REVIEW COMMENTS
Galav, Lusia
From
Sent:
To
Cc:
Subject:
Tolces David [dtolces@cityatty com]
Thursday October 11 2001 5:28 PM
Lamanna, Rosemarie
Galav Lusia
RE Quantum DRI
Rosemarie
Lusia's revisions are correct. I forgot to make reference to Lot 34-C and
the change in the road Thanks to Lusia for her assistance Have a great
day
David
> -----Original Message-----
> From Lamanna, Rosemarie [SMTP"LamannaR@cLboynton-beach fl us]
> Sent: Thursday October 11 2001 5.02 PM
> To 'dtolces@cityatty com'
> Subject: Quantum DRI
>
> Lucia made a couple of additions to this ordinance and I just wanted to
> run
> them past you
> <<Draft quantum DRI 2001Amds101001 doc>> <<File Draft quantum DRI
> 2001Amds101001 doc>>
1
ORDINANCE NO 01-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON
BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR A
DETERMINATION WHETHER CHANGES TO THE
COMPREHENSNE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMP ACT APPROVED IN ORDINANCE NO 84-51, AND
AMENDED IN ORDINANCES NOS 86-11, 86-37, 88-3,
94-10, 94-51, 96-33, 96-65, 97-20, 99-05 AND 00-02
CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION UNDER
CHAPTER 38006, FLORIDA STATUTES, 1996, AND
WHETHER FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT REVIEW IS NECESSARY
REGARDING SUCH CHANGES, APPROVING SUCH
CHANGES, AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT
ORDER (ORDINANCE NOS 84-51, 86-11, 86-37, 88-3,
94-10, 94-51, 96-33, 96-65, 97-20, 99-05, AND 00-02)
FOR PURPOSES OF INCORPORATING THE
APPROVED CHANGES, AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTNE DATE
/"'.
\O~~ -
}Jl ~\ S l VIJl
WHEREAS, R1teco Development CorporatIOn, a Flonda corporatIOn ("R1teco")
filed WIth the CIty of Boynton Beach (the "CIty") an Appl1catIOn for Development
Approval of ComprehensIve Development of RegIOnal Impact (the "ADA") on May 21,
1984, regardmg that certam property (the "Property") described m ExhibIt "A", attached
hereto and made a part of hereof; and
vVHEREAS, the ADA was approved and the Development Order for the Property
was granted December 18, 1984 pursuant to Ordmance No 84-51 (the "Development
Order") , and
WHEREAS, R1teco subsequently conveyed ItS nght, tItle and mterest m and to the
Property to Boynton Park of Commerce, Inc , a Flonda corporatIOn ("Boynton Park"),
and, Boynton Park, m turn, subsequently conveyed ItS nght, tItle and mterest m and to the
Property to Quantum ASSOCIates, a Flonda general partnershIp (the "Developer"), and
Page 1 of 6
WHEREAS, the CIty approved prevlOus apphcatIons to amend the Development
Order whIch apphcatlOns were approved by the CIty m Ordmance No 86-11, Ordmance
86-37, Ordmance No 88-3, Ordmance No 94-10, Ordmance No 94-51, Ordmance 96-
33, Ordmance No, 96-65, Ordmance No 97-20, Ordmance No 99-05 and Ordmance No
00-02,
WHEREAS, the City CommlsslOn of the CIty of Boynton Beach, as the govemmg
body havmg ]UnSdIctlOn, IS authonzed and empowered to consIder apphcatlOns for
amendments to development orders approvmg developments of reglOnal1mpact pursuant
to Chapter 38006, Flonda Statutes (1996), and
WHEREAS, the CIty Comm1sslOn has consIdered the testimony, reports and other
documentary eVIdence submItted as said pubhc heanng by Quantum, the CIty staff and
the pubhc, and the CIty Planmng and Development Board's recommendatlOn of the 10th
day of October, 2001, and
WHEREAS, Said CIty CommlsslOn has conSIdered all of the forgomg.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT
Section 1 A notice of pubhc heanng was duly pubhshed on the 2q day of
(j ~})t)Q ~
,2001, m the Palm Beach Post, a newspaper of general clfculatlOn m
Boynton Beach, Flonda, pursuant to Chapter 38006, Flonda Statutes, and proof of Said
pubhcatlOn has been duly filed.
SectlOn 2 The Development Order shall be amended to mc1ude the follO\vmg
provlslOns
Page 2 of 6
Lots 7.8.9.10 and 11
These lots were prevlOusly deSIgnated as Office/Industnal (Or) Land Use. The Land Use
DesIgnatlOn for Lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 shall be amended to reflect a "Mixed Use (MU)"
Land Use Des1gnatlOn. The MIxed Use Land Use Des1gnatlOn mc1udes office,
commercIal and resIdential uses.
Lots 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.30 and 31.
These lots were prevlOusly deSIgnated as Office (0) Land Use The Land Use
Des1gnatlOn for Lots 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 shall be amended to reflect a
"Mixed Use (MU)" Land Use DesIgnatlOn. The proposed MIxed Use Land Use
DesIgnatlOn mc1udes office, commercIal and resIdential uses
In conJunctlOn wIth the change described above, the maXImum resIdentIal number of
f\VO
r. (j) umts shall be mcreased from 500 dwellmg umts to a total of 1,000 resIdential umts.
11J!t ~ h9~__~L\.-=~_.~ I
~jJ ~ 1J-e5.l(r<c:..k -+-l.J.--J I o-t O~__ <~'"! .:)P_.i
~~ SectIOn 3 Master SIte Development Plan Amendment No 12 as snbrmtted to the
CIty, a copy of whIch IS attached hereto and made a part hereof as ExhibIt "B" replaces
av bY...
-=-----
and supersedes the Master SIte Development Plan currently approved m the Development
Order
SectlOn 4. The Development Order shall also be amended to mc1ude the
)- (0
CondItIons of Approval #1, 2,3, c.'wd 4, attached and mcorporated herem as ExhibIt "C"
SectlOn 5. Upon consIderatlOn of all matters described m SectlOn 380 06, Flonda
Statutes (1996), It IS hereby determmed that
A. The amendments proposed by Quantum do not unreasonably
mterfere wIth the achIevement of the objectIves of the adopted state land
development plan applIcable to thIS area.
Page 3 of 6
B The amendments proposed by Quantum are consIstent WIth the
local comprehensIve plan and are, or WIll be, consIstent WIth the local land
development regulatIOns, subject to the condItions outlmed above
C The amendments proposed by Quantum are consIstent WIth the
recommendations of the Treasure Coast RegIOnal Plannmg CounCIl, subject to the
condItIOns outlmed above.
D The amendments proposed by Quantum do not create any
addItional regIOnal Impacts and therefore do not constitute a substantial devIatIOn
under Chapter 38006, Flonda Statutes (1996)
SectIOn 6 The CIty CommIssIOn has concluded as a matter of law that these
proceedmgs have been duly conducted pursuant to the provlSlons of Chapter 38006,
Flonda Statutes (1996), that Quantum IS entitled to the rehefprayed and apphed for, and
that the Development Order IS hereby amended mcorporatmg the amendments proposed
by Developer as set forth m SectIOn 2 above
SectIOn 7
Except as otherwIse amended herem, the Development Order shall
rem am m full force and effect.
SectIOn 8
hereby repealed.
SectIOn 9
All ordmances or parts of ordmances m conflIct herewIth are
Should any sectIOn or provlSlon of thIS ordmance or portIOn hereof,
any paragraph, sentence or word be declared by a court of competent JunsdIctIOn to be
mvalId, such deCISIOn shall not affect the remamder of thIS ordmance
SectIOn 10 Authonty IS hereby granted to COdIfy Said ordmance
SectIOn 11. ThIS ordmance shall become effectIve ImmedIately upon passage
FIRST READING thIS _ day of
Page 4 of 6
,2001
Page 5 of 6
SECOND READING and FINAL PASSAGE thIS
,2001
day of
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
Mayor
Vice Mayor
ComnnSSIOner
CommISSIOner
CormmssIOner
ATTEST
CIty Clerk
S:ca\Ord\Quantum DR! - 2001- 1010/01 DRAFT
Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT "I"
ReVIsed CondItIOns of Approval 10/1 % 1
Project name Quantum Park NOPC Amendment #12
FIle number- MPMD 01-003/DRIA 01-001
Reference 2nd reVIew plans IdentIfied as Master Plan wIth a September 11,2001 Planmng and Zonmg
d ki
Department ate stamp mar ng.
I DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS-General
Comments NONE X
PUBLIC WORKS-Traffic
Comments
1 When warranted the developer and the existmg occupants of Quantum Park X
will be responsible for the cost of constructIOn of traffic-actuated sIgnals at
the mtersectIOns of Quantum Boulevard WIth Gateway Boulevard and
Congress Avenue See attached memo from Jeff LlVergood, PublIc Works
DIrector, dated August 29, 2001/ ReVIsed October 4, 2001 located m
ExhibIt 'G
UTILITIES
Comments
2 As prevIOusly stated, the proposed reVISIOn to the land use to "Mixed Use X
(MU)" to mclude Office, CommercIal and ReSIdentIal uses could tax the
utilIty support faCIlItIes to theIr lImIts. A prOVISO needs to be mcorporated
mto each group of lot approvals process, that the desIgn-engmeenng
consultant shall demonstrate that suffiCIent utIlIty system(s) capaCIty IS
available to support the proposed use, or they WIll prOVIde the necessary
upgrade(s) to allow for the proposed use Failure to do so could result m
msufficIent utIlIty support to thIS park, affectmg other current (exIstmg)
users.
FIRE
Comments NONE X
POLICE
Comments NONE X
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments NONE X
2 10/11/2001
I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments NONE X
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments
3 The CIty CommISSIOn dId exempt from the RecreatIOn DedIcatIOn X
ReqUIrement of 272 umts of the first 500 umts reqUIred In NOPC # 10
ApplIcabIlIty or amount of RecreatIOn Fees or DedIcatIOns wIll be
considered at subsequent SIte plan stage
FORESTERlENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments
4 The proposed Master SIte Development Plan shall be modIfied to remove X
the Industnal use deSIgnatIOn for Lot 34-C The land area of Lot 34-C, 6.58
acres, shall be deducted from the Industnal deSIgnatIOn and Included as a
separate lme Item titled "Reserved" m the area tabulatIOn sho\,;TI on the
master plan. Development shall not occur untIl. a) the CIty and applIcant
evaluates the need for open space "In the Pill master plan" and detenmnes
that the reductIon In open space created by thIS change IS conSIstent WIth the
CIty regulatIOns, b) It IS demonstrated that the development of this parcel
wIll not mterfere WIth management of the adjacent preserve area. These
two(2) condItIOns are reIterated above and contamed wIthm a letter dated
October 8, 2001 from the Treasure Coast RegIOnal Plannmg Council
(TRRPC).
It IS acknowledged that Lot 34-C IS not encumbered by any easement,
reservatIOn, dedIcatIon or permIt reqUIrement by the CIty, any regulatory
agency or speCIal dIstnct Includmg the Quantum Commumty Development
DIstnct regardmg the use of Lot 34-C for dramage purposes, except the
dramage reqUIrements assocIated WIth the development of Lot 34-C
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments.
5 At the tIme of SIte plan approval applIcant will work WIth the CIty to X
maXImIze emergency access for lots 59 through 61 and new lots 100
through 102.
6 ApplIcant has submItted a reVIsed area calculatIon summary Please reVIse X
the Master Plan drawmg to reflect the correct acreage calculatIOns proposed
for the MIxed Use and Road RIght-of Way categones.
3 10/11/2001
l!:EPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Comments. NONE X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments
S-\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Quantum Park 200 I Amen # l2\I1.1PMD 0 1-003\cond. of approval 200 I form.doc
EXHIBIT "G"
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PUBLIC \VORKS DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO
Mike Rumpf, DIrector of Planmng and Zomng
FROM.
Jeffrey R. LIvergood, DIrector of PublIc Works
DATE
August 29, 2001-RevIsed October 4,2001
SUBJECT
Quantum NOPC #12
I have revIewed the proposed changes consIdered m NOPC #12 for Quantum Park. Quantum has
requested that consIderatIOn be gIven by the CIty to the closure of the eastern portIOn of Quantum
Lakes Dnve at Gateway Boulevard. There are essentIally three traffic Issues that ment evaluatIOn
and scrutmy
Quantum Lakes Drive Closure
Staff IS of the opmIOn that Quantum Lakes Dnve can safely be closed at Gateway Boulevard.
Frankly, It IS staff s opmIOn that there IS value m closmg Quantum Lakes Dnveway smce thIS
would effectIvely elImmate a conflIct pomt on a busy artenal route (Gateway Boulevard)
However, m closmg Quantum Lakes Dnve, we must be cognIzant of the revIsed access
configuratIOns from Lots 100 and 102 Staff recommends that these two lots only be allowed to
access Gateway Boulevard m a "nght m - nght out" manner Staff would oppose any smgle lot
havmg full access onto Gateway smce the dnveways m questIOn are located on the mSIde of the
curve on Gateway and sIght dIstance IS lImIted.
Traffic Signalization, Quantum Drive and Gateway Boulevard
Staffs reVIew of the traffic Impact at the mtersectIOn of Quantum Dnve and Gateway Boulevard
IS more complex. As part of the NOPC #11 submIttal, the traffic consultant, Pmdar Troutman,
opmed that a traffic sIgnal IS warranted at thIS mtersectIOn based on peak hour warrants, or
Warrant 11 from the Manual on Umform Traffic Control DeVIces WIth respect to NOPC #12,
the consultant has changed the mtersectIOn lane-markmg configuratIOn by elImmatmg one of two
through lanes, both northbound and southbound, and SubstItutmg dedIcated nght turn lanes ThIS
actIOn was logIcal because the assumptIOn was made that there would be very mImmal north or
southbound through movements at the mtersectIOn. UltImately, the cntIcal volume sum that was
utIlIzed for level of servIce analysIs could be reduced. Thus the mtersectIOn theoretIcally will
have a hIgher traffic capaCIty
However, whereas the cntIcallane analysIs prOVIdes mformatIOn related to overall mtersectIOn
capaCIty, It does not lend Itself to warrant analysIs for SIgnalIzatIOn. ThIS analysIs IS based on
completely dIfferent cntena establIshed m the Manual m Umform Traffic Control DeVIces, the
same Manual utilIzed by the consultant m NOPC #11 submIttal. The consultant has shown no
changes m the traffic dIstributIOn. Thus, the warrant analysIs conducted by Pmdar Troutman and
summanzed m a report dated February 16, 2001 IS still valId. In fact, as lots 7 through 11 and
lots 23 through 31 develop as MIxed Use, they will most certamly generate addItIonal traffic that
EXHIBIT "G",
!
will use the mtersectIon of Quantum Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard. As such, the need for a
traffic sIgnal at thIS mtersectIon will be even more pronounced.
Traffic Signalization, Quantum Drive and Congress Avenue
The traffic consultant dId not evaluate traffic condItIons at thIS mtersectIOn as part of the
submIttal packet for NOPC #12 However, evaluatIOn of traffic condItIons at thIS mtersectIon IS
equally as cntIcal. Agam, as part ofthe NOPC #11 submIttal, Pmdar Troutman evaluated traffic
sIgnal warrant cntena at the mtersectIOn of Quantum Dnve and Gateway Boulevard. In thIS
analysIs, Pmdar Troutman found that a traffic sIgnal was not presently warranted at thIS
mtersectIOn based on the peak hour warrant and noted that "there are other Warrants, No 2-
InterruptIOn of Contmuous Traffic and No 10 - Peak Hour Delay that may be satIsfied. The
recommendatIOn IS that thIS mtersectlon be momtored m the future. Appropnate tIme frames for
momtoring would be at the buildout of Lots 32 through 38 and at the buildout of the NOPC 11
reSIdentIal or non-resIdentIal land uses, whIchever occurs first." Staff would note that a large
portIOn oflots 32 through 38 IS now complete in the form of the PremIer buildmg.
Furthermore, as part ofPmdar Troutman's traffic analYSIS m February of200l, the consultant
assumed a build out of Lots 23 to 31 as office space (0) and Lots 7 to 11 as Office/Industnal
(a/I) However, the proposal IS to now change these land uses to MIxed Use (MU) The
developer contmues to be bound by a maXImum number of dally tnps from the entIre DRI, yet
subtle changes m land use can SIgnIficantly Impact peak hour traffic flows wIthout Impactmg the
daily trIp generatIon rate. The consultant has not expressed an opmlon on the changed traffic
charactenstIcs as related to traffic SIgnal warrant analYSIS based on the changes to mIxed use
It IS very likely that a SIgnal will be warranted as well at Quantum Boulevard and Gateway
A venue upon build out of the proposed mIxed use land uses.
Recommendation
It IS very clear that traffic SIgnals are eIther currently warranted, or will be warranted m the
future, at both Gateway Boulevard and Congress Avenue These SIgnals will be necessary
entIrely because of development m Quantum Park. Thus, staffbelteves that the cost of
constructmg these SIgnals should be borne by future builders as well as by those tenants of the
mdustrlal park that are presently generatmg traffic It would not be appropnate to have the CIty
of Boynton Beach pay for the traffic SIgnals when other capItal Improvements are eIther more
Important or have been delayed m pnor years awaItmg fundmg.
If the CIty does not obtam surety for the mstallatIOn of a traffic SIgnal at thIS tIme, It will be
VIrtually Impossible to assess the reqUIrement for traffic SIgnal constructIOn to each mdlvldual
that may purchase the mIxed use lots from Quantum and then subsequently develop them. The
burden of traffic SIgnal constructIOn should fall upon the developer of the whole rather than the
mdIvIduals that choose to acqUIre and develop lots m the future Quantum could easily dIstribute
the cost equally to future buyers whereas the CIty could not. LikeWIse, Quantum has SIgnIficant
control over the property O\vners aSSOCIatIon and has the abiltty to ImtIate a speCIal assessment of
eXIstmg propertIes for theIr share m the cost of traffic SIgnal constructIOn.
Staff recommends that the developer and the eXIstmg occupants of Quantum Park be held
responsible for the cost of constructIOn of traffic actuated SIgnals at the mtersectIOns of Quantum
Boulevard WIth Gateway and Congress
)/oz 01 ~UE 16 O~
"Of""
i6~
"00-
~c:.
a~
.s!' ...,
"'
~
~
~
'"0
!'T\
f~X 561 7~O Z4:9 QU~~~~
,.>
o
i3
a
~
\ '1(/),;f;l~"~\O'O 010 ~ 'i.\nl \;'
'I '.Ia\~ 0 ii'; )<\4\'.~ 0\\.4\ <:. ~ ~\ ~\
\1'f\\o\~,?,~\51~ '5\5 rf\ ~\~, \,
\ (~ ..\ ~ ~\ c:\ t)ll l); Ill' '" ~i~::ol w"
\ \ I \-0 ~\~ 0,(/)\'% z.~ ~\-, C)' \
\ \ ,. "'I _ lI>\ "'\" ,,0. "'\ F-\ 5' <> i
\ I' \ (1 -o;~ \ \C,5,~' ~,\r-' ~'\
1 \ m ;v1G'> \ CAI~ ~ ')!I
" , \ '" ~'''' \~l" ",\... · ~i
\-t,J, ~\t;lib\ \~\" ~\ ~\ ~'
,\~~' \ .....\;iI\t. %I~' , .'iil \~,\,
.-I' i,-,:) \ \'. \~, ~\i\ \' \~" \
\,t 0 ' ....\~\' ~
,.\~\~ ' \ \ \ I~\ \ \~I
i .. \ ~ I ... . . \ 5\ ., \tY
:s,'t,I'i. (/) 0 , . n \ %\ ,\
.',1.11 · i \1< ' .
i\5'\,S' ~. ~\ . ~---
"'\f"'Ir" I!r-~ \
i- lli~ Ii. \ \
... ,:>\> ~\ ' \' \
~\.?'$ ll\'\ \ \ ' '.
~\~.\. .\ '
"..........al i \ \ \ i
~ ...'''' $ \9- i' I' ' 'e.. "
_ g,'391\~ \' ~,_ -'-"-' _.-,- _-..------,1 ~- ;
.~ \__",' ,__-,-- \ \ . \ _ \ l~
- \ \ \ ' ,.... .... ,~ .
J>~\.-.t.)V'i C1' tD~\,~ICl'I\,~\~'~\~~~O''''l'l '5. ~,.:o\
':'" ~';,tl...... 'o:Slo ~ 0 ~,"""al' ,\'...l\' -J \-.) ~!:""'iJll ClIl'O-U
\\ '" $ ~ '" $ :. ~,gl <:;\ ,,, ~i" :&\.. '.. o\~' "'. - ~ I <>
..~ "''''.... \' \ .. \
-..J ' 1< '. \' ' \ .......... -- - \' \ \
.. _"-' .... . ,..- \, \ I, I_I
- - I \ \ '-
~ 'D ~I .0
_ . ,.....' \ 0), tt \~,
d i >' I' 0' "'I.,,; \ '" \,
\ '" I'", \ .. !l.\,..;,...'.
,I \ ~'. IS ' i. ,"
~ I -'>- ~ ~ ," .e..-\--" "
~ _ \ " .\1\9\t\"i
, '0 ,,,,I !l II\~,"~
~' \ -4\ ' 'I; "" I ~ ,Ii
'" "'\ -\It '. ,,,
\ ' ' _',,'1
\
\
\ \ '
\'--
\-.,.....
\ -
" '-
\
..- \.._""f --
,
\
-;
~\
_-\'
, \\
I \ !\p\
i \
,-
.'>-
~
!!!
,_'\-.....--..-..'--1
_ __ ~-""_ I .
, '
\-.1 ' ~'
\' \
\ \ \ (.C) , cD
. . \ \~ .$
\
-I
......
" ,':S ~
l\G li
\!-~
\ ~
\";' ""
,tt ~,~
- a'a-\
\!~
...,
..(
\" ~
i---- \
'7 ~\
\ ~.
"; \ "
,---:- ~ i
~ I i ,.\
lOt \~ ~\i \.
\ ......... i
I a Q;
~~~:t 'iii'
\ ~
~.9'l~\~ 6
"''.'t~\~~
$\!J\ ~\O) ?
I : ~
,
-\,-
\
..-. i~
,\t.t" <,;I'
\ ~\ ~\
\ t>>\ $'
.. ~i~\ii~'~~~~\\\\t\ \
... : \.. . \', \ I . I
..
- ,_ _, - - - - -1- -' -: -
\
\\i ,t; ~
!.\Ill, (")
\ \
\
p\
,
-0
~
~. ,
!"
-"
.......
!:
~.".
~~
~tT\
0"
';P~g
h~"ft
c:%~
~~~
:1rnC
~~-o
__O~
~ga
e~r
C~
C~
~O
;.(~
~
/..-------,--,--'_...-----'"
10 '02 01 IrE 16 09 FAX 561 740 2429 QrANTDl
~ 001/002
~~- QUANTUNt
:;11~ G R 0 U P 0 COM P t, N I E S
TO' 4tl 5~ FACSIMILE
COMPANY 7ttz
FAX NUMBER. ~/..... ;:~-;"~2s j
FROM. Eugene GerJi<:a
DATE. ~~~/ NUMBER OF PAGES, Z
with (X)ver
Remarks; h~ '-k
II Artc.( St,f4~~ ~
'td f 5
((u/'-sed 1v 5~w -rtt~ /Jrrt ct I '",
fIV~ 01 fI~ ~ /d ,. f Corf?
f#~
~r
2500 Quantum Lake. Drive. Suite 101
BO)tIton Beach. FL 33426
(5611740-2447. FaK: (5t1t]~0-2429
e.mal quantQrp@qgc.cc
(+JJA
11COL/
\~-
~~
-----=~""\..
N
~
PROPOSBO .LANO us.
aYM.aL ACA..
e caMMa.CIAL 87.a ....
0 a""le. ,.... 8:a..
I LI13HT INDUSTRIAL ....7 47..
L/W LAK.. awaTLAND .... 115..
R IIIC1Aa. ..... ...
R HOTEL ALTERNATB 153... "100.0
Commerce I
P::J
~
15/7/8.
T h. ao
Lo .DO PUD
.
The
Motorola
Plant
Site
Ii
H
Jl
"j! 2
56.1
J~I ~
~.itJ D.
.
,
,
U
BOYNTON
BEACH
..
2
w
THES
..I
W
:>
w
D
LeGI!ND
I
D LAND U..
B.B ACA..
...... :~~~~c;.~v
By
II
COMMERCE ~
<l:
~
Development
Carp.
MAPH
PARK
OF
Riteco
01/12/t)()
f1.e.OJ ,t...q
'd""'O"o \?> ~
'0'''_0''00 ~ ~ ~ S
',1\ \3> ,,' ,,~t
r . ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \ \\ \ \
~~~~~~~ ;~t~
'F ~ ~ 10\ l-' \" ~ \ (j!"" ~."
~ j: ; ~ l ~ ~ t a~ ~;
;) g % ~ ~ 'S i "1 *~\ \\
~\'8~t'li.'S\ ~
~ ~ ~ 'II ~ '1 p
~ t S '1 ~ ~~ ~ ~
;,. c: ~ g, l f.! c:. a ~
....l,I\uo ~ ~~";!:;(
e ;I ; '1 ~ ~ \i; ~ ~
\'\ ~ ~ ~ 3 >;,~ ~ G
'f.~f;, n'al:~.;
~~Il ';;. q~~\l4
~s.t - :.~
% ~ i ~ i i!1.
; ~ , 5 ~~
Z\~'; ;~~
r p. .
~ \&
=
-+r=
~
0.._
-
~
'"'
p'
;lJ
k.U\
orn:::\
~5rn
""""0
:4i')12
~~rn
- r::
-U'Z~
-"0;::
~ rn
7-;:;~
\
1. ,. ~ I. ~
~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 00-
'i! ..t~l\!;n-
; ~ a P. l ~
'1 ~
LLL\ "";''"q
~S:8:P l\~~e~
\:.8" ~~~r.~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n \.;'~\
~ og~()~it
~ 0 ~ Ei" _ \
~.- -
,',. .. !:~~~~n\
II 'i ~ ~i\p,p.~l~~
E 5 ~ Ii" . i ~~~
% t M\\\;
~ ~ ~~~ i-
t t ';~l'::
\So ~ 1> i ~
\~ l
~
g
)>
~
C
~
\l
~
"
OJ
g
'5
~
:..<.
U\
~
d
o
z.
....
Cl>
....
-.j
i;3
~b
",0
{...;
lIa~
t~~
~lii
~
-I'-
IJI
Ii I' - '')
~~--~-~
'jl"/J
-,l/ Y
tal~.z -Y&5 -
( .J
~
i -....
t..r~ ,.
y'- -if ;~l \
7; r
../ po ....-
----
.-.
I
-4
/
.5
,<, -
" -..'1e
-r
II Iter .() _ (JJ!j,)'- jl..rf 51
Ti -i! f V" k---- r, -, 3- 7 s !
~
,..
'; .JI OC
i ~ ,
- -
(
..;}.
f'.-"..... ....1
1 e 'i I ,+
r
- / II
""
AM f/J) j/Y:( /f '/;: J ')...
.Jff-1U S l/t ('J:- -
l'h"L~ -~
I J\k'''''' \
L-r t:: ~ .---..
'i);;~ r'-~~'~
_ 8,1 20
/
~- <t oS"
~~~ ~,rt"I~
oL ) -'r \,n eow
1
r ;3~;>
J
rtVJf.R,~'.k~ lo-J-s
'oQ-r l~l
!
'-
I "j,J rLPh f' """c'r4(1.-b
s: Aj.J~
( f
~l; i ~~'f
~
} fY1 frJrYlC,}- -t ~
!/fJ1ere!)1w-J .J/- 1
~t'V J"d $it
L~
~
D*^-h~
)t.f0
Irs(
..-- /Jehtz --!7c/r1
32ft
0,5"1
)Q-/e fL..f? u;"
34C
~, S--r
[}L/8
rfrntJJ (f1e.! I i -::
h fl
J J// ()f~ VI ~ V-
am~r /hd-ucIJJ
coJtr~
\2. An increase in a recreational vehiclc park area by 5 percent or 100 vehicle spaces, whichever is less.
f5).. ;2 ~ CU.
- G:'i9.<J~ 1..t--1
...::::----
11, / I J.r:.,
,.-0/
":> (0
-r-
roa I/.{It
a,ai,
.....---..'.--
m flQ. 1h11'!
,1:' <7 J~
-' /'
6. An inerease in land area for office development by 5 percent or 6 acres, whichever is grcaler or an
increase of gross noor area of office development by 5 percent or 60,000 gross square feet, whichever is
greater
7 An increase in the storage capacily for chemical or petroleum storage facilities by 5 percent, 20,000
barrels, or 7 million pounds, whichever is greater
8. An increase of development al a walerport of wet storage for 20 watercraft, dry storage for 30 watercraft,
or wet/dry storage for 60 walercraft in an area identified in the slate marina siting plan as an appropriate site
for additional walerport developmenl or a 5-percent increase in watercraft storage capacity whichever is
greater
9 An increase in the number of dwelling units by 5 percent or 50 dwelling units, whichever is greater
10. An increase in commercial development by 6 acres of land area or by 50,000 square feet of gross noor
area, or of parking spaces provided for cuslomers for 300 cars or a 5-percent increase of any of these, _ "
whichever is greater q:) l'_ ':J
II An increase in hotel or motel facility units by 5 percent or 75 unils, whichever is gre.ller
13 A decrease in the area set asidc for open space of 5 percent or 20 acres, whichever is less. ~
14 A proposed increase 10 an approved multiuse development of regional impact where the sum of thc
increases of each land use as a percenl:lge of the applicable substantial deviation criteria is equal to or
exceeds 100 percent. The percentage of any decrease in the amount of open space shall be treatcd as an
increase for purposes of delermining when 100 percent has been reached or exceeded.
15. A 15-percent increase in the numbcr of external vehicle trips generated by the developmenl above that
which was projected during the original development-of-regional-impact review
16. Any change which would result in development of any area which was specifically set aside in the
application for development approval or in the development order for preservation or special proteclion of
endangered or threalened planls or animals designated as endangered, threatened, or speeies of special
concern and their habitat, primary dunes. or archaeological and historical sites designated as significant by -
the Division of Historical Resources of the Departmenl of State. The further refinement of such areas by
survcy shall be considered under sub-subparagraph (e)5.b.
The substantial deviation numerical standards in subparagraphs 4.. 6., 10., 14 excluding residential uses,
and 15 arc increased by 100 percent for a project certified under s. 403.973 which creates jobs and meels
criteria established by th" Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development as to its impact on an
area s economy employment, and prevailing wage and skill levels.
(e) An eXlCnsion of the date of buildoul of a development. or any phase thereof, by 7 or more years shall be
presumed to create a substantial deviation subject to further development-of-regional-impact review An
extension of the dale of buildoUl, or any phase Ihereof, of 5 years or more but less than 7 years shall be
presumed not to create a substantial deviation. These presumptions may be rebutted by clear and convincing
evidence atlhe public hearing held by Ihe local government. An extension of less than 5 years is not a
substantial deviation. For the purpose of calculating when a buildout, phase, or termination date has been
exceeded, the time shall be tolled during the pendency of administrative or judicial proceedings relating 10
development permits. Any extension of the buildout date of a project or a phase thereof shall automatically
extend the commencement date of the project, the termination date of the development order the expiration
dale of the development of regional impact, and the phases thereof by a like period of time.
42
0,
....\'f 0
(d) A change in the plan of dcvelopment of an approved development of reginnal impacl resulting from
requirements imposed by the Department of Environmental Proleclion or any water management district
created by s. 373.069 or any of their successor agencies or hy any appropriate federal regulatory agency
shall be submitted to the local government pursuant to this subseclion. The change shall he presumed nollo
create a substantial deviation subject to further developmenl-of-regional-impacl review The presumption
may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence at the pubhc hearing held hy rhe local government
(e)l A proposed change which, eilher individually or if there were previous changes, cumulalively wirh
Ihose changes, is equal to or exceeds 40 percent of any numerical crilerinn in suhparagraphs (h) I I ~ hut
which docs not exceed such criterion. shall be presumed nolto create a substantial deviat ion subject tD
further development-of-regional-impact review The presumption may be rehutted by clear and conI lllcing
evidence at the public hearing held by the local government pursuant to suhpar..graph (1)5
2. Except for a development order rendered pursuanlto subsection (22) or subsection (25), a propO\ed
change to a development order that individually or cumulatively wilh any previous change is less Ihan 40
percent of any numerical criterion contained in subparagraphs (b) I 15 and docs not exceed any olhc.
eriterion, or that involves an exrension of lhe huildoul dale of a development, or any phase thercof of less
Ihan 5 years is not suhjectto the puhlic hearing requirements of suhparagraph (I)J and is not suhjcct 1('
delerminalion pursuant 10 suhparagraph (1)5 NOlice of rhe propo.\ed change sb../I he mad,' tn the reglOn;u
planning council and the state land planning agency Such notice shall includc a descriptiDn of previDus
individual changes made to the development. including changes previou.\ly approved hy the local
government, and shall include appropriate amendments to the development order The followil1~ changes,
individually or cumulatively with any previous changes, are not suhslantial deviarions:
a. Changes in the name of the project, develDper owner or monilnring Drlicia!.
b. Changes to a setback that do not aflect noise hullers, environmental protect'Dn or mitigation are.IS, or
archaeological or historical resources.
c. Changes to minimum lot siles.
d. Changes in Ihe configuration of intern..1 roads that do not affect external acccss points.
e. Changes to Ihe building design or orienl,lIion that stay approximately within thc approved area
designated for such building and parking lot, and which do nOI affect historical huildings dcsignated as
significanr by Ihe Division of Historical Resources of the Department of Slate.
f. Changes to increase the acreage in Ihe developmenl, provided Ihal no development is proposcd on the
acreage to be added.
g. Changes to climinate an approved land use, provided that there arc no additional rcgional impacts
h. Changes required to conform to permils approved by any federa!. state. or regional permilting agcocy
provided that these changes do not create addilional regional impacts.
i. Any other change which the slale land planning agency agrees in writing is Similar in nall/re, irnpal'l, or
character to the changes enumerated in sub-subparagraphs a.-h. and which docs nol create the likelihood of
any additional regional impact.
This subsection docs not reyuire a development ordcr amendment for any changc Itsled in
subparagraphs a.-i. unless such issue is addressed either in the existing development order
application for development approval, but, in the case of the application, only if and III tl
which, the applicalion is incorporaled ill the development order
43