AGENDA DOCUMENTS
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Requested City Commission
Meeting Dates
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Turned
Meeting Dates in to City Clerk's Office
0 July 18,2000
0 August 1, 2000
0 August 15,2000
0 September 6, 2000
NATURE OF
AGENDA ITEM
July 6, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
I8l September 19,2000
o October 4, 2000
o October 17, 2000
o November 8, 2000
September 7,2000 (5:00 p.rn,)
July 19,2000 (5.00 p,m,)
September 20,2000 (5:00 p.rn,)
August 2,2000 (5:00 p.rn,)
October 5, 2000 (5'00 p.rn,)
August 16,2000 (5.00 p.rn,)
October 18,2000 (5.00 p,rn,)
o Adlninistrative
I8l Consent Agenda
o . Public Heanng
o Bids
o Announcement
o Development Plans
o New Business
o Legal
o UnfImshed Busmess
o Presentation
RECOMMENDATION: Please place thIS request on the September 19,2000 CIty CormmsslOn agenda under Consent,
RatifIcation of the Planning and Development Board action. The Plannmg and Development Board WIth a unammous vote
recommended approval (there are no condItiOns recommended by staff nor Plannmg and Development Board comments)
For further details pertaming to this request see attached Department of Development Memorandum No. PZ 00-240
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT NAME.
AGENT.
OWNER.
LOCATION
DESCRIPTION
LAWRENCE OAKS PUD (DESTEFANO) SCREEN At~D POOL SETBACKS
Peter DeStefano, PresIdent of Lawrence Oaks Homeowners AssocIation, Inc.
Lawrence Oaks Horne Owners AssocIation
2440 Woolbnght Road
Request for master plan modIfIcation to reduce screen enclosure setbacks from two (2) feet to zero
(0) feet and pool setbacks from five (5) feet to one (1) foot for those lots frontIng lake, buffer and
preserve areas within the Lawrence Oaks PUD
FISCAL IMP ACT: N/ A
PROGRAM IMPACT: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
City Manager's Signature
Director of Development
---rr. /( J U ~/
Director of Planning al< onmg
City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources
IICHIMAIN\SHRDA T AIPLANNINGlSHAREO\ WP\PROJECTS\LA WRANCE OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOOCC 9.19-00 ITEM REQUEST DOT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 00-240
FROM
Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
j1-1__L-
Michael W Rumpf
Director of Planning & Zoning
TO
DATE.
August 14, 2000
SUBJECT
Lawrence Oaks PUD - File No MPMD 00-005
Master Plan Modification (Reduce setbacks for screen enclosures and pools where located
adjacent to buffer, lake front, and preserve areas)
NATURE OF REQUEST
Peter DeStefano, President of Lawrence Oaks Homeowners Association, Inc, is the agent requesting to
modify the master plan for the Lawrence Oaks Planned Unit Development (PUD) This residential
development is located on the west ?ide of Lawrence Road, immediately north of the L.W D D L-20 Canal
(see Exhibit "A" - Location Map) The requested modifications are shown on the amended master plan (see
Exhibit "B" _ Proposed Amended Master Plan) The specific request includes the reduction of screen
enclosure and pool setbacks for all lots fronting lake, buffer and preserve areas This request includes lots 1
through 27, 50 through 82, and 85 through 124 It is requested that the screen enclosure setback be reduced
from two (2) feet to zero (0) feet, and that the pool setback be reduced from five (5) feet to one (1) foot.
BACKGROUND
Approvals for the subject PUD were granted by Palm Beach County in 1993, and construction commenced
shortly thereafter The project was then annexed into Boynton Beach in June of 1995 The project was
designed (by Lane Design South Inc,) to conform to the PUD regulations in Palm Beach County No
amendments have been processed for this project subsequent to annexation
Chapter 2.5, Planned Unit Developments, of the City's land development regulations states that changes in
planned unit developments shall be processed as follows
Section 12
Changes in plans
"Master plans approved as part of the process of rezoning to PUD may be considered for modification
upon application to the director of planning and zoning, submission of acceptable documentation, and
payment of the master plan modification fee The modification will be first reviewed by the planning
and zoning department to determine whether the modification is consistent with not only all current
regulations but also the intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan, and to determine whether the
change is substantial
Upon completion of the administrative review, findings will be forwarded to the planning and
development board which review all submitted documents as well as staff comments with all the
authority, functions, powers and duties vested in it by Chapter 1 5, Article I, Section 4 of the Land
Development Regulations
The Planning and Development Board shall recommend to the City Commission that they approve the
modification unconditionally, approve the modification with conditions and/or recommendations, or
deny the modification The board shall also recommend to the City Commission that the modification
be considered either major or minor
Memorandum No. PZ 00-240
Lawrence Oaks, MPMD 00-005 (Setback Reduction)
Page 2
Upon completion of the planning and development board review, findings will be forwarded to the City
Commission The City Commission will first determine whether the modification is major or minor. If
the Commission finds the modification to be major, the request will be returned to the applicant for
processing as a new zoning application The determination of what constitutes a substantial change
shall be within the sole discretion of the City Commission. If the Commission determines that the
modification is minor, it will review all submitted documents as well as staff comments and planning
and development board recommendations. The City Commission may then approve the minor
modification unconditionally, approve the minor modification with conditions, or deny the minor
modification"
The only characteristics of the master plan affected by this proposed amendment includes the addition of plan
data including amended setback tables assigning approved setback distances These changes are described
below.
Currently Approved Setbacks'
Setbacks for Swimminq Pools
Lot local 0 Lot Line Opp, Side Rear
Interior 3 5 5
Corner 3 5 5
Lakefront 3 5 5
Buffer Zone 3 5 5
Rec Area / Preserve 3 5 5
(Setback shall be measured to the water's edge)
Setbacks for Screen Enclosures
Lot local 0 Lot Line OPP. Side Rear
Interior 0 2 2
Corner 0 2 2
Lakefront 0 2 2
Buffer Zone 0 2 2
Rec. Area / Preserve 0 2 2
Requested Setbacks
Setbacks for Swimminq Pools
Lot local 0 Lot Line ODD. Side
Interior 3 5
Corner 3 5
Lakefront 3 5
Buffer Zone 3 5
Rec. Area / Preserve 3 5
(Setback shall be measured to the water's edge)
Setbacks for Screen Enclosures
Lot local
Interior
Corner
Lakefront
Buffer Zone
Rec. Area I Preserve
o Lot Line
o
o
o
o
o
ODD. Side
2
2
2
2
2
Rear
5
5
1
1
1
Chanqe
o
o
-4
-4
-4
Rear
2
2
o
o
o
Chanqe
o
o
-2
-2
-2
Memorandum No PZ 00-240
Lawrence Oaks, MPMD 00-005 (Setback Reduction)
Page 3
ANAL YSIS
Staff has reviewed this request for consistency with the PUD development standards, and the intent and
purpose of planned unit developments as stated in the following sections of Chapter 2.5 of the City's land
development regulations
"Section l'
Intent and purpose
A Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is established It is intended that this district be
utilized to promote efficient and economical land use, improved amenities, appropriate and
harmonious variety in physical development, creative design, improved living environment,
orderly and economical development in the City, and the protection of adjacent and existing and
future City development. The district is suitable for development, redevelopment and
conservation of land, water and other resources of the City
Regulations for Planned Unit Developments are intended to accomplish the purposes of zoning,
subdivision regulations and other applicable City regulations to the same degree that they are
intended to control development on a lot-by-Iot basis In view of the substantial public
advantages of planned unit development, it is the Intent of PUD regulations to promote and
encourage development in this form where tracts are suitable in size, location and character for
the uses and structures proposed are to be planned and developed as unified and coordinated
units
Section 9 Internal PUD standards.
B INTERNAL LOTS AND FRONTAGE. Within the boundaries of the PUD, no minimum lot
size or minimum yards shall be required, provided, however, that PUD frontage on
dedicated public roads shall observe front yard requirements in accordance with the
zoning district the PUD use most closely resembles and that peripheral yards abutting
other zoning districts shall be the same as required in the abutting zone"
Since the master plan was approved under County standards, staff can only make certain assumptions
relative to PUD design The City's regulations to do not require perimeter buffers per se, however, buffers are
used to provide both a physical separation and buffer from adjacent properties, as well as to help fulfil the
second requirement of Section 9 B above. This requirement is for perimeter setbacks to be similar to the
setbacks for those properties opposite the PUD The subject lots abut the following buffer types Lots 1
through 27, a 50-foot or 25-foot buffer; Lots 50 through 82, a 20-foot lake management easement, and a 10-
foot buffer in combination with a 20 foot utility easement and the 35-foot L.W D D L-20 Canal, Lots 85 through
101, a 10-foot buffer in combination with a 20 foot utility easement and the 35-foot L.W D D L-20 Canal, Lots
102 through 118, a 20-foot buffer; and Lots 119 through 124, the community's private preserve One
justification of the applicant is that the minor setback reduction would not reduce the required perimeter buffer
areas
Adjacent properties that abut a portion of the subject lots include the Knollwood Groves citrus and retail
business (to the south opposite Canal L-20 and Lots 62-101), The Colony PUD located within the County (Lots
111 through 118), and a mobile home park and commercial nursery also located in the County (Lots 101
through 110) It should be noted that current setbacks for the Lawrence Oaks PUD are the same whether the
lot abuts a preserve or perimeter buffer, or abuts another internal lot.
As a part of the justification for this request, the applicant has stated that the rear setback leaves insufficient
space for the construction of a minimal-sized pool and screen enclosure. The subject PUD is Similar to many
Memorandum No PZ 00-240
Lawrence Oaks, MPMD 00-005 (Setback Reduction)
Page 4
master plans approved within the City in that lots are narrow, typical lots average between 5,000 square feet
and 6500 square feet, and the homes occupy a high percentage of the total area of the lot. This scenario also
typically leaves little space for a pool and screen enclosure Except for the fact that the PUD master plan
includes setbacks for pools and screen enclosures, it is not certain to what extent pools and screen enclosures
where to fit on the subject lots
The following is a summary of the issues considered in this report, followed by corresponding analysis
1) The degree to which changes have occurred to adjacent unincorporated properties from which
the original perimeter buffers may have been determined,
(The property abutting Lots 111 through 118 has intensified with the development of another
typical, zero lot line PUD including 2-foot screen enclosure setbacks and 5-foot pool setbacks,
This adjacent project has a 10-foot perimeter buffer where it abuts the subject PUD, which
provides a combined buffer width of 30 feet that separates two generally identical
neighborhoods.)
2) The level of consistency maintained between the subject setbacks/separations and adjoining
properties,
(See response to Item # 1 above)
3) Did the original developer intend on properly accommodating adequatelY-Sized screen
enclosures and pools, which mayor may not be realized by property owners prior to acquisition,
(It cannot be verified, however, from the experience gained from processing numerous PUDs
within the city, lot sizes have gotten smaller and living area has been maintained or increased
Furthermore, perimeter buffers have been used to exaggerate lot sizes or openness of the
PUD, but such areas cannot contribute to total buildable area)
4) The potential precedence to be set by approving the subject modification which could justify
subsequent requests for other master plans,
(Given the magnitude of inquiries the city receives regarding pool and screen setbacks within
PUDs, it is possible for this request, if approved, to generate or justify other similar requests.
However, the ultimate impact would be minimal magnitude and characteristics of the subject
setback reductions (a total reduction of 4 feet and 2 feet)
5) The physical or visual impact created by the approval of the request and addition of pools and
screen enclosures,
(Given the magnitude of the reductions, and the continued existence of the perimeter buffer,
natural areas, and adjacent canal, visual impacts from future screen enclosures allowed if the
subject request were approved would be immeasurable to minimal assuming that the original
intent was to accommodate pools and screen enclosures, The modifications requested result in
no increase in impacts above those currently vested by the approved master plan)
6) This request being generally similar to a request for a variance warrants the application of the
"minimum request" rule, which requires staff to evaluate whether the request represents the
minimum necessary change in order to attain the reasonable use of land, and
(Although some very shallow screen enclosures have been constructed on typical lots, most are
void of pools due to the fact that only a very narrow pool would be allowed by current setbacks.
Although the proposed setback reductions are minimal, they would allow for the addition of
small enclosed lap pools at approximately 5 feet to 7 feet wide (the applicant has explained that
even a pool this narrow is needed for health/therapeutic reasons.)
Memorandum No PZ 00-240
Lawrence Oaks, MPMD 00-005 (Setback Reduction)
Page 5
7) A comparison with other PUDs approved within Boynton Beach
(Typical pool and screen setbacks (rear) within PUDs approved in the City range between 3
feet and 8 feet; however, a few PUDs within the city also have setbacks as low as zero feet for
lots that sImilarly abut open areas or buffers.)
8) Impact on vegetation to be preserved within the perimeter buffers
(It should be noted that, although these setback reductions only relate to approximately one-half
of the units within the development, some of these lots front sensitive preserve areas and
required buffer strips Reducing setbacks to zero (0) feet increases the possibility of negative
impacts during construction. Special attention will be required during the inspection process to
ensure that structural encroachments into sensitive areas do not occur or are rectified with
equivalent vegetation.)
RECOMMENDA TION
This PUD was formally located in unincorporated Palm Beach County and was developed according to county
land development regulations The PUD master plan did make provisions for pools to be located on individual
lots The applicant's request to further modify these provisions is reasonable given that the lots in question
abut sufficient open area to maintain compatibility with, and provide adequate separation between the adjacent
land uses No encroachment into the natural areas is proposed, nor will the reduced setback allowance
negatively affect other property owners in the development. Lastly, the proposed changes would not
Jeopardize, or further degrade, the basic intent and purpose of a PUD that is to include a creatIve design,
Improved living environment, orderly and economical development in the City, and the protection of adjacent
and existing and future developments The addition of at least the minimum sized pools and screen
enclosures would contribute to the quality of life (particular to those with related therapeutic needs) and the
economic value of property without sacrificing adjacent property values It should be noted that the
recommendation of staff in support of this request should not be construed as a favorable opinion toward the
overall design of the subject PUD Instead, this review focused on the specific proposed modifications and
relative impacts Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed amendment to the Lawrence Oaks Master
Development Plan be considered non-substantial, and be approved by the City No conditions of approval are
recommended, however, any conditions recommended by the Board or required by the City Commission shall
be documented in Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval
MR
Xc: Central File
IICHIMAINISHRDA TAIPlanninglSHAREDIWPIPROJECTSILawrence Oaks Homeowners Assoc,IStaff Report MPMD QQ.QQS.doc
LOCATION MAP
LAWRENCE OAKS
EXHIBIT "A"
8
"
C3
L-
~;:"'-:1r
~ 1-:-:1"'...." ,
I ,
I J-J
";".-A~ "
.'~:-
-I' :~=l=
; :
I I :.-;
I C -~.
,
~"-"-'~---r;- ,_ 1_
-~'Ii, "'~T~.,-
....~,~,~ '-', .~ '\-
" .
-
,~--
"1. I.....'
'"
r=
r
" ,. -,
UJ--
/'/ I
~
- ----l
L
i
<:,
~ c:::.
' "
i :(
I'
~"r
IT! I
I i I \~
, "
I.
I.,.
,
(
"
~
1-
'-
'--- ~
AG
,
,
I ___
---
1=
>-- . -.
t- -.--:: .;>';
--- ---,
I .. rrr
. : I j
. 1Ir-'
1/ '
I :,1
~
~...J
-in
(, I
~~
r
!
,
.-=-
!
I
- t
I........':.. I!'..
,
I
L--_
, /
-,.
'1
. J ~ __
. : I~r-- --- ,.. [7 -"
AG
I~=,', ' I: 1.1 /~-',
f. --""'1"" ,'I, i LL~:,- ":. N'S
.'i .-.l1;T.'~U'S;GI.o-E "
=rp'C ' )~ ~~'"
.- : --,J. -:'--<:v, ~D'-.' \~, ~( ~
-,........,. ,^ Y(( ,'" __ ,1"'._
==t=' 'U'A > ~,' ~ \. -=J
' r-- >--: ~ '. '. J),\"~_'i"~' i.._
- - '--', ~ "."" ""',. . -:-;;, .....
- ----.J:,,!/,O, .... _~~ ~ , ,'_
-~-- ,...~.'--~, t"- ~
. -:-:-::l,;--- " 'f'.'~ _~__ : '1--'
L \., "....;. ,. .
", --
;---~- . =-"~-. ", I '
- "1 ~
~JJ
(:;1 W::::I\.I
L..l
II rlTel Ie::
U",
Exhibit C
Conditions of AWfoval
PrOject name: Lawrence Oaks Pool Setback
File number: MPMD 00-005
Reference: 2nd ReVIew Plans Master Plan ModIficatIOn With a June 25. 2000. PlanumlZ and ZomnlZ Department
d k
ate stamn mar mlZ.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: NONE X
UTILITIES
Comments: NONE X
FIRE
Comments NONE X
POLICE
Comments: NONE X
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments. NONE X
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments. NONE X
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments' NONE X
FORESTERlENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: NONE X
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: NONE X
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
1 NONE. X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
~.
.... - ...
Project name: Lawrence Oaks !;Iomeowners
File number- MPMD 00-005
P 2
age
DEP ARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
2. To be determmed.
MWRIdlffi
J:ISHROATAIPlanningISHAREOIWPlPROJECTSILawrance Oaks Homeowners Assocl1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS Lawrence Oaks MPMO.doc
Requested City Commission
Meeting Dates
0 July 18,2000
0 August I, 2000
0 August 15,2000
[gJ September 6, 2000
NATURE OF
AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
Requested City Commission
Meeting Dates
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
July 6, 2000 (5'00 p.m.)
o September 19,2000
o October 4, 2000
o October 17,2000
o November 8, 2000
September 7, 2000 (5'00 p,m,)
July 19,2000 (5'00 p.m.)
September 20,2000 (5'00 p.m.)
August 2,2000 (5'00 p,m,)
October 5, 2000 (5'00 p.m.)
August 16,2000 (5'00 p,m,)
October 18, 2000 (5'00 p,m.)
o Administrative
[gJ Consent Agenda
o Public Hearing
o Bids
o Announcement
o Development Plans
o New Business
o Legal
o Unfmished Business
o Presentation
RECOMMENDATION: Please place this request on the September 6, 2000 City Commission agenda under Consent,
Ratification of the Planning and Development Board action, The Planning and Development Board with a unanimous vote
recommended that the subject review be postponed to the September 12th Planning and Development Board meeting, due to
the absence of a representative for the application, For further details pertaining to this request see attached Department of
Development Memorandum No PZ 00-240
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT NAME,
AGENT
OWNER.
LOCA nON
DESCRIPTION
LAWRENCE OAKS PUD (DESTEFANO) SCREEN AND POOL SETBACKS
Peter DeStefano, President of Lawrence Oaks Homeowners Association, Inc
Lawrence Oaks Home Owners Association
2440 Woolbright Road
Request for master plan modification to reduce screen enclosure setbacks from two (2) feet to zero
(0) feet and pool setbacks from five (5) feet to one (1) foot for those lots fronting lake, buffer and
preserve areas within the Lawrence Oaks PUD
PROGRAM IMPACT: NM
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
City Manager's Signature
Director of Development
~1/;' ~
Director of Plannin and Zoning
City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources
J\SHRDATAIPLANNINGISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSILA WRANCE OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOClCC 9-5.00 ITEM REQUEST DOT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 00-240
ROM
Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
/'/} ,-_c.-
Michael W Rumpf
Director of Planning & Zoning
TO
DATE.
August 14, 2000
SUBJECT
Lawrence Oaks PUD - File No MPMD 00-005
Master Plan Modification (Reduce setbacks for screen enclosures and pools where located
adjacent to buffer, lake front, and preserve areas)
NATURE OF REQUEST
Peter DeStefano, President of Lawrence Oaks Homeowners Association, Inc" is the agent requesting to
modify the master plan for the Lawrence Oaks Planned Unit Development (PUD) This residential
development is located on the west side of Lawrence Road, immediately north of the L.W D D L-20 Canal
(see Exhibit "A" - Location Map). The requested modifications are shown on the amended master plan (see
Exhibit "B" - Proposed Amended Master Plan) The specific request includes the reduction of screen
enclosure and pool setbacks for all lots fronting lake, buffer and preserve areas This request includes lots 1
through 27, 50 through 82, and 85 through 124 It is requested that the screen enclosure setback be reduced
from two (2) feet to zero (0) feet, and that the pool setback be reduced from five (5) feet to one (1) foot.
BACKGROUND
Approvals for the subject PUD were granted by Palm Beach County in 1993, and construction commenced
shortly thereafter. The project was then annexed into Boynton Beach in June of 1995 The project was
signed (by Land Design South Inc.) to conform to the PUD regulations in Palm Beach County No
amendments have been processed for this project subsequent to annexation
Chapter 2.5, Planned Unit Developments, of the City's land development regulations states that changes in
planned unit developments shall be processed as follows
Section 12
Changes in plans
"Master plans approved as part of the process of rezoning to PUD may be considered for modification
upon application to the director of planning and zoning, submission of acceptable documentation, and
payment of the master plan modification fee The modification will be first reviewed by the planning
and zoning department to determine whether the modification is consistent with not only all current
regulations but also the intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan, and to determine whether the
change is substantial
Upon completion of the administrative review, findings will be forwarded to the planning and
development board which review all submitted documents as well as staff comments with all the
authority, functions, powers and duties vested in it by Chapter 1 5, Article I, Section 4 of the Land
Development Regulations
The Planning and Development Board shall recommend to the City Commission that they approve the
modification unconditionally, approve the modification with conditions and/or recommendations, or
deny the modification. The board shall also recommend to the City Commission that the modification
be considered either major or minor
Memorandum No PZ 00-240
Lawrence Oaks, MPMD 00-005 (Setback Reduction)
Page 2
Upon completion of the planning and development board review, findings will be forwarded to the City
Commission The City Commission will first determine whether the modification is major or minor If
the Commission finds the modification to be major, the request will be returned to the applicant for
processing as a new zoning application The determination of what constitutes a substantial change
shall be within the sole discretion of the City Commission If the Commission determines that the
modification is minor, it will review all submitted documents as well as staff comments and planning
and development board recommendations The City Commission may then approve the minor
modification unconditionally, approve the minor modification with conditions, or deny the minor
modification"
The only characteristics of the master plan affected by this proposed amendment includes the addition of plan
data including amended setback tables assigning approved setback distances These changes are described
below
Currently Approved Setbacks'
Setbacks for Swimminq Pools
Lot local 0 Lot Line ODD, Side Rear
Interior 3 5 5
Corner 3 5 5
Lakefront 3 5 5
Buffer Zone 3 5 5
Rec. Area I Preserve 3 5 5
(Setback shall be measured to the water's edge)
Setbacks for Screen Enclosures
Lot local
Interior
Corner
Lakefront
Buffer Zone
Rec. Area I Preserve
o Lot Line
o
o
o
o
o
ODD, Side
2
2
2
2
2
Requested Setbacks.
Setbacks for Swimminq Pools
Lot local 0 Lot Line ODD, Side
Interior 3 5
Corner 3 5
Lakefront 3 5
Buffer Zone 3 5
Rec. Area I Preserve 3 5
(Setback shall be measured to the water's edge)
Setbacks for Screen Enclosures
Lot local
Interior
Corner
Lakefront
Buffer Zone
Rec, Area I Preserve
o Lot Line
o
o
o
o
o
ODD, Side
2
2
2
2
2
Rear
2
2
2
2
2
Rear
5
5
1
1
1
Rear
2
2
o
o
o
Chanqe
o
o
-4
-4
-4
Chanqe
o
o
-2
-2
-2
Memorandum No PZ 00-240
Lawrence Oaks, MPMD 00-005 (Setback Reduction)
Page 3
ANAL YSIS
~.aff has reviewed this request for consistency with the PUD development standards, and the intent and
. ..rpose of planned unit developments as stated in the following sections of Chapter 2 5 of the City's land
development regulations
"Section 1
Intent and purpose
A Planned Unit Development Distnct (PUD) is established It IS intended that this district be
utilized to promote efficient and economical land use, improved amenities, appropriate and
harmonious variety in physical development, creative design, improved living environment,
orderly and economical development in the City, and the protection of adjacent and eXisting and
future City development. The district is suitable for development, redevelopment and
conservation of land, water and other resources of the City
Regulations for Planned Unit Developments are intended to accomplish the purposes of zoning,
subdivision regulations and other applicable City regulations to the same degree that they are
intended to control development on a lot-by-Iot basis In view of the substantial public
advantages of planned unit development, it is the intent of PUD regulations to promote and
encourage development in this form where tracts are suitable in size, location and character for
the uses and structures proposed are to be planned and developed as unified and coordinated
units
Section 9 Internal PUD standards
B INTERNAL LOTS AND FRONTAGE Within the boundaries of the PUD, no minimum lot
size or minimum yards shall be required, provided, however, that PUD frontage on
dedicated public roads shall observe front yard requirements in accordance with the
zoning district the PUD use most closely resembles and that peripheral yards abutting
other zoning districts shall be the same as required in the abutting zone"
Since the master plan was approved under County standards, staff can only make certain assumptions
relative to PUD design The City's regulations to do not require perimeter buffers per se, however, buffers are
used to provide both a physical separation and buffer from adjacent properties, as well as to help fulfil the
second requirement of Section 9.B above This requirement is for perimeter setbacks to be similar to the
setbacks for those properties opposite the PUD The subject lots abut the following buffer types Lots 1
through 27, a 50-foot or 25-foot buffer; Lots 50 through 82, a 20-foot lake management easement, and a 10-
foot buffer in combination with a 20 foot utility easement and the 35-foot L.W D D L-20 Canal, Lots 85 through
101, a 10-foot buffer in combination with a 20 foot utility easement and the 35-foot L. W D D L-20 Canal, Lots
102 through 118, a 20-foot buffer; and Lots 119 through 124, the community's private preserve One
justification of the applicant is that the minor setback reduction would not reduce the required perimeter buffer
areas
Adjacent properties that abut a portion of the subject lots include the Knollwood Groves citrus and retail
business (to the south opposite Canal L-20 and Lots 62-101), The Colony PUD located within the County (Lots
111 through 118), and a mobile home park and commercial nursery also located in the County (Lots 101
through 110) It should be noted that current setbacks for the Lawrence Oaks PUD are the same whether the
lot abuts a preserve or perimeter buffer, or abuts another internal lot.
. a part of the justification for this request, the applicant has stated that the rear setback leaves Insufficient
",pace for the construction of a minimal-sized pool and screen enclosure The subject PUD is similar to many
Memorandum No PZ 00-240
Lawrence Oaks, MPMD 00-005 (Setback Reduction)
Page 4
master plans approved within the City In that lots are narrow, typical lots average between 5,000 square feet
and 6500 square feet, and the homes occupy a high percentage of the total area of the lot. This scenario also
typically leaves little space for a pool and screen enclosure Except for the fact that the PUD master plan
,c1udes setbacks for pools and screen enclosures, it is not certain to what extent pools and screen enclosures
where to fit on the subject lots
The following is a summary of the issues considered In this report, followed by corresponding analYSIS
1) The degree to which changes have occurred to adjacent unincorporated properties from which
the original perimeter buffers may have been determined,
(The property abutting Lots 111 through 118 has mtenslfied with the development of another
typical, zero lot line PUO including 2-foot screen enclosure setbacks and 5-foot pool setbacks
This adjacent project has a 1 O-foot perimeter buffer where It abuts the subject PUO, which
provides a combined buffer Width of 30 feet that separates two generally identical
neighborhoods.)
2) The level of consistency maintained between the subject setbacks/separations and adjoining
properties,
(See response to Item # 1 above)
3) Did the original developer intend on properly accommodating adequately-sized screen
enclosures and pools, which mayor may not be realized by property owners prior to acquisition,
(It cannot be verified, however, from the expenence gained from processing numerous PUOs
within the city, lot sizes have gotten smaller and living area has been maintained or increased
Furthermore, perimeter buffers have been used to exaggerate lot sizes or openness of the
PUO, but such areas cannot contribute to total buildable area)
4) The potential precedence to be set by approving the subject modification which could justify
subsequent requests for other master plans,
(Given the magnitude of inquiries the city receives regarding pool and screen setbacks within
PUOs, it is possible for this request, If approved, to generate or justify other similar requests,
However, the ultimate impact would be minimal magnitude and characteristics of the subject
setback reductions (a total reduction of 4 feet and 2 feet)
5) The physical or visual impact created by the approval of the request and addition of pools and
screen enclosures,
(Given the magnitude of the reductions, and the continued existence of the perimeter buffer,
natural areas, and adjacent canal, visual impacts from future screen enclosures allowed if the
subject request were approved would be immeasurable to minimal assuming that the original
intent was to accommodate pools and screen enclosures, The modifications requested result in
no increase in impacts above those currently vested by the approved master plan)
6) This request being generally similar to a request for a variance warrants the application of the
"minimum request" rule, which requires staff to evaluate whether the request represents the
minimum necessary change in order to attain the reasonable use of land, and
(Although some very shallow screen enclosures have been constructed on tYPical lots, most are
void of pools due to the fact that only a very narrow pool would be allowed by current setbacks
Although the proposed setback reductions are minimal, they would allow for the addition of
small enclosed lap pools at approximately 5 feet to 7 feet wide (the applicant has explamed that
even a pool this narrow is needed for health/therapeutic reasons)
Memorandum No PZ 00-240
Lawrence Oaks, MPMD 00-005 (Setback Reduction)
Page 5
7) A comparison with other PUDs approved within Boynton Beach
(Typical pool and screen setbacks (rear) within PUOs approved in the City range between 3
feet and 8 feet; however, a few PUOs wIthm the cIty also have setbacks as low as zero feet for
lots that similarly abut open areas or buffers)
8) Impact on vegetation to be preserved within the penmeter buffers
(It should be noted that, although these setback reductions only relate to approximately one-half
of the units within the development, some of these lots front sensitive preserve areas and
requzred buffer strips Reducing setbacks to zero (0) feet increases the possibility of negative
impacts during construction. Special attentzon will be required during the zmpection process to
ensure that structural encroachments into sensztive areas do not occur or are rectified with
equivalent vegetation.)
RECOMMENDA TION
This PUD was formally located in unincorporated Palm Beach County and was developed according to county
land development regulations The PUD master plan did make provisions for pools to be located on Individual
lots The applicant's request to further modify these provisions is reasonable given that the lots in question
abut sufficient open area to maintain compatibility with, and provide adequate separation between the adjacent
land uses No encroachment into the natural areas is proposed, nor will the reduced setback allowance
negatively affect other property owners in the development. Lastly, the proposed changes would not
jeopardize, or further degrade, the basic intent and purpose of a PUD that is to include a creative design,
Improved living environment, orderly and economical development in the City, and the protection of adjacent
and existing and future developments The addition of at least the minimum sized pools and screen
enclosures would contribute to the quality of life (particular to those with related therapeutic needs) and the
economic value of property without sacrificing adjacent property values It should be noted that the
:ommendation of staff in support of this request should not be construed as a favorable opinion toward the
,-,verall design of the subject PUD Instead, this review focused on the specific proposed modifications and
relative impacts Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed amendment to the Lawrence Oaks Master
Development Plan be considered non-substantial, and be approved by the City No conditions of approval are
recommended, however, any conditions recommended by the Board or required by the City Commission shall
be documented in Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval.
MR
Xc Central File
IICHIMAINISHRDATAIPlannlnglSHAREDIWPIPROJECTSILawrence Oaks Homeowners Assoc,ISlaff Report MPMD OO.QOSdoc
LOCATION MAP
LAWRENCE OAKS
, -l.-_- _
~- I I
----:-:-, '. ---'
ilL.........- .. ~T""- ._
' " ~r,~' : _ .~: l~ "\-.
- ?t~ILL' .,
--':' (0' -t ,'.
.:::.L, .1.('.:
-:;c.+- oJ .
--"T___;!::.._
~ :. ~~!~:, :=-r--
~ ~': J~! " " ';",.,,;=;,
:.J CI:::j : J' ,~,\ \ 'v' }JJ......
-''-......\....: '/ .~ /"---.
--J '- / - i =Lr=:1 ~
'=-: ......>--~., '_ ~LY" .
~\/',-! - ~
~ "-"-'7, - 'IT LL i LU. '..: .
' i.: I , ~:.._:. .~ ,
F:~_j--: I;'r(j~!, :=_
\, '10 'j,i ~ . I r=:Ji
j ~~" . ~,~, r~Lr '11
\ -' --),::-~ '" I 1...11 ,~'-_, ~~,
"- '\ \ " L ~" l
(.1 ,. ) LJ, -~=+-=j I' lL~~-.-~. :i
(, I . ,
':::'" I I ' ~I il~~li
\ C ~)=-1ll'" J!
,r-. JI,' 7.:=.......=
I '.=
~ ~
'l.; r... ~ r r / 1
I- -~'vl_. I _,/__
- - : Ii iJJ '. LL~~-EN 11
J ;,sb;b:~!f~2;;;:S~,
==C' "^Y(O'~'.. \1- '\_-=:
'=:=, r"1U~ A'\:"'l---:"_' ~
. ._~ ~. , '....../~-/n -'J ....
1111'll'~---'I~,~~-_~~~1i~;.~_ ~ ;_
"'.. ~ ....~"--
'. r -___~ ~_, ',_
" II ,
"
-; =: ==--::-1 ~
L-
I .... i of' ....
,
i~
~
JJ-_
. (' I
.J-l
I;"
,(
.
.
I __
---,
rrT
in
! '-,
~L..-1
~n
,- ,
..J.-
;
,
I
I
1
I
~-
1
-
,
-,.
-'
, .. I
::J f-; .
'll"TrTn I
iJJJ J I j '''i.__
r-' I . I
J
~ -- ---r-r
'~I 1
. - - ~:" ! !
EXHIBIT "A"
'=l
I' =L-
r
::'~'C3
"I
^ I
8
'"
. ,
, 1
---!
r-
:"-;
,
1= --.~
r,
AG
AG
--."
II CITOI Ie:::
r::1
~....
"
~
PI
Ll
4 "
I, (
(' .
\~ /.:-
m (jI ,/~.
r I './
' J
5.
(..' I
. '/
1-,'.
-,
~-~ ~~
.-
,~'"
\
.....-
--
/:
~
(
L.l
11M
. ,.J~
- .'; 'I-'-~-
r;~11.~''i\ " . I ..-J IS j U
. I "~ r'/\ I\-Il
. ;'! ~ \ ,'" .~ I \," I
I~~ji~!.~
... .
.(.",r
....' ....__-.,1
'#I"':.&.... .
.~ :'... ~~
:1 -."
f;l ...--:
:.
'-
'<
;'
u
~
0<
-<
.~
~~a
~ s OL.,
~ '; g~;
~"'f~ !;i9~
0-<;:') '"'53
~c.......""~a.c
Z~~rf~~;
~o:,~~~~ Vl
lE.tCuau~.~~ ~
~~g
?
:>
~<:
...>' ...
: .J! M~.~ ~
jiP;'~1~5l;;,,;~~,,~
~..i- t~ G~;!~~CS~~
'!1'!'w. l.,.1:"joa""c,")~
'PII!!:ii"~-_oJ:~~
ill ,J
I"
H
"
H
It/
l~
m
I~ ~;..
"~"~
lrWi.u
.:j::~
'J 'a.....
dHi~
!
;
.;
'"
o
-
f\
~
~
;;:
~
-,
~:;~
I ~~it
I r'" )~':'.1
%1
I ' ':
~i
::i~
.~~.:
.- ,
,. ~~i
.tl~;~
:.........
~I
. ::I~
~ ~l~
1
~~ ~i
i: J .
~hll
"...,. . 1; Ji
.. i ,! ~ ~ ~
~ ,r; fl~i:
1.11-,1. 1/;,...
'1':'- l' ~'I'b
l'l~11 j.~ J Illl)!
~, (!~ t4~ . uJ
!!-", II'
....... ~
11'~ -...Trr '\~~;.
Co, .. I '-., ~'.1..
(, '1/- t~'~Q~~"i
~- - i ,-'
{. -~~ - j;,...t"l'f.
:: .I'I~-,f"i':~
L:..L. _ .{~:]
.... t Q,; ~ .] -
-I '. ..
~. -"'ct'"
,-} I I . - I ~ - ~
~~ ~
~ r-;;":I-'r
!I, ;:
..
-
f
i
,j
.<, ;:mjN ]/~ b\")~ C.3tl'.tc.i:;~I,..
~ .
~:~.:
:1:'=.
c..V'"
'J ='.::
~- ~:: j
',;;,.; I < ~
1S3~0=l tiON'1W
- 1
i/:t
~
<
,
I: i
I, _ -
I ~ 3. ~
:r~!
~,~;~
~aea
~Q~:
~~~~
~~5~
~l..
-;.. I I I I :<> .
, -~~ ',4 ?jj$=!' -'"," i ~ ~~ (~
;~ ~ '1?: "".' (,; - I -.J
,~ ~; I,;lct( , } I t}{&:F I ~ 'J g -;:
~-'.-? ;I.;.I! '~I' ...~ 'I' - ':
",.J ."' E. ll, .: I': "",",,:'-,:~ ~,l.-.iI ,~ ,
. - . ~ c: ; J[ ~ ~'I' . ..: '_ ~~
,:; ~ .:::.1'"; ~,. . I r". ~ .-'" - ',-" I g' IJ"" I t
( ,\ ';....SZ.I ~-E :.: PI.ll , c 1- -) I... -.1..4 t ~ =t '" -1
g ~ e~;;j ~~j ~~~. :!j!l <~ S ,~.;!-~-",---:.-:,' ~ rL -- ~ /....,; 1
\i '" :;)::;;-;~~::tJ~1;\ it I:,\.-:~ c. '4 \ '~~ 0 . - ;.~ 1
~ ~ 'io::".;;~b..~.;;"" ..~~.., ,~~ ~ \ ~:( ._
II: ;:,' tr~~}I-_~o -';.t :::n\\~~ (~...." ~~ _ ."j" ~
~.;; ~~ia~:::~:;'~;tr._. ..\\ t.. ...~\y..."\~p- \:2' 4~" ~ .~:-:.~
:3 d:.:~ :r~"'Y~I_LDj:~~ ~~~_'\.\tr"'\~~~i> j!.t.\i-<--. ~ : ~~~ ~~:
~ j; ~c:. C': ~ ~"';I ., - "=a ~.. ....,.. ~l ~ ~'J .~ 1 f-' !;tt" \.
., .~~ ~-':: .:1:u:!,\ ~1~:\~;J\.:\1' ~~I \h;;:; ~ ~ =i- f
;;; L _ 1 -L~'\-~~ ~ ..!.-t - ~; .=
== ~:-:'-~",- ~ ; ~~
~i =~~
:j ~]~
~-
~T
. ;.
. Ir
C
7
'.
".,
~~
~~
~~
~1
....
"-':i
o.i
'j
'.
.~I
\;
a:l
r-
OJ
-
I
X
UJ
Exhibit C
Conditions of Approval
PrOject name' Lawrence Oaks Pool Setback
File number' MPMD 00-005
Reference. 2nd Review Plans Master Plan ModificatIOn with a June 25. 2000. Plannmg and Zoning Department
date stamp marking,
DEP ARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: NONE
UTILITIES
Comments: NONE
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
ENGINEERlNG DIVISION
Comments: NONE
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments. NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments NONE
ADDfTIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Project name' Lawrence Oaks Homeowners
File number" MPMD 00-005
Page 2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
MWRlblw
J:ISHROATAIPlannlngISHAREOIWPIPROJECTSILawrance Oaks Homeowners AssocllST REVIEW COMMENTS Lawrence Oaks MPMO,doc