REVIEW COMMENTS
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
PROJECT:
REQUEST:
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 07-031
Chair and Members
Community Redevelopment Agency Board
-~
Michael Rumpf ~ .
Director of Planning and Zoning
Kathleen Zeitler t.z.
Planner
May 1, 2007
Harbor Cay (SPTE 07-006)
Site Plan Time Extension
Property Owner:
Applicant I Agent:
Location:
Existing Land Use:
Existing Zoning:
Proposed Land Use:
Proposed Zoning:
Proposed Use:
Acreage:
Adjacent Uses:
North:
South:
East:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Harbor Cay, LLC
Sid E. von Rospeunt, Managing Member for Harbor Cay, LLC
East side of North Federal Highway, approximately 160 feet north of Gateway
Boulevard (see Location Map - Exhibit "A")
Special High Density Residential (SHDR)
Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD)
No change proposed
No change proposed
Townhouses
1.429 acre
To the north is developed multi-family residential property (Inlet Harbor Club),
classified Recreational (R) and High Density Residential (HDR) land use and zoned
Recreation (REC) and Multi-family Residential (R-3);
To the south is developed commercial property (Gateway Shell), classified Local Retail
Commercial (LRC) land use and zoned Community Commercial (C-3); to the southeast
is developed single-family residential, classified Low Density Residential (LDR) and
zoned Single-family Residential (R-l-M);
To the east is developed single-family residential, classified Low Density Residential
Page 2
Harbor Cay
SPTE 07-006
(LDR) and zoned Single-family Residential (R-l-AA); and
West:
Right-of-way for Federal Highway, then farther west is right-of-way for the Florida
East Coast (FEe) railroad.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Sid E. von Rospeunt, managing member of Harbor Cay, LLC is requesting a one (i)-year site plan time
extension for the Harbor Cay New Site Plan Development Order (NWSP 06-011), which was approved by the
City Commission on May 2, 2006. The site plan approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval.
If this request for a one (i)-year time extension were approved, the expiration date of this site plan, including
concurrency certification, would be extended to May 2, 2008.
The subject property consists of 1.429 acre zoned Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD), located within
Planning Area I of the Federal Highway Corridor Community Redevelopment Plan. According to the staff
report for the approved site plan (NWSP 06-011), the proposed Harbor Cay is a redevelopment project
approved for a total of 23 fee-simple town homes, recreation amenities, and related site improvements.
The 23 dwelling units (at a density of 16.09 dwelling units per acre) are proposed as two (2)-bedroom units,
each with a bonus room that could be used as a third bedroom. The 23 units are planned within six (6)
separate buildings on the 1.429-acre site. Each three (3)-story building would contain four (4) dwelling units,
with the exception of one building that proposes three (3) units. The approved site plan (see Exhibit "B'')
proposes three (3) model types, ranging from 2,534 square feet to 2,599 square feet of total air-conditioned
area. According to the staff report, the proposed townhouse buildings would have hints of Spanish-
Mediterranean accents in the contemporary / modern design. Building accents would include cupolas,
Spanish S-tile roofs, decorative banding, stone veneer, awnings, and decorative garage doors.
ANALYSIS
According to Chapter 4, Section 5 of the Land Development Regulations, "the applicant shall have one (1)
year to secure a building permit from the Development Department". Examples of building permits include
but are not limited to the following: Plumbing, electrical, mechanical, foundation, and structural. City
regulations authorize the Commission to approve site plan time extensions up to one (1) year, provided that
the applicant files the request prior to the expiration date of the development order. In this case, the
applicant has met that requirement. The Planning & Zoning Division received the application for time
extension on March 12, 2007, approximately seven (7) weeks prior to the expiration date of the site plan.
According to the justification submitted for the requested time extension (see Exhibit "C''), the applicant
details the "good faith" efforts in moving forward with the project, explaining that the project has been
delayed due to the following: (1) required reconfiguration of underground utilities and subsequent civil
engineering plan revisions which required re-submittal for further review and approval; (2) delay in platting
due to required civil plan revisions; and (3) construction plan revisions necessary to address conditions of site
plan approval.
A more formal criterion for evaluating requests for time extensions is compliance with (traffic) concurrency
requirements. On March 29, 2006 the Palm Beach County Traffic Division approved the traffic study for this
project and included a restriction that no building permits are to be issued for the project after the build-out
year of 2009.
Page 3
Harbor Cay
SPTE 07-006
The site plan time extension is still subject to the original 85 conditions of the new site plan approval. No
new land development regulations are now in place against which the project should be reviewed and
modified. As for application of the Art in Public Places ordinance (05-060), this project is not exempt, as the
new site plan request was filed and under review after adoption of Ordinance 05-060 on October 5, 2005.
Therefore, the project must comply with Ordinance 05-060 as stated in the original conditions of site plan
approval.
Lastly, the applicant has failed to pay the Capacity Reservation Fee as required in original Condition of
Approval #19, which was due within seven (7) days of the original site plan approval. As such, staff
recommends that the applicant pay the fee amount prior to final action by the City Commission on this
extension request.
SUMMARY I RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this request for a one (l)-year time extension of the Harbor Cay site plan (NWSP
06-011). If this request for extension were approved, the expiration of this site plan would be extended to May
2, 2008. Staff is generally in favor of the redevelopment efforts represented by the approved site plan, which
serves to promote the goals of the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Federal Highway Corridor
Redevelopment Plan. The proposed Harbor Cay project will provide an opportunity for redevelopment in a
highly visible corridor in the City, increase the value of adjacent and nearby properties, and contribute to the
overall economic development of the City. If this request for site plan time extension is approved, all
outstanding conditions of approval from the new site plan approval must still be satisfactorily addressed during
the building permit process. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or City Commission shall be
documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval (see Exhibit "D").
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECfS\Harbor Cay\SPTE 07-006\Staff Report.doc
LOCATION MAP
Harbor Cay
PUD
/If
.J..
~;>..
1 ~
&
I f 5
m
Jim
Ih
Exhibit "A"
, ,
~ (1.3
I I
I
R.1-AA
Q)
:>
.~-
o
~-
..-'l
"€
o
z
Potter Road
I
J Subject REC R-3
Site ~
ft ~W~
t
~~T'
. . I TT .n,.;, I
rB~ I
J I
~f ~
I C-3f KJ'I-~~
I ~
GATEWAY BLVD 1 Las Palmas Pk
D v
J J ~
&
$ .I
7 I ~
R-3 C-2 tt I I
)Gg,D i
D [I
~ j.L
I
I
j I
200 100 0
I
I
IPUD
REC
I
W+E
S
200
400
600
800
'Feet
I!i au
~I t::" ]t ]a~
~:
. ~~
. ~ ~ '.'~>~..
.. r- <~~
~~='\:~
~ ~ 1';'2
- ~>,,~
Q " -':'::',','
.'
S. I.~.
]S ]hS
.:-'~ ~
~~
~~
Ii
~IP 0'.~'
. ~~ i;~
. c ~ .,,,,.
'I; ;::~~~~:
~ :~,
- I~
. I~~
.'
:Illi~
Ii ~ ",,:::-."
= '"
I "
." ~I
;."".~'
g~;:
- ,.
;. 1"1"
~s ~s~s
- ~ !!
;,iiI
I!l
. .. "II
~
Z,
,
EXHIBIT B
1---
---
~
II
'I
1
'.
FLORIDA EAST '
~ _ CO~T RAILROAD
U.S. HIGHWAY No
, 1
" ..
\.
:.::::~, '\
.."- ." ~-~-
1
I
;
- =--=- ~
'.
-1;>- - ~
I
I;
I:
I;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
, ,
,
,
,
\.
':::::~', '\
~I~
~
I
I
.
~
T :cl '. H~
n 'I I < i
~ '!!'l ~~<
Ii' ~~i
,~ s~
a;;
S
o
z
~
~
"II
L
::::: - ~
~ ,...._IlIl..
!I~J~ ;~lilill Uh!'fr;lfiJlKJ'U j 10 i" a ~u u 0 0 U lu U ~ ~ I i ~ ~
!Ib~!iilii~~ ~i~J!flfbjjiWd~~HU UIi liUPUIBUhUU:;M 2~ ~
~i ;ii-ii iI!~ !1,'ilhn~Jm~'=il ~~U .~! ~ Ug~u g · ~p -I =
JI~ pai~~ il~ JIUHlIlUiiU Ii h II H j i I I I J ~ II I g h I i
! ~ fi";'iJlhll.J 1". I I ~ I ! I g ~ ~
I nlm b lil;lldUiJU I i I ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
... ~m !h[f.~:d ifi m ~ s ~ g I
I U U1umu Iii III g I he; H H I.; ;. i;; ~
2~ H 'lirUl! ilf - II I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
III :" I! I II ~ i
I I i UUUU BU ; U
'n.nn 'in ~~~
;;;;;~;; ;;;; ~!~
HARBOR CAY TOW'NHOUSES
600 LAKESIDE HARBOUR
Boynlon B..ch, f1....d.
I RKB ,.'""-
1IOl__....K.....__.............._1I4I1 .........
SI'tJ'1!INI61FAl5t1~ Irrteriordeslgn
~~~
EXHIBIT C
R D"
lS U u~~!
~j~~J
Pl~NNING ~ND
ZONING DEP1
March 9, 2007
Board of Commissioners
The City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Re: Development Order Extension
Gentlemen:
Plmse accept our request for an extension of twelve months for Boynton Beach Resolution 06-097, a
Development Order for Harbor Cay Town Homes; an IPUD located within a few hundred feet North of
Gateway Boulevard on Federal Highway going towards the Intraooastal Waterway.
Due to various delays in obtaining approval for the underground utilities, only recently resubmitted
after substantial prior oonsultation along with the expectation of further oomments requiring additional
reconfiguration and another round of resubmission, and the sequential nature of the proress whereby
the plat cannot be delineated until the civil engineering is approved, and in light of the extensive
Conditions of Approval that must be addressed; it is not likely that a oonstrnction permit will be secured
before the Development Order expires on May 2nd of 2007.
Thank you, in advance, for your time and oonsideration. We trust that the Board of Commissioners
shall look upon our petition with kindness and generousity.
SId E.von R oot
ChiefExecu ve Officer
AmerCan Development Corp.
The Managing Member for Harbor Cay, LLC
Harbor Cay, LLC 605 Lakeside Harbor Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida 33435, Tel: 561-734-3000 Fax: 561-724-3005
www.harborcay.com
EXHIBIT "D"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Harbor Cay
File number: SPTE 07-006
Reference:
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments: None
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
Comments: None
UTILITIES
Comments: None
FIRE
Comments: None
POLICE
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
Conditions of Approval
Harbor Cay
SPTE 07-006
P 2
age
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
1. The site plan time extension shall be subject to all previous Conditions of
Approval.
2. The Applicant shall pay the Capacity Reservation Fee amount due to the City
prior to final action by the City Commission on this Site Plan Extension
request.
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY BOARD CONDITIONS
Comments:
To be determined.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
To be determined.
S :\Planning\SHARED\ WP\PROJECTS\Harbor Cay\SPTE\COA,doc
c!:/C~'~ __~~~
Jt1 f\l.-l? k-e. p
~ -- .- -"
COA
09/10/07
8
(c...:. ~')
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
CBBCO, Chapter 26, Section 26-406. Proof of payment shall be submitted to
the Building Division at the time of permit application submittal.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments:
53. Park Impact Fee - 23 single family, attached units @ $771.00/unit = X
$17,733.00 to be paid prior to initial permit
54. Please be advised that the planting of oak trees in small spaces is not X
recommended due to the large amount of damage received during Hurricane
Wilma.
55. Separate the plant list into trees, palms, shrubs and groundcover. X
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments:
56. The Landscape Architect should tabulate the total diameter inches of existing X
trees on the site. The tabular data should show the individual species of trees
proposed to be preserved in place, relocated or removed and replaced on site.
The replacement trees should be shown by a separate symbol on the
landscape plan sheet 1 of 1 (Chapter 7.5, Article I Sec. 7.D.p. 2.).
57. If potable water is used, the use of drought tolerant plant species (per the X
South Florida Water Management District Manual) shall be maximized and
the irrigation system should have water conserving designs (such as a drip
system), where possible.
58. Trees with roots known to cause damage to public roadways or other public X
works, such as Ficus species, shall not be planted (Chapter 7.5, Article II,
Section 5.C.2.).
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
59. Approval of this project is contingent upon the approval of the accompanying X
request for land use amendment / rezoning (LUAR 06-009).
60. On the site plan (sheet AO.O), eliminate the note "Future Phase II" because X
this property is not a part of the subiect project.
61. In addition to the elevation pages that have been submitted, provide X
supplemental drawings of the east and south elevations of Building 5 that
COA
09/1 0107
9
DEPARTMENTS
depicts the townhouse buildings in the background with plant material (trees)
proposed in the foreground proposed at the specifications at the time of their
installation. In addition, provide another drawing that shows same but with
the plant material at maturitv.
INCLUDE REJECT
62. Provide a scaled, cross-section drawing of "Building 5" that depicts the X
building height, proposed setbacks, buffer walls, trees, and adjacent
structures. If no adjacent structures are present, please graphically show the
required setbacks and maximum height of a home that could be built in the
future.
63. The traffic concurrency approval is subject to the Project Aggregation Rules X
set forth in the Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance and no building
permits are to be issued after the build-out date of 2009.
64. The IPUD zoning district perimeter setbacks shall mirror setbacks of adjacent X
zoning district(s) but with a minimum of the setback required for a single-
family residence as determined by the orientation of the structures in the
IPUD (Chapter 2, Section 5.L.3.). The property to the southeast is zoned
Single-family Residential (R-I-AA) and developed with a home. The rear
setback of the R-I-AA zoning district is 20 feet. The site plan proposes a
setback of 10 feet, which is not compatible with the adjacent zoning district
and property. Building 5 must be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the
south property line prior to the issuance of any setbacks. Approval of the site
plan as currently designed would necessitate the approval of a zoning code
vanance
f.
65. The city is not obligated to automatically approve the level of development
intensity request for the IPUD. Instead, it is expected to approve only such
level of intensity that is appropriate for a particular location in terms of land
use compatibilities (Chapter 2, Section 5.L.1.c.). Therefore, staff strongly
recommends limiting Building #5 to 2-stories rather than 3-stories,
eliminating the eastern portion of the 3rd story of Building #5, or increasing
the width of the east landscape buffer so that the setback of Building #5 is
equivalent to Building #3, Units 16 through 19.
X
66. The IPUD zoning district requires 200 square feet of usable open space per X
dwelling unit. The plan proposes 23 dwelling units, and therefore, 4,600
square feet of usable open space is required (Chapter 2, Section 5.L.3.). On
the site plan tabular data (sheet 101), please indicate that 4,600 square feet of
usable open space is required. The pool 1 clubhouse area may be used to meet
this requirement. It should be noted that the site plan in conjunction with the
Patio Wall with Trellis Detail show that three (3)-foot tall knee walls are
proposed within the usable open space areas between "Building 3" and
"Building 4". While these are attractive amenities, they give the appearance
that each unit would have a private courtyard. They function as barriers
between private and public space and therefore, these private courtyards are
contrary to the intent of the usable open space requirement of the IPUD
zoning district. Staff recommends eliminating the small knee walls from the
COA
09/1 0/07
10
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
design of the usable open space areas.
67. On the site plan tabular data, indicate proposed lot coverage per Chapter 4, X
Section 7. Note that lot coverage cannot exceed more than 50 percent
(Chapter 2, Section 5.L.).
68. All building elevations should graphically indicate the paint manufacturer's X
name and color codes on each drawing. Staff recommends using a color
schedule (Chapter 4, Section 7.D.).
69. The site plan proposes several driveway spaces in front of the garages. The X
plans show that they would be at least 18 feet in length and the same width as
the garage. However, the back-up distance is less than 24 feet and therefore,
not meeting current engineering standards. Therefore, these areas cannot be
counted as extra parking spaces. The site plan would have to be modified to
eliminate the designation of "driveway space" for those driveway spaces that
do not have at least 24 feet of back-up space. Staff will not consider these
tandem spaces as legal parking spaces (for site plan purposes).
70. In order to ensure proper maintenance of the buffer areas, staff recommends X
converting them from private property to "buffer tracts" that would be owned
and maintained by the Home Owners' Association.
71. On the landscape plan, ensure that the plant quantities match between the X
tabular data and the graphic illustration. Also, please indicate the proposed
species and quantity on the landscape plan (sheet L2). This makes it much
easier to determine compliance with applicable codes.
72. All trees, if proposed as trees, must be at least 12 feet in height and three (3) X
caliper inches at the time of their installation (Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section
5.C.2.). This applies to the Green Malayan Coconut palm, Yellow Geiger
tree, and Ligstrum tree.
73. Fifty percent (50%) of all site landscape materials must be native species X
(Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.P). Please categorize as follows: 1. Shade
trees, 2. Palm trees, 3. Shrubs & Groundcover. On the landscape plan,
indicate the total quantities within each category and their native percentages.
Also, staff recommends increasing the plant palette to provide for greater
variety of native material.
74. At the time of permitting, provide a drawing of a typical freestanding outdoor X
lighting pole. The typical drawing of the freestanding outdoor lighting poles
must include the color and material. The design, style, and illumination level
shall be compatible with the building design (height) and shall consider
safety, function, and aesthetic value (Chapter 9, Section 10.F.1.). A
minimum average light level of one (1) foot candle shall be provided, with no
more than 10% of the spot readings below one (1) foot candle and none
below Yz foot candle (Chapter 23, Article ILA.1.a). The site plan shows the
location of the light poles but no photometric plans were included within this
COA
09/1 0/07
11
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
submittal. The photometric plan must demonstrate that lighting levels will be
adequate and not "spill" over onto adjacent properties.
75. The applicant is responsible for compliance with Ordinance 05-060, the "Art X
in Public Places" program and must demonstrate their participation. As of
today, nothing has been submitted to the City. The Art Information Form
must still be completed prior to approval to indicate the preliminary
construction valuation, and whether the developer will provide on-site art, or
opt to pay the fee-in-lieu of providing project art.
76. The double-trunk Montgomery palm trees do not provide enough canopy X
spread to function as an upper level buffer between the subject property and
the east property line. Staff recommends substituting them with a native
canopy tree.
n. Overhead wires are located approximately four (4) feet west of the entire X
property line along Federal Highway so the choice and quantity of landscape
material proposed within this landscape buffer is limited. However, staff
recommends incorporating additional small growing palm or canopy trees
into the west landscape buffer in order to further breakup the impact of a
three (3)-story building proposed five (5) feet from the west property line or
install the overhead power line underground so that there would be no
conflict with the landscaping.
78. The width of the east landscape buffer varies between five (5) feet and 10 X
feet. The narrower portion is proposed north of Lakeside Harbor Drive. Four
(4) "High Rise" Live Oak trees, spaced 20 feet on center are proposed within
the east landscape buffer, north of Lakeside Harbor Drive and east "Building
4". Staff recommends inserting a Dahoon Holly tree between each of these
"High Rise" Live Oak trees to lessen the impact of the three (3)-story building
which is proposed adjacent to the single-family neighborhood.
79. The subject site is located along Palm Tran Bus Route 1. Staff recommends X
installing an upgraded shelter if a Palm Tran stop is located along Federal
Highway, abutting the subject project.
80. At the time of permitting, staff wants to ensure that the applicant has an X
explanation to or a formal agreement in place with the adjacent property
owners regarding the maintenance of the "outside" of the wall, since the wall
is proposed so close to the property lines. However, if the developer can
demonstrate to staff that location of the wall is such that it does not require
traversing an adjacent property in order to maintain the "outside" of the wall,
then no formal agreement will be required.
81. No buffer wall color( s) were indicated on the Perimeter Fence Detail. X
Therefore, staff recommends that the color of the masonry wall be compatible
with the co1or(s) proposed for the townhouse buildings.
82. Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) staff recommends increasing the X
COA
09/1 0/07
12
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
size of the two (2) bougainvillea at both sides of the Federal Highway trellis
from eight (8) feet to 16 feet at time of installation.
83. Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) staff recommends adding X
openings and architectural elements to north elevations of Units 1 and 5 and
south elevations of Units 4 and 8.
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
COMMENTS:
Comments:
84. All buildings shall have similar roof designs. X
85. Applicant agreed to reduce the height of the southern unit in building #5 to X
two (2) stories.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Comments:
85. To be determined.
MWRlelj
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Harbor Cay\NWSP 06-011\COAdoc
IU !;i
, ' ~l!1 ~a!
:1 ;~(;,~ 6"
.~ ~0
. e 0 "',W
~,.. ~''''':
.. :::",.,,-,,;
~ if ~ "'.' '~~~'.
~ ~ I:,:
.. i N}.\..,:..
'" ;! "'.:::~
~l !l~l
~a Jha
":~:.;:.:
~~
l~~'
h~
':"8,
~::<::
::'~~'8
~}ft
~I~ ~ ".~'
. ~! I,;
~ ~~
, "
. I~\
. ~ ,~\
i~~
bM ''''>'Jl,~J
::;::;, "-8'
~li;1 ~"
'~I~~V w
, !:l.~f
. ~i h,"
m ..
~ "
dP
f '
~I
~S'.''''~
~~.
]':'\<.: 1.
~. ~.!.
~a ~a~a
EXHIBIT B
"
..
FLORIDA E '
- - AST COAST
.: - - _ RAILROAD
U.S. HIGHWAYNO -
, 1
" ~
\.
.:::::~ \.
"
----= - - .-
-~-=:r-::--_
"
'.
\.
.:::::~, \.
-1;>-- - "
I
I'
,
I:
I:
I;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~-
)
" ~',
,.
'"
)1 '.
~
~!
i~ ~
~lj .
; . '
! ]
/
,
~~
)
"
,
i
,
- ~ Ul '
- ,
~ -4 I
~rnl
. .. " ,
J;!
z'
I
I
d~
~
~~
~i
!~IIUiilli~1 UIi!t;r;l{ilfjlfU ~ l.i,,~~uuu"lu.~~~1 il ~
~I~! !jUjj~~ u~iHfhhJUfdUUU Ilii JiUPIUUI;I~UUPi ~I i
'11 iiilil n iHUiUfmih Ii II i I ; I i II I ~ ~ J ~ u I ~ II I i =
!! ~~ r-<i<j;lilliI'J IS ~ I I a i i J n ili
~ ~~m~ h lihJihUiiU I i I i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
RiB ~ijj J~Hr!~i.} ~r9 ~ I ~ ~ '. I
~ U IUihr;UJ If!j I ~ I ~ I he; H H G d ; ~ riG G ~
I ~ ,,~ r! i!i' .Ir ~. - ~ I . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B
-a !l!~ ~~ lilJ'r I( ~i · ". ..".... .... ·
~I ~ i ~ H U U HUB i i i
-~;Id~la ~ ~ ~
~-1o!1 jji;~~~; ~~~j ~~;
;;~~;;;; ;;;; ~~J
L
~-~
~ :~~IQ'
.s
n
!i
o
z
==
~
"
HARBOR CAY TOW'NHOUSES
600 LAKESIDE HARBOUR
Boynton Beach, Florida
IRK B !"rch.tecture
""'_~335II'W,""__"''''''''__l301 planning
561n50-3661 FAX 56111&C-6802 interior design
EXHIBIT 8'
>
(J)
"'0
)>
r
:!:
)>
(J)
"'0
)>
::0
^
: : : : : Ii: : . I: I. I. i :: I: I t ~
i I' f fI III I I~. · · · · · 'I '. if 'I ! i 'I 'i 'I il ' · · n Jij/ll"
0*~~~ ' !ll' !1!I1111!1!!~! ill I II ii!l! 111111111 ill ,II Il!I,II!ii II i I; ill W Iii II fil'! I fll!!ii
. . 0-<- ~~ 0-<- . 't film 'hll!h I, i ~ I J II I if !l t/Jll[ 'I' ',Ih!
~Q" <SIo "'~ (lh::-----"'l. IllilI i'pul !I I I I ' ,; ~I'! l IPi [
. ~~" . ~'>-d? ~~~ " Ii ilIlH iflU!1 il HH!j1 j!iilqqiill if j~fili'~ i i i ,ill it Ii !IJ,lIili I hI! I
,';q~..', ~<SI~ U'~G; I' I f It !lInn I'": i i i I i I I 1ft ! lid cjl ti II lll~ I I J j
~~~ """ (I-s- ~(I~ . 1'1 Ip'tll i ! J iil I r ~
-.,,"'-. ~ '" . -<' {s> I
-';~'1.~, " ('
. ,,",,~, ',.-'-/
~... "l- ''''''C
'.'. ~<;., "'"
"" 'l.\"
'\ // '\.. ':::~1':, '\
III l! l! l! ill i l!
I
i i i
I , "i
, ,
\
-----=:
FL . ..
ORIDA EAST
;;::=----. COA~:~:~~~AD
U.S. HIGHWAY
NO.1
~
"'"
.,...
o
~
~
~
~h
~~~
~~~
~
I '. ,
,T i
'~VlJI I
1../
~ri ) ~
t,. i
n
d
!Ii In I
z
!!i
~~o::
~~~
'<~~
~t
r~c
~8~
00::'"
-z
C
0::
. I !
I I
f '
!~
I
""""'
! ~
, ~~
Iii ~ ~
Ie;>
! @~
. .......
n ~ :g::;: ~
u~ g @~
~ r~~~
~ '~e:
~p[
'"
i[ ~~~~i~ ~f
~J rn'g o~
~ ~i~ ~ i
1 e Ii S ~
~ _:l';""
s Ql!. r-'
, 'il ~ ()
g't":Z ...,~
';1,,"'0
~f ~ :5
!~1 ~ 0
;;..' o~
e~C("J
~ [Jl:>
f;l-<
Staff Report - Harbor Cay (NWSP 06-011)
Memorandum No PZ 06-065
Page 6
The site plan proposes several driveway spaces in front of the garages of Building
1, Building 5, and Building 6. They would be at least 18 feet in length and 20 feet
in width. However, in some areas, the back-up distance behind each driveway
space is less than 24 feet and would not meet current engineering standards.
Therefore, these parking spaces cannot be counted toward meeting the total
number of required or provided parking spaces. At the time of permitting, the site
plan would have to be modified to eliminate the designation of "driveway space" for
those driveway spaces with deficient back-up dimensions (see Exhibit "c" -
Conditions of Approval). Even though the site plan designates multiple driveway
spaces, it appears that only six (6) of them would meet current engineering
standards. Therefore, combining the garage spaces, driveway spaces, parallel
spaces, and 90-degree spaces, the site plan would provide for a total of 56 parking
spaces or an excess of 10 parking spaces.
Landscaping:
The site plan tabular data indicates that 9,939 square feet (0.228 acres) or 16% of
the site would be pervious surface. The plant list indicates the landscape plan
would provide a total of 48 canopy trees, all of which, would be native. The plant
list indicates that 10 or 13% of the 76 palm trees would be native. Also, the
landscape plan would contain 2,080 shrubs / groundcover plants, of which 314
(15%) would be native. At the time of permitting, at least fifty percent (50%) of
the palm trees and shrubs / groundcover would have to be native species (Chapter
7.5, Article II, Section 5.P). The tree species would include the following: Florida
Royal palm, Montgomery palm (double-trunked), Coconut palm, Christmas palm,
Dahoon Holly, "High Rise" Live Oak, Orange Geiger, and Silver Buttonwood. Staff
recommends that the lands remaining outside the individual fee-simple area be
under the control of the Homeowner's Association to ensure proper maintenance of
the buffer areas (see Exhibit "e" - Condition of Approval).
The Comprehensive Plan requires the conservation of potable water and specifically
that potable water not be used for landscape irrigation where other sources are
readily available. However, it is likely that well water cannot be utilized for this
particular project due to the saltwater intrusion that occurs near the coast,
especially in areas east of Federal Highway. A water-use permit from the South
Florida Water Management District is reqUired for an irrigation system that utilizes
water from a well or body of water as its source. A note on the landscape plan
indicates that the irrigation plans shall be designed so that turf and bedding plant
areas are on separate zones and time duration for water conservation. This is
required at the time of permitting.
Project compatibility is judged on how well the proposed development fits within
the context of the neighborhood and abutting properties. The applicant provided a
colored elevation drawing (sheet A2.1) that shows how the project would appear
from Federal Highway. The landscape plan shows that the west landscape buffer
would be five (5) feet in width and contain either double-trunked Montgomery palm
or single-trunked Christmas palm trees. Overhead wires are located above the
entire west property line so the choice and quantity of landscape material is limited.
However, staff recommends incorporating additional small growing palm or canopy
Staff Report - Harbor Cay (NWSP 06-011)
Memorandum No PZ 06-065
Page 7
trees into the west landscape buffer in order to further breakup the impact of a
three (3)-story building proposed five (5) feet from the property line or install the
overhead power line underground so that there would be no conflict with the
landscaping (see Exhibit "c" - Condition of Approval). Curly Boy Red Croton and
Purple Heat would be installed along the base of the town homes that front along
Federal Highway. The main entrance at Lakeside Harbor Drive would have
signature trees and a row of Florida Royal palm trees.
The east landscape buffer would vary in width, from five (5) feet at its narrowest
point to 10 feet at its widest point. The narrower portion is proposed north of
Lakeside Harbor Drive and the wider portion is proposed south of Lakeside Harbor
Drive where the project abuts single-family homes to the east. In deference to the
existing conditions, staff requested the developer provide an additional drawing of
the east building elevations as they would be viewed from the adjacent residential
properties. Staff also requested that a supplemental drawing depicting the
townhouse buildings in the background with the proposed masonry wall and trees
in the foreground. However, no plans were submitted. The site plan shows that a
masonry wall, six (6) feet in height would be located along the entire east property
line adjacent to the residential lots in the R-1-AA zoning district. Typically, a buffer
wall is setback two (2) feet from a property line, in part, for maintenance purposes.
However, in this case, the wall would be located directly along the east property
line. The masonry wall will help buffer the subject property from the residential
neighborhood as well as to help prevent the intrusion of automobile headlights into
neighboring properties from parking areas and driveways. However, staff
recommends that a formal agreement be executed with the adjacent property
owners regarding maintenance of the "outside" of the wall since the wall is
proposed so close to the property line (see Exhibit "c" - Conditions of Approval).
The landscape plan proposes four (4) "High Rise" Live Oaks and four (4) Dahoon
Holly trees directly east of Building 5 (at the southeast corner of the property within
the 10-foot wide buffer south of Lakeside Harbor Drive). Also, four (4) "High Rise"
Live Oak trees are proposed within the landscape buffer east of Building 4, north of
Lakeside Harbor Drive. As previously mentioned, this portion of the east landscape
buffer is narrower than the other. The "High Rise" Live Oak trees are proposed 20
feet on center within this buffer. However, staff recommends inserting a Dahoon
Holly tree between each "High Rise" Live Oak tree to lessen the impact of the three
(3)-story building adjacent to the single-family neighborhood (see Exhibit "c" -
Conditions of Approval).
The site plan shows that the north landscape buffer (adjacent to the Inlet Harbor
Club) would be five (5) feet in width. This buffer would contain a row of Orange
Geiger trees. These trees were chosen because they are small-growing and would
not conflict with the overhead FP&L power lines. The six (6) foot tall masonry wall
would run along the north property line as well.
The width of the south landscape buffer would vary between five (5) feet at its
narrowest point and 10 feet at the widest. The widest point would occur south of
Building 5, adjacent to the single-family zoning district. Four (4) Orange Geiger
trees are proposed east of Building 5. Again, they were chosen for this location
Staff Report - Harbor Cay (NWSP 06-011)
Memorandum No PZ 06-065
Page 8
due to the presence of overhead power lines. Orange Geiger trees are also
proposed along the entire south property line.
Building and Site: As previously mentioned, the applicant is requesting to rezone the property to the
IPUD zoning district and develop at a density of 16.09 dwelling units per acre. The
23 dwelling units are proposed within six (6) separate buildings on the 1.429-acre
site. Each building would contain four (4) units, with the exception of one (1)
building, which proposes three (3) units. The floor plans propose three (3) models
types, ranging from 2,534 square feet to 2,599 square feet of "total ale area". All
units would have two (2)-bedroom units and a bonus room that can be used as a
third bedroom.
The IPUD zoning district allows buildings to reach a maximum height of 45 feet.
However, a lesser building height could be imposed if compatibility with the
adjacent properties would be in jeopardy. The code defines building height as
follows: The vertical distance in feet measured from the lowest point at the
property line of an adjacent property or from the minimum base flood elevation as
established by FEMA, whichever is highest, to the highest point of the roof for flat
roofs, to the deck line for mansard roofs and parapet roofs with parapets less than
five (5) feet in height. Gable and hip roof heights shall be measured to the
midpoint between the eaves and the ridge. The elevations show that all buildings
would be three (3) stories in height, the tallest of which would be approximately
37 inches in height measured at the mid-point of the pitched roof. The building
identified as Building 5 is proposed at the southeast corner of the property and
adjacent to an existing single-family detached home that lies within the R-1-AA
zoning district. During the review process, staff recommended reducing the height
of Building 5 from three (3) stories to two (2) stories or at the very least, to design
the eastern portion of Building 5 as a two (2)-story structure, because compatibility
with the adjacent single-family detached home was a concern. However, the
applicant instead chose to design the building with a flat roof rather than heeding
staff's recommendation. The elevations of Building 5 show that it would have a
flat roof with the top of the parapet wall proposed at 30 feet in height. All
buildings would comply with the 45-foot height limitation of the IPUD zoning
district. However, staff opines that the proposed height and setback of Building 5
would be incompatible with that of the abutting single-family residence. The
setback will be discussed in more detail in the following paragraph. Again, the City
is not obligated to approve the requested intensity and design of said development
if compatibility with adjacent properties becomes an issue.
The IPUD zoning district perimeter setbacks shall mirror setbacks of adjacent
zoning district(s) but with a minimum of the setback required for a single-family
residence as determined by the orientation of the structures in the IPUD (Chapter
2, Section 5.L.3.). The property to the north is zoned Recreation (REC), and
appears to be a part of the Inlet Harbor Club Condominium. The side yard setback
of the REC zoning district is 25 feet. The site plan proposes a setback of five (5)
feet from the north property line. Compatibility between the subject property and
the property to the north is not an issue because the townhouse building would
abut open space. The property to the southwest is zoned Community Commercial
Staff Report - Harbor Cay (NWSP 06-011)
Memorandum No PZ 06-065
Page 9
(C-3) and has been developed with a gas station (Gateway Shell). The side
setback of the C-3 zoning district is zero (0) feet. The site plan proposes a setback
of five (5) feet from the south property line and therefore, would be acceptable.
The property to the southeast is zoned Single-family Residential (R-1-AA) and
developed with a home. The rear setback of the R-1-AA zoning district is 20 feet.
The site plan shows that Building 5 would be setback 10 feet from the south
property line. Therefore. the setback of Buildina 5 shall be increased from
10 feet to 20 feet to mirror the required setback of the adiacent home
(see Exhibit "Cn - Conditions of ADprovan. Approval of the site plan as
currently designed would necessitate the approval of a zoning code variance (see
Exhibit "c" - Conditions of Approval). The side setback of the R-1-AA zoning
district is 10 feet. The site plan proposes a setback of 10 feet from the east
property line. However, it should be noted that a structure on the perimeter of an
IPUD project that is adjacent to an existing single-family neighborhood must
adhere to additional setback requirements. The IPUD regulations require an
additional one (l)-foot building setback for each one (1) foot in building height that
exceeds 30 feet, regardless of whether or not a abutting lot is vacant or developed
with a single-family detached home. Originally, the applicant proposed Building 5
with a pitched roof that would have been 41 feet - six (6) inches in height. This
would have required Building 5 to be setback at least an additional 11 feet - six (6)
inches. This extra setback requirement was the primary reason why the applicant
chose to design the building as a flat-roofed three (3)-story building. It should be
noted that according to Chapter 2, Section 5.L.4.g.(2), if vegetation, screening or
other barriers and / or creative design on the perimeter of an IPUD achieve
compatibility with adjacent uses, the city may grant some relief from the extra
setback. Land to the west is right-of-way for Federal Highway. The site plan
proposes a setback of five (5) feet along the west property line. This minimal
setback from the street is consistent with the intent of the IPUD zoning district.
The main recreation area would be located near the center of the site, just south of
Lakeside Harbor Drive. It would include a swimming pool and a wood trellis. The
pool trellis detail shows that it would be eight (8) feet - six (6) inches in height.
The southern portion of the trellis would be designed as part of the pool fence. As
previously mentioned, a masonry wall six (6) feet in height would be located along
the north, south, and east property lines.
The Perimeter Fence Wall Detail shows that it would have a stucco finish with
decorative banding. No colors were proposed. Therefore, staff recommends that
the color of the masonry wall be compatible with the color(s) proposed for the
townhouse buildings (see Exhibit "c" - Conditions of Approval).
The IPUD zoning district requires 200 square feet of usable open space per
dwelling unit. The plan proposes 23 dwelling units, and therefore, 4,600 square
feet of usable open space is reqUired (Chapter 2, Section 5.L.3.). The applicant
has informed staff that the plan provides 4,600 square feet of usable open space
but that the actual area is itemized in the tabular data as "open area", which would
be synonymous to the code required usable open space. However, at the time of
permitting, the site plan tabular data will be have to be changed to indicate that