CORRESPONDENCE
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
M I e~ W6/AJ6JZ....
FAX:
~7,tl-Ce831
TO:
DATE:
ED ~e.
~f~h7
, I f
Se:kV/€J1.) /iwL ~~
NUMBER OF PAGES: (including
cover)
..2.
FROM:
RE:
fVlJ~
/
fe;n., ~ /)JS~/6NJ IJ~ IS A C6/JJ
"f f6~ ~J(' f!-eWlJUiJ.H} Lem:>z...
Gb
Document1
If you receive this fax in error, or experience trouble with transmission, please notify our office
immediately, at (561) 742-6260. Thank you.
Department of Engineering
and Public works
PO. Box 21229
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-1229
(561) 684-4000
www.pbegov.eom
.
Palm Beach County
Board of County
Commissioners
Karen T. Marcus, Chair
Tony Masilotti, Viee Chairman
Jeff Koons
Warren H. Newell
Mary McCarty
Burt Aaronson
Addie L. Greene
County Administrator
Robert Weisman
"An Equal Opportunity
Affirmative Action Employer"
@ printed on recycled paper
October 4, 2004
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: Seaview Park Club
TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS RF.:VIEW
Dear Mr. Rumpf:
The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the traffic study for the proposed
redevelopment project entitled; Seaview Park Club, pursuant to the Traffic Performance
Standards in Article 12 of the Palm Beach County Land Development Code. This project
is summarized as follows.
Location:
East side of North Federal Highway, about y.. miles north of the
Boynton Canal.
Boynton Beach
64 Mobile Homes
72 MF Residential Units
184
3 AM and 7 PM
2006
Municipality:
Existing Uses:
Proposed Uses:
New Daily Trips:
New PH Trips:
Build-out Year:
Based on our review, the Traffic Division has determined that the proposed residential
redevelopment project is located within the Palm Beach County designated Coastal
Residential Exception Areas, and therefore, 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,
i:
i
r' .
I n I.
Iii' :
.,
EER
/Y7.
cc: Carter & Burgess, Inr
File. General- TPS - Mun - 'fraflic Study R€'view
F'\TRAFFIClrna\AdminlApprova!s'L,40S2i doc
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
TIME
NAME
FAX
TEL
SER.#
03/13/2007 14:38
PLANNING
5617426259
BROL3J876851
DATE, TIME
FAX NO./NAME
DURATION
PAGE(S)
RESULT
MODE
03/13 14:37
92726831
00:00:35
02
OK
STANDARD
ECM
Page 1 0[2
,,<) C-' ( '-.0 't <- ,,-"
-
Rumpf, Michael
From: Harry Woodworth [nc4a@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:13 AM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Subject: Re: Error in NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARING ???
Thanks Mike,
I figured it might be a typo. I wasn't trying to cause Lennar a problem and I don't have any
issues with realistic extension as long as ALL the site changes and conditions previously agreed to
are CLEARLY intact.
I work from my home and living next to construction sites on both sides of me for the past two
years hasn't been fun. The next door neighbor finally finished in January and hopefully this will be
Lennar's final extension.
Question?
Can we ask Lennar to finish the demolition of Earl's old docks as a priority condition on their site
plan extension? They have them half taken apart and what's left is unsightly and unsafe, not to
mention structurally unstable with hurricane season approaching. (I know of at least one police
visit to run off kids fishing from the longer dock. How they got out to the end is hard to imagine if
you look at it! )
Thanks again,
Harry
----- Original Message -----
From: Rumpf. Michael
To: Harry Woodworth
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: Error in NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARING ???
Harry, Thank you for informing us of this. The applicant has the responsibility for notifying
adjacent property owners, and we often provide a draft notice for their use. In this case we did
provide a revised ad but the e-mail to the applicant accurately indicated current dates. It
somehow was switched with the old version.
Yes, there is a time extension request in for which this notice was intended to advertise. They
will be asked to provide a copy of the notice mailed out for confirmation. It's unfortunate as
they are progressing with the project and have even hoped for a more expeditious processing of
the time extension, as they now cannot pull further permits until the approval.
Mike
From: Harry Woodworth [mailto:nc4a@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 9:43 PM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Cc: Bressner, Kurt
Subject: Error in NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARING ???
Mike,
3/6/2007
.
Page 2 0[2
I'm not sure who sends these out, but the NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARING that I received
Satu rday
for a Seaview IPUD site plan extension for 1620 N. Federal Hwy appears to have incorrect dates.
The Notice says the CRA hearing is Tuesday March 14th 2006 and the Commission hearing is
Tuesday March 21st, 2006.
Both these dates were Tuesdays last year... but I believe the correct dates for 2007 will differ.
Now I'm not sure if this is year old mail just finding our mailbox, or is there really another site
plan extension?
Can you clarify this please.
Thanks,
Harry Woodworth
3/6/2007