain Department of Education (DOE) approval for the
project.
18. Mr Hernandez explained that, although part of the asphalt surface of the roadway would
be removed, the existing utilities located beneath the roadway, and the utility easements
connected with them, would remain intact and undisturbed. In addition, Mr Hernandez
explained that the area of roadway surface removed could be replaced by a stabilized
subsurface that was sodded over, and which would still provide a suitable driving surface
for emergency vehicular access, without violating FAC, Chapter 6A-2 requirements.
19 Fire Marshal Cavanaugh stated that such stabilized surfaces were acceptable for smaller
emergency vehicles such as police cars and small ambulances, however, larger emergency
vehicles, such as fire trucks and the newer, larger truck based ambulances usually became
stuck; the larger hook-and-ladder fire trucks would definitely not be able to use such a
surface, due to the way in which their extreme weight was point-loaded at only four
locations when the trucks deployed their balance arms.
20. Sergeant Kirrman inquired as to the status of the shaded area depicted on the "old"
developer's site plan as the Sunshine Festival Market area, specifically, as to whether or not
it was going to be approved for development.
21. Ms. Hayden stated that, with the change in direction by the developer, as to how the
Quantum Corporate Park is to be promoted and developed, she was not sure as to whether
or not this open-air, market area would receive approval as currently planned.
22. Sergeant Kirrman stated that, regardless of the status of the "flea market," a traffic signal
was needed at the intersection of Park Ridge Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard (the road
juncture north of the High School site).
[F2E~~.
Architects EngineelS Consultants
O/A Meeting (2124194)
New Prototype High School III
The School Board of Palm Beach County
Project No. 93059.00
Page 5
23.
24
25
26.
27
28.
Ms. Hayden explained that the Sunshine Festival Market area was not a "flea market," and
that its intent was to be more upscale than that; its purpose was to attract a more
diversified public element to the Quantum Corporate Park area, and to provide a locale
where public interaction could take place on a daily basis.
Mr Hernandez commented that he believed the "flea market" idea was on its way out of
favor, and the PBCSB was attempting to assist the City of Boynton Beach in developing
and promoting a more "high-tech" area in the heart of its community Mr Hernandez noted
that the PBCSB was doing just this by promoting the joint development of the new High
School Ill's curriculum with more research-and-development oriented programs, including
a proposed computer and robotics facility tie-in with the Motorola plant adjacent to the
project site. Mr Hernandez stated that the idea behind the new High School and its
curriculum was to help the City of Boynton Beach change its image from a rural community
to a more high-tech learning, education and worker-base area, and added that a nearby
"flea market" was not the type of motivator students would look to with aspirations of a
future, whereas a company like Motorola might be.
Sergeant Kirrman stated that the Police Department was concerned about the traffic
problems associated with 2,500 students leaving the High School site at about the same
time that a few thousand Motorola employees were changing shifts (approximately 3:00
p.m., according to Sergeant Kirrman), and all of them converging on the same intersection.
Sergeant Kirrman stated that he agreed with the Fire Department, in that it was not a good
idea to cut the loop road. Sergeant Kirrman noted that the tactical response times to the
businesses in the area surrounding the new High School, as well as the school itself, would
be cut too much, and that proposed fencing, gates and locks around the school would
further hamper these response times.
Mr Gulbrandsen stated that what those involved in the City's planning review of this
project were most interested in was that the best quality of service, from both the Police
and Fire Departments, be maintained. If this goal meant that the current site plan design
for the new High School must be revised, than that was something that the PBCSB must
consider doing. Similarly, Mr Gulbrandsen stated that if the PBCSB was restricted by
certain DOE requirements as to how school sites were to be developed, then the City was,
quite possibly, going to have to make a few compromises as well.
Mr Gulbrandsen suggested that, if the hard-top athletic courts arranged around the school's
perimeter could be reoriented to push them more towards the site's property lines, perhaps
enough space would be created adjacent to the school building to allow the installation of
a 20'-0" wide perimeter road around the school for emergency vehicle access.
29
Fire Marshal Cavanaugh again stated that he did not believe the loop road could be cut;
it would place too many ~~cluding the school and its children, in jeopardy
LJlllI2J~anrung/Howey
Assoaates, me.
Arclritects EngineeIS Consultants
0/ A Meeting (2/24/94)
New Prototype High School III
The School Board of Palm Beach County
Project No. 93059 00
Page 6
30. Mr Keel reiterated that FAC, Chapter 6A-2 would not allow students to cross vehicular
paths of travel in order to access other school facilities, and that leaving the loop road
intact would cause this to occur
31. Mr Gustetter explained why the two main parking areas depicted on the Fanning/Howey
Associates, Inc. site plan had been designed as they were.
a. The staff and faculty parking area, located in the southern area of the site, shared
the portion of the loop road discharging to the east with bus traffic, however, the
buses and automobiles did not share common entry or circulation drives; once on
site, the two types of vehicles had their own circulation areas that did not cross. The
idea behind the locations of these parking and loading areas was that staff and
faculty traffic would be arriving and departing before and after, respectively, the
students' buses each day, reducing the amount of single time usage of this part of
the loop road.
b. The student parking area, located in the northern area of the site, discharged its
vehicular traffic to the portion of the loop road that joined with Gateway Boulevard
to the north. The students would not be sharing roadways with bus or staff/faculty
traffic, and thus, would not create the monumental traffic snarls associated with
other schools, where the various types of vehicular traffic were not separated.
32. Fire Marshal Cavanaugh inquired as to whether or not the loop road could remain intact
if a 15 m.p.h. speed limit and "No Trucks" signs were posted and enforced.
33. Mr Keel stated that the DOE would reject the project design as soon as it was submitted
for Phase I review
34 In temporarily moving to another, related subject, Mr Gulbrandsen noted that the
ambulances used by the City of Boynton Beach and many other communities were much
more like mini-fire trucks than converted vans, and were approximately 11'-6" tall and
weighed approximately 3.5 tons. Mr Gulbrandsen inquired as to how these vehicles were
going to be able to access an emergency situation inside a school building, or inside the
school's central courtyard area.
35 Mr Gustetter stated that the four access corridors arrayed around the building's perimeter
were each 20'-0" wide inside and maintained a 12'-8" clear head-height; these dimensions
would be more than adequate for the type of emergency vehicle described. Mr Gustetter
also noted that when the HHH Prototype High School was first being designed for the
VRPB, meetings were held with Fire Marshal Vreeland and Fire Chief Combs to discuss
these same issues, and that much of the emergency access design criteria came from them.
rn[J~anrungIHowey
u ~LJ~ AsSOCIates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
O/A Meeting (2124194)
New Prototype High School III
The School Board of Palm Beach County
Project No. 93059.00
Page 8
45 Mr Keel, Mr Hernandez and Mr Gustetter stated that this was a good idea and one that
could be investigated further Mr Gustetter inquired of Fire Marshal Cavanaugh as to
whether or not the fire trucks could "jump" a 6" raised concrete curb.
46. Fire Marshal Cavanaugh stated that the trucks could not even "jump" a 1" curb without
bending their frames, and suggested using either ramps (at the same slope as dictated by
ADA handicap requirements) or flathead concrete curbs with no change in elevation. Mr
Gustetter stal~d that this could also be easily achieved.
47 Mr Gulbrandsen stated that access to this courtyard/plaza could be controlled by installing
gates with Knox boxes, plastic chains or rubberized divider posts.
48. Mr Gulbrandsen inquired as to whether or not the new building would have standpipes.
Mr Keel and Mr Gustetter stated that it would, and that their locations could be
coordinated witn the Fire Department. Mr Gustetter stated that the HHH Prototype
contained a standpipe in each of the four buildings, and a fire hydrant was located outside
each of the four courtyard access corridors.
49 Mr Gulbrandsen stated that the maximum fire hose distance between standpipes would be
limited to 150'-0" Mr Keel stated that this should not be a problem, since the longest
second floor building was approximately 300'-0", and standpipes at each building corner
should provide the coverage necessary
50. In returning to the discussion regarding the perimeter access road, Mr Gulbrandsen stated
that 20'-0" x 50'-0" concrete pads, on which the fire trucks would deploy their balance arms,
would need to be constructed around the perimeter of the building, and that these pads
would be linked by the perimeter access road. Mr Gulbrandsen stated that the road,
regardless of its composition, should be 25'-0" wide.
51. Mr Keel stated that he believed this width to be excessive, and suggested that, since the
pads were to be 20'-0 wide, the access road should also be 20'-0" wide. Mr Gulbrandsen
stated that this was acceptable.
52. Mr Keel also stated that, in terms of maintenance and survivability, the Knox boxes on
metal gates would be the preferred method of controlling access to the plaza and other
emergency access points around the site.
53. In an effort to exhaust all avenues of maintaining the loop road through the site, Mr
Gulbrandsen inquired as to whether or not a pedestrian bridge with a fenced "cage"
enclosure could be constructed over the loop road to connect the main area of the site with
the outlying football and track facility
rn[J~anrungIHowey
u ~LJI:J Assoaates, me.
Architects Engineers Consllitanll;
O/A Meeting (2/24/94)
New Prototype High School III
The School Board of Palm Beach County
Project No. 93059 00
Page 9
54 Mr Keel stated that, besides the cost factor, which, in and of itself, would render it
nonviable, the footbridge would be viewed by the students as a nice piece of architecture
(and a good skateboard ramp), but they would elect to take the shortest route to the
football field--across the intact loop road, which would be rejected by the DOE.
55 Mr Gulbrandsen inquired as to the seating capacities of the Gymnasium and Auditorium
for this project. Mr Gustetter stated that the Gymnasium would seat approximately 1,850
and the Aud;~orium would seat 835
56. Fire Marshal Cavanaugh stated that both of these areas would be classified as Group A
Assembly spaces, which would have their own special requirements.
57 Mr Hernandez stated that his department had prepared a preliminary schedule for this
project that culminated in a finalization date of April 19, 1994, by which time all site-related
contingencies were to be addressed and resolved in order that the sale of the property
could be closed upon by the PBCSB.
58. Mr Keel stated that, in order to meet these deadlines and, at the same time, address the
concerns of the various City of Boynton Beach departments, the site plan presented at this
meeting would be "massaged" and as many of the issues discussed incorporated into the
new design.
59 Mr Gustetter added that up to date boundary and topographic surveys of the site would
need to be obtained by the PBCSB as soon as possible in order that Fanning/Howey
Associates, Inc. be able to accurately depict site boundaries, easements and property areas
under water
60. Ms. Hayden inquired as to whether or not a new traffic signal was required per a new
traffic impact study Mr Hernandez stated that he would need to research this information
with Cathy Sweetapple, City of Boynton Beach.
61. Mr Hernadez stated that the idea of a new traffic signal was a good one, however, the
County installs all new signals and their controls, and usually leaves them in the flashing
mode until final traffic studies have been completed.
62. Fire Marshal Cavanaugh and Mr Gulbrandsen both inquired as to why the "old"
developer's site plan design appeared to work so much better than the "new" PBCSB
design, especially when considering the new High School footprint was supposedly a more
compact plan.
mCJ!FanrungIHowey
u ~LJI:J Assoaates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
0/ A Meeting (2124194)
New Prototype High School III
The School Board of Palm Beach County
Project No. 93059.00
Page 10
63. Mr Gustetter stated that the reason for the differences was that the developer's site plan
design included parcels 41-A and 40, whereas the Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. site plan
did not include these parcels. This difference amounted to an additional 6.31 acres of land
not used by the PBCSB for this project, and which allowed the developer's site plan to
appear more spaciously designed.
64 Mr. Gulbrandsen inquired as to why the developer's "old" scheme had not been adapted
to the "new" site plan, specifically, the maintaining of the loop road's continuity
65 Mr Gustetter stated that the developer appeared to not have known of the F AC, Chapter
6A-2 requirement regarding non-crossing of vehicular and pedestrian routes, and had thus
produced a site plan design that would not have passed DOE review
66. Mr. Gustetter stated that the HHH Prototype High School, being designed and constructed
for the VRPB, was the largest of the three high schools at initial build-out and was to be for
a student population of 2,500. The III High School for the City of Boynton Beach, although
at final build-out would also be for 2,500 students, was initially planned for only 2,000
students. Mr Gustetter explained that, in order to construct the larger prototype school for
a smaller population, a "shell concept" had been designed, in which all of the origlOal
prototype's extenor floors, walls and roofs would be constructed at both the first and second
floor areas for High School III, however, one of the second floor's four buildings would not
contain a finished out intenor, and would actually be a "shell," until final build-out occurred
at a later date.
67 Mr Gustetter noted that all utility hnes would be stubbed-out inSIde the dried-in "shell," to
await final above-floor rough-lO, and all mechanical drops and fire protection sprinkler lines
would be installed and operational at time of initial project occupancy Security of the "shell"
would be maintalOed by locked doors at each end of the unoccupied building, and only
school staff would have keys to the space.
68. Mr Gulbrandsen and Fire Marshal Cavanaugh stated that they had no objections to this
concept, provided the fire spnnkler system was tested and operational, and that no storage
occurred in this unfinished space. Mr Keel and Mr Gustetter stated that thIS would, in fact,
be the case.
69 Mr Gulbrandsen inquired as to whether or not there were any outlYlOg buildings they should
be aware of when revieWing the current FanmngIHowey Associates, Inc. site plan design.
Mr Gustetter stated that there was a Physical Education Storage Building located near the
track, and that it would contain restrooms, a ticket counter and a storage area.
m[]'FanrungIHowey
U "IIl(]!:j Assoaates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
O/A Meeting (2124194)
New Prototype High School III
The School Board of Palm Beach County
Project No. 93059 00
Page 11
70. At 3 40 p.m., Mr. Hernandez began a summary of the meeting's discussions, as follows:
a. The site plan is to be revised to incorporate as many of the suggestions offered at
this meeting as possible, mcluding reorienting the athletic courts and fields to allow
for the installation of 20' _0" Wide, stabilIzed sub grade, emergency access route around
the penmeter of the building.
b. The 20'-0" wide, stabilized sub grade, emergency access route is to be no closer to the
building than 20'-0"
c. The radii to be used in redrawing the vanous parking and drive areas are to be a
minimum of 45'-0", with a preferred radius of 60'-0"
d. Access drives to be used by fire trucks are to be a minimum of 28'-0" wide, with a
prefem.:d Width of 30'-0"
e. FanningIHowey Associates, Inc. IS to mvestigate designing a concrete courtyard/plaza
in front of the High School that would serve as an emergency vehicle staging area,
in heu of keeping the existing loop road mtact (Fire Marshal Cavanaugh stated that
he Wished It known that he was still in favor of keeping the loop road intact, instead
of the concrete plaza).
71. Mr Hernandez stated that both approaches to the loop road issue (keeping the road intact,
or removing part of the road and constructmg the plaza) would be investigated, however, Mr
Hernandez did not believe the DOE would approve the loop road remaining.
72. Fire Marshal Cavanaugh requested that FanningIHowey Associates, Inc. leave the bluepnnts
of the High School III site plan and the High School HHH exterior elevations and first and
second floor floor plans. Mr. Gustetter did so, however, he noted that the High School HHH
sheets were actually a mirror image of the III school.
73. Mr. Gulbrandsen inquired as to whether or not the pedestrian bridge might also be
investigated as an alternate means of student circulation to the football and track area, in
order to keep the loop road intact.
74. Mr. Hernandez stated that thiS idea would probably not even make it past the PBCSB Risk
Management Department, let alone to the DOE, however, it would be reviewed.
75 As clarification of previous diSCUSSion, Mr Gustetter inquired as to whether or not it was the
intention of the City of Boynton Beach Fire Department that, in the event of an emergency
situation at the Pubhx or Safety Kleen complexes, the Fire Department might dispatch
emergency vehicles to the scene that would use the proposed concrete plaza m front of the
school as a thoroughfare to the emergency
["UeJ!f1anrungIHowey
U "lIILJ~ Assoaates, me.
ArdriteClS Engineers Consultants
a/A Meeting (2124194)
New Prototype High School III
The School Board of Palm Beach County
Project No. 93059.00
Page 12
76. Both Mr. Gulbrandsen and Fire Marshal Cavanaugh stated that such a scenario was highly
probable.
77 Mr. Gustetter stated that the DOE would almost certa10ly not approve of fire and rescue
trucks passing through a high school plaza on their way to an emergency situation during
school hours, especially if there was even a remote chance that the plaza would contain any
students during the emergency response. Mr. Gustetter added that, even if the plaza did not
contain any si.~dents during normal school conditions, an emergency situation resulting in the
response of the Fire and/or PolIce departments, would probably also result in a fair number
of students pouring into this plaza from the school just to watch the goings on--and blocking
access to the emergency by the very vehicles for which the plaza was designed.
78. Mr. Gulbrandsen suggested a compromise solution whereby the plaza would be created to
serve as a staging area in the event of an emergency situation at the school, and a single lane
of the eXISt10g leap road be mainta10ed to allow access to the other areas of the development
adjacent to the school site. Mr. Gulbrandsen stated that the loop road would be separated
from the plaza by a security fence, With Knox boxes at each end on gates; these gates would
allow access only to emergency vehicles (those With keys to the Knox boxes), and would
prevent students and other, unauthonzed vehicles from traversing thIS route.
79 Fire Marshal Cavanaugh suggested this single lane of the loop road be designated as a "Fire
Lane," possibly exempting It from the DOE and FAC, Chapter 6A-2 requirements regarding
student pedestrian travel across it. Fire Marshal Cavanaugh also suggested that the plaza still
be accessed by 20'-0" wide "handicap ramps" at each end, adjacent to the "Fire Lane" access
points, that would serve as gently sloping ramps that the fire trucks and other emergency
vehicles could easily negotiate in order to enter the plaza in response to an emergency
situation at the school. These ramps could also be gated With Knox boxes, according to Fire
Marshal Cavanaugh, which would Similarly prevent students and others from entering the
plaza (by vehicle) without proper authorization.
80. Mr. Keel and Mr Gustetter stated that such a scenano might also draw criticism from the
DOE, but it would be investigated.
81. Fire Marshal Cavanaugh reiterated his concern over losing a portion of the loop road, which
he believed to be critically needed 10 order to respond to any and all emergency Situations
in this area of the Quantum Corporate Park development. Fire Marshal Cavanaugh also
noted that there had been recent discussions regard10g the construction of an LP gas
terminal near the railroad tracks that served the eastern portion of the development. Such
a terminal would only add to the "potential" for an emergency Situation 10 this area,
accord1Og to the Fire Marshal.
mKJrplanrungIHowey
U "IIILJI:j Assoaates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
01 A Meeting (2124194)
New Prototype High School III
The School Board of Palm Beach County
Project No. 93059.00
Page 13
82. After additional brief discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 4:08 p.m.
Mark R. Gustetter, AlA
Project Architect
mg/gs
cc: Larry Zabik, The School Board of Palm Beach County
Bob Rosillo, The School Board of Palm Beach County
Tony Keller, The School Board of Palm Beach County
Bob Skakandy, The School Board of Palm Beach County
Dan Whetstone, The School Board of Palm Beach County
Chris Skerlec, The School Board of Palm Beach County
Yevola Falana, The School Board of Palm Beach County
Ervin Keel, The School Board of Palm Beach County
Augustin Hernandez, The School Board of Palm Beach County
Tambri Hayden, City of Boynton Beach Planning and Zoning Department
William Gulbrandsen, City of Boynton Beach Fire Department
Wilham Cavanaugh, City of Boynton Beach Fire Department
William De Beck, City of Boynton Beach Public Works Department
Mike Kirnnan, City of Boynton Police Fire Department
m[JlfanrungIHowey
U "IIlLJ~ Assoaates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
t I'
\
Proposed High School Site -
Analysis of Selected site Conditions
1-13-92
The following is a response to your request for information on
the proposed high school site, located at the northeast and
southeast corners of Old Boynton Road and Lawrence Road with
respect to the proximity to the City's boundary, the subject area
is separated from the City's border by a single family
neighborhood containing approximately 200 homes Annexing this
area would not be a simple task as there are no agreements for
water service
Roads - Both old Boynton Road and Lawrence Road contain two
lanes, and are classified as County Collectors According to
traffic counts recorded by Palm Beach County, Old Boynton Road
and Lawrence Road are currently operating at their adopted level
of service (LOS)-LOS "0" While the LOS will greatly improve on
old Boynton Road once it is widened to 4 lanes (construction is
scheduled for 1992-93, County Five Year Road Program), there are
no commitments to expand Lawrence Road Lawrence Road has a
total surplus of 2,666 trips per day available before the adopted
LOS is exceeded The development of the subject area could be
effected (i e delayed) by the condition of adjacent roadways
Soils - The soil types within this area consist of Immokalee Fine
Sand, Basinger Fine Sand, and pomello Fine Sand According to
the original definitions of these soils, as provided by the Soil
Conservation Service, the Immokalee and Basinger soils are
unsuitable for development, however, a current soil survey of the
subject area would be necessary to verify the soil types, and
determine the current conditions of the site (drainage, depth of
soil, presence of Hydric soils etc )
The subject area is located within the "B" and "AH" flood zones
Environmental Constraints - A portion of the subject area is
rated as a "B" area of natural habitat, and although it is not
subject to the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance it is
addressed by Palm Beach County's Vegetation Protection and
Preservation Ordinance Depending upon the results of a current
site evaluation (flora and fauna survey), up to 25% of the site's
sensitive native ecosystem could be required to be dedicated
(regardless of whether the site is developed in Palm Beach County
or annexed and developed in the City) This "fair" example of
native Florida ecosystem is disturbed and contains exotic plant
species
~8~anrung/Howey
AssoClates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
Lie. #AA COO1552
'roJ m u w m rn1
IJ!) SEP I 6 1900 ~
OWNERlARCmTECT MEETING
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
West Palm Beach, Florida
Date:
Re:
To
Present:
Purpose:
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
September 13, 1994
Prototype High School III
The School District of Palm Beach County
School District's Project No 2361-8920
Architect's Project No 93059 ()()
Ervin Keel, Plan Review Specialist
The following is a report of our meeting on the above date. If you find anything with
which you disagree, please let us know
Tambri Heyden, City of Boynton Beach Planning & Zoning
Michael Haag, City of Boynton Beach Planning & Zoning
Clyde Milor, City of Boynton Beach Utility Department
John Wilder, City of Boynton Beach Parks & Recreation
Kevin Hallahan, City of Boynton Beach Parks & Recreation
Al Newbold, City of Boynton Beach Building Department
James Cummings, City of Boynton Beach Police Department
Bill Hukill, City of Boynton Beach Engineer
Vincent Finizio, City of Boynton Beach Engineer
Larry Quinn, City of Boynton Beach Public Works
Santiago Malavasi, Rossi & Malavasi Engineers
Steve Weiss, Rossi & Malavasi Engineers
Agustin Hernandez, The School District of Palm Beach County
Ray Manning, Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc
Mark Gustetter, Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc
Review of Courtesy Design Development Submittal
1 This meeting was convened at 11 25 a.m. this date at the City of Boynton Beach City Hall to
review and discuss the revised Architectural Site Plan, Architectural Site Details and Civil
Engineering Design Development Documents submitted to the City's Technical Review
Committee (fRC) on August 31, 1994
2 Mr Hernandez opened the meeting by noting that the twelve sets of documents requested by the
TRC had been previously delivered for their review, and that this meeting was being convened
to review any final comments the TRC staff members might have with regards to the revised
documents Mr Hernandez added that, originally, this school was slated to be built" a little bit
more down the road," however, because of the current situation with the Prototype High School
HHH, this school (III) might be constructed first, and might begin fairly soon.
"lIl
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
"lIl
(407) 6973660
1400 Centre park Boulevard
Suite 700
"lIl
O/A Meeting (9/13/94)
Prototype High School III
The School District of Palm Beach County
School District's Project No 2361-8920
Architect's Project No 9305900
Page 2
3 Mr Finizio stated that he had at least one comment that required addressing, that of a new traffic
signal at the intersection of Park Ridge Road and Gateway Boulevard. Mr Finizio stated that the
installation of such a signal would be a prerequisite for approval of this project by the TRC and
City Commission. Mr Finizio stated that such a signal would be required to be installed, tested
and fully operational prior to the new high school's opening for the first day of classes
4 Mr Hernandez stated that it was customary policy for The School District of Palm Beach County
(PBCSD) to meet with the County Traffic, Roadway and Engineering Departments to discuss
such traffic signal installations, and for the County to conduct warrant studies to determine
whether such signal were actually warranted
5 Mr Finizio responded by stating that such a scenario would not be acceptable in this instance
and that this was not a negotiable issue, approval of this project by the City of Boynton Beach
would be conditional upon installation and full activation of such a signal Mr Finizio further
stated that a signal left in the "flashing" warrant mode would not be acceptable, and that it would
need to be fully operational as a regular traffic signal at opening day
6 Mr Finizio stated that for such a signal to be operational in time, the PBCSD would need to start
its meetings with the County immediately to insure that the signal was installed, tested, found to
be warranted and placed in full-time operational activation.
7 Mr Hernandez reiterated that the PBCSD could and would only do what it had always done in
the past, and that would be to meet with the necessary County departments and officials to
negotiate for such a signal Mr Hernandez noted that County Commissioner McCarty had
previously voiced support for such a traffic signal, and that the PBCSD would go on record at
this meeting as stating that it "would go to the extreme" in attempting to meet the requests of the
City to have this signal installed and operational in time for the first day of classes
Mr Hernandez stressed, however, that the PBCSD could not and would not guarantee that such
a signal would be operational by the first day of classes
8 Mr Hernandez inquired as to whether or not there were any specific new landscape concerns that
the TRC wished to review andlor discuss, since the design team had revised the project site plans
and resubmitted them.
9 Mr Haag stated that there were a few landscape issues he wished to address Primarily, the
project's preliminary landscape plans appeared to meet and/or address most of the City's
Landscape Ordinance requirements, however, a few of the requirements seemed to have been
interpreted slightly differently Mr Haag acknowledged that the PBCSD did not actually have
to follow or adhere to the City's codes, however, if it had been the design team's intent to do so,
perhaps some minor recalculations could be done in order to achieve this
[F8~anrung/Howey
AssoCIates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
0/ A Meeting (9/13/94)
Prototype High School III
The School District of Palm Beach County
School District's Project No 2361-8920
Architect's Project No 9305900
Page 3
10 Mr Haag also inquired as to the type of site parking and sports lighting the project was to
contain, and whether or not such lighting had been shown on the plans submitted for review
11 Mr Haag expressed concern over the lighting along the south property line, abutting the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) C-16 Canal and opposite the residential
subdivision to the south of the canal Mr Haag stated that the lights in this area should be hooded
and directed away from the south. Mr Manning stated that they would be so designed
12 Mr Haag inquired as to what the foot candle rating would be for typical site lighting for the
project. Mr Haag stated that he wished to know if the project's lighting design would meet the
City's Lighting Code standards
13 Mr Malavasi addressed this question by stating that the "average" foot candle rating for the
project would be 1 0 foot candle, and that the project would, in fact, meet the City's Lighting
Code. Mr Haag later requested a clarification of this statement by inquiring as to what the
"minimum" foot candle rating would be. Mr Malavasi stated that the "minimum" foot candle
rating would be no lower than 0.5 foot candle anywhere in the lighted areas of the project site.
14 Mr Haag inquired of the TRC staff members present as to whether or not there were any
comments regarding the most recently submitted plans
15 Mr Newbold stated that the Building Department did not have any comments, and that it would
not matter if they did, since the PBCSD did not have to build the project to their standards
anyway
16 Officer Cummings stated that the Police Department did not have any comments and did not
observe any problems with the design. Officer Cummings stated that he would review the traffic
signal design with whomever the TRC or the PBCSD wished, at the time it became available for
such a review
17 Mr Hukill stated that he wished to make two observations known at the outset of his comments
First, he acknowledged that it was clearly understood by he and his department that this was
strictly a courtesy review, and that any input, comments and/or suggestions offered by the TRC
were not necessarily intended to be mandatory for implementation. Second, Mr Hukill
acknowledged that the project site was not the best, in terms of size or shape, noting that it was
both too small and very irregularly shaped for a high school, and that he believed the design of
the school, under these circumstances, to be "excellent." Mr Hukill stated that it appeared the
design team had successfully "made a silk purse out of sow's ear" for this particular site.
18 Mr Hukill stated that his only negative comment at this point was regarding potential emergency
ingress problems to the central courtyard area. Mr Hukill inquired as to whether the building
was partially or fully sprinklered and what the width and height was of any passageways leading
into (or out ot) the courtyardflS!qgFa IH
U "'lLJI::J nrung owey
AsSOCIates, me.
Architects Engmeers Consultants
O/A Meeting (9/13/94)
Prototype High School III
The School District of Palm Beach County
School District's Project No 2361-8920
Architect's Project No 93059 ()()
Page 4
19
20
21
22
23
Mr Manning responded by stating that the building was fully sprinldered throughout, and that
the four courtyard egress corridors were 20'..o" wide and 12'..o" high, clear inside dimensions
Mr Gustetter clarified this item further by stating that the corridors were actually 12'-8" high,
and the subject of emergency vehicle clearances had been previously discussed with both Fire
Marshall Cavanaugh for this project and The Village of Royal Palm Beach (VRPB) Fire Marshall
for the Prototype of this project, High School HHH, and that both had stated that 12'-8" was
sufficient clearance.
Mr Quinn stated that his only comment at this time concerned the dumpster enclosure locations
Mr Quinn stated that the area around the enclosure, as currently designed, appeared to be too
small Mr Manning stated that the width of paving in this area was 68'-0" Mr Quinn stated that
the clear distance should actually be 90'..o " Mr Manning stated that this was easily correctable,
and would be so changed.
Mr Hukill inquired as to what the status was of the project's SFWMD permits, and whether or
not the permits had yet been modified
Mr Malavasi stated that the SFWMD permit process had not been started as yet, however, after
this meeting was concluded and the City was satisfied that the project was approvable, a meeting
with the SFWMD would be scheduled
24
Mr Hallahan stated that he had a few questions regarding the buffers noted on the most recently
submitted plans Mr Haag suggested that the group review these buffer areas together
25
Mr Hallahan inquired as to whether or not the PBCSD intended on planting any buffer material
inside the SFWMD drainage canal right-of-way Mr Manning stated that there were no plans to
do so
26
Mr Haag inquired as to whether or not the PBCSD intended on seeding or installing sod on the
bank of these outermost lots, down to the water's edge. Mr Manning and Mr Gustetter noted
that the landscape plans specified Bahia Sod in both the 25'..o" and 4O'..o" buffer sections, and
that it appeared in sections A-A and B-B that the sod was, in fact, to be installed down to the
water's edge.
27
Mr Hallahan inquired if these areas were to be sprinldered This question was not definitively
answered, the design team will verify this issue with their Landscaping Architect.
28
Mr Haag and Mr Hallahan suggested that, in order to help minimize the concerns of the
residents to the south of the project site (across the SFWMD C-16 Canal), that the words
describing the boundary of the planted buffer areas, "Abutting Properties," be changed to
"Water's Edge."
~8~anrung/Howey
AsSOCIates, me.
Archirccts Engineers Consultants
O/A Meeting (9/13/94)
Prototype High School III
The School District of Palm Beach County
School District's Project No 2361-8920
Architect's Project No 9305900
Page 5
29 Mr Haag stated that it appeared that the plant material noted in section A-A would be of
sufficient height to meet the requirements of the City's Landscape Ordinance. However,
Mr Haag noted that the plant material noted in section B-B appeared to be smaller than what the
Ordinance would normally permit, and that this might lead to problems with the residents across
the canal Mr Haag acknowledged that, although the section called for slightly shorter plant
material, the quantity and on-center spacing of what was specified was more dense than the
Ordinance required, and that this would probably be acceptable as a trade-off
30 Mr Gustetter noted that, in a very short time after installation, the slightly shorter plant material
would grow to the appropriate height, becoming even more dense than the Ordinance required,
and that this should surely alleviate any concerns the City might have over disgruntled residents'
complaints
31 It was later discovered that the discussion taking place was focused on the wrong buffer areas,
and that the landscape plans correctly illustrated the 25'-0" buffer area to be along the west
property line, abutting the Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD) E-6 Canal, and the 40'-0"
buffer area was to be along the south property line, abutting the SFWMD C-16 Canal
32 Mr Hallahan stated that even though the correct buffer areas had now been identified and
appeared to meet the City's Landscape Ordinance, there might still be a point of contention
among residents living to the south as to whether or not the buffer areas were to be composed
of 40' -0" of solid plant material, or if only approximately 10'-0" of the buffer was actually trees,
hedges and shrubs and the rest was to be sod Mr Hallahan acknowledged that the entire
discussion could be moot, since the PBCSD did not have to follow the City's Landscape
Ordinance.
33 Mr Hernandez stated that there was no way the PBCSD was going to be held responsible for
planting a buffer area that was 40'-0" wide and filled solid with trees, hedges and shrubs
Mr Hernandez stated that the PBCSD would plant the required buffer plant material as described
in the landscape cross sections on the submitted plans, however, the balance of the buffer area
was to be sod
34 Mr Haag stated that, in addition to the discussion surrounding plant material versus sod, the
subject of utility company easements and rights-of-way must also be addressed at this meeting;
Mr Haag requested clarification that such easements had been provided for in the current design
and that they be depicted on any plans the TRC and the City Commission were to approve
35 Mr Haag stated that, if the Florida Power & Light (FPL) power poles that he believed existed
along the south property line of the project site were actually there and were inside the area
designated as a planted buffer, access and maintenance height restrictions in this area could limit
the height of planted trees to something in the range of wax myrtles, which might not satisfy the
City's Landscape Ordinance for such buffers
~8~anrung/Howey
AsSOCIates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
O/A Meeting (9/13/94)
Prototype High School III
The School District of Palm Beach County
School District's Project No 2361-8920
Architect's Project No 9305900
Page 6
36 Mr Gustetter stated that the design team would drive by the site at the conclusion of this meeting
to confirm the presence (or lack) of the FPL power poles
37 Mr Haag inquired as to whether or not a survey of the project site had been included with the
plans submitted for review by the TRC, and whether such a survey depicted the power poles
38 Mr Hernandez stated that a survey had not been included in the submitted plans, that the project
site had only recently been purchased, and that final surveys had only been authorized a short
time ago, no such definitive information was available at the time the submitted plans were
completed. Mr Hernandez assured Mr Haag that as soon as the PBCSD received approval from
the TRC and the City of Boynton Beach for the proposed design, meetings with the SFWMD and
FPL would be scheduled to review and coordinate the various easement and right-of-way issues
involved.
39 Mr Hallahan stated that the landscape cross sections labeled "25' Buffer Plan View" and "40'
Buffer Plan View" were inaccurately described unless the descriptions of what was to be included
within the buffer area were amended to include sod as a component of the buffers Mr Hallahan
stated that the buffer cross sections, as currently labeled, might be interpreted to require 25'-0"
and 40'-0" of solid plant material and that sod was not acceptable as part of the buffer
40 Mr Hernandez and Mr Manning stated that amending the descriptions of the buffers' plant
components to include sod was easily accomplished, and should alleviate any potential problems
with the residents
41 Mr Hukill stated that he was in full support of the PBCSD and the design team on this issue,
noting that the project's current design had overcome a great deal of obstacles in order to achieve
a design that not only fulfilled all of the DOE and District requirements and criteria, but was also
functional Mr Hukill stated that the residents would have to be made to understand that, even
though the PBCSD was not obligated to meet the Code and Ordinance requirements of the City,
they had attempted to do so in as many areas as possible, and what was being presented for
review and approval was their "best effort" to meet these requirements
42 Mr Finizio and Fire Marshall Cavanaugh stated that the FPL power poles did, in fact, exist
along the south property line of the project site, however, at some point along their path they
transitioned down to underground lines (at the close of this meeting, Mr Manning and
Mr Gustetter viewed the site and found that while the power poles did exist as mentioned, they
did not transition to underground lines, they remained above ground, not only along the south
property line, but around the southwest corner and up the west property line as well)
43 Mr Hallahan inquired as to whether or not the SFWMD had reviewed and approved the buffer
materials depicted in landscape cross section A-A.
~8~anmng/Howey
AsSOCIates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
O/A Meeting (9/13/94)
Prototype High School III
The School District of Palm Beach County
School District's Project No 2361-8920
Architect's Project No 93059 00
Page 7
44 Mr Hernandez stated that he was not sure that such a review had as yet taken place;
Mr Manning reiterated that a meeting with the various individuals at the SFWMD who would
be reviewing this project would be scheduled as soon as the City approved the current design.
45 Mr Hernandez stressed that the PBCSD really did want to try and meet the landscape
requirements of both the City of Boynton Beach and the SFWMD, and that they were not trying
to "get out" of doing so Mr Hernandez stated that the PBCSD was not going to build a new
high school and leave the site "barren," however, no coordination had as yet taken place with
either the SFWMD or FPL, and the issues of what types and heights of plant material would
ultimately land up being installed in the buffer areas would probably be field coordinated to
accommodate each agency
46 Mr Haag stated that such "soft language" was unacceptable to the City, and left too much
maneuvering room for later deletions or substitutions of plant material if the PBCSD decided to
deviate from any plans previously approved by the TRC or the City Commissioners
47 Mr Hernandez stated that whatever was presented by the PBCSD for review and approval by
the TRC and City Commissioners would be installed as approved, with only minor adjustments
in the field to accommodate any maintenance or access easements required by the SFWMD,
LWDD and/or FPL
48 Mr Haag stated that it would appear that a much simpler solution would be for the Architect to
move everything on the site to 25'-0" north, allowing plenty of room for the required FPL
easement.
49 Mr Hernandez stated that this was simply not an option, because there was absolutely no room
on the site to move anything anywhere
50 Mr Finizio inquired as to whether or not the project was supposed to be reviewed by the TRC
staff members again after this meeting
51 Ms Heyden stated that it might.
52 Mr Finizio stated that if the project were, in fact, to go before the TRC one more time for
"final" final review, it should NOT be submitted to the City Commissioners as "approved by the
TRC staff' for their review, approval and/or a vote. Mr Finizio stated that if the TRC submitted
the project as "approved," knowing that certain elements present in the current set of documents
were still in need of revision, and the residents raised the issue of the buffers, the Commissioners
might be forced into a position of having to vote against a TRC-approved project.
53 Mr Hallahan noted that if the City Utilities Department or FPL demanded that a 15'-0" utility
easement be maintained along the south property line, the City would be left with only a thin line
of planting as a buffer in thiS[ffi~anrung/Howey
AsSOCIates, me.
Architects Engmeers Consultants
0/ A Meeting (9/13/94)
Prototype High School III
The School District of Palm Beach County
School District's Project No 2361-8920
Architect's Project No 9305900
Page 8
54 Me Hallahan suggested that, in order to avoid any potential conflicts, perhaps the design team
should remove the "25'" and "40'" designations from the buffer cross sections
55 In response to Mr Finizio's inquiry regarding the width of the paved bus loop, in the south area
of the property, Mr Hernandez stated that the area was approximately 100'-0" to 110'-0" wide.
Mr Hernandez also reiterated that he did not want to misrepresent the current site plan, there
was no room on the site to move or reorient major items, such as the bus loop There might be
some small areas that were able to be modified, such as the dumpster approach, however, the
vast majority of the site was "locked in."
56 Mr Haag stated that such statements concerned him, in that, if the site was so tight as to allow
no room for adjustment, and a utility company demanded an easement that was currently not
planned for, did this mean that the project could not be built?
57 Mr Hukill interjected that there were, in his opinion, two other options that seemed to have been
overlooked and had not been discussed thus far The first was to locate the south buffer strip
further south, not north, and second, to omit the "compact" bus loop and provide a more
conventional design that would not have to be as wide
58 Mr Manning responded by stating that, while the buffer-to-the-south idea was definitely worth
pursuing, the currently designed bus loop was, by far, the least land-consumptive; Mr Manning
noted that the project's Educational Specification called for on-site parking and stacking of 30
buses and that a "conventional" bus parking area for this many buses would take up considerably
more land than currently shown.
59 In response to Mr Hukill's suggestion, Mr Hernandez stated that the utility easement could be
located south of the designated buffer area. This was greeted as a positive step in resolving this
issue.
60 Mr Haag inquired of Mr Hallahan as to what his interpretation was of the width of the area that
was to actually contain planted materials, such as trees, hedges and shrubs
61 Mr Hallahan stated that he believed it to be approximately 10'-0" wide, and that there did not
appear to be any reason as to why the actual 10'-0" area of plantings could not be shifted within
the 40' -0" buffer strip, specified by the City's Landscape Ordinance, to accommodate any utility
easements that might be in the way
62 Mr Finizio requested confirmation as to the actual Ordinance-mandated width of the buffer area.
Mr Haag stated that the Ordinance specified a 40'-0" greenbelt buffer
63 Ms Heyden stated that up to one-half of the 40' -0" buffer distance, however, could be water
Mr Gustetter noted that this was exactly the condition that existed on this project's site
[F3~anrung/Howey
AsSOCIates, Ihe.
Ardutects Engineers Consultants
0/ A Meeting (9/13/94)
Prototype High School III
The School District of Palm Beach County
School District's Project No 2361-8920
Architect's Project No 93059 00
Page 9
64 Ms Heyden stated that it should be the intent of the TRC and the City Commissioners that the
PBCSD was, in fact, attempting to meet the City's Landscape Ordinance, and not trying to get
out of doing so Ms. Heyden stated that, even if the PBCSD was not entirely successful in
meeting the City's Landscape Ordinance, it should be made to appear that they made every effort
to comply
65 Mr Hallahan stated that he, too, was in full support of what the PBCSD was trying to
accomplish with their landscape design, and appreciated how hard they were trying to meet as
many of the City's requirements as possible. Mr Hallahan suggested that the "25'" and "40'"
designations be left on the landscape cross section details, but that the descriptions of what each
buffer was to contain be amended to include sod as an element of the buffer systems, so as to
remove any concerns that sod did not satisfy the buffer requirements
66 Mr Manning stated that this change was easily accomplished.
67 Mr Haag stated that he still had reservations regarding a TRC approval of the project as
currently presented Mr Haag noted that if the project were presented to the Commissioners as
TRC-approved, as currently submitted, and the theoretical traffic signal at the intersection of Park
Ridge Road and Gateway Boulevard was later found by the County to not be "warranted," and/or
if the current landscaping design was later found by the SFWMD to not be what they want or
would approve for a permit and was then changed to meet SFWMD requirements, the City
Commission would be in a awkward position.
68 Mr Haag and Mr Finizio stated that they wished a note be added to the current project site plans
indicating that the PBCSD was committing to apply for a warrant study of the referenced
intersection as soon as possible, and that a traffic signal was to be installed (Mr Hernandez,
again, expressed disagreement over placing the PBCSD in a position of speaking for the County
Traffic, Roadway and/or Engineering Departments on this issue)
69 Fire Marshall Cavanaugh inquired as to where the "alternate road studies," required by the
Development Regional Impact (DR!) Committee, were, and if they were available for review
70 Mr Hernandez and Ms Heyden responded by stating that these studies, in addition to being the
Quantum Corporate Park Developer's responsibility, and not that of the PBCSD, were not
required for approximately one year
71 Ms Heyden inquired as to whether or not the project could be presented to the SFWMD for their
preliminary review prior to the next City Commission meeting, so that neither the TRC or the
Commissioners would be surprised by anything. Mr Manning stated that this could be arranged
~3~anrung/Howey
AsSOCIates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
0/ A Meeting (9/13/94)
Prototype High School III
The School District of Palm Beach County
School District's Project No 2361-8920
Architect's Project No 93059 00
Page 10
72
73
74
75
76
Mr Hernandez stated that he wished it understood that the project team had rushed to assemble
this design package as soon as the project site had been closed upon by the PBCSD, and that they
had done a remarkable job, considering that, at the time, they had no surveys and no government
reviews with which to work.
Mr Hukill inquired as to what the actual involvement of the City Commission was at this time.
Ms Heyden stated that Carrie Parker, City Manager, wanted the City Commissioners to review
the project.
Mr Hukill reiterated earlier comments that it would be awkward for the City Commission to be
placed in a position of having to possibly vote on a project that the TRC staff might have objected
to or recommended against because of Code non-compliance. Mr Hukill stated that the
Commissioners may review it at the next Commission Meeting, however, it should not be put
to any type of approval vote, that way there would be no conflicts between the TRC staff and the
Commissioners
Mr Hernandez supported this position, and stated that what the PBCSD was looking for was
not a formal Commission hearing, but simply approval by the TRC staff of the project.
Mr Hernandez stated that the design team would schedule a meeting with the SFWMD
immediately to solicit their input.
77
Mr Hukill noted that, although Mr Hernandez had previously stated that this project might move
forward into construction "fairly soon," it could not move very fast without funding, which it
currently did not have. Mr Hukill stated that all the City Commissioners were really interested
in was how soon the project would actually start and how soon they would have a new high
school
78
Mr Hukill suggested convening a joint PBCSD Board and City Commission meeting in the very
near future to discuss funding and schedules and to tell both groups that the design team did their
best to fulfill all of the City's, PBCSD's and the Department of Education's (DOE)
requirements, and that this resulting design is it. Mr Hukill suggested that the PBCSD and the
City Commissioners be told in very specific terms, "this is it, this is the school you wanted It
will cost this much, it will take this long, and will begin (assuming funding is approved and in
place) on this date. And these are the areas where the project is not in conformance with City
guidelines (few of which are mandatory anyway) "
79
Mr Hukill strongly suggested that the PBCSD Superintendent, or at least an Assistant
Superintendent be present at this joint meeting, because the City Commissioners are going to
want someone there from the School Board capable of taking responsibility for the project and
someone with real authority to speak on behalf of the PBCSD, and to commit to the specifics of
the project.
~8~anrung/Howey
AsSOCiates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
0/ A Meeting (9/13/94)
Prototype High School III
The School District of Palm Beach County
School District's Project No 2361-8920
Architect's Project No 9305900
Page 11
80 Mr Haag questioned whether or not Ms Parker would approve of such a joint meeting between
the PBCSD and the City Commissioners.
81 Mr Hukill stated that he believed it very important that both groups be in attendance, because,
while it was one thing for someone like Mr Hernandez to stand up in front of the City
Commission and state that "this is the project; this is our best effort at meeting all of the City's
requirements," the Commissioners will want a TRC staff member and PBCSD Board Member
to commit to such a statement and to confirm that, not only were all codes that were mandatory
met, but that as many of the City's non-mandatory (but suggested) codes were met as well
82 Mr Hallahan also suggested that Mr Hernandez could state that the PBCSD did not have to
conform to City guidelines, but had done their best to do so
83 Mr Hernandez stated that he would have no problem explaining to the concerned individuals that
there were, in fact, many issues surrounding this project that were simply unchangeable, and that
the design team had done their best to address and conform to as many City Code issues as was
possible.
84 Mr Hukill interjected with the statement that, after having conferred with Fire Marshall
Cavanaugh, the minimum clear height that would be required for emergency vehicle access to
the central courtyard was 13'-6",and that the 12'-8" currently designed was not enough
Mr Hukill acknowledged, however, it was probably a moot point, since the entire facility was
fully sprinldered and the roll-down security gates at each of the four entrance points were locked
closed at the end of each day and over the weekends
85 Mr Haag inquired as to whether or not the play fields in the southwest corner of the site could
be reduced in size, or if their size was also fixed, and also if they could be slightly relocated
further north.
86 Mr Manning stated that the play fields were, in fact, of a strict size (150'-0" x 300'-0"), and
mandated by the DOE and the PBCSD, there was also no room on the site to move them.
87 Mr Milor joined the meeting at approximately 12 45 P m. and stated that he had five comments
to review relative to the project's utilities Mr Milor's first comment dealt with the site lighting
issue previously discussed in his absence, Mr Malavasi briefly reviewed his prior statements
regarding the "average" lighting level of 1 0 foot candle.
~3~anrung/Howey
AssoClates, me.
Arc!utects Engineers Consultants
0/ A Meeting (9/13/94)
Prototype High School III
The School District of Palm Beach County
School District's Project No 2361-8920
Architect's Project No 93059 00
Page 12
88 Mr Milor's second comment dealt with utility easements Mr Milor requested that ALL
maintenance and utility easements and rights-of-way be clearly shown and labeled on any future
site plans Mr Milor stated that this was especially true for water and sewer lines, both existing
and proposed. Mr Milor stated that, because it had not been definitively decided which
department would be controlling the water and sewer, these easements and rights-of-way needed
to be provided and clearly marked (Mr Milor noted that the water mains would require a 12'-0"
easement, centered on the pipe line)
89 Mr Malavasi stated that this site plan was still somewhat conceptual, but that his firm would
clearly show all such easements and rights-of-way on future Civil Engineering plans
Mr Malavasi also noted that his staff had prepared calculations for the PBCSD illustrating the
different fee rates for the various ways the water metering could be handled Mr Malavasi stated
that, based upon these calculations, it would be more economical for the PBCSD to dedicate all
water lines to the City, and that a special access easement might have to be similarly dedicated
90 Ms Heyden inquired of those present if the project was intended for a another full review by the
TRC staff, based upon this meeting's comments
91 The response was "no" It was, instead, suggested that those areas of the project that were to be
revised be submitted to the specific individuals that would normally review them, once the
revisions had been made Ms Heyden stated that such resubmittals could be handled in workshop
form, however, the workshop schedule for the next two months (September and October) was
full Ms Heyden suggested that, perhaps, the issues to be looked at one last time could be done
at the next regular meeting, however, on a very informal basis
92 Ms Heyden inquired as to how soon the design team intended to present the project (revised) to
the City Commissioners
93 Mr Manning stated that the project documents could be ready within two weeks, including
reviews by the SFWMD, FPL and the LWDD
94 Mr Finizio suggested that the PBCSD begin its negotiations with Charlie Walker's office at the
County regarding the new traffic signal, since it was probably going to take some time to get it
approved and installed.
95 Mr Haag stated that the PBCSD needed to do a much better job with this traffic light than they
did with another recent school, a six-month delay to begin the discussions on the part of the
PBCSD had resulted in the school opening without the signal, something that could not be
permitted to happen at this school, according to Mr Haag
~~~anrung/Howey
AsSOCIates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
0/ A Meeting (9/13/94)
Prototype High School III
The School District of Palm Beach County
School District's Project No 2361-8920
Architect's Project No 9305900
Page 13
96 After additional brief discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 12.50 p.m.
Mark R. Gustetter, AlA
Project Architect
mg/ gs
cc. Tambri Heyden, City of Boynton Beach Planning & Zoning
Michael Haag, City of Boynton Beach Planning & Zoning
Clyde Milor, City of Boynton Beach Utility Department
John Wilder, City of Boynton Beach Parks & Recreation
Kevin Hallahan, City of Boynton Beach Parks & Recreation
Al Newbold, City of Boynton Beach Building Department
James Cummings, City of Boynton Beach Police Department
Bill Hukill, City of Boynton Beach Engineer
Vincent Finizio, City of Boynton Beach Engineer
Larry Quinn, City of Boynton Beach Public Works
Santiago Malavasi, Rossi & Malavasi Engineers
Steve Weiss, Rossi & Malavasi Engineers
Larry Zabik, The School District of Palm Beach County
Agustin Hernandez, The School District of Palm Beach County
nsJCJlfanrunglHowey
U ....LJ!:J AsSOCIates, me.
Architects Engineers Consultants
EXHIBIT "e"
MEMORANDUM
Utilities #94-055
TO
Tambri J Heyden,
Acting Planning &
DATE
February 23, 1994
tor
FROM
John A Guidry,
Director of Utilities
SUBJECT
Quantum Park P I 0 . Master Plan Modification
Staff has reviewed the above referenced project and offer the
following comments
1 Utility Department will require 24 hour a day access
and control of existing water and sanitary sewer mains,
Se c 26 33 (a )
2 Existing sanitary sewer not utilized in construction
will need to be properly abandoned under Utility
Department inspection
3 Twin reduced pressure zone backflow preventors are
recommended on the domestic water supplies and backflow
preventors, in accordance with our current ordinance,
and will be required on the new fire lines, Sec
26 107
4 City water will not be supplied for irrigation, City
Comp Plan, Policy 3C 3 4
It is our recommendation that the plan proceed through the review
process
If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact
Skip Milor at 375-6407 or Peter Mazzella at 375-6404
19b
xc
Clyde "Skip" MilAoy
Peter Mazze Ila fit'
File
m
RI!t.. ~.~~:a I :
J. pJ~",Jt'ACLE ~11~ 8 .~
2.. ~be.~....'c.lL1 CetJ~~ .4&,,\-
,~~ >>J.s.a.,,9J/
or~ ~
I
~~~
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
DIvIsion of Planning and Zoning
Building
Planning & Zoning
Engineering
Occupational License
Community Redevelopment
May 28, 1999
Angela Usher
Planmng SpecialIst
The School DIstnct of Palm Beach County
3320 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-331
West Palm Beach, Flonda 33406
Dear Ms. Usher
Thank you for the contmued opportumty to partIcIpate m the sIte desIgn of the planned High
School. I have receIved the current engmeenng drawmgs and mItIated staff reVIews
I have been asked to relay questIOns and comments regardmg waste removal. The reVIewer
could not determme capaCIty/sIze of the contamers, and therefore questIOned whether 1 or 2
dumpsters were proposed. Our representatIve from PublIc Works recommends an 8 yard
vertIpact contamer be used m place of a smgle dumpster ( If only 1 contamer IS proposed) A
detail on the proposed dumpster enclosures could not be located.
Lastly, the package excluded landscapmg plans. Please let me know If we are to be revIewmg
the landscapmg plans from a prevIOUS plan set.
Smcerely,
Michael W Rumpf
DIrector of Plannmg and Zomng
MWR/nl
J. ,sHRDA T A \PLA)'l'[]o;GISHAREDiWPICORRESP\HIGH SCHOOL DOC
America's Gateway to the Gulfstream
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd., P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 375-6260 FAX: (561) 375-6259
AKER.MAN SENTER.FIIT /1 EIDSON P A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PHILLIPS POINT EAST TOWER
SUITE 900
777 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE
WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401
(561) 659-5990
FACSIMILE (551) 659-6313
April 16, 1999
DaVId Norris, Esq.
Cohen, Chemay & Norris
POBox 13146
North Palm Beach, Flonda 33408
Re: The School District of Palm Beach County; Construction at Quantum Park
Dear Mr Noms.
Since my March 11, 1999 letter to you explmmng the objectIons of my clIent, the School
Distnct of Palm Beach County (the "School DIStrict"), to plan review and approval processes
asserted by the Quantum Community Development Distnct (the "QCDD"), I have received
letters from you dated March 18, 1999 and March 31, 1999 Each letter concluded with strong
warmngs to the School DIStrict not to commence constructIon at the Quantum Park site until
approval of the School Dlstnct's plans by the QCDD and the Quantum Park Property Owner's
AssocIation (the "POA").
The School DIStnCt regrets that the QCDD and the POA perceive the School Distnct's
unwillingness to comply With requIrements asserted by the QCDD and POA as "Intransigence In
cooperating." The School District does understand and appreCIate the QCDD and the POA's
responsibilities to property owners in Quantum Park, but It is no more obligated to follow
permitting and SIte plans reqUirements Imposed by either entIty, anymore than It is obligated to
comply with sImilar reqUirements that are Imposed by governmental entIties and agencies. As
noted In my previous correspondence to you, the exemption from the QCDD reqUirements is
statutory The POA, on the other hand, expressly released the SIte from all interests of the POA
under the recorded Declaration ~_Q!1diti<!n~ Release from Covenants recorded in Official
Records Book 8279, Page 1755, on the sole condition that the site be used for public educational
purposes only That release followed the contractual oblIgation of the School District's grantor to
provide a release from covenants, prior to closing, specIfically including those covenants dealing
with plan reVIew and approval, construction and POA assessments.
WP02083S;1
WEST PALM BEACH
FORT LAUDERDALE
MIAMI
ORLANDO
TALLAHASSEE
TAMPA
David Noms, Esq.
April 16, 1999
Page 2
On the other hand, the School District remams just as willing to cooperate With the
QCDD and the POA as it is With governmental agencies and entities when the School District
has projects m other communities. Typically, this cooperation is manifested in the School
District's willingness to provide, as a courtesy, copies of plans and to take mto account -- ifnot
always Implement -- suggestions of planning and building offiCials. The School DIStrICt
remains Willing to cooperate m that sense With the QCDD and the POA, but those organizations
must realize and accept the hmltatlOns on their authority to compel the School DIStrICt to comply
with formal review and approval processes.
The one exception in this particular case, as noted in my March 11 letter and referenced
m your most recent letter to me, IS the restrIctive covenant m the School DistrIct's deed wmch
calls for review and approval of "the final site plan and stormwater dramage plans [by the POA]
to ensure compliance with the master stormwater management plan "(emphasis added)
Until I received your March 31, 1999 letter, I was not aware that you had sent a letter directly to
Lmda Hines, the School DistrIct's Drrector of Planning and Real Estate, expressmg concerns
about the plans that had been subIIlltted to the POA's engmeenng firm. I have smce had an
opportunIty to reVIew With my chent that February 9th letter and the attached report from Mock
Roos. While there were several comments relatmg to drainage, none of the noted Items
amounted to noncomphance With the master stormwater management plan. This fact IS further
supported by the South Florida Water Management District's recent approval and permIttmg of
the School DIStriCt'S water management plan for the property
The plans subIIlltted to the POA in January have, m fact, smce been revised and the
School DistrIct has resolved to ensure that Mock Roos has received current copies of all plans
now and in the future.
Finally, if the QCDD and the POA desire that Its communications to the School District
be made through you, we must mSlst that such commumcations be drrected to me. The School
District does have an office of general counsel and should be deemed represented by counsel,
even when no Special outside counsel has been retained.
In conclUSIOn, the School DistrIct remains willing to talk to and listen to the POA and the
QCDD and will always entertain reasonable comments on Its plans for development of its school
site. For my part, I will hsten to and conSider counter-arguments to those I have expressed on the
School District's behalf With respect to its legal obligations in its relationship with the POA and
the QCDD The School District, too, has obligations to the community, which it will fulfill
WP02083S;\
---
~RC J 4f7r?
I-f:jt cb~/' C'<-vsCry ~ v,~,.;
'f{, r; c €-
L" K'~ he k.:5 y1cr.<z<.~- 9
( See tc~ ( dC<:; cS2 {/Ice cV'~- -rh- -f- r~~~ ~s ,;, q",,- CV\.< =,-
f' -}f'- ::.-~L 6r---f- d-<- rc,,- 1'.('
-
r''1
r-<-s ?"A 'S -- -,(. ~",-;yt1'" # I-
'-(<:""~{-r1...f-' {...<J..--tb ~ 1/17 o--,~ //--L .j
n,re.- Cf.......,....5~c:"V7.~j/ d' (,-/kr<=- d ~~ c'--4.-r~ --15::;1"<-./ jF<><=..~ ft
S1<>-ff - ;:;:1 / 5' S~, r/ blJ?<=-<::. r t-.' II' .....) h<r -f <-It - !t..~.J.'3 J<'"<-s-" +, c.---( / (
;;>
Lcsns':5"r- or; ~y~....,..,..Q c'-'..{y c'"'=t:.-,~..--c"':=S ? ~H:>
~(c.<: S-rr~s:sc-s;;. /.,f)Flrn<-~ 61 v'C-<7 /i.of{.C('-C~5r7"''J'- tf
<lk<.Y'Y1 n<-'^--;scJ..,...( ha-# -<::..- .J&;cJ. o-s- ---f-y__~ f:(. ~~,
~f =-f -!-L S'c-h~J (c,-~~Q.r.. =-~ -k:., -r-trw
-h-- d- ffi ~
Sf--ff' - '1/" y;:,:;: T'i ",...Q ': ( f'~ , nr:tc_ _ 1< ..L ,< +0' t'P~ (( c~f-< '" To
p<;j Ill\)-.. <:. 1'\ ~ ('""'- (~ (-J ('<'IV ~ 4:-f\.T'" <-. '..-'-\.. -H: 6'~<::... ~ <p'fa,;;, c.J
v
~ ~- fv-~ /'"::><-0 C L.... ~- -( y r=(',,-.,... r~,,-..,)_
Df..
r~(c..~ -
?
~s~ ~f- j'-'1t"5cl c.HC\..
ke'Y/ 41/ (r /"-nv.-.sf,JI"- {c-
of &-(e-~ ~ +SUJJ""S~
-5r,"-;;;' y~'<./C~ ~ ~ ;::'v".
~(~~ 5C'~
t" s- ~~ ~ <'"".o@[
4 7Y~~ ~ r:n,. r c:/I{'>~
~~,-)< . -
~
F-re.
?~.,r
EV6-<-uc-&~ k E~~s
r r"c --5 <{' J.
/ ~ -
,/./ ..) A=c... r....t.- /rx:.. ~ cGc:
S<{* 0-- i ~ ~ v<J ~ -f<,- oS
F,c
n,rc /ffc....KrYl t- S?y-~ n /L~r
.j;( <. (;...J ( (~V (""-W c:-- "S)
G::c.. ")r) .rv-....-- ..:lL -t-
( .r
I,)~ c.,-...ssp ...-y
( 1')0 f..= c,^-- f> fc- V\.S
/0-#
(t/lo f'€-- L ~
~~
r;/ ~ T~
7&-;;-c-r ~~ k C:::cl'.-Sc (~<' /
/" ~-_ c7 & e<-~ ()"- ~ -:s~( 2'=='
/?pt" (' J~I-
-;b $-f$fY''/ f'
f
~ r j; U-Yl,s, ~v--h6),--
p ~ --- CC/y>-].,?7"=-- '\. <::- ~
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE
3320 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD, C-331
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406-5813
(561) 434-8020 FAX (561) 434-8187
DR. JOAN P KCYNAL
SUPERINTENDENT
OF SCHOOLS
ill ~@mo\Wm 00
JM 29-
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
January 29, 1999
Mr Mike Rumpf
Planmng and Zomng DIrector
CIty of Boynton Beach
100 E. Ocean Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
RE New High School III m the CIty of Boynton Beach
Response to TRC comments
Dear Mr Rumpf
Enclosed please find responses to the TechnIcal RevIew Cormmttee comments receIved at the
December 22, 1998 meetmg.
The Engmeenng Department requested documentatIOn of the abandonment of the Park.R1dge
Road through the school SIte. Enclosed please find the recorded AffidavIt for PartIal Road
Closure. The Water UtIlItIes Department requested documentatIOn of all vacated easements on
the SIte The surveyors are m the process of accomplIshing thIS. As soon as the DIstnct receIves
the revIsed survey showmg all abandoned easements, It wIll be forwarded to your office
All the SIte desIgn reqmrements were made. The drop off zone m the cIrcular area was changed
to one lane m one dIrectIOn, wIth the WIdth remammg at 24 feet. A stop SIgn was placed at the
eXIt of the staff/vlSltIOrs parkmg area. The refuse/recyclmg area was redesIgned based on the
mformatIOn receIVed at the meetmg to provIde for better turnmg movement and prohibItmg the
backmg out of the waste management vehIcle on a 90 angle.
As the CIty Engmeer requested, the $25000 fine was placed on the handIcapped SIgn and all
parkmg spaces wIll be double haIr pm stnped, wIth type "D" curves bemg utIlIzed as much as
possIble (See drawmg C-17)
The School DIstnct has not yet addressed the off-SIte sIgnage to mdIcate to the motonst that Park
RIdge IS blocked off through the school SIte ThIS IS an Issue that would have to be addressed
wIth the Property Owners ASSOCiatIOn.
The prelImmary landscape plan complements the eXIstmg landscapmg m Quantum Park. A
number of the eXIstmg trees wIll remam (See drawmg L-1)
The electncal drawmg shows that a mImmum of 2 ft. candle lIghtmg wIll be provIded m the
parkmg areas (See drawmg E-1.2)
An Equal Education Opportunity Provider and Affirmative Action Employer
Page 2
Mike Rumpf
New High School III in the City of Boynton Beach/Response to TRC comments
Based on a diScussIon wIth the School DIstnct ChIef of Pohce, there IS a possiblhty that at
approximately 11 00 P.M. the campus will be blacked out. The Pohce Cluef IS aware of the
CIty'S concern over thIS Issue
Attached please find a complete set of revIsed drawmgs. If there are any questiOns, please call
me at 434-8800
Smcerely,
~.
Ange D Usher, AICP
Planmng SpecIahst (EducatiOnal)
C. David Tom, BRPH
Linda H. Hines, Palm Beach County School District
Warren Haan, Palm Beach County School District
Pat Steinkuehler Palm Beach County School District
, '-, ( - Y.-< ~(p
J
This Instrument Was Prepared
By And Should Be Returned To
Scott G Williams, Esquire
SHUTTS & BOWEN
222 Lakeview Avenue
Suite 1000
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
t-1AY-26-1194 4:4nPffi 9Lt-1..M5'-"'{~{i'4 .-
ORt; B <--::'79 Ps 1 I 7
I i IloIIIIRI.1I8.. 1111111 BII
.....
AFFIDAVIT RE PARTIAL ROAD CLOSURE
STATE OF FL.DRn7A
COUNTY OF 'PALM 'BEACH
)
) SSe
)
jAtA.e:~ 1( L U).,}Ob"R.6..J
first duly sworn, deposes and says that:
(the "Affiant"), being
l'
1 Affiant is the C~A'Rt1A~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, a Florida
District ("QCDD")
of QUANTUM
Independent Special
2. QCDD is the owner of Tract "G" (High Ridge Road),
Tract "Y" (High Ridge Road), and Tract "F" (Park Ridge Boulevard),
of Quantum Park at Boynton Beach, P.I D., Plat No 4, according to
the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 57, Pages 186 through 188,
in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida
3 By Special Warranty Deed executed simultaneously
herewith, QCDD is conveying a portion of the aforedescribed Tract
"F" (Park Ridge Boulevard) to The School Board of Palm Beach
County, Florida, as legally described on EXHIBIT "A" attached
hereto and made a part hereof
4 The "Easement Property" as described in (a) Ingress/
Egress Easement Agreement between Quantum Park Property Owners'
AssOCiation, Inc. and Curt G. JOA, Inc recorded October 11, 199Q,
in Official Records Book 6607, Page 1209, of the Public Records of
Palm Beach County, Florida, and (b) Ingress/Egress Easement
Agreement between Quantum Park Property Owners' Association, Inc
and George J Gould and Harriet Gould, his wife, recorded October
11, 1990, in Official Records Book 6607, Page 1215, of the Public
Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, nas now been reduced by the
subtraction of the property set forth on EXHIBIT "A" which has been
conveyed to the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida
5 This Affidavit is made for the purpose of clarifying
the status of title to said Tract "F" (Park Ridge Boulevard) and
the closure of the road upon, and conveyance of, that portion of
Park Ridge Boulevard set forth in Exhibit "A", and the extent of
the remaining easement rights of Curt G JOA, Inc and of George J
Gould and Harriet Gould, his wife, in and to the "Easement
Property"
FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NAUGHT
[JURAT ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
~J2- ~~ ~
ORB
n .'79 p -60
~_ . g "1 7 ..
Sworn to, SUbS~, an~ acknowledged before
Ma 1 94 by ~. ~1LAJb6{()H \
nown to m or who has produced a
as i entification.
:-tf,-
me t.b.1.s rX5 - day of
I Who is personQ~~
driver's license
OFFICIAL NOTARIAL SEAL:
My Commission Expires:
~
""'."'tll..liI1# ..... '. .
,'''1, MARJORiF.<:'CMd~LO ~
~ Nota~y- S tat 0 c f F I 0 ( I d a ~
. Public ~ My Comm Exp 10104197
"'II\\'~' Commit CC320624
WESTPALM 47780.1 VLS
5/23/94
-2- e.p.. (L-
to{ 'C
Exhibit "A"
REC8~ vEtI'fiEt;9 80RJr~ ~ ~IU\EN
{LERK OF THE COURT - PB COUNTY, FL
TOGETHER WITH:
THAT PORTION OF PARK RIDGE BOULEVARD TRACT 'F' OF QUANTUM PARK AT
BOYNTON BEACH P I O. PLAT No.4, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON
FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR
PALM BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 57, PAGE 186.
~ORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGIN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 53, THENCE ALONG THE
EASTERLY RIGHT-Of-WAY OF SAID PARK RIDGE BOULEVARD TRACT 'F' FOR
THE FOLLOHING COURSES:
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST. HAVING A
RADIUS OF 5752.40 FEET. WHERE THE RADIAL LINE BEARS SBS'S2'47'W,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3'09'49' FOR 317 63 FEET TO A POINT OF
i TANGENCY; THENCE SOO'02'3S'W FOR 300.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS
OF 636. 77 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE
LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89'12'52' FOR 835.80 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOi'09'05'W FOR
124.63 FEET TO THE HESTERLY RIGHT-OF-HAY OF ALPHA DRIVE TRACT 'A'
OF SAID QUANTUM PARK AT BOYNTON BEACH P I D PLAT No 10; THENCE
ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY. N42'S3'48'J; FOR 34.76 FEET TO
THE WESTERLY RIGHT-Of-WAY OF SAID PARK RIDGE BOULEVARD TRACT 'F'
BEING A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF
636.77 FEET, WHERE THE RADIAL LINE BEARS N03'03'i3'E;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE FOLLOWING
COURSES:
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 86'59'23' FOR 966.7B FEET TO A POINT OF TANGEN-
CY; THENCE NOO'02'3S'E FOR 300.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE
OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 5652.40 FEET,
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 6'27'17' FOR 636.77 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID HESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, N90'QO'OO'E FOR
100,62 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID PARK AWGE
BOULEVARD TRACT IF'. BEING A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST. HAVING A
RADIUS OF 5752.40 FEET, WHERE THE RADIAL LINE BEARS SB3'42'03'W;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-Of-WAY AND CURVE TO THE RIGHT
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3'iO'44' FoR 319 17 FEET THE POINT OF
BEG I NN I NG.
(Tract F Parcel)
~~
~~.3
.,L;r-
~
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE
3320 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD, C-331
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406-5813
(561) 434-8020 FAX (561) 434-8187
DR. JOAN P KrJoNAL
SUPERINTENDENT
OF SCHOOLS
Mr Mike Rumpf
Planmng and Zonmg DIrector
CIty of Boynton Beach
100 E Ocean Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
~.-0.""-~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~
V)\U
\\\ J~N 5 ')
December 22, 1998
."\1.'(" ,~II'
?u\\,,;~<~\l ~w
-r,"l\t-I\.) DE, 1
~~-J~-
RE New High School III m the CIty of Boynton Beach
Dear Mr Rumpf
Thank you for meetmg wIth us on December 22, 1998 to reVIew the SIte and development plans
for the new hIgh school m the CIty of Boynton Beach.
Some of the Issues that resulted from that meetmg are as follows
The Engmeenng Department would like documentatIOn of the abandonment of the ParkR1dge
Road through the school SIte The Water UtIlItIes Department would also lIke documentatIOn of
all vacated easements on the SIte ThIS would reqmre updatmg the survey to show all vacated and
abandoned easements.
The traffic pattern/layout was revIewed. The TechnIcal ReVIew COImmttee (TRC) suggested
that the drop off zone m the cIrcular area be changed to one lane m one dIrectIOn mstead of that
shown whIch IS two lanes m one dIrectIOn. The TRC also requested that a stop SIgn be placed at
the eXIt of the staff/vIsItors parkmg area. ThIS would avoid any conflIct WIth mcommg traffic
especIally the busses.
The TRC asked the School DIstnct staff and representatIve to reVIsIt the refuse/recyclmg area so
as to mmImIze backmg out of the dumpster area and movmg of the dumpster so that It can be
loaded.
The CIty'S Engmeenng DIVISIon requested that the $25000 fine be placed on the handIcapped
SIgns, that all parkmg areas be double haIr pm stnped and the type "D" curves be utIlIzed as
much as possible along parkmg spaces They also requested that a standard parkmg detaIl
showmg the stnpmg be provIded and that an average of one-foot candle be mamtamed m the
parkmg lot.
The Planmng Department requested that off-SIte sIgnage be provIded to mdIcate to the motonsts
that Park RIdge m blocked off through the school.
An Equal Education Opportunity Provider and Affinnative Action Employer
12/28 98 MOK 17 25 FAX 561 686 8863 MFT Development rne
Quantum Park Property Owners Association, Inc.
1401 Forum Way, Suite 101, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Phone (561) 686-6959 Fax 686-8863
FACSIMILE
TO.--A~ ~
COMPANY
FAX NUMBER. d7-S-fc;ZS9
FROM. JOIn ;U(6~
DATE: /1.2 f ? f NUMBER Ol<' PAGES. 2-
~02
~~~~[ /' }
'~~
Remarks.
12/25'98 ~ON 17 25 FAX 561 686 8863 MFT Development Ine
~ 002/002
Quantum Park Property Owners' Association, Inc.
Design Review Committee
1401 Forum Way, Suite 101
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
- -
December 28, 1998
Carol A. Dubinsky
The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida
3320 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C331
West Palm Beach, FL 33406-5813
RE. Boynton Beach High School, Quantum Park
Dear Ms. Dubinsky'
=
This is a second request to the letter dat~ December 7, 1998, regardIng construction of the High
School at the above referenced .[ocatlon. As construction of the High School is forthcoming, the
DesIgn Review Committee will require a copy of the building eleva.tion (colored if possible), site
plan, landscapIng and sign age plans.
Please submit these plans at your earliest convenience. to' Design Review Committee, 1401
Forum Way, Suite 101. West Palm Beach, Flonda 33401.
~ .
Thomas A. McG~
Design Review Committee
Quantum Park Property Owners' Association, Inc.
c.c Michael Rumph
C:Quantum POAlDRClol101 dllbirlaky2.4C1t
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
Division of PlannIng and Zoning
Bulent I. Kastilrillk, NCARB
Director
Building
Planning & Zoning
Engineering
Occupational License
Contmllnity Redevelopment
September 24, 1998
Ms. Angela Usher
School Board of Palm Beach County
3320 Forest Hill Blvd. Suite C331
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
On behalf of the CIty I thank you for the opportunity to revIew and comment on the plans for the
future hIgh schooL As promised, I am providIng you WIth the lIst of comments, questIons and
requests dIscussed WIth you dunng the meetIng of our Techrucal ReVIew CommIttee held on
September IS, 1998.
A small lIst of comments and questIOns are as follows.
1 To ensure safe and congestIon-free traffic flow, sIgnalIzatIOn should be exercIsed to
coordinate time and coordInate all lights WItlun the VICInIty of the school, IncludIng the
ImmedIate SIgnal on Gateway Boulevard, the Motorola sIgnal, the sIgnal at High RIdge
Road, and the sIgnal at the 1-95 overpass. Of partIcular concern IS the potentIal for
slmilanty in peak penods between the schools and Motorola,
2 It would appear from the general site layout plan that a water maIn wIll be constructed
around the school, and therefore, Health Department permit will be reqUIred,
3 City staff will determine if utilIty lines eXIst under Park RIdge Boulevard in the vlclmty
of the entry plaza. Staff deSIres to asSISt WIth the redeSIgn of tlus entry plaza to aVOId If
being placed over sewer/water lInes;
4 Staff could not confirm that proper traffic flow would be ensured In the absence of flow
markings and signage details on the general sIte layout plan,
5 Staff could not confirm the proper locatIon and accessibIlIty of contaIners for refuse and
recyclable;
America's Gateway to the Gulfstream
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd., P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 375-6260 FAX. (561) 375-6259
f/c -f~ "5 fr~
'/~C-
p
vel/ / 1'1 <-~ (c.- r
H:- -2
sc-~c~~(
c; (~ ~jS;+7
IS <j f-r C1-)7 -" r ." /.-'1 r (__ ~ r-/ Ci-c<.~- -f~.,...- f ~~-
? _5C hr~ .: I s::: ~cc: ( ~ d50C Sr,-c~' ^ 6- ?
~ .2
(II f 1<-./7 ~i-7, rl1 Vr1(y '- -( jV<- tI j; /)'!CJ)
, /"ylf
t--" -f I jl- ? <2 Pn: r...- k 7" C' l.,r-r- _ ~ :z:?:S
'lie
e.
Vt- ) /L I ,~
"" \ 7 J...f S r 1 ncJ /~~ -hc-v'-
-Ii (pc cL or cc..,-.f I cr
'/ A v '
~(;.tLir,....,,,"-~ )) VI/c-c rrf L~'4-r ~r)n / 4, rYh A c.c3Jc-- f-'1!;,C'~'-- c-'<--'1"-- sc Acr:'J!
\. n~ ~ , / 7~
I , \~ /
I..l-l )'v;,F/r'e. r<.c<-7 <-=>fJ r'Gc.b.$ ~ ~\Y'Lel
'* ~t::' +c ~ \ VIr'", ~ {\L ~-<.- 'f?<-,-_ L \..='\ C
\ 'v!:) .
/1 f<... ~t n, /0 f <-r(c,-l(~ n,-,,-,-
"Q -../- li _,,' ~
51-::> '''''',\, ~ i"'-" (<. CYYJf'- c.. +:::.. I <:,.C ~--t..c,^\S.? .f- 'Ce_c'(cC '7;:r
/ \ (,~ .? rr.: ~ ff
lY S~,-~" t'( Y' X"::(Jn~ ( ~ _\c- l.c-,.:-::.-l 6~,~(..- L \')'Ic<::.< @S"c '-, ;+1 6
f'l,<<~~ kJ "(,.-i~-
:)- st-q vi). \ ~ ~ I n~~Lc LA~--, li---'j ~\> 6->' t<:. l~l;~~..R=""- f.., c.--f{" I~ ir..;
1) FErn/( Ev~,-,'-'<'-~'r<-'.~ t::..,-..... r~. --~.
~
t fr~c- ~ I~( ~~;<-
re'C~6~ ~-,ff~C' y~ c
n LeV---
\
S if'b~ ?(~I
f [~ p.-U '?~ {C
.f1.J L- / J'--' I (
:J>-pv~ ~~.l<; ~ . ( L
tL? ~ V
(J-( t,- c '7 ~'" l
o ~jC/ /
2..~ ~
),/ fc
S~'
- t'J(., .::> I-I-'r J,.~ .D 3 7:5 -f~ ; r)
,( T c:= ... tr'..., ~...~
L(",- IA(S -t... L~<'- P (G-<-,~k_
,"') ~\"'( ~ -.{ "'"
r' -\0. . \ ~-.......
4 v r ~-tU'M- )
f"-\i
,,"'-t:.. -\<:..,f
r~ ~\. ~.\""
-\
IL-
(j2../~
\t'LV-~ . 17
/021'" rl (r I
t-, ,{' f J._]'~ c{ C ~
, ~., 7
l...'
-Hf S('HOOl JcSTRICT
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
PLANNING & REAl ESTATE
3320 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD, C-331
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406-5813
(561) 434-8020 FAX (561) 434-8187
DR JOAN P KOWAL
SUPERlNTE~ENT
OF SCHOOlS
-:!1~
j'~
September 4, 1998
lli~
1 rF
,----_.~
Mr DanIel C DeCarlo
ASSocIate Planner
Planmng and Zomng Department
CIty of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
RE New High School III in Quantum Park, Boynton Beach
Dear Mr DeCarlo
Thank you for meetmg With us on August 28, 1998 to dISCUSS the SIte plan for the new
hIgh school m Boynton Beach.
Would you please reVIew the SIte plan With Mike Rumpf to address Issues of concern.
The School DIstnct staff has met With Charlie Walker, DIrector of Traffic Engmeenng
for the County, regardmg the estabhshment of a traffic SIgnal at Park Ridge Blvd., and
Gateway Blvd. He conceptually consented to the placement of the hght provIdmg the
fundmg IS m place.
It IS my understandmg that a courtesy review by the CIty of Boynton Beach IS all that is
necessary for SIte plan approval pnor to the development of the SIte.
Would you please mform me if there are any outstandmg Issues to be addressed and of
the approval necessary from the CIty
If there are any questIOns, please call me at 434-8800
Smcerely,
Ang Usher
Planmng SpecIahst
c Mike Rumpf, City of Boynton Beach
Linda H. Hines, PBCSD
An Equal Education Opportunity Provider and Affirmative Action Employer
City of Boynton Beadl
Community Presentation for "11I~ High School
December 14. 1998
Boynton Beach Library Program Rooan
7'00 p.m. - 8.30 p.m.
Obj ed.ives:
..
Update the commumty on changes and progress of '111" High School
Onent the community to the current arcmtectural plans ofelfil" High School
Introduce new members of the "IIr' building team
..
..
What How Who Tune
We1com~ Present VugiDia Farace, Director, 5 mins
agenda Boynton Beach Library
Update Present Pat Steinkueh1er, Educational 5 mins
PlanDing Specialist
Current arcbiteotura1 Presentation Greg Bischo~ Architect 30 mins
plans
<<COnstruction .. Introductions of Warren ~ Construct1on 5 mins
Management at Risk" new team Specialist
process members Sandra Player. Project
. &planation of Manager
process
Progress and Present H Jesse Brewer, Vice- 10 mins
Time line President ofCentex Rooney
Future plans and Present Vugnna Farace 5 mins
Close offonnal
presentation
Panel discussion Questions and answers All 15 mins
Opportunity to see Display All 15 mins
the plans up close
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE
3320 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD, C-331
WEST PALM BEACH, FL33406-5813
(561) 434-8020 FAX (561) 434-8187
~ (.ll r~
L, 0:, LS U
r- r'
r~_
!
M "
.......-'~!!~i
5. WI
DR.JOAN P KOWAL
SUPERlNTENlENT
OF SCHOOlS
rn
Q;
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
August 3, 1998
Mr Michael Rumpf
Actmg Planmng DIrector
CIty of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
RE New High School SIte at Quantum Park
Dear Mr Rumpf.
The School DIstnct Plannmg and Real Estate Department would like to confirm the land
development status of the subject parcel in Quantum Park m order to develop a hIgh
school on the property
The School DIstnct IS hopmg to commence constructIOn of the High School m February
1999 Our records show that the DR! was amended to accommodate the school and
concurrency was approved for the SIte. Would you please mform me IfthIS mformatIOn IS
correct.
The School DIstnct IS currently workmg WIth the archItects to finalize a deSIgn/sIte plan
for the school. Will the CIty reqUire any addItIonal approval pnor to the development of
the SIte for a High School?
Thank you for your aSSIstance With thIS mformatIOn and If there are any questIOns please
call me at (561) 434-8800
Smcerely,
~e~
Plannmg SpeCialIst
c. Jim Snyder, TCRPC
Linda Hines, PBCSB
An Equal Education Opportunity Provider and Affirmative Action Employer
EXHIBIT "e"
MEMORANDUM
Utilities #94-068
FROM
John A Guidry,
Director of Utilities
TO
Tambri J Heyden,
Acting Planning &
DATE
March 4, 1994
SUBJECT
Quantum Park P I D . Master Plan Modification
Staff has reviewed the above referenced project and offer the
following comments
Clarification for Utility Memo #94-055, Item #1
The following are suggested as options for securing 24-hour
accessibility to utilities in the abandoned roadway
1 Mountable curb to access road
2 Electronically controlled arm with access code
available to central dispatch
It is our recommendation that the plan proceed through the review
process
If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact
Skip Milor at 375-6407 or Peter Mazzella at 375-6404
19b
xc Clyde "Skip" Milor
Peter Mazzella
File
EXHIBIT "e"
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO 94-057
FROM
Chairman and Members
PlaQning and Development Board
-.:/~~..{l-L~). d~l~ (,. 1...,
Tambri J' Hey..aen
Acting planning and zoning Director
TO
DATE
March 3, 1994
SUBJECT
Quantum Park of Commerce - File No 813
Master Plan Amendment #4 (high school)
Please be advised of the following planning and zoning
comments with respect to the above-referenced request
otherwise stated, it is recommended that these comments
satisfied within 90 days of City commission approval of
amended development order
related
Unless
be
the
1 Application fee shall be paid prior to se~ond reading of the
ordinance to amend the development order Applicant will be
notified of the amount of the fee which will be determined
after receipt of the bill for advertising the required
public hearings
2 A cross-section of the required peripheral greenbelt (40
feet in width along the south property line where the PID
abuts residential zoning and 25 feet in width along the west
property line where the PID abuts nonresidential zoning)
shall be prepared and submitted to the City for comment or
shall be submitted to Quantum Associates for inclusion in
Quantum's near future master plan modification application
for approval of all greenbelts within the PID
3 For courtesy comments, it is recommended that the School
Board provide the city a copy of the high school site plan
prior to it being finalized Subsequent to this, a final
copy, for record keeping purposes, would also be appreciated
to include the location, type and quantity of all hazardous
materials used and stored
4 If a portion of Park Ridge Boulevard is closed and no longer
used for private road purposes, a separate instrument shall
be recorded to delete the plat dedication of that portion of
Park Ridge Boulevard A recorded copy of the legal
instrument shall be provided to the City
5 The amended master site development plan, dated February 15,
1994 shall be revised and submitted to the City to include a
graphic scale, reconfiguration of parcels that has occurred
for the Motor Vehicle Inspection Station and the Tri-Rail
expansion and adjustment of all parcel acreages (and land
use totals) to correspond with the tax maps prepared by the
Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's office
tjh
xc Applicant
central File
A QPkMPMcm
EXHIBIT "e"
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Memorandum No 94-059
TO
Tambri Heyden, Senior Planner
Robert Eichorst, Director ~
VIA
FROH
Bill DeBeck, Project Manager
DATE
February 25, 1994
SUBJECT
Technical Review Committee Meeting
Tuesday, February 22, 1994
Our comments on the two projects reviewed are as follows
1) WHIPOWILL ARMS - The site plan does not allow any space for a
garbage truck to turn around and the alternate idea of backing
into the main highway is unacceptable
2) The new hiqh school site needs to have an adequate 4J'ft
radius area for turn around for a garbage truck at the service
area We also want them to consider planning for recycling of
any materials possible and access to those containers by the
City of SWA vehicles
~A/
BDB/pl
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
EXHIBIT "e"
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM '94-074
Tambri Heyden, Acting Planning & Zoning Director
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalis~~~
Palm Beach County High School Site ~
Quantum Park PID
February 24, 1994
Please have a cross section of the perimeter landscape plan
prepared to ensure:
KH: ad
1 aesthetic buffering
2. light buffering
3. sound bUffering
4. DRI requirement fulfillment
m
m
FEB 2 4 S94