CORRESPONDENCE
.<~..-..0 .L '?,
J .:. . L. ,_::><"'Y"-- J""-"7 ^r'~ 1-
age I of 1 s p
Rumpf, Michael
From: Rumpf, Michael
Sent: Monday, July 07,20033:50 PM
To: 'JMankoff'
Subject: RE: Jefferson Boynton Beach - Required permit for vesting site plan
Mr.. Mankoff,
In the absence of time, I have prepared this this e-mail message for the purposes of indicating the
interpretation of Chapter 4 of the LDR regarding the one year life of an approved site plan and the benchmark
permit required to vest the approval. Please be informed that an excavation and fill permit issued consistent
with the approved site plan will represent the minimum required by Section 3. Expiration of Site Plan,
which describes a "building permit" to be pulled within the first year from the time of site plan approval.
Please contact me should you have any questions on this matter or determination.
Michael Rumpf
Planning & Zoning Director
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
561-742-6260
'---Original Message-----
From: JMankoff [mailto:JMankoff@zonelaw,com]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:36 AM
To: 'Kubin, David'
Cc: Rumpf, Michael; Weinermp@aOl.com; jcherof@cityatty.com; dtolces@cityatty,com
Subject: RE: Jefferson Boynton Beach
David,
Michael and I had a brief conference call with Jim Cherof, Esq. He indicated that David Tolces, Esq.
should speak with Mike Rumph and the Building Department.
I have messages in with Mike and David and have copied them on this e-mail.
Jason
7/7/2003
~
Page 1 of 1
~
Rumpf, Michael
From: Kubin, David [dtk@woodpartners.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:23 AM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: Jefferson Boynton Beach
Mike,
I just wanted to follow-up with you on our conversation and my email of yesterday morning, First off, I want to
be completely above board and honest with you...1 don't want you to think I'm trying to hide anything from you
or find a way to "manipulate" the system. As you may know, in addition to talking directly with you regarding
the site plan vesting issue, I have a lawyer advising us on possible legal consequences as well. I did not want
to keep this from you. Currently our deal with JPI requires us to close on the land in August. Well, that's too
early to get an extension of the approved site plan and certainly too early to know for certain that we'll have
building permits by 12/3. Closing based upon the assumption that we can get there is not a risk we can take.
Furthermore, we have to post a very large non-refundable deposit with JPI this coming Monday and we simply
cannot take that risk either without some interpretation of the code that we'll be vested if we do x, y, and z,
whatever those steps might be. Therefore I'm just trying to cover all my bases, hence the legal advice. Please
don't read anything into this other than an indication of how significant this issue is and how paranoid I am.
Because the code seems to be a little vague and open to interpretation, it seems that the City has some
flexibility in what does and does not vest a site plan, I would like to propose something, As I'd indicated
yesterday, we certainly can have building plans submitled by October 1 (to the extent platting does not affect
this submittal). Unfortunately, we have no control over how quickly the City turns those plans around with
comments. I can commit that once we get comments, we will turn the plans around in 2 weeks and resubmit.
After resubmittal, again we have no control over the process. If I commit to (and ultimately adhere to) these
time frames that I can control, would the City be willing to agree in writing that to the extent we don't have
building permits by 12/3 it is not within our control and therefore the site plan is still vested? I think that by
committing to this, it will show that we are serious about the deal and are diligently pursuing permits. In
addition, as I'd indicated yesterday, we certainly will have a plat recorded prior to 12/3 and will likely have
engineering permits and possibly have SFWMD permits, though I can't guarantee it. I can guarantee that we
will have submitted for these permits well in advance of the 12/3 expiration date.
I appreciate your willingness to work with us on this and look forward to hearing from you soon regarding your
stance on this matter. Thanks for all your help.
David T. Kubin
Wood Partners
561,893,0094 x102
dtk@woodpartners,com
7/3/2003
.
Page I of I
-*
Rumpf, Michael
From: Kubin, David [dtk@woodpartners.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11 :01 AM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Cc: 'rennebaum@simmonsandwhite,com'
Subject: Jefferson Boynton Beach
Mike,
I am writing this email as a follow-up to our telephone conversation this morning to request clarification on a
couple of issues with regard to the planned Jefferson Boynton Beach apartment project on Congress Avenue.
Site Plan
As you know, the site plan for this deal was approved on 12/3/02 and will expire 12/03/03. For a variety of
reasons we do not want to have to submit for an extension of that approval. Primary among them is that, while
likely, an extension is not guaranteed and we will have to close on the land in advance of receipt of such
extension. We cannot take the risk of buying the land in hopes of getting an extension, If possible, I would like 1.- .i S f)!
to get a very clear understanding of what we need to do in order for the it to conclude that our site I . 11 S 1'"
~ After meeting with SFWMD it appears that we will be able to have a modified perm I t ere is an Ie-
existing permit for an industrial use on the site) in 110-140 days from submittal. If we assume a submittal date
of August 1 (which is very aggressive), we would have to hit the short side of this estimate in order to have a
SFWMD permit in hand by 12/3 and even so I'm not certain that is sufficient to vest our site plan. We certainly
will have platted the property (if platting is necessary) by then and submitted for building permits. I understand
from the code that receipt of a building permit vests the site plan, however we have little or no control over the
permitting process after we submit to the building department. We are confident we can submit by October 1
(and in fact must submit by October 1 in order to be grandfathered with the County at current impact fee
rates). Is it realistic to expect a buildin permit to be issued within 2 months of initi I submittal? If it helps,
we'd like to get an ear y wor p 0 begin cleanng an excavation of a portion of the site. WMD has
indicated that they would not have a problem with us beginning work now under the existing permit while
simultaneously processing the permit modification for the apartment use, subject of course to the City's
agreement. Would that vest the site plan? (h"- GJJ<,- 0~ "(,.;~ ~ k'
Plat
I would like to understand the platting time frame and requirements in Boynton Beach. My concern here~
whether or not olattino is necessary and, if so, if a recorded plat is necessary in order to submit buildina olaQ3..
\iind/o,r engineerina clans to the City If not, then I have few concerns regarding the platting, But if a recorded
plat is necessary, the timing of platting is a concern as we must submit prior to October 1 in order to be
grandfathered at the County's current impact fee rates, Can you shed a little light on this?
If necessary, I am available to meet with you anytime tomorrow or Monday. As we discussed, time is of the
essence as our due diligence period expires on Monday at which time we must post a very large, non-
refundable deposit with JPI.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
David T. Kubin
Wood Partners
561,893,0094 x1 02
dtk@woodpartners,com
7/2/2003
Department of Engineering
and Public Works
po. Box 21229
West Palm Beach. FL 33416-1229
(561) 684-4000
wwwpbcgov.com
.
Palm Beach County
Board of County
Commissioners
Warren H. Newell. Chairman
Carol A. Roberts, Vice Chair
Karen 1. Marcus
Mary McCarty
Burt Aaronson
Tony MasHotti
Addie L Greene
County Administrator
Robert Weisman
"An Equal Opportumty
AffirmatlVe Action Employer~
@ printed on recycled paper
February 4, 2002
Mr. Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning & Zoning
Department of Development
City of Boynton Beach
P.O, Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 34425-0310
RE:
Jefferson Apartment Complex
TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS REVIEW
Dear Michael:
The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the traffic study for the
development project entitled; Jefferson Apartment Complex, pursuant to the Traffic
Performance Standards in Article 15 of the Palm Beach County Land Development
Code. The project is summarized as follows:
Location:
Municipality:
Existing Uses:
Proposed Uses:
New Daily Trips:
Build-out:
East of Congress Avenue, north of L-30 Canal
Boynton Beach
None
340 MF Residential Apartments
2,380
2003
Based on our review, the Traffic Division has determined that the project meets the
Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. It is suggested that the City
implement proper measures, through signing or stripping, to enhance safety at the
project access driveway, with emphasis on the southbound Congress Avenue traffic,
turning left, onto the site.
If you have any questions regarding this determination, please contact me at 684-4030.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER
)tj
Masoud Atefi, MSCE
Sr. Engineer, Vaffic
cc: Simons & White Inc.
File: General - TPS - Mun - Traffic Study Review
F:I TRAFFIClmalAdminlApprovalsl020 112.doc
l
SIMMONS If WHITE, INC.
Engineers . Planners . Consultants
April I, 2002
Job No, 01-100
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION
STATEMENT OF LEGAL POSITIVE OUTFALL
Jefferson Apartment Complex
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
SITE DATA
The subject parcel is located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Congress
Avenue and the Lake Worth Drainage District L-30 Canal (approximately 4500 feet north
of Lake Ida Road,just south of Neptune Drive) and contains approximately 32,16 acres, The
property is currently designated as IND (Industrial) on the Palm Beach County
Comprehensive Plan, The property owner is requesting a change in the parcel's designation
to HDR (High Density Residential) with a proposed density of 10,8 dwelling units per acre,
SITE DRAINAGE
This site is located within the boundaries of the Lake Worth Drainage District and South
Florida Water Management District C-15 Drainage Basin, Legal positive outfall is available
to the site via discharge into the Lake Worth Drainage District L-30 Canal located adjacent
to the parcel's south property line, Drainage design is to address the following:
I, On-site retention of the runoff from the 3 year, I hour rainfall event.
2, No runoff to leave the site except through an approved control structure up to
the level produced by the 25 year, 3 day rainfall event.
3, Building floor elevations to be at or above the level produced by the 100 year,
3 day rainfall event.
4, Parking lots to be protected from flooding during a 3 year, 24 hour event, or the 5
year, 24 hour event if exfiltration trench is used,
5, Allowable discharge to be in accordance with Lake Worth Drainage District
and South Florida Water Management District criteria,
5601 Corporate Way, Suite 200, West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
Telephone (561) 478-7848 . Fax (561) 478-3738
www.simmonsandwhite.com
Certificate of Authorization Number 3452
Statement of Legal Positive Outfall
April I, 2002-Page 2
SITE DRAINAGE (CONTINUED)
6, Due consideration to water quality,
obert F, Rennebaum, P ,E,
sa: IpoO 1100
,IMMONS & WHITE, ~NC.
Engineers . Planners . Consultants
April I, 2002
Job No, 01-100
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION
TRAFFIC STATEMENT
Jefferson Apartment Complex
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
SITE DATA
The subject parcel is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Congress
Avenue and the Lake Worth Drainage District L-30 Canal (approximately 4500 feet north
of Lake Ida Road,just south of Neptune Drive) and contains approximately 32.16 acres, The
property is currently designated as IND (Industrial) on the Palm Beach County
Comprehensive Plan. The property owner is requesting a change in the parcels's designation
to HDR (High Density Residential) with a proposed density of 10.8 dwelling units per acre.
The purpose of this statement is to determine the total traffic volume which will be on each
roadway link within the site radius of development influence for the Interim Transportation
Plan, This statement will also identify which roadway links (if any) will exceed the adopted
Level of Service volume for the subject links addressed within the project's radius of
development influence,
TRAFFIC GENERATION
The decrease in daily traffic generation due to the requested change in the parcel's land use
designation may be determined by taking the difference between the total traffic generated
for the most intensive land use under the IND designation and the traffic generated by the
proposed HDR designation.
IND
The most intensive land use under the IND designation is General Industrial. Based on the
accepted City of Boynton Beach FAR of2.4, and the accepted traffic generation and passer-
by rates for general industrial development, the maximum traffic generation for the property
under the current IND designation is 22,262 tpd calculated as follows:
32,16 acres x 43.560 S.F,
Acre
x 2.4
= 3,362,135 S.F.
3,362,135 S.F. x 6.97 tpd
1000 S.F,
= 23,434 tpd
= -1172tpd
Less 5% Passer-By
NET = 22,262 tpd
5601 Corporate Way, Suite 200, West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
Telephone (561) 478-7848 . Fax (561) 478-3738
www.simmonsandwhite.com
Certificate of Authorization Number 3452
LUPA Traffic Statement
Job No, 00-101
April 1, 2002 - Page Two
TRAFFIC GENERATION (CONTINUED)
HDR
The property owner is proposing a corresponding density of 10,8 Dwelling Units per acre
under the HDR land use designation. Based on a project area of 32.16 acres and a trip
generation rate of 10 trips per day per Dwelling Unit, the maximum traffic generation for the
property under the HDR designation is 3470 tpd, calculated as follows:
32.16 acres x 10.8 D,U.'s
Acre
= 347 D.D.'s
347 D,U.'s x 10 tpd
D,U,
= 3470 tpd
The decrease in daily traffic generation due to the requested change in the parcel's land use
designation is 18,792 tpd, calculated as follows:
22,262 tpd - 3470 tpd = 18,792 tpd
As shown above, the requested change in the parcel's land use designation is anticipated to
substantially reduce the potential traffic generation associated with the site.
PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
The total peak hour turning movements for the 32.16 acre project under the HDR land use
designation with a proposed density of 10.8 Dwelling Units per acre have been determined
in order to assess the improvements necessary to accommodate such traffic movements. The
A.M, and P,M. peak hour factors and directional distributions are summarized as follows:
DIRECTIONAL
PEAK HOUR DISTRIBUTION
PERIOD RATE (%IN/%OUT)
A.M 0.700 (x) + 9.477 25%/75%
P.M, 0,901 Ln (x) + 0,527 64%/36%
DIRECTIONAL
DISTRIBUTION
(TRIPS INffRIPS OUT)
63/189
2I1/118
For this analysis, the project is assumed to be served by a single driveway connection to
Congress A venue. Based on the peak hour turning movements calculated above and the
Palm Beach County Engineering guideline used in determining the need for turn lanes of30
left turns or 75 right turns in the peak hour, turn lanes appear warranted at the project
entrance. Peak hour turning movement volumes and the need for turn lanes will be
readdressed following the preparation of a specific plan of development.
LUP A Traffic Statement
Job No, 00-101
April I, 2002 - Page Three
CONCLUSION
The proposed change in the parcel's land use designation from IND to HDR (with a
corresponding density of 10.8 Dwelling Units per acre) is expected to result in a substantial
decrease (18,792 tpd) in traffic generation. A review of the directly accessed link (Congress
Avenue), with regard to Year 2020 traffic volumes and projected Level of Service Standards
reveals that this proposed future land use plan designation modification will not result in a
increase in density or intensity of development significantly impacting any roadway segment
that is not projected to be operating at the adopted Level of Service on the Year 2020
Transportation System Plan. Therefore, the proposed future land use plan designation
modification is in accordance with the Traffic Circulation Element and meets the goals and
objectives of the City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan.
kg:LUPAOOIOI