Loading...
CORRESPONDENCE ..... r _ le' - ~> Xl. \ " \ , \Jl' \.~<> ~\ L / c1L? el, ~I o~ c.c(f'~~I"" ~c.. ~-c-t"C. Q., \'Y'+v~ , ~tG- ~ . Peter Rvland 1311 S. Jf: 25th Avenue, Bovnton Beach, FL 33426 August 5, 2006 r-'\-~'0--:F -,:-;:;--r-',-:.::-- -:.-;-- I I'll L!:--:J \\~:; !r- !I \\' I'=' ,/ IUj r-----.::::_, ~::.:::...::: ' ,.::-.'" \ I I -~-,~ '_h~ 'I I:: fir) I ,II "I U t~ - ~ <'IJOB ri_ i r;{T'~Y f\,i! -A-'~;':~;::-;~:~'~;:,~' -,;.__ Y' '_. ......, . I ~! --, \ 1 r ,-,' \. ,\, , 1 (' I ~-----~~~~!i~~_'_._~:__J r'i\,-\\b~ Kurt Bressner City Manager City of Boynton Beach 100 :E Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, FL 33435 f.,V e-' tA\V::~ ~ ~gJ'~ Dear Mr. Bressner Thank you for your letter of July 311t, In your letter, you refer to and enclose the July 18th staff report which states: "Over the next year the Coco plum plants will grow to a height of six feet and be maintained by the developer and property manager at a height equal to the height of the fence. This maintenance activity will ensure the continued buffering of the project." And: "The Developer has ... obtained verbal approval from the Lake Worth Drainage District to allow the minor encroachment by some Fakahatehee grass plants within the canal right.of- way and therefore these plantings can remain and contribute to the screening ofthe fence". The voluntary homeownen association referred to in the report has been uncooperative with the contiguous homeownen on at least two oecasions; the lint being the "signing off" on a 65-unit condominium which was rejected by the city after hearing the contiguous homeowner's objections and the latest "signing off" after hearing and ignoring contiguous property ownen' concerns. Furthermore, the voluntary homeownen association does not vote and pay taxes to the city, as do the contiguous property ownen (the majority of the latter are not memben of the association). The fact that the voluntary homeowner's association has "signed off" on the development does not modify the legal agreement between the city and the developer. At the present time, the developer is in violation of at least one of those restrictions. The city, in releasing the final unit with knowledge of the violation(s) is accepting responsibility for satisfaction of the restrictions; therefore, we will revisit the Amendment of the Decltuat/Q" of CovenaD ad RestrlctlollSfor Alhambra Square during the next year to assure that all restrictions contained therein are being met and will inform and look to the city for remediation of any violations. ~' Peter Ryland 736-2422 cc: Gerald Taylor 1086 SW uf- Avenue Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Petitionen .' llze Otl} 0/ BOl}nton Beach Office Of The aty Manager 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard P.O, Box 310 Boynton Beach, Rorida 33425-0310 aty Manager's Office: (561) 742-6010 FAX: (561) 742-6011 e-mail: bressnerk@cl.boynton-beach.n.us WMY. boynton-beach,org July 31, 2006 Mr, Peter Ryland 1311 S,W. 25th Avenue Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Dear Mr. Ryland: This is in response to your letter of June 14, 2006 regardin.i the issue of landscaping along the south canal fence at the Venetian Villas development on 23 Avenue. In an effort to address your concerns we asked our staff to investigate the matter and prepare a report on the status of the landscaping, in light of the Amendment of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions fort Alhambra Square, Exhibit B, Item 2, (AKA the "Agreement") to determine if there were deficiencies, and if so, what steps were being taken to correct them. Our staff has conducted a landscape field inspection of the site and prepared the attached report. Based on this report, we believe that the issues raised in your letter of June 14, 2006 have been addressed, Accordingly the City is moving forward with Its final landscape inspection for the purpose of issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the final structure on the site. Please feel free to contact Mr, Quintus Greene, Development Director at (561) 742-6372 or Mr. Michael Rumpf, Planning Director at (561) 742-6268 if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, Attachment C: Quintus Greene, Development Director Michael Rumpf, Planning Director Carisse LeJeune, Assistant to City Manager AMERIOA'S GATEWAY TO THE GULFSTREAM tY/ DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND ZONING Memorandum PZ 06-146 Quintus Greene, Director of Development"""'- l;1:--- Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Zon~ Kevin Hallahan, Forester / Environmentalist July 19, 2006 Venetian Villas - Letter of June 14,2006 from Peter Ryland to Kurt Bressner, City Manager TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: RE: I have reviewed the contents of the above letter in reference to the landscape issues at Venetian Villas, I would like to respond to each of the items in the letter and the specific items as listed on the . attachment described as Amendment of Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Alhambra Sauare: Exhibit B. Item 2 (aareement), Mr, Ryland and the other owners of property located across the canal from the rear of Venetian Villas, who have signed the accompanying petition, are not signatories to the agreement described above, However, the two homeowner association presidents who are signatories to this agreement have provided the developer, George Abadie, with their signatures of satisfaction relative to the principal issues raised in the letter from Mr, Ryland. The status of compliance with each of the 10 conditions in the agreement are explained in a collection of documents forwarded to the department by Mr, Abadie, 'A description of what has been observed in the field as documented by a landscape inspection conducted on July 18, 2006, is as follows: · There is a six foot high aluminum fence with columns installed along the entire South perimeter of the project. There is a continuous 30" - 36" high Coco plum hedge and clusters of 30" - 36" high Fakahatchee grass plants installed along the outside (south side) of the fence to provide a visual buffer between the project and the rear yards of those properties that front on SW 25th Avenue, The plantings currently obstruct between one- third and one-half of the height of the fence. Over the next year the Coco plum hedge plants will grow to a height of six feet and be maintained by the developer and property manager at a height equal to the height of the fence, This maintenance activity will ensure the continued buffering of the project. St~ff understands the developer has received final sign-off, and obtained verbal approval from the Lake Worth Drainage District to allow the minor encroachment by some of the Fakahatchee grass plants within the canal right-of-way and therefore these plantings can remain and contribute to screening of the fence. · The developer has replaced all of the dead Coco plum hedge and Fakahatchee grass plants along the fence. The project irrigation system has been adjusted to give additional watering time to this portion of the property to encourage the growth of these landscape buffer plantings, July 19,2006 Venetian Villas Landscaping Response to Letter 6-14-06 Page 2 · The fence and landscape buffer plantings are in accordance with the City approved landscape plans, The landscape plans have had to be revised by the Landscape Architect of record for the project due to the unavailability of the Coco plum hedge plants in sizes larger than the 30"-36" in height. This is a result of the impact of the recent hurricanes on the nursery industry throughout the State, Given that the Coco plum plantings do not totally screen the fence, due to lack of availability of plant materials, staff recommended the developer obtain approval or comments on the buffer from the other parties to the agreement. As indicated above, the two associations that are signatories to the agreement, have provided written confirmation that they are satisfied with the final buffer design and magnitude of screening provided for the fence, It is the position of staff that the developer has satisfactorily completed the landscape buffer plantings along the fence in accordance with the agreement, city regulations and specifications on the plans. The developer is requesting his final landscape inspection to allow occupancy of the final structure on the site, the pool I cabana facility. S:\Plannlng\SHAREO\WP\PROJECTS\Veneuan Vlllas\VeneUan Villas. Peter Ryland Itr 6-14-06 answer. doc .._~-. )..; " R l d 1311 S. ~ 25'h Avenue. Bovnton Beach. PL 33426 Peter v an . · .JUDe 14, 1006 X.rt B......er City Ma....er City olBoyntoa 8eae1l 100 E BoYDton Beach Boulevard Boyaton Beaeh, FL 33435 . t-t\'V-,,~ b. e;,t., . NO. tj\L '\-\. 'f..t'^ f'- ~ ~ b/,..,,( 0 b (t)u~.l G- we.. ~ io H> II ow ..~ w~~ . ""B\J .~\ ~ ~ ~o~ , ~.~. '?\> ~\PI ~ t..e> o/l;;:r Dear Mr. Breaner Enclosed is. petitio. tro... the 25'" Avenue residents who reside across tbe eaR.1 from tbe "\(elleti,I.lD VI'Ju dey~'~pm!nt 0Il'2Jrd,.~en~~. ThQ,lssue IfIthe ppor Ih,l~ C)fthe pJaadop ajonl tb~Spu~ ea,,. .n~, wbJch w,re promJaec;taeeprdl.. tQ item 2 pI the restridlo.. <*xhlbft B) ot the ^~e..d...eDt ofDeeJaration. oICoven,.nt. -lid ReatrietiOnJ For AJhambra Square .Igsed by you tor tbe City on July 1~ 2004. The variaaee 01 the plntlnll from the restrictions has bee. reported to the Developer, George Abadie, tbe As.istant Development Director, Nancy Byrne, the Planamg Director, Micbael Rumpl, .ad tbe Preslde.t 01 the Golfvfew Harbour Homeownen AuoeI.~D, Ken ,-Borenle. with neither ""'po...e nor Betton. la our op'nlon, tbe City, aJonl wit. the Developer II reapo..lble tor allowing thil Infraction 01 tile Am~dment aad Ita attendant lUtrietio.... Clearly, the affected homeowDen OB 25th Avenue are 8nhappy with t~e current situation. I look forward to hearing from you about tbe next steps to resolve tbis. r Ryland J6-2422 /' CC:GeraJd Taylor 1086 SW 2'" AveDue Boynton Beaeh, Ii'L 33426 roJr ~ @ ~ a Wi ~ rn1 lflJf JUN 2 6 2006 ~ \ L____ ,!~~:~~_~-==- ()f- DEVELOPMENT '\ ,,J-I' ~\ DV> ,0" -,...C ' RECEIVED ... [jUN 2~1'~.6. ] 'C,I~f Uflf\'i1~r-R' 'S Ol=-FICE' I ' J I v I, ,., f I., 1\_ \ \ , .-.--....-.----.---.---0..-..._ :,'" "..," J i,~' ,;" ",,:.': ' :~, ~~.;. 'Ii I. " ',: ';:~ :;~ l;:<:j ,:'?J;" . '" -I ", ..... ~\ .: I. ..;. " . .... .'... . r fl ee e t Amendment of DeeJaratJons of Covenants' and RestrietJoDs for Alhambra Square: Exhibit B, Item 2 ., · Whereas, the above doeumeat was signed for the City of Boynton Beaell by Kurt Breuner, who Is the City Mauager and · Whereas, .ald document states In Exhibit B, Item 2: nelGut" wall .hall be . Ib loot hip eontJnuou. eotecl IInml8UIR bar lent. with concrete eolun.... aDd IJO ptel or openlnlS to die c.na. area to the lout. ohueh leo"- Upon eompletlon 01.... In.tallatlo.- of luch (ence, plantJop will be Installed on the exterior 01 the (.nee to ohtract the view ol.ueb 'ene. from tile South. and · Whereas neent "speetio.. ol.aid plantiaga h.. revealed that approximately 25% of the pJantiap are dead and the view 01 the fence from the South Is obstrueted by Ie.. thaa 10% (ineludlng the dead pJantmp) and · Whereas employees of the Lake Worth Drainage Distriet have stated that lome or .u 01 the p'aatlngs are on their property and wiD have to be removed and · Whereas thy eOlldltion has beeD reported to the Developer, City Staff and Homeownen AsIOeht.tfOD without response or btditatJoD 01 ~DY acdon to reetify th'8 condition. · Therefore we, the IIDdenJped, "present that we are homeowners who are directly atreeted by the above condition and hereby petitloD Kurt Bralner, City Manaler, to entoree the provisions of Ruth't 2, Item 2 of the Amendmeilt of Deelarations of Covenaltt. and Restriction. For Alhambra Squ.r. with aU the admlobtratlve and legal resoureel of the City ot BOYDt8D Beach. f~~I~ I~ liI/ ;)-~ A~ <<4~E -~~ IlkS" 5.u>. 2.51"'tJL tj/'f/t? }.,....1-.. ~A'-'>._ d ~ k /'W- U4, .1'" :l-J'fI 0-'<. L --r:"--t>c. 4S;E .( ""~A!.A~"~~~ '" 5_~", S..J~5""_~ ~ /,Y",.. EJ.,t/NcS..14'if · 1f0/S'w.(J'iJ/I/t"'; ?/?-o 51td/J~ M~ ~ /3.10 ~~af~~ *A, - LCUA_{-Qv..J<J'lellll _ J?J:)./ S.IA!. :L~Aw.. (fi~ , The City 0/ Boynton Bedch Office Of The Oty Manager 100 E Boynton Beach Boulevard P.O, Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Oty Manager's Office: (561) 742-6010 FAX: (561) 742-6011 e-mail: bressnerk@ci.boynton-beach.fl.us WMY. boynton-beach,org July 31,2006 Mr. Peter Ryland 1311 S.W. 25th Avenue Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Dear Mr. Ryland: This is in response to your letter of June 14, 2006 regardin~ the issue of landscaping along the south canal fence at the Venetian Villas development on 23 Avenue. In an effort to address your concerns we asked our staff to investigate the matter and prepare a report on the status of the landscaping, in light of the Amendment of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions fort Alhambra Square, Exhibit B, Item 2, (AKA the "Agreement") to determine if there were deficiencies, and if so, what steps were being taken to correct them. Our staff has conducted a landscape field inspection of the site and prepared the attached report. Based on this report, we believe that the issues raised in your letter of June 14,2006 have been addressed. Accordingly the City is moving forward with (ts final landscape inspection for the purpose of issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the final structure on the site. Please feel free to contact Mr. Quintus Greene, Development Director at (561) 742-6372 or Mr. Michael Rumpf, Planning Director at (561) 742-6268 if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, Attachment C: Quintus Greene, Development Director Michael Rumpf, Planning Director Carisse LeJeune, Assistant to City Manager AMERICA'S GATEWA Y TO THE GULFSTREAM , ""-'" DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND ZONING Memorandum PZ 06-146 TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: RE: Quintus Greene, Director of Development /' ~ Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Zon~ Kevin Hallahan, Forester / Environmentalist July 19, 2006 Venetian Villas - Letter of June 14,2006 from Peter Ryland to Kurt Bressner, City Manager I have reviewed the contents of the above letter in reference to the landscape issues at Venetian Villas, I would like to respond to each of the items in the letter and the specific items as listed on the . attachment described as Amendment of Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Alhambra Square: Exhibit B. Item 2 (aareement), Mr. Ryland and the other owners of property located across the canal from the rear of Venetian Villas, who have signed the accompanying petition, are not signatories to the agreement described above. However, the two homeowner association presidents who are signatories to this agreement have provided the developer, George Abadie, with their signatures of satisfaction relative to the principal issues raised in the letter from Mr, Ryland. The status of compliance with each of the 10 conditions in the agreement are explained in a collection of documents forwarded to the department by Mr, Abadie. A description of what has been observed in the field as documented by a landscape inspection conducted on July 18, 2006, is as follows: · There is a six foot high aluminum fence with columns installed along the entire South perimeter of the project. There is a continuous 30" - 36" high Coco plum hedge and clusters of 30" - 36" high Fakahatchee grass plants installed along the outside (south side) of the fence to provide a visual buffer between the project and the rear yards of those properties that front on SW 25th Avenue, The plantings currently obstruct between one- third and one-half of the height of the fence, Over the next year the Coco plum hedge plants will grow to a height of six feet and be maintained by the developer and property manager at a height equal to the height of the fence, This maintenance activity will ensure the continued buffering of the project. Staff understands the developer has received final sign-off, and obtained verbal approval from the Lake Worth Drainage District to allow the minor encroachment by some of the Fakahatchee grass plants within the canal right-of-way and therefore these plantings can remain and contribute to screening of the fence, · The developer has replaced all of the dead Coco plum hedge and Fakahatchee grass plants along the fence. The project irrigation system has been adjusted to give additional watering time to this portion of the property to encourage the growth of these landscape buffer plantings. July 19,2006 Venetian Villas Landscaping Response to Letter 6-14-06 Page 2 · The fence and landscape buffer plantings are in accordance with the City approved landscape plans, The landscape plans have had to be revised by the Landscape Architect of record for the project due to the unavailability of the Coco plum hedge plants in sizes larger than the 30"-36" in height. This is a result of the impact of the recent hurricanes on the nursery industry throughout the State, Given that the Coco plum plantings do not totally screen the fence, due to lack of availability of plant materials, staff recommended the developer obtain approval or comments on the buffer from the other parties to the agreement. As indicated above, the two associations that are signatories to the agreement, have provided written confirmation that they are satisfied with the final buffer design and magnitude of screening provided for the fence, It is the position of staff that the developer has satisfactorily completed the landscape buffer plantings along the fence in accordance with the agreement, city regulations and specifications on the plans, The developer is requesting his final landscape inspection to allow occupancy of the final structure on the site, the pool I cabana facility, S:IP/annlng\SHAREDIWP\PROJECTS\Venelian Vlllas\Venelian Villas. Peter Ryland Itr 6.14.06 answer.doc ( I , Bach. FL 33426 R l d 1311 S. ~ 2Sh Avenue. Born/on e Peter v an . . June 14, 2006 K.rt B.......er CIty Maaacer City OfBoy.tOD Beaell 100 E BoyatoD Beach Boulevard BoyatOD Beach, FL 3343$ - , rt\'t)-~ tr e.;~ . f'lLlv'\c~1 t\ . "'-t'^ " @ Dear Mr. Breuner E.cl~ It . petitioarro.,. the,2S" Avenue realdenu who reside aC1'OI1 the CIna' from tbe ,"ell;.....n VI~.. dey.~t9p.m!.t on '23rd..~en,... T~,Iss...e ,_~lIe ~r.~ 9fthe pJalldap , aJOD' ill. ~.putJa ea,,. tDFe, whleh ~f.re pro~sec;taceprdfa. tQ Item % ~I the re.strietJo" (bJIlhit B) ot tbe .t\pie~d...eat o'Dee~ratioD' of:_Co~en...f. .,.... R~jrletioDJ For AJhambra Squart ....ed by YOII tor the City OD July12f 2004~ ' The vanu" of th. plaaflap from the nstrieUoDI W bee. reported to the Developer, , George Abadie, tile AsaJatut Development DJrector, Naney Byrne, the PlanJlio, Director, MJchael Rumpf, aad t.e Pnalde.t of the Golfvlew Barbour HomeolVllen Al8oetatJoD, Ken .-BoreD". wit. Delther "poBle nor aeCloII. III our Op'JlfOD, tbe City, along with the ' -Developer" ",oafble tor aUowing this 'ntraetfo~ of the AmeadmeDt od Ita att6ndtlJlt restrfedoJU. Clearly, the aft'eeted homeowaen OD 25cra Ave.ae are auhappy with t4e currelit sltuadoDo I look forward to Ilearing from you about the nut step. to resolve this. ' f[D) r ~ & ~ a w m fn) Wi JUN 2 6 2006 ~ I L I'Ryland '6-2422 V CC:GeraJd Taylor 1086 SW 26. Avenue Boynton Beacla, li'L 33426 ~P.\ r I : ~,; r,;\. 1- Dr- OEVElOPMENl \' ,. w ..p \4> \ ,v.) .,f)" 7--( , . (;: .' ", .~ :~ I..: RECEIVED r .;!,:' .., :" Ju ft' 2\ 2066" . ',' ~ 'CITYMA'f\ui'~Ett's OFFICE ' _ . 1_ .: I U _ \ \ -- :'.: .:.,:. ,';' :.' . I ~ " . "';~;~ : :::J':' :"~:::" ':':., ~. . ~. ..~ '~;J..:'". ': :~.. oJ.;.,:,I' I.... , ..:~.~.:.::,,':if ":f,~ :~"i~~.~. '.; ':;"~\,"':~:~'~ ~.., . ". .'~' : ..' :'; ,.': .. ~ ",' . .... ..... , . 00 oeeet Amendment ofDeelaratlons of Covenants 'aDd ,Restrictions for Alhambra Square: Exhibit B, Item 2 · Wherea., the above document was signed for the City of Boynton Beach by Kurt Breuner, who Is the City Manager and · Whereas, said document states In' Exhibit B, Item 2: The lOutb will IhaU be . .Ix foot hip eontJnuou. coated alumlaullt bar lente with concrete eolulDDI and DO ptel or openlnp to die eanaln.. to the lOuth ohueh 'eDce. Upon completion 01 the In.tallatio.. of sueh 'ence, plantJu&. will be Installed on the exterior of tile (enee to obstruct the view of sueh 'eaet from tile South. and · Whereas recent inspection of laid pJantinp h.. revealed that approximately 25% 01 the plandngs are dead and the view 01 the fenee from the South II obstructed by Jess than 10% (JncludiDg the dead plantmp) and · Whereas employees of the Lake Worth Drafnsae District have stated that 10Dle or an of the pJantings are on their property and wiD bave to be removed aDd · Whereas thb condition has beeD reported to the Developer, City Staff and Bomeownen Association without response or 'ndicatlon or any aedon to rectify fhJs condition. · Therefore we, the undenJped, represent tbat we are homeowners who are dIrectly affected by the above condition and hereby petitioD Kurt BRSlner, City Manager, to entorce the provisions of Exhibit 2, Item 2 of the Amendment of Declarations of Covenant. and Restrlctionl For Alhambra Squ.,re with aU the admloistraUve and legal resourees of the City of Boynton Beach. A~dl'eSi (. I ~311 SW ~~A~ /,L0f l'-/1:>Q 5.~, 2.51J..~ t./I'I/* I 1 J-/~J..&4 ~A~~ d ~ k A.,)---- L J41 Jv/ :l-J't1 OJc.. '" "1'-('"1,)(. ~J>e L ",~;<e.A~"Pe.lL"'~~ "5_~/ S~)~5'" ~~ //"'-' $ i ii 1Jte...14ty · Lf0IS'1.fr. r!1 !i)lt/l"';. 6-/j!-o 5M!./};! IIlBfBJ ~ /3/0 s:M,,1~ *Ar 'L~a,'el/o ~ J?I'J.! S'Y:). :l..~A~!f~ NamefPrint} 'Pd7~ ~~I~ .~~ S' --- ,. DEPl<RTMENT OF DEVELOP~NT PLANNING AND ZONING Memorandum PZ 06-146 , TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: RE: Quintus Greene, Director of Development , .;J:-- Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Zon~ Kevin Hallahan, Forester I Environmentalist July 19, 2006 Venetian Villas - Letter of June 14,2006 from Peter Ryland to Kurt Bressner, City Manager I have reviewed the contents of the above letter in reference to the landscape issues at Venetian Villas, I would like to respond to each of the items in the letter and the specific items as listed on the attachment described as Amendment of Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Alhambra Square: Exhibit B. Item 2 (aQreement). Mr. Ryland and the other owners of property located across the canal from the rear of Venetian Villas, who have signed the accompanying petition, are not signatories to the agreement described above, However, the two homeowner association presidents who are signatories to this agreement have provided the developer, George Abadie, with their signatures of satisfaction relative to the principal issues raised in the letter from Mr, Ryland, The status of compliance with each of the 10 conditions in the agreement are explained in a collection of documents forwarded to the department by Mr. Abadie. A description of what has been observed in the field as documented by a landscape inspection conducted on July 18, 2006, is as follows: · There is a six foot high aluminum fence with columns installed along the entire South perimeter of the project. There is a continuous 30" - 36" high Coco plum hedge and clusters of 30" - 36" high Fakahatchee grass plants installed along the outside (south side) of the fence to provide a visual buffer between the project and the rear yards of those properties that front on SW 25th Avenue. The plantings currently obstruct between one- third and one-half of the height of the fence. Over the next year the Coco plum hedge plants will grow to a height of six feet and be maintained by the developer and property manager at a height equal to the height of the fence. This maintenance activity will ensure the continued buffering of the project. Staff understands the developer has received final sign-off, and obtained verbal approval from the Lake Worth Drainage District to allow the minor encroachment by some of the Fakahatchee grass plants within the canal right-of-way and therefore these plantings can remain and contribute to screening of the fence. · The developer has replaced all of the dead Coco plum hedge and Fakahatchee grass plants along the fence. The project irrigation system has been adjusted to give additional watering time to this portion of the property to encourage the growth of these landscape buffer plantings. . July 19,2006 Venetian Villas Landscaping Response to Letter 6-14-06 Page 2 · The fence and landscape buffer plantings are in accordance with the City approved landscape plans. The landscape plans have had to be revised by the Landscape Architect of record for the project due to the unavailability of the Coco plum hedge plants in sizes larger than the 30"-36" in height. This is a result of the impact of the recent hurricanes on the nursery industry throughout the State, Given that the Coco plum plantings do not totally screen the fence, due to lack of availability of plant materials, staff recommended the developer obtain approval or comments on the buffer from the other parties to the agreement. As indicated above, the two associations that are signatories to the agreement, have provided written confirmation that they are satisfied with the final buffer design and magnitude of screening provided for the fence, It is the position of staff that the developer has satisfactorily completed the landscape buffer plantings along the fence in accordance with the agreement, city regulations and specifications on the plans. The developer is requesting his final landscape inspection to allow occupancy of the final structure on the site, the pool I cabana facility. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Venetian VillasWenetian Villas - Peter Ryland Itr 6-14-06 answer,doc ., \,.. B h FL 33426 , d 1311 S ", 2Sh Avenue. Bovnton eac. Peter Rvltrn ,.' June tot, 1006 Kurt Sreuaer City M.....er City 01 Boya.o. Beaell 100 E BoYDtOB Beae" Boulevard BOYDton Beaeh, FL 3343S \., i \2- ,f-\\vl- O' ,~.. . vl\l'''' E:;-- N (.l \-\ . 'f-.t'^ {'- P, Dear Mr. Breaner ~ b/,.~r Ob (l)v~~J. G.. we., ~ iO t; \\ ow ...vJ' ~~.)\~ pr-~'1 ~O~ ~''f'i · ?'-> ~ U".Q'. te> 0/1;;:;- Enelosed is a petitio. from the 1S'" Avenue residents who reside across tbe uDal from tbe Veaetian Villas development on 2JrdAvenue. The issue"" the ppor.tate orthe plandnp aloDI the ~u~ e.,~ I~~e, whleh w~~ promised acc:pnliag to Item 2 01 the restrietio.. (ExJalblt B) oltbe A.me..dment orDee.....tion. of Covenant. aDd Restrictions For Alhambra Square ....ed by you tor the City on July 11., 2004. The varinee of tile pintiD" from the restrietion8 has bee. reported to the Developer, George Abadie, tile AulataDt Development Director, Nancy Byrne, the PI.nlling Director, Michael Rumpf, aad tile Preslde.t of tbe Golfview Harbour HomeowDen ~i.tton, KeD ,~.Sorense. with neither reapollle nor action. 10 our oplnioll, tbe City, alonl with the Developer is respo.slble lor allowing tbia Infraction or the Ameadmellt and Ita attendallt restric:tiODS. Clearly, the affected homeowDers on 25th Avenue are unhappy with t"e current situation.l look forward to hearing (rom YOD about the next steps to resolve this. r Ryland '6-2422 /' CC:Gerald Taylor 1086 SW 2611I Avenue Boynton Beaeh, FL 33426 fD)f~ @ ~ a \Yl ~ rn1 ~Jj JUN 2 6 2006 ~ L________ ~~i'::~~~~~~ ,:;1- DEVELQPMENl '\ ' oJ -I' \4>\ Dv.) b "7"'( ...0 RECEIVED r:,~,l 2O~ L_ _ =-J ''''I'rV l'i1! n.r,\, ',.... rr'l~ S Oj~F'ICE It,.", p}f!~I,I,\hrl\ ""- L._...____-:..,:.....__:~~_~:_,..::..___._ , \ .." .... ",;;: - " : ' ldtion f2r tnf9feemeaf Amendment of Deelarations of Covenants and Restrictions for Alhambra Square: Exhibit B, Item 2 . Whereas, the above document was stgued for the City 01 Boynton Beach by Kurt BreasDer, who is the City Manager and . Whereas, said doeumeot states in Exhibit B, Item 2: The lOuth wall sball be . .Ix foot blelt tontlnuou. coated aln.lIlum bar fence witb concrete column. aad DO ptes or openings to the canal area to the loutlt of lueh fenee. Upon tompletion o( the InstaUation of luch fence, planting. will be Installed on the exterior of tile feuee to obstruct the view of such fence from the South. and · Whereas reeeot inspedion of laid plaotiaga haa revealed that approximately :ZS% 01 the plaodnp are dead aad the view of the fen~e from the South II obstructed by le.s than lO.~ (including the dead plantings) and · Whereas employees of the Lake Worth Drainage District have stated that some or aU or the planfings are 08 their property aad wiD have to be removed aDd · Whereas this conditioo has bftn reported to the Developer, City Staff and HOIDeownen Allociation without response or iadit.atioD of any aetlon to rectify this condition. · Therefore we, the undeniped, represent tbat w'e are homeowners who are directly affeeted by the aoo\re CODditioD and hereby petitioD Kurt BraiDer, City Manager, to enforce the provisions of Exhibit 2, Item 1 of the Amendment of Declarations of Covenants aDd Restrictions For Alhambra Squ.re with aU the admiDistratlve and legal resourees 01 the City 01 Boynton Beaeb. Name(PrinO ~e~ ~~I~ -~tiLd~5t'lb S' Address t. I ~31\ S VV ;l-~ A~ ,I, Lf~~ lL~)'7 5,~. 7-5/A~ t!IY/Pk I 1 t,1"I J. ~ 't::' ,At L.~ ~I d ~~ k ~.........- I J (11 J vi J.- Soft 0 --h. (.. "'1 '-( '""0 c P.5>E L "'/5.R..A,I)~'<.~_~'" 5~J $..)':<5,4 a-e..~ /'>/,,1. $Jlilie:J2rly c!f1J~. - /f0IS:W.~(;J1yc:. 6.'-/1"--0 5ttil/J'I MA&ffI./ it; ):3/6 S:~~~d *A, . Lc;>v..v(~g,c,el/o ~ to~ S.ItJ. .1.~A~ L/I~ FACSIMILE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH City Hall, West Wing 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425 (561) 742-6260 (561) 742-6259 Fax From the office of Planning & Zoning /N~ ~~ FAX: 4-34 - 8/87 TO: FROM: EtJ 8~ DA TE: /2-/7-03 NUMBER OF PAGES: (including cover) 3 RE: Veu677A?0 VIUk~ ~t...- ~~~ L/-t;;#UeA-TtoN /rv(aA- I IF ~ N-4vG ~~ ~. ----- I J.hhvlc& r J t:;:::.fJ ((U~{/~ te/cJ~ ME A- / J:\SHRDATA\Planning\Planning Templates\P&Z Fax\P & 0 Blank Fax.dot If you receive this fax in error, or experience trouble with transmission, please notify our office immediately, at (561) 742-6260. Thank you, 12--' 5-~~003 3: 17PM FROM P' JNlf'.G At,) REAL E~~;61 ,134 B1 13-' (.~OOL DI.$',.>. [;.J g. ?d ~: q !! ... \~~~ THE SC'-IOCIL [-ISTFtlCT elF F'AL.14 E;I::ACIH ::O:.J 'f 'I' PLANNING DEPI~I~lT'f"E~IT 3320 FOFltEST HnLIL BI01ll1.EVJ"~ I[) .. (; :~3dl "',YES"r PALMI l:iEACIH, F'I. ~;: !i40a .__._......__.__._______ ._____ ._._, ,.r F ACS,I:MI LE -rRANHMI'TT J~\L F' HONE: 561/434-8020 Fj~(: ~.lj1J4.~4,~ :18j Nun'lber 'c;.f p!lges serrt (in(~ludi r1~ I:('VS! r paSle~ 2 T:J: Dick HudsOll, Plcinniflg Dep;;.rtmE'nt, c:at)r )f E:nyntorn :~ea I~II DATE: December ~15, 201)3 FAX NUMBER: 742-6259 FROM: Inga Ronke, Secretary, Int!l'uovermnenfall~f!latimts COMMENTS: Attached is a C('py of thE~ :lchool C':lncurnnc'{ appli ::atiCTl ;:': I<:! provider forn for VenE~tian V ilas. -"hi~i Clf,plicc':ion recluire 3. 1:1 ;:, government Bign~!ture, We h:lVe he':~n re::pE,s':E!j tlJ c,::nph!t,;1 I:, form no later than Thursday. [Iecenb<~r 18_ Please fill irl Part II, "Local GJVernmen1: Ftt!V e'^ ," and I Hturll I) .t:; ASAP at the, folio'\' ling fax nun- :rer: 4::14-;31 B 7. Thank you. Attachment .,5. $:\Planning\Public\INTl;i{{OOV\ConcurrcnCY\C<lnCu"Icncy D~:crmin'lton U:tt<:rs\I' axC$\1'C 3112601 CL lC uS igr J I)C 12-15-2003 3,18PM FR OLAM.JING i'ND REAL ES 5f1 43A 8187 P_ :2 TteSch>o Di,trl,ot ,'PalmEeaCl ;f)II~'Y tJanntrv 1)I:,t r tm"nt 33?C fOleStHilB~c G-11Q " 'A eel Pll: n ,elM1h, Fl 3H I-58' S Fhon":I;81 )4~ 4,1300 (ll' (~61)9 : .38;7 Fa~: (61)4, 4, ll87 or (! 61)t '-8B' 5 A 1 "'lion: ~Q< e 'non' y The Schell)1 Dis':rict of Palm [.eacl- COlllI~ School Concurre rlCY Application l~ S ~rviC:9 Pro"ide" I :orlll InstructlOflS: Submit one copy ,)f the ompleled applicat )n amI fe'JI! fH U( h le'v "$ide~ Ilia project requiring ill determin,tiOI' of cone Jrrene'Y for scllool!. A de' ermtnElti on 'vi! b! P '0 oded wthir fifteen (15) working days of receipt of a complete application. ,deternimltion is rot tl< n$'(I uble ard i: valid for one year from date of iH3uanr.e. Once the Oe\'810 :ment Clrc!Hr j'l i$511e I, he II'ncurrEn~ determination shall be valid for the fe of the Devel,pment erc!e' P~nsGl chGlGk (~) type of llpP!!C2f:;,n (cm;:mly.):, [ ] Concurrency Determination [ J Concurrency EJ<em ,lion [ 1 '~orCt rrE nc" ;~uivale nc: [ j Adequate School Facilities Deb'minatioil I ) Le:ter "f No 1fT pa.:! : Ti n ! Exten: ,ior Fccs: Concurrency Oetenninatlon Dr P,:equate S,;hDDl Facilitlots Detnrmi ,.lion (S~OO,(O for :T10(1' II an 20 IT 's 120 u. its orle.s S100,OO); Equivalency (S'I: 5_001; Ex: rnptiOn Of Lette, 0' No ! npacII'1!5.0~1: llf1e E~~ ns ~n '$ ;;_001 PA:tT I. P~OJE:CT INFORiIl1ATI':IN -------- ------] Please allach a copy of lh.;' ~: 1iiOnPii", ,..1 ,..:ord, i f wltlTa.ty d ~;. ,d <> Hi ;;; to If - --, -- I Projec:tName: "&JET'~_ \/I(,!&___ MlI1icipalty: ..B~~n.t:L_~~~-- PropertyCcntrol Number {PCN; .J2a.!:f:2,:,J.5'- 32~:S' - C~~- q~l_ __ ___.__ -...----.---------..... .---.-. location I Address of Subject "I'operty: ~~~:~) 1';:.r>"1 J~.a!': 2 j :~...th!~ _ DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: Pro'.c:tData ::-:,~-~= -:J)~~fU!~~== :=:= Section/Township/Range .. / / .~_ SinreF!!!1!!;:-._-----~_- P .ect Acrea e _ __ __..:.!:r__ (~ Mul! .F.miIL;Q!!~ J!:~!! l3Itm~ !~l Total Nuinberof Unitiil _, C') -~ -~!!!!!!!!kj:t!:2!~ ~~ !~__ ~lItheProiectbePhased?'(Y/t!. _ '=-' Hi :Ri:;eJ~~~!];______ Ie""",,,,,",,, .n'" _ (<:sAI. ~---'-_ ."-.1. Re~><!.i~!ill"''' r:..~ -, II epplicabte. ptea.e ettach a PhaSing : Ian shov.i'g the n,mbllr and l)pc c I units 10 r~i," c}r ifice:e llc :C\Il1 "yye",l) A Resltictive Covenant i8 required for '1 ~e.restrir~! ,d comn ,unffies, OWNERSHIP / AGENT INFORMH:'ION: Owner's Name: ~Sf!:~~;~~-,----.;:-r-rr------- ---- All..... "~" ~;;"''''''~D. I ". ..~~d:1IS;?1\S-[_C::ljJ ;l:O~Ih.I lOr) MalllngAddress: ~_,~i~!.-' _________,.,.,_.____ Telephone N"mber: ~:~~~;-2_ ~ 2- -lX ,: umbel: --==== = = = :== :==: ' I hereby cer+jlY the stalements or inlo<111 otiDn mi" e in anvZ Or p.en' submillad hera.. Ih Ire lru , al,d I it> It.. but of my knowledge. ~()d' j I" - . ,:-,_ eo 1\: C,~ - ~-\9:- 7"-- ,_.. OWn~r or OWfler', Agent Sj!ln"~,rel ate / y' __,________PAR.Ijl. LO';:AL GOVERfliMI:NT R!:VIEVl===== :==~ Date Applicaticn, Filed: IO/~..D...-:::s , P.:tition l'ulTber: _h)~. ()3_-~ Reviewed ~y: ~: ' _.__ Ti i :e: _ -P ..iPdJ&>e~- ___, Did the Applicant pay the filin~, 'ee to l':'U? ~ VEl; (p"8ssaltErh pr:lOl,tf~8Yl1e II ~ NO (If :,o,lhc oplicl,ntmusl p'yl ,e :;C~lC 'istrict. ___. _,,___.___ ,,_:r~ ~![~:!!::!!..:!.<?I!~:.'! ~~ I ~~~:n;: __ 1"--17- 03 -o;it;-- I PART III, T(:~ BE CbMPL~TED ey ::CHO~)L DI:~rR~r::== :==::: Oate & Time Received: _:~:12((O~~~ l:ase~l'Jmf).r .i;~~l1~~f,Q(~~- ~ <.1\ m 1 verify that too project cc . ,plies wl!1Ihe ac'opted Lev,!1 of iervice ,LO:,) fllr Sax s , I verify that the project wi!. comply" ith the ~ opted LI!vel , f Servic; l (L ::>S) ~)r S:h tOl: S~ b,'::t to (hE ------- attached conditions I cannot verify thatlhl' pI!: ect will omply v~h the adopte Level () SeNic3 :LO,) 'or SclIC J 5 School Oistrj,;t fl; !presl!~ ltat ive - -- - - Date " ; . ~, '.,J.!: ", -"':1.', . ..:;'l , " \ ,:: J; ::,' 1"1" "I .~. r CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Turned Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Turned Meeting Dates in to City Clerk's Office Meeting Dates in to City Clerk's Office D December 2, 2003 November 17, 2003 (Noon,) D February 3, 2004 January 19,2004 (Noon) D December 16, 2003 December 1,2003 (Noon) D February 17, 2004 February 2, 2004 (Noon) D January 6, 2004 December 15,2003 (Noon) D March 2, 2004 February 16, 2004 (Noon) ~ January 20, 2004 January 5, 2004 (Noon) D March 16, 2004 March 1,2004 (Noon) D Administrative D Legal NATURE OF D Announcement D New Business AGENDA ITEM D City Manager's Report D Presentation ~ Consent Agenda D Public Hearing D Code compliancelLegal Settlements D UnfInished Business RECOMMENDATION: Please maintain this item on the January 20,2004 City Conunission Agenda under Consent Agenda. This item was tabled by the City Conunission on January 6, 2004 in order to first obtain court approval for its review given its conflict with a prior court settlement limiting the property to an ACLF. For further details pertaining to the request, see attached Department of Development Memorandum No. PZ 03-295. EXPLANATION: PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Venetian Vinas (NWSP 03-021) Michael Hoeflinger, Atlantis Development Group LLC RSPB,LLC South side of Southwest 23rd Avenue (Golf Road) appx. 600 feet east of Congress Avenue Request for new site plan approval for 50 fee-simple townhomes on a 4.69-acre parcel zoned R-3. As explained 'in the staff report, this property is the subject of a 1989 "Stipulation and Settlement Agreement" between the original property owners and the City of Boynton Beach. While the Agreement allowed the rezoning to the R-3 district, it restricted the use of the property to an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF). Additionally, the Agreement governs building height, roof pitch, parking lot lighting, dumpster placement, use of the L WDD Canal right-of-way, buffering, and landscaping. The previous development application submitted by Land Design South was allowed to be reviewed despite the Agreement, pursuant to two subsequent Joint Motion and Agreed Orders authorized by the court. Since these Agreed Orders were project specifIc, the court must again be petitioned to allow the current project to be reviewed in conflict with the Settlement Agreement. If ultimately supported by the City, both parties would petition the courts to amend the Settlement Agreement consistent with the approved site plan. Staff has reviewed this project against the LDR, the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, and for impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. The project complies with most of the site requirements of the Agreement; however, staff supports amendment of the Agreement to ensure that lighting levels meet minimum city standards, and to promote consistency of the rear buffer wall with the adjacent project. To assist the Conunission with this review, staff has identifIed within the conditions of approval, the development requirements of the Settlement Agreement and specifIcally where a conflict exists which should be corrected on the plans or through amendment of the Agreement. If approved by the Conunission, the ultimate approved site plan, including all conditions of approval would be the subject of the request to the courts for amendment of the original Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. PROGRAM IMPACT: N/A nSCALIMPACT: NM ALTERNATIVES: Deny project and continue recognizing original Settlement Agreement and its limit to ACLF use. S:\BULLETIN\FORMS\AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM.DOC /' CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM Devel City Manager's Signature }t./J~ Planning and Zo . g rrector City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources S:\P1anning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Venetian Villas\Agenda Item Request Venetian Villas NWSP 03-021 1-20-04.dot S:\BULLETIN\FORMS\AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM,DOC CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET AND CHECKLIST This completed cover sheet m.I!!t accompany all agenda item requests, Please place check marks in the boxes as indicated. Initiating department must prepare Agenda Item Request Form, Submit original agenda request (with back up) and one CQDY of aaenda reauest (with back up) to the City Clerk's office. Items must be submitted by the deadlines indicated below, Incomplete or late items will be returned to originating department. Deadline for SubmittaJ to City P. D/CRA Requests Deadline Clerk's Office -P&D - CRA Departments are responsible for securing the following si natures on attached A enda Ruest Form: De artment Head Wilfred Hawkins for de artments under Administrative SeIVices Finance De artment for items that involve ex enditure of funds None needed aintain on the Ci Commission A endas Please do not write in the shaded area below. bg - 7/19/02 S:\Plannlng\Plannlng Templates\Agenda Item Cover Checklist Dee 2 - March 16,doc " U~'~J'LUU~ ~~.~I ~~ql{J L: GOREN CHEROF ET ... PAGE214' RCVD AT IM5J200411 :24:29 AM ~astem Standard l1mej' SVR:FTlFW' DNIS:4074' CSIO:5818323036' DURATION (mm>$SI:01.14 .... . _... .. .....". ._... ......... _.__.a.... .....--... ~ V~~-+,,~V) \It ((o-s PAGE El3/El5 ,\~.(C- T-452 P_D02/004 F-380 - , MILNOR CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation; NORMAN], MICHAEL and ELlSHKA B_ MICHAEL, his wife, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT m AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CL 89-6178 AN CIVIL DIVISION plaintiff, vs, THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH) A Florida Municipal cOIJloration, Defendant) I JOINT MOTION AND AGREED ORDER The Plaintiff, RSPB, LLC, a Florida limited complmY CURSPB") as sucoessor in intfJ.'8st to Plaintiffs MILNOR CORPORATION, n. Florida corporation (ClMilnor"). NORMAN S. MICHAEL and EUSHKA B. MICHAEL, bis wife \Wchael") and CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH FLORIDA. a Plorida Municipal Corporation C'Boynton Bead)") by md through their ul'1dersigned attomcysl hereby jointly move for consellt from this Court to proceed with City Commission review of proposed developMe11t of the property which 'Was the subject afmis action and as grounds states: 1. Milnor, Michael arid Boynton Beach entered into a cel"tain Stipulation and Seuleme.ntAgree:ment ("Agreement") last dated October 31, 1989. 2. The Agreement was approved by the Court by Order on October 2. 1990, 3. T-he Court retained subject matter jurisdiction oftlUs action, 4. The Agreement aDd CO'Ul1 Order specify a land use designation and zoning classification for the property and impose certain use limitation and other d.evelopment conditions on a 4_01 acre parcel of real property situated at tile northeast intersection of Congress Avenue and GulfRoa.cl (Southwest 23rd Avenuo). ~111~/L~~4 1~:~1 '::lCl'l1 ( ."L. GOREN CHEROF ET PAGE 04/05 , PAGE~I~~ RC~DN.ln5.Q004 ~1~~~:~ AMIEa~m ~!~~~rd.~~etSV!tFTLFAX6' DNIS:4D74' CSID:5S18323036' ~~~T~J! t~.!I:01.14 T-45Z P.D03/004 F.3S0 .. 5. RSPB has requested the -City _Conunission to review a proposal tC) develop the propeny fn a manner currently inconsistent willi the Agl'~ement, pursuant to a proposed site plan that has been submitted by Michael Hoet1inge:r, Atlantis Development Group LLC, pursuant to a contract to purchase the subjeet property, which development is lo1own as the Venetian Villas project (Boynton Beach tracking number NWSP 03-021). 6. TIle parties believe it would be beneficial for the City Commission to review the proposal NWSP 03-021. To that end, the paJ1ies request entry of the follow~g Agreed Order which would so authorize the City COlnmission, albeit in the limited fashion set forth in the Agreed Order. JAMES A, CHEROFJ ESQ. City Attorney for the CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH ) 00 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, Flonda 33435 (561) 742-6050 Florida Bar . 91846 KEITH C. AUSTIN, JR, Attorney f-or Plaintiff{s) 223 Peruvian Avenue Palm Beach, FL 33480 (561) 655-51.66 Florida Bar' . .,' .lA1v.ffiS A. CHEROF DA'rED: / /J,. ft yJ' ,. I AGREED ORDER TIle Court having cOllsidered the Joint Motion of the parties set forth above and being othelWise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged t11at: 1. The City Conunission of the City of Boymon Beach is granted leave to review Plaintiffs' proposl!Xi development of the subject property. 2, If, upop complet;QA) ofrevjew ofPlaintifI's applieat;on fo~ ame:ndme.nt, the Plaintiff tLL f -L "f LUU" .L J. ::J' ':l::J4 ( (14~L_- GOREN CHEROF ET '_ PAGE ~~~ RcyD ~!.1J15~4 t1:2~:29 AM ~8~t~m ~~ard_~~~l.' .~v.~:FTlFAXlS . DNIS:4074 . CSID:581e323036' ~~.~~~ l~'81):u I .. PAGE 05/05 r.452 P 004/DD4 F-'9D has obtained a favorable ruling recommendation from the City Commission, the parties may jointly petition the Court f01" modifications to the Agreement. 3. This Joint Motion and Agreed Order does not obligate the City of Boynton Beach to enact use amendmel1ts inconsistent with those set forth in this Court's October 20, 1990 Order. The sole purpose and intent of this Joint Motion and Agreed Order is to allow the City of Boynton Beach to mQre fully consider the amendment being requested by the Plaintiffs. DONE and ORDERED at West Palnt Beach, Palm Beach County, F~9!ida this .~: l~. ':.: .~\: ;,:_ '-:.' . . ...... ' . day of 2004. : ~;:'f: -,~:.\o -, '." .. .~ ~. .', ;~.j ~.., \, . u:' ':rt) : " I' '" J2:;~,;;~~~~3:~' ?i' J;.;c.~..;-:, . '..... n. '~...'J:.J"./:> .~_ Circuit Court Judge ' ., ,C,.;'.= . '....; Copies to: Keith C. Austin, Jr" Esq, 223 Peruvian Avenue, Palm Beach, FL 33480 James Cherof, Esq., Goren, Cherof 3099 E, Commercial Blvd., Ste. 200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Thomas R. Boll, Esq., PO Box 1900, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33302 an-3(,-!014 03:04pm From-RUDEN UCC1:GN~Y ~TH ~TST +~547644996 "-8031 101/[ n :';laJ. .f~ Ruden .IIMcClosky :!JC :AST BI,()'\"RD O';)l. _,,'O'(i:; Ion IAUDEr:Di.l" HO"lIC' j,':)] :951)! .:-:. ,:;',: : ,(: ;9~H); ~.I., ;'~ : )NNlE Mr:ill~RI JD (:~'i'\ F ACSlMIJ_~E CO"'E R SHEEjf :)ATE: January 30,2004 j~'ROM: Bonni II L. l\liskel FILE NO.; 30279..0037 I~UMBEROF I'AGES; 2 (Including tJ is CO\fer :Page: I If there are fillY problems or compl:icatic):]s, please notty U~ irnm,xt:,a te.y ~ I (954) ~'(i4-(511:~', TO: Mike RUmpJ COMPANY ; City oj! Boyn ton :Beach F:AX NO.: (561) 742-6239 COMMENTS: .--------- ._-_._---_._...-~..~.......- ..--.--~.-------- -__.__ ____.0_ ._.-._,....... Tl-E INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS F./I,CSIMIIE M3SSAGE IS AnC'R,l\:EY PRT\IlE(.J::, A~]) (:'NfIlJEJ "L'\!. IN :C'RMATION INTENI>ED ONI.Y FOR. THE USE (;F THE :NOMDUAI.- OR EN'flTY NAMlD ,\10'/S IF nIE Rfl.\DHR OF TPIS MES:;AGE IS NOT TI:'l, INTENDED RECIPIENT, YCU ARB HEREBY NOTlFII'O THAT ANY DIns ~ -u.-J :'IOK,)I~;J:lBt;:K,!\J OK C(py OF THIS COMliIlllNlCAT!ON IS S1RICTLY I'ROJiIEtITED, IF YOU HJVE RE~-VP[' THI l (~Oj.! I IUNlCAlI ')N TN EI-JX "c, PLaJSE IMMEDIA.TEl.Y NOTIFy us BY TElEP1;ONE (1,~ LONG DISiAN::E, PLEAiE CAlL C)LL;CT) .ANI f:Er:;Itl' :-H-J D1<lC INAL MESSAGE 1'1) us AT THE ABOVEADDJlESS Vl,\ THE U.S. PO:;T} :. SERVICE. TrIA 'l1: '\ 0)], :n : 1 J 58050; 1 RUDEN, McCLOSI<Y, SM:TH, SCHUSTE ~ & RUSSEl.L, P A ...--....-r _,~_____......_,..,_ :I1RJCtIS - FL lAUDERD/.lE -MIIMI- NAPlES - PORT ST. '_UCIE. SARASoTA-Sr_ PET: RS9URG -TALLAH,\5iEJ .-'II~PA" \I::~ 1I'A_M BE I~~ an-3(-!0114 03:05pm From-RUDEN t.<<:CLO!K' TTH HST , ~5476449n6 "-803 ) 102/ra, ;.tJB:~ J Ruden .It McClosky !(: EP.ST 11P:(~'I..FD JO 1;,' "J; feR - LAuDI 'let ,:, :t(IRI I.,:' ':1 1'05 ' Or-fll :: I en: ; '1 ) :O~' LAUDEIW^ _" ;",(. ~Ji",' I'll I.');~), ;',1:-; r 'X: ('l! ;;, - 1- :'1:'; I:ONNLM ~ <ELt\llCJC ; 'I _:'>1 JallUary 30, 200,~ :VIA FACSIMl1.E Mike Rumpf Director of Planning & Zoning City of Boynton Beach j 00 East Boyn-:on Beach Blvd, IJe1ynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 Re: Venetian Villas I )e'ar Mike; We recently were asked by the President of the Golf VieN Hirbor ,Fllmec,w:,;: J\'ssociation to 1:~lble our agenda item to the next City C01llmiSfdon ::neet n;~, As you lDay be aware, the Golf View Har1x~r Homeo\Vn:rs' A 5soci;l:ti: 1l';S I'e 11l ,:r meeting is scheduled for February 4u: Whiell would nct E,l1ow thl:m to me~t ~ Ild Y(ltc:n I;l'.lr :J~':) pri,)r to the City Commision review ;:Ind ElJ: proval. My client has a;~l'(:ei wit:l the As loeii",ti] :11,::- tHble, Could yuu please place this request for a contnuance or. tlt: 1ge:lda in, '-ill c:ttoc: i) al:commodate the neighboring residential ccrnmunity, If you have any questions, pleilse C8.U, S::'Mlbab Sincerely, ("-J . ~ () '7: . . \~;;;~t.l.{. J{, I !hAG ~:.(,(.- f ' Bonnie L. M' skel L. ~l ),: ) :c; Jim Cherof, Esq. (via fax) KW1 Bressner (via fax) George Abadie (via fax) '1[:1160123:1 _---.!UDEN, McCLOS~:~TH.J... SCHU~~,~~;SE!h!:~__._ :.< JlA. :A!i . fT.I.AUDfRDALe . MIAMI. NAPLes. ORLANDO. I' JRTST. I JCIE . SAIlI\5OTA . L PifER! BUI:G n TAll AIIAHn . TAMPA' VI ;. P"} I 81 I : 1_ The City of Boynf()ft Beach OFFICE OF THE CITY Attorney 100 E Boynton Beach Boulevard Po. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 (561) 742-6050 FAX' (561) 742-6054 January 23,2004 Mr. Peter Ryland 1311 SW 25th Avenue Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Mr. Richard Philpott 1361 SW 27th Avenue Boynton Beach, FL 33425 Re: Venetian Villas Gentlemen: This will confirm my telephone call to each of you yesterday, advising that the above matter will be brought before the City Commission for action at the next Commission meeting, which is scheduled for February 3, 2004, commencing at 6:30 P.M. Very truly yours, ~ ItLwM ~WNVVv\$- Rose Marie Lamanna Legal Assistant s: cc: James A. Cherof, City Attorney Mike Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning../" 10) Is ~' [<; I' ':,'i r~ r-..' O Ie co' ,'- Ii \, II, I", '" J r' .. ' ' ill; i lr!! J11262IIM l:Ui i LIi I LJ 'L I DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT S:\CA\LETTERS\RAL\ltr to Ryland and Philpott re Venetian Villas 012304.doc 12-- 7-~~003 4: 01 PM FROt--' L "JNIhG At,) REAL E:3 :;61 ,134 B' 'r' (~OOL Dl~ t~~g~ .~ ~t!rFOREXCELJ r ~ BEACH COO:~"', THE SCHOOL [USTFUGT (IF F'J~Lh1 EII:;AC'H ::OUq" II' PI,A~lNING DEP.l'lnl'llI Et IT 3320 FOlitESiT HIILIL BOILJI.E"JlIR ,D - C: lS3'1: 1I11rES"r PALNI BEAC,H!I f:l. :~ :'4016 FACSI1MILE .rRAIN::)MIT'rj~\L ~HONE: 561/434-8020 F~~(: ~.ri1/4~4~ ;187' Number "if pa.ges serlt (int:ll.Idins;! 1:('V5I r pauet :! ro: Mr. Eric JohnSOl"i, Planner, City of Boyni:c'n E:c !ich DATE: December 117,201)3 F,U NUMBER: 742-6259 FIROM: David DeYcung, AICP, Planr:er, SDPBC COMMENTS: Attached pk1ase I nd Ii cop:' (if the s(:hoo! IX n,::. rrenc)' iilpr.;lic ill: I' and provider form for '1enetiar Villas. cc: Angela Usher, AICP, Managl~r IntngoyemmentJ Relatk)fcS S:' Planning\Public\INTER.OOv\Concurrcncy\ConCUll1 lncy Der.:nninuion Letters\J, lXCS\FO 311 :~6{'1 :::.I 0 ::: 1 2--' 7 -:~003 4: 02PM FRm' [" NNIr-.G At,) REAL E:;;S1134 (3' ,,-. f : ~ ~ Ili~ ~ fr BEAI:i' C< (,1'" "-----.... THE SCHOOl.. DISlRICT OF PALM BEACH OOUNTY. FLORIDA Pt..MNlNG0EPARTMiNT 3320 FOREST HIU. BLVD.. c.331 w!ST PALM BEACH. FL 33406-581:1 (S61) 434-8020 fAX; (561) ~1fi;' HmiUl\C, ')HN:;O i fI I: I U JPeP.lt rrE ~ : eNr [>e':~nmber 17,2003 f'llr, Eric Johnson, Planner F Ie n ning Department Cit I of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd, Eo'{nton Beach, FL 33435 F ~E: CONCURRENCY DETERMrNA TION - CASr: NLM BIE R 031 'I 1:601 C .. V ::111:' 'I,! t I VILLAS [le31' Mr, Johnson: 1 hf~ Palm Beach County School [~istrict has reviewed the abol/t~ -ef( !renc:ed pre jE : ': (I" I C:o'l~urrency Determination for 50 multi-famil)' units. ~.tt:lGhed please find the approvl3d Palm Bea(::h COlln1:y Sc:to)1 l)istric1 CO')(III' m': I t.p>lication and Service Provider Form fo: Venetiarl V lias. This e'J'CUll;mcy dE lem'il :11 m I j vald for one (1) year from the date f;Jf issuance, On~: a D,!vl~k)pnmt I: ['der rna: bei~1 : i ,I' ~ 1 for the project, the concurrency dE:itermi!lation will bl~ va'id f(y th~ life of tlE' Je'\ '8 Li(: 'r:: r l ClnfElr. 11 you have any questions regarding th:s doterminaiionl pll~clf>e hd f-ee t:) (':mtHc I 1;1 ; t pE 1) 434-7343. ,E:ir c!rely, ~:=: ....-- (tallid DeYoung, Ale F'lsnner c c: George Abadie, Seacoast Com::~ructi<m , S \P11lD linglPublic\I'NTijRQOV\Concurrcncy\Concurrenc:- DetetmhatiOlllAtcrs\QmCl! ~cncy\C03 J I:; Ii ()Ldo : AI.I EalJAl. OPPORTUNITY E IAPLOY;R 1 2--' 7 -~~003 4: 02PM FRO~ r \NNII',G AI\) REAL E:::;;61 ,134 Bl ~~- la-'~ 3, UIPM F\lOt ~N:::G ANti ~_ E$ EP A:'" tnl7 II, -, .', .. ,...lIl-" __.~" "..,.", :"'""J ,",_IIt:ln,,""'ot, U' It jIII..'..Il, Co"(' '., W<llII-" ;.'.1'1 .':I"-~ ~J,..~I'II)J~' "'\I~HH ;""':7 I....("J.~I .~'\I f ('I)',""~!l I tV.u' :~'C.",""lt' mm ~asot~ , The Sc:hor.tl' DI$'!rict of P8hO [.I~ Countl, SGhOoI ~Il~ Apl1*"-" S -,Ie'! PrQlfiicff)' fl." ill ,,~ .........., 'II ... C,"' ~~ ....... .. ;r. ,.. ~" OIl!;" no' "...';. ~.....,....... .~"'I'_IIII't11Cff..._..",. ~ iIINlri..A1f1I1'.il b~"I.(ied",* ..... ('5)..........,.<1...' Ilfa llllIl1Fi. ...~. . ,.I~711 i!l ,,111I,.,., 1::;_ .',.. YlIIIld lIOt _ ~ 1aIl''' CIIt Ill"'" ':"""ItI ~_.t Ofdllr Q ':18".', 1" ".alT"'w=l HIlo................. for.. ';lil "".... t'""""'~ '. .....___f\i__e!.....;::.;;;;:_-~'-'_....:_-_._... -- -- t )~~ t Je:~~:lIllr Il';lGI':C1N1te: ,:AIU,1e; t )~"'F""D8I1!I'l~ ( JLt1tr :ofllll'''''''~ : : .,. n ..,": lclr I-.: C:-'"'- =~.... ...,...,:,..."'..,..............., ."u...' IIII' '..II' ~. ,'21"1Ill 01''----. ~_ _ltI',li.IIt;a1IW'........"'....."'I-',"tfl',llll;"',.I. ""... · ~ .lIlJ (.... ~_, PAi:ifnnilrk"TiiJ6Jiii:ii6iiJ-" ,- - -, - - . - '0--1 ""-_....MIli';fl*D',;~;1IM,...;;;i....iiiii;;;;;;; a'..' ~_.- ,............ >j~I~ ,,~~_ .,.1"'. ,iQ:t.f!1: .0\,..;1 ~J: ,-. _~......._ f'ta. ,"'~fI:r-51-I,:S',.CC,A- 1"_1"..,.. r.......17 r........' .....s.g.;...~....--......._ _a;.::;~,~..,- - -. -- ..... ___..,...........--.,._,_-...---.... _ ~ f..... ,_. LCMIIIIcft/..............' '.,e.r. ll!llCii~~:idillHt~it.~;(Il J. i tf ~!i._ . _..._.~~'_.............-.._ ,_--.----- _ _....... _ _. -.fIIIIJ-..,. -" '_..~-~"~ ~_._.1ii-._--'----l .... _.. ,_---.D:.!!!Y'!!!. - - -- .- I _ i II.!!lii!I m" . .: . i~i-.:aI.Fi.i...;j,- ,_' ,. ,_-.!!!lj=.---- - __.!Il .. I! -:..._ ,in!Uilt !JI!!.!!!!! !f!L.- I', ,. ,_"""'^....r~.!!! ,I II -- ,~ ..I.......~iI-. --. .- .1: _ . ..l"!i!~'!!I:l!_~' 1:. ,-, ( . ............................. '\Ill....',; .._..,_'~C\.,i'..'-,.VlI.", ".1lIl .. ",- 10. A~~"""'.'I~"I~- .,~ 7[' , ,'" j C I ~/""""':':1OtI: .::. j \ .=.- , o-.-e~ j"II,.( ~."-* :)i~' , ~~:~~j~~J:3:ij :~:U~l;1 :>1'1 -..~ I~ 'i~q _._,_........,;....,_.._~""'.........._.' T ,il. ,,'.~~ .-'1'-11'1---,-'._-._- _.- ,-- .0_- , ~....fI\IIIIIIIr. ..~!] ..... ,,_..~- -.- ,-- .,-, .................. ...', ...." '11I.., ~"l' .,......'"_"."'.'" · ". ,.,.. In..' ............... . ~. ~ l " \t 'l~-) ~~~d :&.';;;:::1 -"IJr.,,-,u ,-. oM- . ........' Of' .,/1.....,,.1 1ft(' II " p, 'il. ~ .~~II?;!fii~EYi"~- -_.- - .-.. ..-'~ _............ ...b...Wi ..--~_'.I""""""""-'--- ....-.- --. ._- .--...~ DlilDNlil" J'iIIfl,'" IO!~~(a3_ ,..,.:"""'.....', ....~,;f,~3 ::t:2,~ ~Il/MlIII~ EI:- .,~===- 'ttTIo ",:P.J~~~- ,.-- DMI1h"'.III"''''_''1i '-1"''''' ~:J ~,,,,,,,,"i"'.vl"'W".'" ~ l'liJ i1f,.,-'.Qlloftlr!II'll,,,,I";ll1nl 'J1"I, ..,._ _._...:._ 'FI!:!:....'lIItilll'll1111lH!0fI1'..h '.."...,. ::~. 1~:::.J:l;c;j.,----'_..~_._n .,.- ..- __d .,._.....~II;__ O\1lfo C :: !'.!!!II!: Ti;~ilWL;i'iiDi;f'Uiiiii:'Diii~~~rn. -d ---- -V~"""'.4 - :! ::lei I\l~~;;;;;:;:~=~~ii!; ii~ ;~[f. 1~,",,\IIIIIl""lICh::~lri:I"."'L"i'l11Il SI"'i\.C$)i:II"Uo.:.. ' 1".,cv_...lIftliIIl:II"Ii~""" :~LM":I M/Illr.<~~.:I9I, b'll~ht, ttt l~. ~... --- .............. _ tC9NlOl~N""::'-'ffJ,~:~~~:wGii:~~J)1r;<s.._~ . '''ll'n \" ~~...r:l~:)r' I~~' 'rr _ ". .. ....' ". '(,>,,' " ~'.'" ",., ..,~~: .......~.,;~:~l...i(~~"";.. ~! ii;-'.., , ,,, " ':":~:-l! ,. :'" :,.': ~ .....7Mj -:. ~:' j ,', : :l r 1 !ii '" " 1;1' 1:1 :1 " I l..' . Date: November 25,2003 To: Michael Rumph Planning & Zoning Director City of Boynton Beach From: Peter Ryland Property Owner 1311 SW 25th Avenue City of Boynton Beach Dear Mike: I am writing to you to express my concerns on two matters: . The treatment I have received from your department. . The legal and physical aspects of the proposed development, called Venetian Villas that is contiguous to my property. On the first matter, I first became aware that a proposal was forthcoming when signs giving a phone number and price and advertising the development were posted on the property in the summer. Neighbors who called the number reported being told that the project was imminent, yet no plans were submitted when I called your office in July, August and September (I was told to keep calling back). The Golfview Homeowners Association published a preliminary plan in their October issue of Harbour Lights, but has held no public discussion on the proposed development. I finally was informed by my sources that final plans were to be submitted on Wednesday, October 29th. I then took a half-day from my work on Monday, November 3rd to review those plans on the assumption they would be made available to me. When I called your office, I was informed that the plans would not be made available to the public until November 14th. I also learned during the conversation that the developer had already had a meeting with your department on preliminary plans. Due to my work schedule, I was finally able to view a set of plans on November 24th (another day off work), which were apparently returned by the Fire Department. My comments below are based on my review of those plans. I also asked for a schedule and was informed that it was too early for the project to be scheduled. I asked again. Finally, as I was leaving, I asked a third time and the dates were looked up on the computer and I was given the following dates. They are: December 2nd December 8th January 6th Technical Review Planning & Development City Commission Conference Room C Commission Chambers Commission Chambers . The Technical Review is a week from today and the Planning and Development hearing less than a week after that! When I commented on the alacrity of the scheduling, I was told that the plans were submitted way back in October! I understand that I am not able to speak at the Technical Review but plan to attend to hear if/when and how my concerns are addressed. I was told that the time of the meeting was not available because the conference room has not been scheduled yet. Please inform me of the date and time of this meeting. My cell phone is with me 24/7 and has a message service. The number is 801-1640. I will need at least two hours advance notice. I also asked to see the project file that normally accompanies the project plans. I was informed that it was unavailable because someone was working on it and it is incomplete. I also asked if the files included documents on legal, traffic and concurrency and was informed that they do not because those reports are not require until permits are issued. As a result, my concerns regarding legal, traffic and concurrency are somewhat speculative because I was denied this information. I will be available all day Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, November 25th, 26th, & 28th to review the file if/when it is made available to me. Please call me on my cell phone at 801-1640. On the second issue, the following is a brief summary of my major current concerns regarding the Venetian Villas development. It is not architecturally consistent with the area. The design, color and style of the development does not fit with the local area. The ornate Venetian design and coloring is inconsistent with the Homewood and Golfview Harbour developments. It does not meet the city ree:ulations for a PUD. A PUD in the City of Boynton requires at least 5 acres. The proposed development is on 4.69 acres. The required recreational space for a PUD is 7%; the proposal does not specify any recreational space. It does not meet the lee:al restrictions on the property_The legal agreement between the city and the property owner, dated October 31, 1989, stated that the city would downzone the Alhambra Southeastern portion of the property from RAA 1 to R3 with certain restrictions on the property to protect contingent landowners, among them (paraphrased): 1. Maximum height of two stories 2. Maximum roof pitch of 4/12 3. Dumpsters located away from residential areas and 100 feet from the south property line 4. Lighting shaded and shielded, minimum height and off at 11 :00 PM. Lighting not to shine directly in adjacent areas 5. Use limited to ACLF (adult congregate living facility) 6, Landscaping and wall on south property with boundary walls and screenings to be approved by adjacent homeowners associations 7. Wall plan and site plans to be submitted to and approve by adjacent homeowners associations 8. No development to occur in the LWDD (Lake Worth Drainage District) right of way 9. Deceleration lanes are to be constructed at all entrances The proposal violates the following legal restrictions on the property: . Restriction 3 The current proposal does not include dumpsters. . Restriction 4 The current proposal requires all parking lot lighting be on until 2AM. The proposed lamps are not shielded and shine directly outward into adjacent residential areas. . Restriction 5 The current proposal does not constitute an ACLF because: . It is not an adult community. . There is no provision for a common eating area . The buildings are not connected . Restrictions 6 & 7 The south boundary wall has been eliminated from the proposaL . Restriction 8 It can be assumed that the developer, by removing the south wall, intends to market the property as waterfront property. . Restriction 9 There do not appear to be plans for the construction of deceleration (or turning) lanes for the proposed entrance on S.W. 23rd Avenue. It does not meet the orie:inal intention of the ACLF ae:reement. The intention of the restrictions was to retain the quiet residential nature of the area and to provide a buffer to adjacent RAAl residential areas, while leaving the L WDD canal unaffected. The resulting compromise provided the developer with a higher use for the property while minimizing impact on the area. Based on these criteria, I therefore must consider this proposal to be the second worst of the five proposals I have reviewed to date based on its drastic impact on the area, and lack of consideration by the developer for adjacent residential areas, the ecology of the canal, and incumbent wildlife. The factors I have used to reach this evaluation are impact, privacy and accountability. Impact The most significant aspect of this proposal is in its impact on the surrounding area. The measurable aspects of impact are population, parking, trips, water and sewage. In addition, education, pollution (light, noise and chemical) runoff and incumbent wildlife, although not as easily quantifiable, are equally important It could be argued that, if the current legal agreement is not implemented, zoning for the property should revert to the original RAA-l zoning. It is also evident from the analysis that intent of the legal agreement was to reduce the impact of development on adiacent residential areas and the L WDD right of way. In summary: . Population The proposed development has 2.1 times the amount of population allowed under RAA-1. It should be noted that there is also a significant difference in the nature of the ACLF population (more sedentary, less mobile). . Parking The proposed development requires more than 2 ~ times the estimated number of parking spaces under RAA-1 and 2 times the estimated ACLF agreement. These increases are also reflected in increased runoff into City sewers and the canal. . Trips The proposal requires close to 2 1/4 times the number of trips than RAA-1 and close to 7 times the number trips with the ACLF legal agreement The proposed development would unleash over 127,000 cars a year on a road rated "D" in 2001. Most of those could be expected to turn left, requiring a special traffic light. The state rated S.W. 23rd Avenue as "D" in 2001. The development of the Medical Center complex on the Northeast comer ofS.W. 23rd Avenue and Congress can expect to increase traffic further. Residents on S.W. 13th Street, directly east of the proposed development, have reported that they currently are unable to make a left turn onto S. W. 23rd Avenue during rush hour traffic. The same would also be true for other residents of Golfview Harbour whose driveways exit on S.W. 23rd Avenue. Their problem is worse in that most of them have to back out of their driveways. . Water Proposed water usage is 2 1/4 times that ofRAA-1, almost 2 times more than the ACLF legal agreement estimates. Water usage would exceed 8,000,000 gallons a year. . Sewage The proposed development requires the same percentage increases as water. Sewage use is estimated at an average of close to 3,750,000 gallons a year, although the high degree of impervious area could be expected to increase that, especially during storms. . Education At this time there is no concurrency report. Local inquiries indicate that the local public schools at the elementary, middle and high school levels are over capacity. It can be estimated that the proposed development will require public education for 20-80 students. Bus pickup and drop-off will add to the already crowded traffic conditions on S.W. 23rd Avenue. . Pollution o Light The proposal calls for parking lot lighting that will shine in adjacent residential areas and will be on until 2 AM. o Noise There can expect to be a significant increase in noise levels with 115 people, guests and 115 vehicles crowded onto less than 5 acres. In addition, there will be an excessive concentration of noise in the pool area located in the center of the proposed development. The addition of motorboats and skidoos could be expected to add to the noise level. The resultant wakes from watercraft and potential water skiers will do untold damage to the privately owned seawalls that are necessary on the south side of the canal. o Chemical Due to excessive coverage and the large number of parking spaces, direct drainage into the canal from the parking lots can de expect to add significant pollution in the canal, with detrimental consequences for incumbent wildlife. . Runoff As indicated under chemical pollution, it can be expected that significant drainage into both the Boynton sewers and the Lazy Lake Canal will occur, especially during major storms. Residents have reported that on S.W. 13th Street, directly east of the proposed development, there already is significant street flooding which currently drains onto the property. With the development, all such drainage will be blocked and they feel could they could expect to see flooding levels of several feet. . Incumbent Wildlife Adjacent residents have reported significant wildlife on the property. At this writing, a report from the City of Boynton Forester is unavailable. A pair of Ospreys is reported to be nesting in the central area of the property. In addition, I have personally observed an Osprey on the property several times in addition to several other species of birds, including Mallards, Anhingas, Cormorants, plus several varieties of Herons and Ibis. Privacy The proposal calls for 13 units on the south side, 4 on the east, and 6 on the west. At 2.3 population per unit, there would be 30 people on the south side, directly across the canal from some of the most valuable homes in Golfview Harbour. The proposal does not include any provisions for protecting the privacy of adjacent residential areas on this side. Due to the second story elevation, it can be expected that the upper windows could be expected to overlook both the back and front yards of the adjacent residential areas, as will the east. On the east side, the set back for a side yard is used, whereas the front entrance for the units faces 13th street, thereby requiring a setback for a front yard (40 feet). Accountability The adjacent residential areas include approximately 20 individual homeowners who are individually responsible for their properties and actions. The proposed development is a condominium, requiring a condominium association that has general responsibility for the property without individual accountability. As a condominium, it can be expected that a high percentage of the units will be rented, with resultant further deterioration of individual accountability. The proposed development involves lee:al risk. The proposal requires specific approval by Planning and Development and-City Commission of an exce.,ption. The planning and zoning regulations state that the minimum size for a PUD is 5 acres. The proposed development is on 4.69 acres. Section 5 of the regulations state that". . . lesser . . .. areas may be appoove.d for PUD. . . upon findings by the plarming and development and the governing body that particular circumstances justify such reduction that the requirements for pub and the benefits to be derived from PUD can be met in such lesser area, and that permitting such lesser area for PUD is in conformity with the comprehensive plan." The proposed plan does not qualify for such exception in two areas: 1. The benefits to be derived from the proposed PUD, as pointed out earlier, do not exist. The need for services (education, water, sewage, fire and police) could offset any increased City revenues from permits, property taxes and utility fees. 2. The current comprehensive plan is not in conformity with surrounding zoning. The exception for the property was only allowed because of a potential legal situation and the lower impact of an ACLF. Without the ACLF restriction, the original RAA-1 zoning would have been retained. The proposed PUD violates the ACLF and further downgrades the property to straight R-3, which is not in conformity with surrounding zoning on three sides. As of this writing, no specific proof has been shown to the public that the court has agreed to allow the city to consider this development that does not comply with the Alhambra Agreement. .. Page 1 of2 tie V\ e- -ff <$... 'n Jt ((0. $. Rumpf, Michael From: Rumpf, Michael Sent: Monday, December 08,20038:52 AM To: 'Peteryland@aol.com' Cc: Breese, Ed; Johnson, Eric Subject: RE: (no subject) Mr. Ryland, I have taken a moment to review and respond to your comments as noted below. Thank you for your input which is valuable to our review. -----Original Message----- From: Peteryland@aol.com [mailto:Peteryland@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 1:21 PM To: Rumpf, Michael Subject: (no subject) Peter M. Ryland, 1311 SW 25th Avenue, Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Phone 736-2422 Date: December 5, 2003 To: Michael Rumph Planning & Zoning Director City of Boynton Beach, FL Dear Mike: I audited the Technical Review on Venetian Villas at 10AM on Tuesday, December 2nd. Due to heavy workloads this is the first chance I have had to write to you. My observations are as follows: 1. There has been no court permission given to review these plans. As I recall the original Alhambra Agreement, all contiguous homeowners associations must agree to any variances to the original agreement. There are three contiguous associations; Golfview Harbour Homeowners Golfview Harbour Villas & Townhouses Leisureville Homeowners The court can then issue a court order allowing the City of Boynton Beach to consider such a development. A person who appeared to be their legal representative admitted that they had not been to any of the associations or to court. This indicates to me that anything Planning and Development has done so far with the developer is illegal and must be set aside and resubmitted after the necessary association permissions and temporary court order are attained. In addition, someone who appeared to be from the City legal staff appeared and told the developer so. It was further stated in the conversation that the original court order from Centex had never been modified. This raises the question as to whether any work product to date is usable or is required to be approved by the Planning and Development Committee. These are questions for the City Legal Department. The agreement is still in place which is understood by staff. I understand that the court acted (we have a document) to allow an application to proceed through the review process to get City position. The court order first required P & D Board review/approval, then was changed to allow Commission to review as well. It is understood that if the project is supported by the Commission, then ultimately the court order would have to be amended to allow a townhome project in place of an ACLF. 12/8/2003 Page 2 of2 As for the requirements of the agreement, staff will comment on the relevant requirements to document same within the conditions of approval. 2. They are planning to remove all of the vegetation in the Lake Worth Drainage District property..; This would allow water views for the 13 units along the canal but would destroy the privacy of the Golfview Harbour homes across the canal development. There was some discussion concerning retaining six of the trees, the irreplaceable slash pines in the southeast corner, but then there was mention of mitigating and removing them also. These trees were here long before you and I and have survived because they have been left undisturbed in a poor soil environment. The planting discussion also covered the .Qerimeter plantings on the east and south sides; Although the plans showed matured trees, it was specifically stated several times by the developer's consultant that the actual trees would not mature to the appropriate height shown four to five years, further reducing the privacy of the existing surrounding homes. It was further stated that "opaqueness is not going to happen". In addition, there is no guarantee that the condominium association would not keep these trees thinned and trimmed to a lower level than shown. This needs to be specifically stated. I agree. I will discuss with staff the removal of existing vegetation which cannot occur off-site without permit. 3. There currently is no school concurrency report. It was stated that this report would be available in 10-15 days, which is insufficient time for Planning and Development and public review prior to the scheduled Planning and Development hearing on December 18th. Any approval granted would be conditioned upon the prerequisites which would have to be satisfied prior to permit, or no permit. 4. The lighting and garbage collection is undetermined. Although there is a lighting plan which appears to show most lighting inside the development, the times of the street lights are not specified and there is no plan for screening these light on the east side. The dumpster locations relationship to the property perimeters and the method of collection are also unknown. Lighting should create an environment that is compatible with the single-family neighborhood surrounding the project. I will discuss with staff appropriate conditions that ensure this. 5. The proposed design is incompatibl~ with the surrounding developments. With the exception of the townhouses, which are next to Congress and not next to the property, most of the surrounding housing is white or off Vlhite. Without the ability to closely inspect the small colored elevations that were submitted at the meeting, it appears that the development is a mixture of stronger greens and reds along with neutral colors. The architectural concept uses a mixture of towers, strong colors, iron fences and balconies that are incompatible with either Golfview Harbour or Leisureville. I will review the plans for this issue and discuss with staff appropriate comments if warranted. Sincerely, Peter Ryland CC: James A Cerof, ESQ. City Attorney for the City of Boynton Beach 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 12/812003 Department of Engineering and Public Works PO, Box 21229 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-1229 (561) 684-4000 www.pbcgov.com . Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners Karen T, Marcus, Chair Tony Masilotti, Vice Chairman Jeff Koons Warren H, Newell Mary McCarty Burt Aaronson Addie L Greene County Administrator Robert Weisman "hn Equal Opportumty AffIrmative Action Employer" December 2, 2003 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: Venetian Villas TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS REVIEW Dear Mr. Rumpf: The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the revised traffic study for the project entitled; Venetian Villas, pursuant to the Traffic Performance Standards in Article 15 of the Palm Beach County Land Development Code. This project is summarized as follows: Location: Municipality: Existing Uses: Proposed Uses: New Daily Trips: New PH Trips: Build-out Year: On SW 13th Street, South Side of SW 23rd Avenue. Boynton Beach Vacant 50 MF Residential Units 350 22 AM, 27 PM Peak Hour 2005 Based on our review, the Traffic Division has determined that the residential project meets the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. No building permits are to be issued by the town, after the build-out date, specified above. The County traffic concurrency approval is subject to the Project Aggregation Rules set forth in the Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. If you have any questions regarding this determination, please contact me at 684-4030. Sincerely, OFFICE OF TH~COUN ' ENGINEER /!/j . , ... / ~. -' ./ "I Masoud Atefi, MSCE ' Sr. Engineer - frraffl6Division ..-/ cc: Miles Moss & Associates, Inc, File: General, TPS " Mun - Traffic Study Review F:\TRAFFIC\malAdminlApprovals\031103,doc .------.-, :.i=-(' ,/ ~~ I.. J -----~- .-"..-.- .. .. J ." "-\ '.::0 iJ ~---- 0 :s :D 0) (~ TIIE'I\ .., :1> i) In !1) :::l ~ "r';I--,CI :::l .~ ~ r r: :~. 5' '3 :D ~ ~<CO. '31 0- <0 0 =r CJ - 0 CD o~ '::J 3 "'0 ,9y ~);u _---"" ,.... 0) ;:::l. ~ l:)l~~~ 3 ---_./ CD :::l ...... en o => o o CJ (ii' ...... .., $i en 6i ~ ("- CJ !a CD ;1) (1 C' 01 -" 'Ci r-t< -'? lA- C> c:) .."...- ,...- <<4. Q -.1, "'. () , .:~(- J -- (y C l~ " ~~ ~, C:::i), \J _...:10 en r-J :i: CI CI "" r Date: November 25,2003 To: Michael Rumph Planning & Zoning Director City of Boynton Beach ~m-""-r?---;;'----':'- - ." , 12 II::," I 0 r~--'- I UU: NOV 25' From: Peter Ryland Property Owner 1311 SW 25th Avenue City of Boynton Beach Dear Mike: 1 am writing to you to express my concerns on two matters: · The treatment 1 have received from your department. · The legal and physical aspects of the proposed development, called Venetian Villas that is contiguous to my property. On the first matter, 1 first became aware that a proposal was forthcoming when signs giving a phone number and price and advertising the development were posted on the property in the summer, Neighbors who called the number reported being told that the project was imminent, yet no plans were submitted when 1 called your office in July, August and September (I was told to keep calling back). The Golfview Homeowners Association published a preliminary plan in their October issue of Harbour Lights, but has held no public discussion on the proposed development. 1 finally was informed by my sources that final plans were to be submitted on Wednesday, October 29th. 1 then took a half-day from my work on Monday, November 3rd to review those plans on the assumption they would be made available to me. When 1 called your office, 1 was informed that the plans would not be made available to the public until November 14th. 1 also learned during the conversation that the developer had already had a meeting with your department on preliminary plans. Due to my work schedule, 1 was finally able to view a set of plans on November 24th (another day offwork), which were apparently returned by the Fire Department. My comments below are based on my review of those plans. 1 also asked for a schedule and was informed that it was too early for the project to be scheduled. 1 asked again. Finally, as 1 was leaving, 1 asked a third time and the dates were looked up on the computer and 1 was given the following dates. They are: December 2nd December 8th January 6th Technical Review Planning & Development City Commission Conference Room C Commission Chambers Commission Chambers ~ The Technical Review is a week from today and the Planning and Development hearing less than a week after that! When I commented on the alacrity of the scheduling, I was told that the plans were submitted way back in October! I understand that I am not able to speak at the Technical Review but plan to attend to hear if/when and how my concerns are addressed. I was told that the time of the meeting was not available because the conference room has not been scheduled yet. Please inform me of the date and time of this meeting. My cell phone is with me 24/7 and has a message service. The number is 801-1640. I will need at least two hours advance notice. I also asked to see the project file that normally accompanies the project plans, I was informed that it was unavailable because someone was working on it and it is incomplete. I also asked if the files included documents on legal, traffic and concurrency and was informed that they do not because those reports are not require until permits are issued. As a result, my concerns regarding legal, traffic and concurrency are somewhat speculative because I was denied this information. I will be available all day Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, November 25th, 26t\ & 28th to review the file if/when it is made available to me. Please call me on my cell phone at 801-1640. On the second issue, the following is a brief summary of my major current concerns regarding the Venetian Villas development. It is not architecturallv consistent with the area. The design, color and style of the development does not fit with the local area. The ornate Venetian design and coloring is inconsistent with the Homewood and Golfview Harbour developments. It does not meet the city rel!ulations for a PUD. A POD in the City of Boynton requires at least 5 acres. The proposed development is on 4.69 acres. The required recreational space for a POD is 7%; the proposal does not specify any recreational space. It does not meet the le2:al restrictions on the property. The legal agreement between the city and the property owner, dated October 31, 1989, stated that the city would downzone the Alhambra Southeastern portion ofthe property from RAAl to R3 with certain restrictions on the property to protect contingent landowners, among them (paraphrased) : 1. Maximum height of two stories 2. Maximum roofpitch of 4/12 3. Dumpsters located away from residential areas and 100 feet from the south property line 4. Lighting shaded and shielded, minimum height and off at 11 :00 PM. Lighting not to shine directly in adjacent areas 5. Use limited to ACLF (adult congregate living facility) 6. Landscaping and wall on south property with boundary walls and screenings to be approved by adjacent homeowners associations . 7. Wall plan and site plans to be submitted to and approve by adjacent homeowners associations 8. No development to occur in the LWDD (Lake Worth Drainage District) right of way 9. Deceleration lanes are to be constructed at all entrances The proposal violates the following legal restrictions on the property: · Restriction 3 The current proposal does not include dumpsters. . Restriction 4 The current proposal requires all parking lot lighting be on until 2AM. The proposed lamps are not shielded and shine directly outward into adjacent residential areas, · Restriction 5 The current proposal does not constitute an ACLF because: . It is not an adult community. · There is no provision for a common eating area . The buildings are not connected · Restrictions 6 & 7 The south boundary wall has been eliminated from the proposal. · Restriction 8 It can be assumed that the developer, by removing the south wall, intends to market the property as waterfront property, · Restriction 9 There do not appear to be plans for the construction of deceleration (or turning) lanes for the proposed entrance on S.W. 23rd Avenue. It does not meet the orieinal intention of the ACLF aereement. The intention of the restrictions was to retain the quiet residential nature of the area and to provide a buffer to adjacent RAAl residential areas, while leaving the L WDD canal unaffected. The resulting compromise provided the developer with a higher use for the property while minimizing impact on the area. Based on these criteria, I therefore must consider this proposal to be the second worst of the five proposals I have reviewed to date based on its drastic impact on the area, and lack of consideration by the developer for adjacent residential areas, the ecology of the canal, and incumbent wildlife. The factors I have used to reach this evaluation are imDact, Drivacv and accountability, ImDact The most significant aspect ofthis proposal is in its impact on the surrounding area. The measurable aspects of impact are population, parking, trips, water and sewage. In addition, education, pollution (light, noise and chemical) runoff and incumbent wildlife, although not as easily quantifiable, are equally important It could be argued that, if the current legal agreement is not implemented, zoning for the property should revert to the original RAA-l zoning. It is also evident from the analysis that intent of the legal agreement was to reduce the impact of development on adiacent residential areas and the LWDD right ofwav. In summary: , · Population The proposed development has 2.1 times the amount of population allowed under RAA-l, It should be noted that there is also a significant difference in the nature of the ACLF population (more sedentary, less mobile). · Parking The proposed development requires more than 2 ~ times the estimated number of parking spaces under RAA-l and 2 times the estimated ACLF agreement. These increases are also reflected in increased runoff into City sewers and the canal. · Trips The proposal requires close to 2 1/4 times the number of trips than RAA-l and close to 7 times the number trips with the ACLF legal agreement The proposed development would unleash over 127,000 cars a year on a road rated "D" in 2001. Most ofthose could be expected to turn left, requiring a special traffic light. The state rated S.W, 23rd Avenue as "D" in 2001. The development of the Medical Center complex on the Northeast comer ofS.W. 23rd Avenue and Congress can expect to increase traffic further. Residents on S.W. 13th Street, directly east of the proposed development, have reported that they currently are unable to make a left turn onto S.W. 23rd Avenue during rush hour traffic. The same would also be true for other residents of Golfview Harbour whose driveways exit on S,W. 23rd Avenue. Their problem is worse in that most of them have to back out of their driveways. · Water Proposed water usage is 2 1/4 times that of RAA -1, almost 2 times more than the ACLF legal agreement estimates. Water usage would exceed 8,000,000 gallons a year. · Sewage The proposed development requires the same percentage increases as water. Sewage use is estimated at an average of close to 3,750,000 gallons a year, although the high degree of impervious area could be expected to increase that, especially during storms. · Education At this time there is no concurrency report. Local inquiries indicate that the local public schools at the elementary, middle and high school levels are over capacity. It can be estimated that the proposed development will require public education for 20-80 students. Bus pickup and drop-offwill add to the already crowded traffic conditions on S.W. 23rd Avenue. . Pollution o Light The proposal calls for parking lot lighting that will shine in adjacent residential areas and will be on until 2 AM. o Noise There can expect to be a significant increase in noise levels with 115 people, guests and 115 vehicles crowded onto less than 5 acres. In addition, there will be an excessive concentration of noise in the pool area located in the center of the proposed development. The addition of motorboats and skidoos could be expected to add to the noise level. The resultant wakes from watercraft and potential water skiers will do untold damage to the privately owned seawalls that are necessary on the south side of the canal. o Chemical Due to excessive coverage and the large number of parking spaces, direct drainage into the canal from the parking lots can de expect to add significant pollution in the canal, with detrimental consequences for incumbent wildlife. · Runoff As indicated under chemical pollution, it can be expected that significant drainage into both the Boynton sewers and the Lazy Lake Canal will occur, especially during major storms. Residents have reported that on S.W. 13th Street, directly east of the proposed development, there already is significant street flooding which currently drains onto the property. With the development, all such drainage will be blocked and they feel could they could expect to see flooding levels of several feet. . Incumbent Wildlife Adjacent residents have reported significant wildlife on the property. At this writing, a report from the City of Boynton Forester is unavailable. A pair of Ospreys is reported to be nesting in the central area of the property. In addition, I have personally observed an Osprey on the property several times in addition to several other species of birds, including Mallards, Anhingas, Cormorants, plus several varieties of Herons and Ibis. Privacy The proposal calls for 13 units on the south side, 4 on the east, and 6 on the west. At 2.3 population per unit, there would be 30 people on the south side, directly across the canal from some ofthe most valuable homes in Golfview Harbour. The proposal does not include any provisions for protecting the privacy of adjacent residential areas on this side. Due to the second story elevation, it can be expected that the upper windows could be expected to overlook both the back and front yards of the adjacent residential areas, as will the east. On the east side, the set back for a side yard is used, whereas the front entrance for the units faces 13th street, thereby requiring a setback for a front yard (40 feet). Accountability The adjacent residential areas include approximately 20 individual homeowners who are individually responsible for their properties and actions. The proposed development is a condominium, requiring a condominium association that has general responsibility for the property without individual accountability. As a condominium, it can be expected that a high percentage of the units will be rented, with resultant further deterioration of individual accountability. The proposed development involves le2al risk. The proposal requires specific approval by Planning and Development and City Commission of an exception. The planning and zoning regulations state that the minimum size for a PUD is 5 acres. The proposed development is on 4.69 acres. Section 5 of the regulations state that". . . lesser . . .. areas may be approved for PUD. . . upon findings by the planning and development and the governing body that particular circumstances justify such reduction that the requirements for PUD and the benefits to be derived from PUD can be met in such lesser area, and that permitting such lesser area for PUD is in conformity with the comprehensive plan." The proposed plan does not qualify for such exception in two areas: 1. The benefits to be derived from the proposed PUD, as pointed out earlier, do not exist. The need for services (education, water, sewage, fire and police) could offset any increased City revenues from permits, property taxes and utility fees, 2. The current comprehensive plan is not in conformity with surrounding zoning, The exception for the property was only allowed because of a potential legal situation and the lower impact of an ACLF. Without the ACLF restriction, the original RAA-l zoning would have been retained. The proposed PUD violates the ACLF and further downgrades the property to straight R-3, which is not in conformity with surrounding zoning on three sides. As of this writing, no specific proof has been shown to the public that the court has agreed to allow the city to consider this development that does not comply with the Alhambra Agreement.