ZV/SV/PDD-2013-02920 Application Nam - Palm Beach County

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 264

Application No. ZV/SV/PDD-2013-02920 BCC District 1 Control No. 1974-00175 Project No. 03000-240

PALM BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

ZONING DIVISION Application No.: ZV/SV/PDD-2013-02920 Application Name: Reynolds Ranch PUD Control No.: 1974-00175 Applicant: K Hovnanian Jupiter LLC Owners: School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida Agent: Gentile Glas Holloway O'Mahoney & Assoc Inc.

Dodi Buckmaster-Glas & George Gentile Telephone No.: (561) 575-9557 Project Manager: Roger Ramdeen, Site Planner II

TITLE: a Type II Variance REQUEST: to allow 100% of the streets to terminate in cul-de-sacs; to reduce the minimum width of open space areas, to allow water management tracts, civic areas and recreation areas to count towards open space; to reduce the front setback for the primary structure, allow accessory structures in the front or side street yard and reduce the setbacks; to increase the height of a fence or wall along the property line or when adjacent to a landscape buffer; and, to allow livestock within RR-PUD. TITLE: a Subdivision Variance REQUEST: to decrease the minimum street width, limit the finished grade on the site, maintain the exisitng lake slopes, eliminate sewer connection and eliminate potable water connections. TITLE: an Official Zoning Map Amendment to a Planned Development District REQUEST: to allow a rezoning from the Agricultural Residential (AR) Zoning District, Community Commercial Zoning District (CC) and Commercial Recreation Zoning District (CRE) to the Rural Residential Planned Unit Development (RR-PUD).

APPLICATION SUMMARY: Proposed is a rezoning of a 150.15-acre parcel of land from the Agricultural

Residential (AR) Zoning District, Community Commercial Zoning District (CC) and Commercial Recreation Zoning District (CRE) to the Rural Residential Planned Unit Development (RR-PUD) Zoning District for the Reynolds Ranch Residential Development. Included in the request are six Type II Variances to allow: 100% of the streets to terminate in cul-de-sacs; reduce the minimum width of open space areas; allow water management tracts, civic areas, and recreation areas, count towards open space; to reduce the front setback for the primary structure; accessory structures in the front or side street yard and reduce the setbacks; increase the height of a fence or wall along the property line or when adjacent to a landscape buffer; and, allow livestock within a RR-PUD. Also included in the request are five Subdivision Variances to decrease the minimum street width, limit the finished grade on the site, maintain the exisitng lake slopes, eliminate sewer and potable water connections. The Preliminary Subdivision Plan indicates 30 single-family lots, recreation and civic parcels, with one access point to the development proposed off Jupiter Farms Road (1).

SITE DATA:

Location: Approximately 1.76 miles south of Indiantown Road on the west side of Jupiter Farms Road. (Reynolds Ranch PUD)

Property Control Number(s) 00-41-41-12-00-000-5020

Existing Land Use Designation: Commercial Recreation, with an underlying RR-10 (CR/RR-10) Commercial Low, with an underlying RR-10 (CL/RR-10) Rural Residential (RR-10)

Proposed Land Use Designation: Rural Residential 1 unit per 5 acres (RR-5) and Commercial Low, with an underlying Rural Residential 1 unit per 5 acres (CL/RR-5)

Existing Zoning District: Commercial Recreation Zoning District (CRE) Agricultural Residential Zoning District (AR) Community Commercial Zoning District (CC)

Proposed Zoning District: RR-PUD and CC

Acreage: 150.15 acres

Tier: Rural Tier

Overlay District: N/A

Neighborhood Plan: Jupiter Farms Neighborhood Plan (JFNP)

CCRT Area: N/A

ZC May 1, 2014 65


Municipalities within 1 Mile N/A

Future Annexation Area N/A

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requests of the Official Zoning Map Amendment, the Type II Variances and Subdivision Variances (SV2 and SV3) subject to the 21 Conditions of Approval as indicated in Exhibit C-1, 7 Conditions of Approval as indicated in Exhibit C-2, and 7 Conditions of Approval as indicated in Exhibit C-3. Staff recommends denial of the Subdivision Variances (SV1, SV4 and SV5). PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY: At the time of publication, staff had received 8 contacts (6 oppose and 2 approve) from the public regarding this project. The general concerns of opposition were related to the preservation of the existing natural areas and to any changes to the community. One contact recognizes the efforts of the Property Owner to protect the existing natural areas and recommends approval. Staff attended two meetings with the Agents, Residents, and Commissioner Valeche on December 18, 2013 and April 9, 2014. At the request of the agent, a meeting was held in December. The primary purpose was to update the residents on the proposed site plan. The agent described the history of the property, the proposed lot layout and the variances requested. The residents left the meeting informed of the site plan and had any concerns or questions answered. The April meeting was also requested by the agent. The purpose was to update the residents of the time frame of the application for the Land Use Amendment (LUA) and the Zoning change. Initially, the intent was to have both applications acted on by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) at the April 28, 2014 meeting; however, the Zoning application was not certified due to an issue from Fire Rescue related to on site fire protection which has been resolved. As a result, the LUA would be presented to the BCC prior to action on the Zoning change which is scheduled for May 22, 2014. To resolve the issue, it was decided that at that public hearing for the LUA, the final motion should include that County Staff bring back the LUA should the Zoning change be denied.

PROJECT HISTORY:

Application No. Resolution and Request Approval Date

74-175A Resolution No. R-90-372. Rezoning from AG to CG 10/04/1990

74-175A Resolution No. R-90-373. SE to permit a PCD to include 1) an auto service station (no repairs); 2) a car wash; and 3) recreation facilities, amusements, an attractions, and exhibits (petting zoo); (if approved, this will extinguish a SE use for commercial sale of products associated with agriculture, in particular, feed, grain, tack supplies, western apparel and similar items)

10/04/1990

82-1(A) Resolution No. 84-506. SE to amend the SP previously approved to include a private mausoleum and chapel

04/17/1984

85-40 Resolution No. 85-958. SE to allow a commercial radio and microwave transmission and relay station and tower including accessory buildings and structures

04/25/1985

CA93-15 Resolution No. 93-898. Conditional Use Motion Picture Production Studio

07/29/2003

74-175A.4 Resolution No. 2001-1200. OZMA from CG to CC; and the revocation SE to permit a PCD to include 1) an auto service station (no repairs); 2) a car wash; and 3) recreation facilities, amusements, an attractions, and exhibits (petting zoo).

07/26/2001

SURROUNDING LAND USES:

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 266


NORTH: FLU Designation: Rural Residential (RR-10) Zoning District: Agricultural Residential District (AR) Supporting: Single Family Residential SOUTH: FLU Designation: Rural Residential (RR-10) Zoning District: Agricultural Residential District (AR) Supporting: Single Family Residential EAST: FLU Designation: Rural Residential (RR-10) Zoning District: Agricultural Residential District (AR) Supporting: Single Family Residential WEST: FLU Designation: Rural Residential (RR-10) Zoning District: Agricultural Residential District (AR) Supporting: Single Family Residential TYPE II VARIANCE SUMMARY

ULDC Article Required Proposed Variance

V1 3.E.1.C.2.a.5 Cul-de-sacs

Maximum 40% 100% Allow 100% to terminate in cul-de-sac

V2 3.E.2.G.3 RR-PUD Property Development Regulations

Open space shall have a minimum width of 150 feet.

Up to a 50 % reduction for the required open space width when the open space is located between residential pods.

Up to a minimum 75 foot width for the required open space when located between residential pods.


All residential, civic, and recreation pods shall be limited to the development area. All improvements, including streets, water management tracts for on-site and street drainage (including R-O-W), excavation, and accessory structures, shall be limited to the development area.

To allow the Water Management Tract, Civic Pod and Recreation Pod to be included as part of the percentage of open space.

Water management tract, civic pod and recreation pod, to be included as part of the percentage of open space.


Primary Structure: Front: 50 feet

Primary Structure: Front: 35 feet

Front: - 15 feet

V5 5.B.1.A

Accessory Structures: No accessory structure shall be located in the front or side street yard.

Accessory structures in the front or side street setback.

Permit accessory structures in the front or side street setback.

V6 5.B.1.A

Accessory Structure: Front: 50 feet; Side: 15 feet; Side Street: 25 feet

Accessory Structure (i.e sheds, barns, detached garages, carports): Front: 20 feet; Side: 7.5 feet; Side Street: 15 feet

Front: - 30 feet; Side: - 7.5 feet; Side Street: - 10 feet

V7 5.B.1.A.10 Accessory uses and

Pool / Spa: Front: 28 feet; Side: 10.5 feet;

Pool / Spa: Front: 20 feet; Side: 7.5 feet;

Front: - 8 feet; Side: - 3 feet; Side Street:

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 267


structures: Swimming pools and spas

Side Street: 18.0 feet Side Street: 15 feet - 3 feet

V8 5.B.1.A.11 Accessory uses and structures: Screen Enclosures

Screen Enclosures: Front: 25.0 feet

Screen Enclosures: Front: 20 feet

Front: - 5 feet

V9 5.B.1.A

Accessory uses and structures: Recreation Amenities: Front: 25 feet

Recreation Amenities (i.e. tennis courts or basketball courts): Front: 20 feet

Front: - 5 feet

V10 5.B.1.A.2 Accessory uses and structures: Fences, walls & hedges

Fences & Walls: Fence height limited to 4 feet in front yard.

5 foot perimeter fences. + 1 foot perimeter fence.

V11 5.B.1.A.2.e Fence Walls & Hedges - Residential Districts

Maximum height of wall or fence on or adjacent to a property line or in a landscape buffer - Front: 4 feet or 6 feet for property owned by PBC for preservation or conservations purposes.

5 foot perimeter fences. + 1 foot perimeter fence.

V12 5.B.1.A.20 Livestock within a PUD

No Livestock within a PUD.

Horses and goats. Allow livestock (horses and goats).

SUBDIVISION VARIANCE SUMMARY

ULDC Article Required Proposed Variance

S1 11.E.2.A.2 Chart of Minor Streets

Minimum Street Width is 60 feet with swales

(Utilizing Art. 11.E.2.C) 48 feet

12 foot reduction

S2 11.E.4.E.1 (e) Tertiary Stormwater System Design and Performance

residential lots with a gross acrea of more than one quarter (¼ acre) to have a finished grade specified in Art. 11.E.4.E.1.d within 20 feet of any principal building site.

Limited Grading Limited Grading

S3 11.E.4.F.4 Lake Slopes

a) Side slopes no steeper than 4 to 1, to a depth of 2 feet

b) b) Side slopes no steeper than 2 to 1, to a depth of 2 feet

c) c) Continuous berm, at least 20 feet wide at a slope of 8 to 1

To keep existing lake slopes

To maintain existing lake slopes

S4 11.E.5.B.2 Sewer Connection

Required to connect to sewer system.

Private sewer/septic No connection

S5 11.E.6.B Potable Water Connection

Required to connect to potable water system

Private water/well No connection

FINDINGS:

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 268


Type II Concurrent Variance Standards: When considering a Development Order application for a Type II Variance, the Zoning Commission shall consider Standards 1 through 7 listed under Article 2.B.3.E of the ULDC. The Standards and Staff Analyses are as indicated below. A Type II Variance which fails to meet any of these Standards shall be deemed adverse to the public interest and shall not be approved. 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the parcel of land,

building or structure that are not applicable to other parcels of land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district:

V1 (Cul-de-Sac) and V2-V3 (Open Space) YES There are special conditions and circumstances which exist for this property. The property is located was included as part of the Jupiter Farms Neighborhood Plan (JFNP) study, which emphasizes the preservation of the natural environment. The subject property is surrounded by single family homes within the Agricultural Residential Zoning District and has been unchanged for several years. Staff notes that the applicant has chosen to develop the site utilizing Option 1 of the RR-PUD regulations which requires 60% open space and 40% developable area. As a result of choosing Option 1, the applicant has designed the Open Space and Development Areas to maximize the preservation of the existing environment, by intertwining the open space around the development areas. V4-V9 (Setbacks) YES The applicant has provided the required 150 foot (ft.) buffer along the perimeter of the property. This buffer adds an additional layer of protection for the surrounding homes. Staff notes that the intent of the RR-PUD is to promote clustering of residential development and preserving natural areas. The request for setback reductions allows for better flexibility and lot layout so that the remaining natural areas can remain more intact. See Figure 8 for example site layouts. V10-V11 (Fences) and V12 (Livestock) YES The subject property is located within the Rural Tier of the County, within the JFNP area, and is surrounding by Agricultural Residential Zoning. Equestrian activities are very common in this area, however the PUD regulations would not allow for livestock to be kept on the property. The applicant is seeking the variance to allow horses and goats within the PUD. Staff notes that the property is located in the midst of this equestrian community. The request for horses and goats is merited considering the lifestyle of the community. Additionally, in order to continue this lifestyle within this Zoning District, it is the applicant’s intent to install higher fences to protect and provide security for these animals. 2. Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant: V1 (Cul-de-Sac), V2-V3 (Open Space), V4-V9 (Setbacks), V10-V11 (Fences) and V12 (Livestock) YES The special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. As noted above under the analysis for Standard #1, the proposed development is designed to protect and preserve the existing natural environment. Although the site has been disturbed in the past, the existing character of the property is very much in harmony with the surrounding properties and has been unchanged for several years. The proposed design of the site is to maximize amount of preservation, while providing a minimal impact. The request for the increase height of fences and allowance for livestock is to continue a lifestyle, raising livestock and horses that are seen within the surrounding zoning district accessory to the single-family homes. 3. Granting the variance shall not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied

by the Comprehensive Plan and this Code to other parcels of land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district:

V1 (Cul-de-Sac), V2-V3 (Open Space), V4-V9 (Setbacks), V10-V11 (Fences) and V12 (Livestock) YES

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 269


Granting the variance does not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Comprehensive Plan and the Code to other parcels of land, structures or buildings in an RR-PUD Zoning District. The proposed development is designed to protect and preserve the existing natural environment and continue a rural lifestyle that is compatible with the surrounding uses and Zoning District. 4. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Code would

deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels of land in the same zoning district, and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship:

V1 (Cul-de-Sac), V2-V3 (Open Space), V4-V9 (Setbacks), V10-V11 (Fences) and V12 (Livestock) YES The literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zoning district, and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship. The proposed development is the first RR-PUD proposed within the County. The regulations differ from the regulations of a PUD within the Urban/Suburban Tier, requiring additional limitations on preservation and open space. The proposed design maximizes the preservation of the natural elements of site. Literal interpretation of the Open Space/Development percentage allocation would provide an unnecessary hardship. The design is unique in layout. Additionally literal interpretation of the Code would prohibit this Rural PUD from having livestock on the properties, which is common for the adjacent single-family use and zoning district. Since the PUD regulations are generally geared towards properties located within the urban areas, variances are necessary to implement a RR-PUD which is located in the Rural Tier of the County. 5. Grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of

the parcel of land, building or structure: V1 (Cul-de-Sac), V2-V3 (Open Space), V4-V9 (Setbacks), V10-V11 (Fences) and V12 (Livestock) YES The granting of these variances is the minimum variance possible to make reasonable use of the land given the request. 6. Grant of the variance will be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and

policies of the Comprehensive Plan and this Code: V1 (Cul-de-Sac), V2-V3 (Open Space), V4-V9 (Setbacks), V10-V11 (Fences) and V12 (Livestock) YES Granting the requested variances is consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the Code. The variances will allow the applicant to develop the property as a PUD while adhering to the purpose and intent of the RR-PUD to protect and preserve the natural environment. In allowing these variances to move forward, the greater goal of the Comprehensive Plan and the Code is met. 7. Granting the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental

to the public welfare: V1 (Cul-de-Sac), V2-V3 (Open Space), V4-V9 (Setbacks), V10-V11 (Fences) and V12 (Livestock) YES The granting of this variance would not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to public welfare. Furthermore, the ultimate goal and intent of the development is to preserve and protect the existing natural environment. Type II Concurrent Subdivision Variance: (Analysis provided by the Land Development Division) When considering a Development Order application for a Type II Variance, the Zoning Commission shall consider Standards 1 through 7 listed under Article 2.B.3.E of the ULDC. The Standards and Staff Analyses are as indicated below. A Subdivision Variance which fails to meet any of these

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 270


Standards shall be deemed adverse to the public interest and shall not be approved. 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the parcel of land,

building or structure that are not applicable to other parcels of land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district:

S2 (Grading) and S3 (Lake slopes) YES The site’s pre-development natural lakes and existing vegetation are unique to this area and every effort should be made to preserve the site’s pristine nature. S1 (Street Width), S4 (Sewer connection) and S5 (Water connection) NO While the proposed development may align with the JFNP, the project does not meet these particular ULDC requirements and there is nothing peculiar about the property that prevents ULDC compliance. There are no special conditions that justify the additional four foot reduction in the required right of way beyond the 8-foot reduction that the property owner may request by ULDC. The area residents in opposition to utility connections do not create a special circumstance peculiar to this parcel of land. 2. Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant: S2 (Grading) and S3 (Lake slopes) YES The site’s pre-development natural lakes and existing vegetation are not a result from the actions of the applicant and merit to be preserved to the greatest extent practical. S1 (Street Width), S4 (Sewer connection) and S5 (Water connection) NO While the proposed development may align with the JFNP, the project does not meet these particular ULDC requirements and there are no special circumstances beyond the property owner’s control that relate to the right of way widths and public utility connections. 3. Granting the variance shall not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied

by the Comprehensive Plan and this Code to other parcels of land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district:

S1 (Street Width), S2 (Grading), S3 (Lake slopes), S4 (Sewer connection) and S5 (Water connection) YES There are currently no other parcels in this same proposed zoning district that this variance criteria would apply to. This is the first time a RR-PUD has been requested in Palm Beach County. 4. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Code would

deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels of land in the same zoning district, and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship:

S1 (Street Width), S4 (Sewer connection) and S5 (Water connection) NO While there are currently no other properties with the same zoning district, the ULDC required improvements do not work an unnecessary or an undue hardship. The applicant could provide these improvements and had not adequately justified the necessity for this request. S2 (Grading) and S3 (Lake slopes) YES Literal interpretation of the lot grading and lake bank slopes sections of the ULDC would work an unnecessary and undue hardship. The lakes are not man-made but exist in the current condition. As a result of choosing Option 1, the applicant has designed the development and open space areas primarily around the existing natural environment which is generally in pristine condition 5. Grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of

the parcel of land, building or structure: S2 (Grading) and S3 (Lake slopes) YES Grant of the minimum variance will allow for development to protect the existing land features to the greatest extent possible. S1 (Street Width), S4 (Sewer connection) and S5 (Water connection) NO

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 271


This parcel of land could be developed in a residential manner without benefit of variances from the standard right of way width or from the requirement to connect to public utilities. 6. Grant of the variance will be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and

policies of the Comprehensive Plan and this Code: S2 (Grading) and S3 (Lake slopes) YES Grant of these variances to protect the natural elements is consistent with the Code and Comprehensive Plan. S1 (Street Width), S4 (Sewer connection) and S5 (Water connection) NO Article 11 requires installation of on-site improvements for new development, which is necessary to meet or maintain the levels of service required under the Concurrency Management System of the Plan and to ensure provision of safe, convenient legal and physical access to and circulation among lots for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Granting of these variances is specifically inconsistent with the policies of the Subdivision Ordinance of Article 11 A.1.B. the ULDC. 7. Granting the variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental

to the public welfare: S2 (Grading) and S3 (Lake slopes) YES Grant of these variances will not be injurious to the area involved or detrimental to the public welfare as the issues are wholly contained within the private property. Grant of these variances will not be injurious to the area involved or detrimental to the public welfare for the residents of the PUD as the property still must adhere to minimum standards to address and meet public welfare standards. S1 (Street Width), S4 (Sewer connection) and S5 (Water connection) NO Grant of these variances may be injurious to the area involved or detrimental to public welfare as the request will not meet minimum standards established by the County for Right of Way width and water and sewer connection standards. ULDC Article 11.A.1.B Purpose and Intent is to ensure that the citizens and taxpayers of PBC will not have to bear the costs resulting from haphazard subdivision of land or failure by the developer to provide adequate and necessary physical improvements of lasting quality; and Article 11.A .1.B .10 . Purpose and Intent is to ensure the purchaser of land in a subdivision that necessary infrastructure improvements have been provided in accordance with PBC standards for design and construction, and that associated rights and obligations have been established for the use and maintenance of said improvements. FINDINGS: Rezoning Standards: When considering a Development Order application for an Official Zoning Map Amendment to a Standard Zoning District or a rezoning to a PDD or TDD, the BCC and ZC shall consider Standards 1-7 listed under Article 2.B.1.B of the ULDC. The Standards and Staff Analyses are indicated below. An Amendment, which fails to meet any of these standards shall be deemed adverse to the public interest and shall not be approved. 1. Consistency with the Plan - The proposed amendment is consistent with the Plan. Current Future Land Use (FLU) Designation: Rural Residential 1 unit per 10 acres (RR-10) on 133.52acres; Commercial Low with an underlying Rural Residential 1 unit per 10 acres (CL/RR-10) on 4.4 acres; and Commercial Recreation with an underlying Rural Residential 1 unit per 10 acres (CR/RR-10) on 15 acres. Proposed Future Land Use: The site is the subject of a Large Scale Amendment known as LGA2014-003 Burt Reynolds Ranch to amend 150.15 acres from RR-10, CL/RR-10 and CR/RR-10 to Rural Residential 1 unit per 5 acres (RR-5) and to amend 2.77 acres from CL/RR-10 to CL/RR-5. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use or amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including densities and intensities of use.

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 272


Density: The applicant is requesting a total of 30 units, which is consistent with the proposed RR-5 land use designation, where the applicant is permitted 0.20 dwelling units per acre for standard density, when not developed as a Planned Unit Development (150.15 x 0.20 RR-5 standard density = 30 dwelling units). Workforce Housing is not applicable in the Rural Tier. Land Use Amendments: The site is the subject of a Large Scale Amendment known as LGA2014-003 Burt Reynolds Ranch to amend 150.15 acres from RR-10, CL/RR-10 and CR/RR-10 to Rural Residential 1 unit per 5 acres (RR-5) and to amend 2.77 acres from CL/RR-10 to CL/RR-5. The request was heard at the December 13, 2013 Local Planning Agency and Transmitted by the BCC January 27, 2014 with a vote of 7-0 to transmit. Special Overlay District/ Neighborhood Plan/Planning Study Area: The subject site is located within the boundaries of Jupiter Farms Neighborhood Plan (JFNP). The request is not inconsistent with the neighborhood plan. The applicant met with the neighborhood group on several occasions and continues to meet with the residents. The applicant identified in the justification several concerns from the neighborhood group as follows: density, light intrusion and a desire to keep the area as it is. 2. Consistency with the Code - The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any portion of

this Code, and is consistent with the stated purpose and intent of this Code. The proposed request to rezone the parcel of land from the AR to the RR-PUD Zoning District is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Code. Subject to approval of the variances and the Land Use Amendment the site design proposed maximizes the preservation of existing vegetation and site elements (lakes), intertwining the Open Space around the proposed Development Area. Parking: The proposed 30 single-family dwelling units require two parking spaces per unit. Compliance will be determined at the time of building permit for each single-family home. Sufficient area is provided to support the required parking. Landscaping: The Preliminary Master Site Plan indicates the required 20 foot Right-of-Way (ROW) buffer to the south and a 150 foot landscape buffer to the north, east and west. The proposed request complies with these requirements. The development incorporates a 150 feet foot perimeter open space buffer. The applicant’s Justification Statement describes this area to incorporate the native vegetation as when an interconnected trail system. The Master Plan describes both a private and public Pedestrian and Equestrian Trail. These trails will be a valuable amenity not only to the residents of the PUD, but for the surrounding community as well. See Exhibit F for example site layouts. Architecture: The proposed request for a 30 lot single-family subdivision is not subject to the requirements of the Architectural Guidelines, Article 5.C. Signage: Details of the signage has not been provided at this time. At time of Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall provide the details of their signage within the Master Sign Plan. See Signage Conditions. 3. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses - The proposed amendment is compatible, and

generally consistent with existing uses and surrounding zoning districts, and is the appropriate zoning district for the parcel of land. In making this finding, the BCC may apply an alternative zoning district.

The proposed rezoning request is compatible as defined in the Code and generally consistent with the residential uses and character of the land surrounding and in the vicinity of the parcel of land proposed for development. 4. Effect on Natural Environment – The proposed amendment will not result in significantly

adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands, and the natural functioning of the environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMENTS:

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 273


VEGETATION PROTECTION: While the entire property is heavily vegetated, the majority of the vegetation in the previously developed portion of the site is mostly exotic. The native vegetation is mostly located on the western end of the site, along the border areas and around the wetland areas. Most of this material will be preserved in the preserve/ buffer/ trail area located in between the development area and the property borders. Native trees that are unable to be preserved in place, shall be mitigated on the site. WELLFIELD PROTECTION ZONE: The property is not located with a Wellfield Protection Zone. IRRIGATION CONSERVATION CONCERNS AND SURFACE WATER: All new installations of automatic irrigation systems shall be equipped with a water sensing device that will automatically discontinue irrigation during periods of rainfall pursuant to the Water and Irrigation Conservation Ordinance No. 93 3. Any non stormwater discharge or the maintenance or use of a connection that results in a non stormwater discharge to the stormwater system is prohibited pursuant to Palm Beach County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Ordinance No. 93 15. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The site has no outstanding contamination issues. There are no significant environmental issues associated with this petition beyond compliance with ULDC requirements. 5. Development Patterns – The proposed amendment will result in a logical, orderly, and timely

development pattern. The subject site is currently vacant and surrounded by existing residential properties with the exception of the feed store that fronts on Jupiter Farms Road. Though the single-family homes adjacent to the site have an RR-10 land use, they are developed less than that minimum acreage requirement. The proposed lot sizes are compatible with what is in the area, and the pattern of development proposed is logical with the surrounding pattern. The proposed zoning change to the RR-PUD Zoning District will allow the uses on the subject parcel to be consistent with the surrounding properties. 6. Adequate Public Facilities – The proposed amendment complies with Art. 2.F, Concurrency.

ENGINEERING COMMENTS: The Property Owner shall obtain a Right of Way Permit from the Palm Beach County Engineering Department, Permit Section, for access onto, or work within Jupiter Farms Road.

The Property Owner shall obtain a Land Development Permit and record a subdivision plat in accordance with an approved subdivision plan prior to issuance of a building permit. TRAFFIC IMPACTS The Property Owner has estimated the build-out of the project to be December 31, 2018. The proposed project is expected to generate 300 daily and 36 PM peak hour trips. Additional traffic is subject to review for compliance with the Traffic Performance Standard. There are no improvements to the roadway system required for compliance with the Traffic Performance Standards because this project has an insignificant impact on the surrounding roadway network. ADJACENT ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE (PM PEAK) Segment: Jupiter Farms Rd from Site to Indiantown Rd Existing count: Northbound=319, Southbound=703 Background growth: Northbound=8, Southbound=18 Project Trips: Northbound=13, Southbound=23 Total Traffic: Northbound=340, Southbound=744 Present laneage: 2 Lanes Assured laneage: 2 Lanes LOS “D” capacity: 1140 vehicle per hour (directional) Projected level of service: LOS D or better PALM BEACH COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT: No Staff Review Analysis

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 274


FIRE PROTECTION: No Staff Review Analysis SCHOOL IMPACTS: In accordance with adopted school concurrency, a Concurrency Determination for 30 single family units had been approved on September 13, 2013 (Concurrency Case #13083002C). The subject property is located within Concurrency Service Area 2 (SAC 003A).

This project is estimated to generate approximately nine (9) public school students. The schools currently serving this project area are: Jupiter Farms Elementary School, Watson B. Duncan Middle School and Jupiter Community High School. PARKS AND RECREATION: No Staff Review Analysis 7. Changed Conditions or Circumstances – There are demonstrated changed conditions or

circumstances that necessitate the amendment. Subject to the approval of the Land Use Amendment and the Variances, the applicant states that the proposed 30 lot single-family subdivision will be in keeping with the surrounding existing community. The proposed Preliminary Master Site Plan serves to protect and enhance the existing natural resources. The property was purchased by the Palm Beach County School Board to develop the site with a School, however, redevelopment and reinvestment options were pursued for the surrounding schools and the site has been considered excess property. Prior to the sale of the property, the property was used for both residential and non-residential uses, which includes a film studio which is no longer in operation. CONCLUSION: Staff has evaluated the standards listed under Article 2.B.2.B 1-7 and determined that there is a balance between the need of change and the potential impacts generated by this change; therefore, staff is recommending approval of the zoning change. Staff has also determined that any of the potential impact and incompatibility issues will be adequately addressed subject to the recommended conditions of approval as indicated in Exhibit C-1.

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 275


CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT C-1 PDD- Residential Planned Development District ALL PETITIONS 1. Development of the site is limited to the uses and site design approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The approved Preliminary Master Site Plan is dated March 13, 2014. All modifications to the Development Order must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners or Zoning Commission, unless the proposed changes are required to meet Conditions of Approval. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) 2. The previous use approval for a Class A Conditional Use allowing a Motion Picture Productions Studio applicable to the subject property, as contained in Resolution R-93-898 (Control No. CA93-15), is hereby voided. 3. All previous Conditions of Approval applicable to the subject property, as contained in Resolution R-93-898 (Control No. 1993-00051), have been deleted. ENGINEERING 1. In order to comply with the mandatory Traffic Performance Standards, the Property Owner shall be restricted to the following phasing schedule: a. No Building Permits for the site may be issued after 12/31/2018. A time extension for this condition may be approved by the County Engineer based upon an approved Traffic Study which complies with Mandatory Traffic Performance Standards in place at the time of the request. This extension request shall be made pursuant to the requirements of Art. 2.E of the Unified Land Development Code. (BLDGPMT/DATE: MONITORING - Engineering) 2. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Property Owner shall construct a 5 feet wide (minimum) sidewalk along the property frontage within Jupiter Farms Road concurrent with the onsite construction. The property frontage shall include all areas between the north property line and the south property line including out parcels. (BLDGPMT/CO/ONGOING: MONITORING - Engineering) 3. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner shall provide to Palm Beach County sufficient public road drainage easement(s) through the project's internal drainage system, as required by and approved by the County Engineer, to provide legal positive outfall for runoff from those segments of Jupiter Farms Road along the property frontage; and a maximum of an additional 800 feet of these adjacent roadway(s). The limits of this additional 800 feet of drainage shall be determined by the County Engineer. Said easements shall be no less than 20 feet in width. Portions of such system not included within roadways or waterways dedicated for drainage purposes will be specifically encumbered by said minimum 20 foot drainage easement from the point of origin, to the point of legal positive outfall. The drainage system within the project shall have sufficient water quality, water quantity and, when necessary, compensating storage capacity within this project s system as required by all permitting agencies, as well as conveyance capacity to meet the storm water discharge and treatment requirements of Palm Beach County, the applicable Drainage District, and the South Florida Water Management District, for the combined runoff from the project to accommodate the ultimate Thoroughfare Plan Road Section(s) of the included segment. Specifically, one lane must be open during the 25-year, 3-day storm and the elevation for the 3-year, 1-day storm event shall provide sufficient freeboard to allow for efficient roadway drainage system design. If required and approved by the County Engineer, the property owner shall construct within the proposed drainage easements a minimum of 24 inch closed piping system and appropriate wingwall or other structures as required by and approved by the County Engineer. Elevation and location of the entire drainage system shall be approved by the County Engineer. Any and all excess fill material from excavation by Palm Beach County within said easements shall become the property of Palm Beach County which at its discretion may use this fill material. The Property Owner shall not record these required easements or related documents. After final acceptance of the location, legal sketches and dedication documents, Palm Beach County shall record all appropriate deeds and documents. (BLDGPMT: MONITORING - Engineering)

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 276


LANDSCAPE - GENERAL 1. Concurrent with the submittal for Final Approval by the Development Review Officer , the Property Owner shall submit a Landscape Plan and/or an Alternative Landscape Plan to the Landscape Section for review and approval. The Plan(s) shall be prepared in compliance with all landscape related Conditions of Approval as contained herein. (DRO/ONGOING: LANDSCAPE - Zoning) 2. A minimum of sixty (60) percent of canopy trees to be planted in the landscape buffers shall be native and meet the following minimum standards at installation: a. tree height: fourteen (14) feet to sixteen (16) feet staggard heights; and, b. credit may be given for existing or relocated trees provided they meet the Unified Land Development Code requirements. (DRO/ONGOING: LANDSCAPE - Zoning) 3. All pines required to be planted on the property shall meet the following minimum standards at installation: a. pines shall be planted in clusters of five (5) to seven (7) pines. Pine height shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet to sixteen (16) feet at installation; and, b. credit may be given for existing pines provided they meet current Unified Land Development Code requirements. (DRO/ONGOING: LAND DEVELOPMENT - Zoning) LANDSCAPE - INTERIOR 4. Prior to Final Approval by the Development Review Officer, all landscape focal points shall be shown on the Regulating Plan(s), and shall be subject to review and approval by the Landscape Section. (DRO/ONGOING: LANDSCAPE - Zoning) LANDSCAPE - PERIMETER-LANDSCAPING ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE (FRONTAGE OR JUPITER FARMS ROAD) 5. LANDSCAPING ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE (FRONTAGE OR JUPITER FARMS ROAD) In addition to the Code requirements, landscaping along the east property line shall be upgraded to include: a. a minimum twenty (20) foot wide landscape buffer strip; and, b. one (1) native palm and one (1) pine for each for each thirty (30) linear feet of the property line. The Palms and Pines may be clustered for a naturalistic planting design. (DRO/ONGOING: LANDSCAPE - Zoning) LANDSCAPE - PERIMETER-LANDSCAPING ALONG THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINES 6. In addition to the Code requirements, landscaping and/or buffer width along the north, south and west property lines shall be upgraded to include: a. a minimum one hundred and fifty (150) foot wide landscape buffer strip; and b. existing native plant material shall be preserved and incoporated within the buffer area to the greatest extent possible and utilized as required landscaping. (DRO/ONGOING: LANDSCAPE - Zoning) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1. Prior to Final Approval by the Development Review Officer, the Master and Regulating Plans shall be revised to indicate the location and detail of the Public and Private Trails. These trails shall incorporate the following: a. be minimum five (5) feet in width; b. a minimum of one (1) pedestrian benches with hitching post every 750 feet; c. one (1) pedestrian trail amenities on the north and west property lines; d. two (2) pedestrian trail amenities at each end of the proposed Water Tract; and e. details for all items indicated above shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Division. (DRO: ZONING - Zoning) PROPERTY & REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT 1. PLATTING & DEED The Property Owner shall provide Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners with a Statutory Warranty Deed on a 1.6 acre public civic site, in a location and form acceptable to Facilities,

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 277


Development & Operations Department (FD&O) by July 20, 2016. Property Owner to plat and dedicate the civic site to Palm Beach County prior to conveying the deed, and shall have satisfied each of the following conditions prior to deed conveyance. a) Title Property Owner to provide a title policy insuring marketable title to Palm Beach County for the civic site and any easements that service the civic site as required by the County Attorney s office. All title exception documentation to be provided to County. Policy is subject to Property & Real Estate Management Department's (PREM) and County Attorney's approval. The title policy to be insured to Palm Beach County for a dollar value based on current market appraisal of the proposed civic site or the Contract purchase price on a per acre basis if the contract purchase was concluded within the previous 24 month period. If an appraisal is required it shall be obtained by the Property Owner. The Property Owner shall release the County from all Declarations of Covenants and Conditions of the P.U.D. or other restrictive covenants as they may apply to the civic site. b) Concurrency Property Owner to assign sufficient traffic trip capacity such that the traffic volume associated with a County facility shall be attached to the civic site and recorded on the concurrency reservation for the entire PUD. The Property Owner shall be provided with input as to the size of a structure (and proposed use) which the civic site would support and the corresponding amount of trips. If no County use is applied to the civic site, Property Owner shall assign sufficient traffic trip capacity equivalent to the number of units the civic would support if it were a residential pod. c) Taxes All ad valorem real estate taxes and assessments for the year of acceptance shall be pro-rated to include the day of acceptance. d) Site condition Civic site to be free and clear of all trash and debris at the time of acceptance of the Statutory Warranty Deed. e) Retention and Drainage Property Owner shall provide all retention, detention, and drainage required for any future development of the proposed civic site by the County. Property Owner shall specifically address the following issues: 1) The discharge of surface water from the proposed civic site into the Property Owner s water retention basins. 2) As easement across Property Owner's property from the proposed civic site to the retention basins, if required. f) On-Site Inspections By acceptance of these conditions Property Owner agrees to allow the County to perform any on site inspections and testing deemed appropriate to support the acquisition of the civic site. g) Vegetation Permit Property Owner to perform a tree survey and obtain a vegetation clearing permit. If it is determined by PREM that clearing is not required at time of conveyance, the cost of such clearing shall be paid to the County. h) Buildable Grade Prepare civic site to buildable grade under the direction of the Facilities Development & Operations Department. Site shall be stabilized with 1) sod and watered or, 2) seeded, mulched and watered (until seed has established itself) to the satisfaction of Facilities Development and Operations. i) Water & Sewer Property Owner to provide water and sewer stubbed out to the property line and other required utilities as determined by PREM. (DATE: MONITORING - Property Real Estate Management)

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 278


2. SURVEY The Property Owner shall provide the County with a survey certified to Palm Beach County of the proposed civic site by May 20, 2016. Survey shall reflect the boundary and topographical areas of the site and the surveyor shall use the following criteria: a) The survey shall meet Minimum Technical Standards for a Boundary Survey as prescribed by F.A.C.21HH.6. b) If this parcel is a portion of Palm Beach Farms, sufficient data to make a mathematical overlay should be provided. c) The survey should include a location of any proposed water retention area that will border the civic site. Survey is also subject to the County's approval of any proposed or existing easements within the proposed civic site and all title exceptions are to be shown on the survey. (DATE: MONITORING - Property Real Estate Management) 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY The Property Owner shall provide PREM with an Environmental Assessment certified to Palm Beach County of the proposed civic site by May 20, 2016. The minimum assessment which is required is commonly called a “Phase I Audit”. The audit shall describe the environmental conditions of the property and identify the past and current land use. The assessment will include but not be limited to the following: a) Review of property abstracts for all historical ownership data for evidence of current and past land use of the proposed civic site. b) Review of local, state, and federal regulatory agency's enforcement and permitting records for indication of prior groundwater or soil contamination. Also, a review of the neighboring property that borders the proposed civic site will be required. The review shall include, but not be limited to, Palm Beach County Environmental Resources Management Department Records, and Florida Department of Regulation Records. The assessment shall reflect whether the civic site or any bordering property is on the following lists: 1) EPA's National Priorities list (NPL) 2) Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act System List (CERCLA) 3) Hazardous Waste Data Management System List (HWDMS). c) Review of current and historical aerial photographs of the proposed civic site. Provide a recent aerial showing site and surrounding properties. d) The results of an on-site survey to describe site conditions and to identify potential area of contamination. e) Review of Wellfield Protection Zone maps to determine if property is located in a Wellfield Zone. If the Phase I audit indicates that a Phase II is necessary, then the property owner shall be required to provide that audit as well. (DATE: MONITORING - Property Real Estate Management) 4. Cash-Out The Property Owner may request to exchange the required on-site dedication of land for cash of equal value or off-site land equal in acreage, however, this option shall be used only upon County approval when the County has established that the cash or offsite land enhances or supports a County property, facility or function in the general vicinity of the PUD. In addition, should the off-site land option be chosen, each PREM condition listed in numbers 1, 2 & 3 above will also apply. If the land off-site is of less cash value than the on-site dedication the Property Owner shall contribute cash equal to the difference in values. Valuation of the on-site and off-site land shall be subject to the

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 279


County appraisal process and be at the cost of the Property Owner. If off-site land or cash contribution is accepted by Palm Beach County, the Property Owner shall be deemed to have satisfied the intent of ULDC. (ONGOING/PLAT: PROPERTY REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT - Property Real Estate Management) SCHOOL BOARD 1. The property owner shall post a notice of annual boundary school assignments for students from this development. A sign 11” X 17” shall be posted in a clear and visible location in all sales offices and models with the following: “NOTICE TO PARENTS OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN” School age children may not be assigned to the public school closest to their residences. School Board policies regarding levels of service or other boundary policy decisions affect school boundaries. Please contact the Palm Beach County School District Boundary Office at (561) 434-8100 for the most current school assignment(s). (ONGOING: SCHOOL BOARD - School Board) COMPLIANCE 1. In Granting this Approval, the Board of County Commissioners relied upon the oral and written representations of the Property Owner/Applicant both on the record and as part of the application process. Deviations from or violation of these representations shall cause the Approval to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for review under the Compliance Condition of this Approval. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) 2. Failure to comply with any of the Conditions of Approval for the subject property at any time may result in: a. The Issuance of a Stop Work Order; the Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order; the Denial or Revocation of a Building Permit; the Denial or Revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy; the Denial of any other Permit, License or Approval to any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the Revocation of any other permit, license or approval from any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the Revocation of any concurrency; and/or b. The Revocation of the Official Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or any other zoning approval; and/or c. A requirement of the development to conform with the standards of the Unified Land Development Code at the time of the finding of non-compliance, or the addition or modification of conditions reasonably related to the failure to comply with existing Conditions of Approval; and/or d. Referral to Code Enforcement; and/or e. Imposition of entitlement density or intensity. Staff may be directed by the Executive Director of PZ&B or the Code Enforcement Special Master to schedule a Status Report before the body which approved the Official Zoning Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or other zoning approval, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.E of the ULDC, in response to any flagrant violation and/or continued violation of any Condition of Approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) DISCLOSURE 1. All applicable state or federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development authorized by this Development Permit.

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 280


CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT C-2 Type II Variance - Concurrent ALL PETITIONS 1. Development of the site is limited to the uses and site design approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The approved Preliminary Master Site Plan is dated March 13, 2014. All modifications to the Development Order must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners or Zoning Commission, unless the proposed changes are required to meet Conditions of Approval. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) VARIANCE 2. The Development Order for this Variance shall be tied to the Time Limitations of the Development Order for ZV/SV/PDD-2013-02920. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) 3. At time of application for a Building Permit, the Property Owner shall provide a copy of this Variance approval along with copies of the approved Plan to the Building Division. (BLDGPMT/ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) 4. This Variance is approved for the thirty (30) single-family lot subdivision. Any change to the use(s) shall require reconsideration of the Variance by the Zoning Commission. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) 5. In Granting this Approval, the Zoning Commission relied upon the oral and written representations of the Property Owner/Applicant both on the record and as part of the application process. Deviations from or violation of these representations shall cause the approval to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for review under the compliance Condition of this Approval. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) 6. Failure to comply with any of the Conditions of Approval for the subject property at any time may result in: a. The Issuance of a Stop Work Order; the Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order; the Denial or Revocation of a Building Permit; the Denial or Revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy; the Denial of any other Permit, License or Approval to any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the Revocation of any other Permit, License or Approval from any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the Revocation of any concurrency; and/or, b. The Revocation of the Official Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or any other Zoning Approval; and/or, c. A requirement of the development to conform with the standards of the Unified Land Development Code at the time of the finding of non-compliance, or the addition or modification of Conditions reasonably related to the failure to comply with existing Conditions; and/or d. Referral to Code Enforcement; and/or e. Imposition of entitlement density or intensity. Staff may be directed by the Executive Director of PZ&B or the Code Enforcement Special Master to schedule a Status Report before the body which approved the Official Zoning Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or other zoning approval, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.E of the ULDC, in response to any flagrant violation and/or continued violation of any condition of approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) DISCLOSURE 1. All applicable state or federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development authorized by this Development Permit.

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 281


CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT C-3 Subdivision Variance ENGINEERING 1. Earthwork and site grading shall be conducted in a manner so as to not create stormwater management issues and shall be as approved by the County Engineer. (ONGOING: ENGINEERING - Engineering) 2. The existing lake bank slopes are permitted to remain in the pre-development condition provided that the existing slope is a maximum slope of seven feet horizontal to one foot vertical (7:1) for the lake maintenance easement and a maximum slope of three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1) from the top of bank to two feet below the control elevation. (ONGOING: ENGINEERING - Engineering) VARIANCE 1. The Development Order for this Variance shall be tied to the Time Limitations of the Development Order for ZV/SV/PDD-2013-02920. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) 2. At time of application for a Building Permit, the Property Owner shall provide a copy of this Variance approval along with copies of the approved Plan to the Building Division. (BLDGPMT/ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) 3. In Granting this Approval, the Zoning Commission relied upon the oral and written representations of the Property Owner/Applicant both on the record and as part of the application process. Deviations from or violation of these representations shall cause the approval to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for review under the compliance Condition of this Approval. (ONGOING: ZONING - Zoning) 4. Failure to comply with any of the Conditions of Approval for the subject property at any time may result in: a. The Issuance of a Stop Work Order; the Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order; the Denial or Revocation of a Building Permit; the Denial or Revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy; the Denial of any other Permit, License or Approval to any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the Revocation of any other Permit, License or Approval from any developer, owner, lessee, or user of the subject property; the Revocation of any concurrency; and/or, b. The Revocation of the Official Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or any other Zoning Approval; and/or, c. A requirement of the development to conform with the standards of the Unified Land Development Code at the time of the finding of non-compliance, or the addition or modification of Conditions reasonably related to the failure to comply with existing Conditions; and/or d. Referral to Code Enforcement; and/or e. Imposition of entitlement density or intensity. Staff may be directed by the Executive Director of PZ&B or the Code Enforcement Special Master to schedule a Status Report before the body which approved the Official Zoning Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Requested Use, Development Order Amendment, and/or other zoning approval, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.E of the ULDC, in response to any flagrant violation and/or continued violation of any condition of approval. (ONGOING: MONITORING - Zoning) DISCLOSURE 1. All applicable state or federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development authorized by this Development Permit.

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 282


Figure 1 Land Use Map

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 283


Figure 2 Zoning Map

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 284


Figure 3 Aerial

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 285


Figure 4 Preliminary Master Plan PMP-1 dated March 13, 2014

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 286


Figure 5 Preliminary Master Plan PMP-2 dated March 13, 2014 (Pedestrian Pathway Plan)

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 287


Figure 6 Preliminary Regulating Plan PRP-1 dated March 13, 2014

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 288


Figure 7 Preliminary Regulating Plan PRP-2 dated March 13, 2014

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 289


Figure 8 – Examples of Site Layout A

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 290


Figure 8 – Examples of Site Layout B

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 291


Figure 8 – Examples of Site Layout C

ZC May 1, 2014 2


Figure 8 – Examples of Site Layout D

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 293


Exhibit D - Disclosures

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 294


ZC May 1, 2014 Page 295


ZC May 1, 2014 Page 296


ZC May 1, 2014 Page 297


ZC May 1, 2014 Page 298


ZC May 1, 2014 Page 299


ZC May 1, 2014 Page 300


ZC May 1, 2014 Page 301


Exhibit E – Applicant’s Justification Statement

Justification Statement

Reynolds Ranch PUD

Official Zoning Map Amendment to PDD and

Type II Variance Request

UPDATED March 24, 2014

Gentile Glas Holloway O'Mahoney & Associates, Inc. as agent for the Applicant, K. Hovnanian at Jupiter Farms is

requesting an Official Zoning Map Amendment (OZMA) to a Rural Residential Planned Unit Development (RR-PUD),

Concurrency Certificate and Type II Variances for Reynolds Ranch PUD.

The subject property is a 150 acre site located on the west side of Jupiter Farms Road approximately 1.77 miles south of

Indiantown Road. The subject site was once the home and farm of the Burt Reynolds family. The subject site has multiple

land use designations and had been previously used for both residential and non-residential uses. Currently, 133.522 acres of

the site have a Rural Residential 1 unit per 10 acres (RR-10) Future Land Use Designation and has a Zoning District

Designation of Agricultural Residential (AR). Fifteen (15) acres of the site has a Commercial Recreation (CR) with an

underlying RR-10 Future Land Use Designation and a Zoning District Designation of Commercial Recreation (CRE). At one

time this area of the property was used as a motion picture production studio. On the remaining 4.4 acres of the site the

property has a Future Land Use Designation of Commercial-Low (CL) with an underlying RR-10. The Zoning District

designation on this portion of the site is Community Commercial (CC). This portion of the site fronts along Jupiter Farms

Road and continues to operate as Feed Store, providing goods and services for the adjacent community. It also serves as a

community gathering facility.

The Reynolds Estate was eventually sold, and the School District of Palm Beach County purchased the site for a future public

school location. With the redevelopment/reinvestment made into Jupiter Community High School, the completion of Jupiter

Farms Elementary and several other newer junior high and elementary schools being added within the vicinity the school

board deemed this excess property. It was determined that property was no longer needed for a future school as there were

adequate facilities to meet the demand of the existing and future population of the area. The applicant successfully negotiated

a contract for purchase of the property with the School District of Palm Beach County for this site, which was approved and

amended on July 17th

, 2013.

It is important to note that besides being a site of a “famous” family, and the home of an “iconic” community feedstore, this

site has served as a slice of old Florida to area residents. The Jupiter Farms community prides its self on being rural and

wanting to stay that way. Over the years, as development patterns have pushed for more urban character, this community

has held to a rural lifestyle. As has been noted the site is subject to a land use plan amendment which would permit more

units on the site, but is allowed under the RRPUD for the rural character to be better protected. It will permit homes to be

clustered and the more natural areas to be protected and maintained in perpetuity in connected open space. Furthermore

variances are being requested to allow for consideration of trees and protecting the existing soils in the location of homes and

the accompany structures of home owners. We seek flexibility to protect the land in a way that is consistent with more

innovated rural development practices.

Based upon the environmental report, the site has been disturbed but the tree survey and environmental analysis shows

scattered areas of native vegetation and wetlands. Consistent with the RRPUD intent, this project is being designed to restore

and maintain the rural character, the historic character, and the slice of Florida this site represents. In order to do this, great

care must be taken to site homes and further development on the site in a way that works with the best of the existing native

environment of the site. It is in that effort as a RRPUD we can better design one of the few remaining last tracts in the area.

As the RRPUD has not been previous used, it is clear in this incidences that multiple variances are needed because the PDRs

of the RRPUD don’t fully recognize the need to minimize the disruption of what is right with the site today. Please refer to

the tree survey and the Environmental Report for more detail.

Summary of Project:

The proposed is a request for a Rezoning to Rural Residential Planned Unit Development (RRPUD). “The RR PUD is

permitted in Rural Residential Future Land Use designations to accommodate low density residential development in

conjunction with the protection and maintenance of rural, equestrian, or agricultural communities.” The RR PUD has two

development options. Option 1, which is the option being proposed by the applicant, requires a minimum of 100 acres, a

minimum of 60 percent open space and a 40 percent development area. Option 1 requires a minimum lot size of 1.25 acres

and with only 20% building coverage per lot. Option 2 provides for 2.5 acre lots and no minimal open space. The applicant

desires to use Option 1 to maintain and restore the natural character of the area.

For consistency with the RR PUD’s intent to project the rural lifestyle in the area, and to further the recommendations of the

Jupiter Farms Neighborhood Plan, the applicant will also be submitting a concurrent Type II Variances from Article 3, 5, and

11, to provide for rural subdivision provisions to be utilized. Specifically, the variances will eliminate the requirements for

the PUD’s to connect to a potable water and wastewater provider. The area residents have been clear that they do not want to

be required to connect to a potable water and/or wastewater provider, which has also been echoed in the Jupiter Farms

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 302


Neighborhood Plan. Additionally relief from the site disruption and grading requirement as well as roadway design relief

may be requested.

Concurrent with this request the Applicant is requesting a Large Scale Future Land use Amendment to modify the Future

Land Use Map from RR-10 to Rural Residential, 1 unit per 5 acres (RR-5) on 133.522 acres, from CR/RR-10 to RR-5 on 15

acres, and from CL/RR-10 to RR-5 on 1.63 acres. The maximum proposed “density” of the project would be 30 units which

is 0.2 units per acre or 1 unit per 5 acres. Collectively, this request permits a more environmentally sound approach through

cluster development which will place 60% of the site into perpetual open space.

Project History:

Control No. Request Action Date Resolution No.

74-175A Rezoning from AG to CG Approved October 4,

1990

90-372

74-175A SE to permit a PCD to include 1) an auto

service station (no repairs); 2) a car wash;

and 3) recreation facilities, amusements, an

attractions, and exhibits (petting zoo); (if

approved, this will extinguish a SE use for

commercial sale of products associated with

agriculture, in particular, feed, grain, tack

supplies, western apparel and similar items)

Approved October 4,

1990

90-373

82-1(A) SE to amend the SP previously approved to

include a private mausoleum and chapel

Approved April 17 1984 84-506

85-40 SE- to allow a commercial radio and

microwave transmission and relay station

and tower including accessory buildings and

structures

Approved April 25, 1985 85-958

CA93-15 Class A – Conditional Use Motion Picture

Production Studio

Approved July 29, 2003 93-898

CA93-15 Amending Resolution No. R93-898

(Scriveners Error)

Approved July 28, 1994 94-948

Status

Report 74-

175A.4

OZMA from CG to CC; and the revocation

SE to permit a PCD to include 1) an auto

service station (no repairs); 2) a car wash;

and 3) recreation facilities, amusements, an

attractions, and exhibits (petting zoo);

Approved July 26, 2001 2001-1200

In addition, we have been requested to summarize our community outreach efforts. This office, and our client have attended a

number of meetings with the community over the last several months. We have attended community meetings as an observer,

we also hosted our own meeting with members of the community. Our office and our client attended a community meeting

sponsored by Staff, and we attended two meetings with the residents and Commissioner Valeche office, staff was also in

attendance at those meetings. Comments and issues have varied amongst the residents. While some of the Jupiter Farms

Residents oppose the project, some within the community have expressed support of the project. We continue to engage the

community and will do so throughout this project. With regards to opposition, density, light intrusion, traffic, and desire to

keep the area rural have been the primary objections. As we detail further in this justification statement, the proposed density

of this project is less than the established density of the surrounding community. We feel we the proposal with 150 feet of

buffer and leaving as much of the site in its natural state will lessen any perceived lighting impacts from the residential

homes. The project meets the County’s traffic performance standards. The intent of the RR-PUD is to create a rural clustered

neighborhood.

Official Zoning Map Amendment:

Article 2.B.1.B of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) establishes standards by which an

application for Official Zoning Map Amendment (OZMA) shall be considered. The current request for a (OZMA) complies

with each of these standards as follows:

1. Consistency with the Plan:

Policy 1.4-a: The County shall protect and maintain the rural residential, equestrian and agricultural areas within the Rural

Tier by:

1. Preserving and enhancing the rural landscape, including historic, cultural, recreational, agricultural, and open

space resources;

2. Providing facilities and services consistent with the character of the area;

3. Preserving and enhancing natural resources; and,

4. Ensuring development is compatible with the scale, mass, intensity of use, height, and character of the rural

community.

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 303


The proposed future land use amendment from RR-10 to RR-5 is generally a continuation of the existing development pattern

in surrounding the site. The prevailing density around the site is about 1 unit per 2 acres which is actually a higher density

than the applicant’s request. The Future Land Use Amendment is being requested concurrent with a Rezoning to the RR-

PUD which requires other parcels requesting a similar change in land use, to have a minimum of 100 acres. Furthermore, the

concurrent rezoning and development plan will provide an opportunity to enhance the existing natural features on the site by

protecting usable open space, and preserving significant habitat within the site. The development team will create equestrian

amenities and a civic area consistent with the requirements of the RR-PUD. Although not proposed as part of this request, the

applicant intends to provide for the land currently occupied by the feed store to remain while eliminating the other non-

residential uses. The intent, if the County is willing to permit the civic site as a public use for the residents, is to create and

central gathering place for the community consistent with the recommendations of the Jupiter Farms Neighborhood Plan.

Again the Future Land Use Amendment request from RR-10 to RR-5 will compatible with the surrounding area as it is

consistent with and furthers Policy 1.4-a.

Policy 1.4-d: Any parcel of land in the Rural Tier shall not be further subdivided to form additional parcels, nor reduced in

size, unless: each parcel created is consistent with the minimum lot size required by its respective future land use designation

or is developed as a Rural Residential (RR) Cluster or Variable-Lot-Size development. Parcels may be subdivided for the

purpose of enlarging other parcels in the subdivision. The overall number of units of the reconfigured lots may not exceed the

original number of units calculated for the lots being reconfigured.

Again it is the intent of the applicant to rezone the property utilizing the RR-PUD or thereby utilizing the Rural Residential

(RR) Cluster type of development concurrent with the Future Land Use Amendment from RR-10 to RR-5 consistent with this

policy. While the request will increase the existing density of the property, the request does not impact the existing density

pattern of the area or alter the rural character of the area. The requested rezoning will have a positive effect on the property as

it will preserve a large portion of the site for natural area, connected and usable open space consistent with the neighborhood

character and intent to promote equestrian and rural lifestyles in this area.

Policy 1.4-i: Future development in the Rural Tier shall be consistent with native ecosystem preservation and natural system

restoration, regional water resource management protection, and incorporation of greenway/linked open space initiatives.

The applicant, consistent with this Policy and the intent of the RR PUD intends to develop the site with approximately 30

units clustered onto 40% of the total site acreage to maximize the open space. The remaining areas will comprise connected

natural areas with preservation of the site’s resources and the existing character of the natural setting as well as provided for

equestrian amenities and related community considerations consistent with Policy 1.4-i.

Policy 1.4-j: The existence of public facilities of any kind, including potable water, wastewater and/or reclaimed water

pipelines, shall not be used as justification for making future land use decisions that increase density and/or intensity in the

Rural Tier. In order to ensure system efficiency, properties within an area where a public or privately owned potable water,

reclaimed water, and/or wastewater utility has been granted or assigned utility service area rights by Palm Beach County,

the utility may extend lines and the properties may connect to the utility’s system.

Concurrent with the Rezoning request, the applicant is requesting a variances from Article 11 of the County’s ULDC, which

requires all planned developments, including RR-PUDs to connect to a potable water and wastewater system. Thus,

consistent with this policy no extension of such services is even contemplated nor desired. The Jupiter Farms Neighborhood

Plan clearly stated that the community does not want to connect to water and wastewater services even if they become

available. The applicant intends to develop in character with the Neighborhood Plan.

Policy 2.1-a: The future land use designations, and corresponding density and intensity assignments, shall not exceed the

natural or manmade constraints of an area, considering assessment of soil types, wetlands, flood plains, wellfield zones,

aquifer recharge areas, committed residential development, the transportation network, and available facilities and services.

Assignments shall not be made that underutilize the existing or planned capacities of urban services.

The rezoning to RR-PUD provides for clustering to promote protection of resources as well as utilizes existing and available

facilities.

Policy 2.1-h: The County shall not approve site specific Future Land Use Atlas amendments that encourage piecemeal

development or approve such amendments for properties under the same or related ownership that create residual parcels.

The County shall also not approve rezoning petitions under the same or related ownership that result in the creation of

residual parcels.

The request for the rezoning does not create residual parcels as the application provides for the continuation of an existing

development pattern. Furthermore, it permits the preservation of valued resources and exiting environmental character of

property with a common residential community.

Policy 2.2.7-g: To promote the GLOSS, Palm Beach County shall continue to enable existing residential developments

within Residential Districts and Planned Development Districts that wish to establish greenways between the development

and other destinations to work with the Zoning Division and Land Development Division to incorporate the proposed

connections within site plans or subdivisions in accordance with ULDC Article 4.B.1.93. Passive Park.

The rezoning to RR-PUD under Option 1 demonstrates the applicant’s intent to develop and to maintain interconnected opens

space such that it creates a connection to the existing recreation areas and trails system within the Jupiter Farms area and the

larger community. Eventually connecting Riverbend Park east of the subject property and south to trails leading to Caloosa.

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 304


FLUE Policy 4.1-c states “The County shall consider the objectives and recommendations of all Community and

Neighborhood Plans, including Planning Area Special Studies, recognized by the Board of County Commissioners, prior to

the extension of utilities or services, approval of a land use amendment, or issuance of a development order for a rezoning,

conditional use or Development Review Officer approval……”

The subject site is located within the boundaries of Jupiter Farms Neighborhood Plan (JFNP). The study began in June of

1992 due to concerns in the community regarding a commercial request in the area. Written with the assistance of the Palm

Beach County Planning Division, the plan was first presented to the Board of County commissioners at a workshop on May

24, 1994 and was subsequently adopted by resolution on July 5, 1994. The intent of the JFNP is to maintain the rural

character of the Jupiter Farms area and to project the community’s natural resources. This project’s commitment to create and

preserve this site’s natural beauty while maintaining and encouraging a rural lifestyle is the embodiment of what the JFNP

was trying to achieve with future development in this area. Further, the RR-5 land use designation is a rural category that is

more consistent than the current development patter under the RR-10 land use designation. It should also be noted that the

RR-5 land use designation did not exist when the JFNP was created.

2. Consistency with the Code:

3.E.1.A.1: The purpose of Planned Development Districts (PDDs) is to provide opportunities for development patterns

which exceed the expectations of the standard zoning districts, and allow for the creative use of land. The types of

development addressed in this Chapter include those encouraged by the Managed Growth Tier System (MGTS) in the

Plan. The intent of this Chapter is to encourage ingenuity, and imagination on the part of, architects, landscape

architects, engineers, planners, developers, and builders to create development that promotes sustainable living,

addresses traffic impacts, encourages alternative modes of transportation, creates logical street and transportation

networks, preserves the natural environment, enhances the built environment, provides housing choices, provides

services to the community, encourages economic growth, encourages infill development and redevelopment, and

minimizes impacts on surrounding areas through the use of flexible and innovative land development techniques.

The intent of implementing the RR-PUD to develop this site is to provide a more creative development pattern that is in

keeping with the surrounding rural lifestyle but with more of an emphasis on protecting the natural features of the site

and area. The implementation of a rural cluster and utilization of more sustainable land development practices should be

a model for future development in the rural tier moving forward.

3.E.2.G.1.a: A PUD is permitted in the RR FLU designations to accommodate low density residential development in

conjunction with the protection and maintenance of rural, equestrian, agricultural communities, or to address

preservation of specific uses within the Lion Country Safari (LCS). It is the intent of a PUD in these land use

designations to provide for the residential development of land in a manner compatible with agriculture, wetlands or

other significant open space and which does not detract from the protection and perpetuation of such uses in the area.

The areas in which this development alternative is offered are characterized by agriculture, small farming operations,

equestrian activities, and open spaces where residents are attracted to low-density lifestyles.

The essence of this development is to provide a low density neighborhood that protects natural features and encourage an

equestrian lifestyle. The proposed project should be a model for future rural cluster development in the County. Many of

the concepts encouraged by the RR-PUD are consistent with many of the recommendations that have been developed by

the Jupiter Farms Community Plan. Several of the requested variances are needed to further the intent of this policy.

3.E.2.G.4 RR PUD Development Area

In addition to the Development Area requirements for a Rural Cluster PUD, the following shall apply:

a) Clustered residential units which provide a variety of lot sizes to allow for a range of housing choices;

b) Smaller sized lots shall be located towards the center of the Development Area and should transition to larger

lot sizes located at the edge, adjacent to the existing residential neighborhoods.

For the development area the the proposed RR-PUD will be implementing the Option 1 development alternative which

requires will have approximately 30 homes on lots that are a minimum of 100 acres 60 percent open space and 40

percent of developable area. A minimum lot size of 1.25 acres is associated with development option 1, and is the

minimum lot size proposed within the development area. This lot size is consistent with many of the surrounding parcels

within the Jupiter Farms area, please see Exhibit A. The plan proposes to cluster the development internal to the site and

provide 150 foot perimeter buffers as well as open space with natural vegetated areas. It should be noted that the project

is requesting some flexible design standards for the lots to allow additional preservation of natural features within the

parcel boundaries, despite these areas not counting towards the 60% open space requirement. The need for this flexibility

will also encourage more of a custom home product in order to promote low impact design and to also allow for

equestrian paddocks, stables, and other accessory structures and uses consistent with a rural lifestyle. Based on the

design included with the submittal, in lieu of transitioning larger lots closer to the boundaries of the PUD, the

surrounding community will be adjacent to a 150 foot native buffer, which provides separation of the development area

to the surrounding area.

3.E.2.G.5: A landscape buffer shall only be required around the development area, adjacent to the perimeter of the

project. The buffer shall be a minimum of 150 feet in width and consist of 100 percent native vegetation. Landscape

buffers providing continuity between open space areas to be preserved may be counted toward meeting the minimum

open space requirement.

a. Landscape Requirements

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 305


Portions of the buffer which are not adjacent to a street shall comply with the compatibility landscape

requirements in Article 7, LANDSCAPING. All landscape material shall be planted in groups and/or a

naturalistic pattern.

b. Trails

A continuous equestrian trail, fitness trail, bike path, walking path, or similar trail system shall be incorporated

into the internal street R-O-W sections, around lakes, and/or within the buffers in the development area. Trials

and paths in open space areas shall only be paved with pervious materials.

The project is proposing to develop with a 150 foot buffer around the project, which will include an interconnected trail

system. The RR-PUD’s requirement for 60% open space, allows this project to encourage rural activities and to

incorporate and preserve the natural features of the property. To facilitate the 150 buffer, the preservation of the site’s

natural features, an interconnected trails system and to encourage rural activities, more flexible property development

regulations within the 40% development area are requested. This type of flexibility is specific to the LCS portions of the

RR-PUD and already considered under the Rural Residential development subdivision regulations.

3. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses:

The justification to this point has provided many examples of how this project will be compatible with the surrounding

uses. Again it is the intent of this project to develop the site for residents that are interested in a rural lifestyle, and who

will appreciate the natural setting on the site. The proposed and required 150 foot native buffer will safeguard the

surrounding neighborhood from any professed visual impacts from the project. The interconnected trail through the

property and the continuation of the commercial feed store (not a part of this request) essentially extends the access and

relationship the community has had with this property.

Again more specifically, the proposed 30 unit development on the 150 acre site is consistent with the established density

in the immediate area. The proposed development has a density of .20 or 1 units per 5 acres. The density of the adjacent

133.03 acres to this site, has a density of .35 or 1 unit per 2.90 acres. The request is compatible with the pattern of

development and the rural residential uses in the area. Please refer to Exhibit A.

4. Effect on the Natural Environment:

A primary intent of the RR-PUD is to protect and preserve the natural environment. Unlike the standard PUD, which

allows 60% development and 40% open space, the RR-PUD requires 60% open space and 40% development area. The

client has shown a desire to also help preserve, maintain, and re-establish the native vegetation that is found across the

150 acre site. Variances are requested to permit techniques to develop the property with Low Impact Design (LID)

principles which are more consistent with protecting the natural environment.

The RR-PUD also requires an Existing Resources and Site Analysis report, which has been included with this

application. This tool further promotes the preservation of the natural environment by requiring the development area to

emphasize natural resources open space areas identified in the report. The design of an RR-PUD requires that all streets

terminate in a vista or focal point such as trail head, passive park, water views, or open space. The proposed design of the

neighborhood streets terminate at least one of the site’s natural features or landscaped focal points.

5. Development Patterns:

The development pattern in this area is rural residential. The proposed development pattern will be rural residential. The

proposed project will be done at density that is lower than the developed community surrounding the site and with more

of an emphasis on the preservation of the site’s natural beauty. Unlike the existing residential areas surrounding this

project, the proposed community will cluster homes to maximize open space and provide connectivity to the established

trail system and provide an internal trail system for the residents of the RR-PUD, which is something that should be

considered with any future rural development across Palm Beach County.

It should be noted that the proposed project will be eliminating a more intense Commercial Recreation Land Use and

Zoning Designation. Uses that are permitted or that can be permitted in Commercial Recreation include:

outdoor flea markets

hotel/motels/bed & breakfast

cocktail lounges

restaurants

kiosks

retail sales

personal services

theatres (drive-in/indoor)

commercial parking lots

catering services

airports

places of worship

day camps

day cares

government services

helipads/landing strips

arenas/stadiums

campgrounds

entertainment (indoor/outdoor)

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 306


fitness center

golf course

gun clubs (enclosed/open)

marine facilities

parks

zoo

bona fide agricultural use

equestrian arena

wholesale nursery

commercial stable

air striper

communication towers

electric power facilities/renewable energy facilities (wind and solar)

utility/water treatment plant

film production studio.

With the exception of the bona fide agricultural uses, many of these uses that consistent with the Commercial Recreation

designation would be fairly intense for this area. The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding development

pattern and would just be a continuation of the rural residential uses in this area.

6. Adequate Public Facilities:

As mentioned this project is concurrent with a FLUA application, the demand on public facilities has been reviewed. At

this time the project will not have a negative impact on public facilities. Consistent with the Jupiter Farms Community

Plan recommendations, the applicant is requesting variances that would relieve the project from having to connect to

potable water and sewer service. The variances are consistent with Staff direction and the land development regulations

for a rural subdivision. RR-PUD’s were not listed under the rural subdivision section of the ULDC, despite being a

positive approach to developing in the rural tier.

7. Changed Conditions or Circumstances:

Based on the information as outlined above, the existing Future Land Use(s) and Zoning Designation are not as

appropriate given the existing development pattern of the area, which has a more suburban density, and the desire to

develop this site to protect the resources and character of the property including equestrian use consistent with

community interests. The Jupiter Farms Neighborhood Plan in 1992 recommended maintaining the RR-10 and RR-20

Future Land Use Designations as a means to protect the area from larger land owners subdividing and creating a

development pattern and lifestyle inconsistent with the rural lifestyle of Jupiter Farms. The RR-5 and RR-PUD

developed since the adoption of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, provided a more appropriate designation. This request is

more consistent with maintaining the community character. The existing reality is the established land use pattern that is

more in line with the Rural Residential 1 unit per 2.5 acres (RR-2.5) designation than the RR-10 and RR-20 Future Land

Use Designations. The County seeing the need to protect and restrain some of the development pressure on the rural

communities, and thus the County developed rural design standards and policies as a method to further goals like those

found in the Jupiter Farms Neighborhood Plan. The RR-5 allows for a higher quality, more viable design under the RR-

PUD to protect the character of the community and the environment. As such, the RR-5 designation is in keeping with

the rural character of the Jupiter Farms area. It allows this property to develop with a density that is consistent with the

concentration of homes in the surrounding neighborhood, but unlike the surrounding property would be regulated by the

provisions of the RR-PUD to protect the rural lifestyle and preserve open space and natural features on the site.

The RR-5 will permit the property to develop with environmentally founded, rural principles. The RR-PUD specifically

provides for clustering of homes to protect and enhance the character of land by maintaining large connected

undeveloped areas. This site has existing natural resources that can be enhanced and protected through clustering and the

RR-PUD provisions as provided for under the RR-5 land use. All the while, maintaining a development pattern

consistent with the existing community. The RR-5 allows the developer to create smaller compact clustered lots,

continues to encourage equestrian activities, and minimize impacts to the natural features of the site. These opportunities

are not afforded by the RR10 land use designation created in 1989.

PUD Breakdown: Preliminary Development Plan Site Data

Total Gross PUD Area 150.22 acres

Development Area 58.98 acres

Recreation Area 2.03 acres

Civic Area 1.50 acres

Lakes 17.98 acres

Wetlands 1.18 acres

Total Gross Open Space (perimeter buffer included) 94.01 acres

Type II Variance Request:

The Applicant is requesting seventeen (15) Type II Variances as follows:

ITEM CODE SECTION REQUIRED PROPOSED VARIANCE

PUD STREETS

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 307


V.1 3.E.1.C.2.a.5(a)&(b) 40%; 65% with waiver 100% 60%

RR PUD OPEN SPACE

V.2

3.E.2.G.1.d.2 Open Space shall have a minimum

width of 150 feet

Pursuant to 3.E.2.G.1.d.2.(1) up to a 50% reduction for the

required open space width when the open space is

located between residential pods.

Pursuant to 3.E.2.G.1.d.2.(1) up to a

50% reduction for the required open space width

when the open space is located between residential

pods.

3.E.2.G.1.d.3

All residential, civic, and recreation pods shall be limited to the

development area. All improvements, including streets,

water management tracts, for on-site and street drainage (including R-O-

W), excavation, and accessory structures shall be limited to the

development area.

Water Management Tract, Civic POD, and Recreation

POD, included as Open Space

Water Management Tract, Civic POD, and Recreation

POD, included as Open Space

DEVELOPMENT AREA SETBACKS

V.3

3.E.2.G RR-PUD Property Development

Regulations Front: 50.0 feet Front: 35.0 feet 15 feet

5.B.1.A.1.b Accessory Structures

Setbacks

No accessory structure shall be located in the front or side street

yard.

Accessory structures in front or side street setback

Permit accessory structures in the front or side street

setback

Table 5.B.1.A Accessory Structure Setbacks (i.e. , sheds, barns, detached

garages, carports)

Front: 50.0 feet

Side: 15.0 feet

Side Street: 25.0 feet

Rear: 15.0 feet

Front: 20.0 feet

Side: 7.5 feet


Front: 30.0 feet

Side: 7.5 feet


Table 5.B.1.A Pool/Spa Setback

Front: 28.0 feet

Side: 10.5 feet


Rear: 10.5 feet

Front: 20.0 feet

Side: 7.5 feet


Front: 8.0 feet

Side: 3.0 feet


Table 5.B.1.A Screen Enclosure Setbacks

Front: 25.0 feet

Side: 7.5 feet


Rear: 7.5 feet

Front: 20.0 feet Front: 5.0 feet

Table 5.B.1.A Recreation Amenities

(i.e. tennis courts or basketball courts)

Front: 25.0 feet

Side: 7.5 feet


Rear: 7.5 feet

Front: 20.0 feet Front: 5.0 feet

FENCES & WALLS

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 308


V.4

5.B.1.A.2.(a) Fences & Walls

Front: 4 feet max.

Front: 5 feet Front: 1 foot

5.B.1.A.2.e Residential Districts

Maximum height of wall or fence on or adjacent to a

property line or in a landscape buffer

Front: 4 feet (within required setback)

LIVESTOCK

V.5 5.B.1.A.20.A.1 No Livestock within a PUD Equestrian and accessory

goats if desired Allow horses and goats

SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS

S.1 Table 11.E.2.A-2 Chart of Minor Streets

Minimum Street Width is 60 feet with swales

(Utilizing Art. 11.E.2.C) 48 feet 12 feet

S.2 11.E.4.E.1 (e)

Tertiary Stormwater System Design & Performance

e) residential lots with a gross acres of more the 1.25 acres to have a finished grade specified in Art.

11.E.4.E.1.d within 20 feet of any principal building site.

Limited Grading Limited Grading

S.3 11.E.4.F.4(a)(b)&(c) Lake Slopes

a) Side slopes no steeper than 4 to 1, to a depth of 2 feet

b) Side slopes no steeper than 2 to 1, to a depth of 2 feet

c) Continuous berm, at least 20 feet wide at a slope of 8 to 1

To keep existing lake slopes Maintain existing lake

slopes

S.4 11.E.5.B.2 Sewer Connections

Required to connect to sewer system.

Private sewer/septic No Connection

S.5 11.E.6.A Water Connections

Required to connect to potable water system

Private water/well No Connection

1. SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE PARCEL OF

LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND,

STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT:

V.1 – Generally, it can be said that the RR-PUD should be considered a rural subdivision, with unique design

considerations. Specific provisions are made for rural subdivisions in the code already due to the unique

character of rural areas. The code also has specific provisions for PUDs, which are urban or suburban in

character. The RR-PUD is a peculiar type of development for which specific PDRs should be provided, in

the decade or more that it has existed, this is the first project to come in to utilize these the RRPUD.

This site is a unique parcel of land, it has a history within its community and special environmental

character that makes it unlike other sites within the county. It has a significant amount of natural habitat

that the applicant would like to try to preserve. The property is also within the boundaries of the Jupiter

Farms Community Plan which also emphasizes setting aside or restoration of natural environment within

the area. The applicant has opted to implement the RR-PUD as a means to develop the property in a more

environmentally conscious way that minimizes impacts of development including roadway which is not

necessary to service the project. The RRPUD which requires 60% open space does not address roadway

design matters at all. Also as the RR-PUD, is a planned development district, a conflict exists between

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 309


what is required by the standard PUD regulations, and the RR-PUD development which is to be rural in

character which would include street terminations and the use of cul-de-sacs. The standard PUD

requirements limit the use of cul-de-sacs to a maximum of 40% of the developments streets. An additional

25% of the streets can terminate in a cul-de-sac when the terminus has a pedestrian connection or a vista.

All the proposed cul-de-sac’s associated with this development provide both a vista and pedestrian

connections. Additionally, the RR-PUD along with requiring a significant amount of continuous open

space; this district also requires that all streets terminate at open space/focal point/water tract; and the RR-

PUD considers the road network as part of the development area, which is supposed to be internal to the

site. It is not the developer’s intent to bisect the proposed open space areas with roads when a cul-de-sac is

an appropriate means of re-directing internal traffic back through the development area. Again all the

proposed roads terminate into cul-de-sacs that have a view corridor to the proposed natural areas within the

site and other natural areas.

V.2 - As noted, the property has existing inventory of natural resources and community historical significance.

In designing this property, attention was paid to preserving large areas of native vegetation and the existing

character of the land, consistent with the context of this rural community. Clustering the residential areas of

the site has permitted open space areas that provide for respecting the existing resources of the site as

provided for by the RR-PUD. However because this site does contain a noteworthy amount of existing

natural resources, and these areas tend to meander throughout the development area as well the site

representing an infill site within the community, the design must also work on multiple levels. The

configurations of these areas were based upon the resource analysis of the site and a desire to maintain

specific areas of the site as they exist for environmental and community purposes. This is a provision

within the RR-PUD that is not fully defined except for parcels located within the LCS boundaries. Thus

due the uniqueness of the site the request is being made consistent with the multiple purposes of this RR-

PUD. The proposed development is consistent with efforts to address code requirements that also impact

site grading and standard lot design to promote more environmentally and community sensitive project.

Furthermore, the developer has made a commitment to the surrounding community to provide a civic use

(pod) adjacent to the feedstore (an iconic part of the community) which is being maintained, rather than

locate it off site. The LCS option within the RR-PUD also provides specific site considerations that are not

afforded to the RR-PUD’s outside of the LCS boundaries.

V.3 - Again the property has a large quantity of native vegetation that the applicant is willing to preserve. The

property is located in the Jupiter Farms Community Plan boundaries with recommends protecting natural

areas along with the development of the area. The RR-PUD is a tremendous development tool, which

requires clustering residential development and freeing up large areas of the site as continuous open space.

As part of the RR-PUD requirements, a 150 foot wide native buffer is required along the perimeter of the

property. The buffer requirements establish a very large setback from the surrounding property owners.

Within every other planned development district found in the ULDC, the internal development areas

typically follow the setbacks as established by the RS zoning district. It has been interpreted that the RS

setbacks for the internal development areas only apply to those RR-PUD properties with Lion Country

Safari overlay (LCS). Given that there is a 150 foot setback already being established and the intent is to

protect the natural resources of the site, the applicant would like the flexibility to locate the homes or

accessory structures like swimming pools and stables/barns on the proposed lots such that each structure

can be shifted within the building envelope to minimize disruption of native soils and impact natural areas

within the development area. This is also consistent with the development character of the area. Again this

is another case where the standard PUD requirements and the RR-PUD intent conflicts and the requested

variance in this case creates greater internal flexibility to provide better open space protection.

V.4 - This is a rural area and equestrian activities are typically encouraged in the County’s rural areas. They are

in fact encourages in the RR-PUD. As such, paddock fences/walls/landscaping typically are done at height

of 5 feet along the entire property boundary. Equestrian design standards set fence heights at least 5 feet.

In standard rural districts, paddocks are not restricted to the rear and side yards, and many residents permit

grazing animals to do so throughout the property including the front yard. As the RR-PUD is not

recognized in the Rural Subdivision section of the ULDC, the standard zoning district

fences/walls/landscaping requirements are applied to RR-PUD’s. A reduction in fence height could permit

equine escapes from the confines of their property and wandering onto a neighbor’s property or into some

of the sites protected natural areas. Given that this property is located in a rural area, the fencing should be

done in an appropriate manner to protect the residents and their property.

V.5 - Again this property is located in a rural area and the development program is to create a Rural Residential

PUD which specifically encourages equestrian trails thus equine should be permitted.. The standard PUD

requirements prohibit land owners from having livestock. As this is a rural development, the ability to have

livestock on your property should not be discouraged. Goats are included as they are used on many

equestrian properties as they have a calming effect on the equine. This site is located within the Jupiter

Farms Community Plan boundaries. The Jupiter Farms Community Plan recommends preservation of the

rural lifestyle, which typically includes the possession of livestock.

S.1, S.2, S.3, S.4, S.5 -

The site is located in a rural area. As noted above, the reduction of roads due to environmental

considerations not to mention the minimal volumes on the internal roadways and the rural character of the

area, make this a very unique circumstance. Also the code actually provides for rural subdivision standards

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 310


that permit the use of septic and well. The standard PUD Subdivision requirements applied to typical

urban and suburban areas are being applied to this project because the RR-PUD is not recognized in the

ULDC as being a district subject to the Rural Subdivision requirements/exemptions. As such, we are

requesting a number of variances from this section that would not be considered in keeping with the rural

nature of this area or providing the maximum protection of the site’s natural resources. Clearing,

backfilling, and sloping of these lots to meet the typical drainage requirements in urban/suburban areas

could have negative impacts on existing native vegetation located inside/outside of the proposed open

space areas. The applicant would like the maximum flexibility to develop a project drainage system, road

network, and preserve existing lake slopes so has to minimize development impacts across the property.

Furthermore as this area is rural, the area residents have been extremely vocal about not connecting to

potable water and sewer systems in this area. The applicant is not proposing to develop any differently than

the existing rural character consistent with those recommendations of the Jupiter Farms Community Plan.

2. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE

APPLICANT:

V.1, V.2, V.3, V.4, V.5, S.1, S.2, S.3, S.4, S.5 -

The special circumstances that make the requested variances necessary are as a result of this site being

located in a rural natural area. The character of the community and of the site dictates a need to site a home

and its uses as the environment dictates to minimize site disruption. The special circumstances of the

character of the area, the historical use of the site and the RR-PUD are not created by the applicant but

simply the reality of the parcel. The development site has large areas that should be protected from

development impacts, necessitate the variance requests. The application/interpretation of the standard and

rural development regulations require the applicant to request several of the variances. Conflicts between

the standard property development regulations and the rural development regulations, also necessitate the

requested variances.

3. GRANTING THE VARIANCE SHALL NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE

DENIED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS CODE TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND,

BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT:

V.1, V.2, V.3, V.4, V.5, S.1, S.2, S.3, S.4, S.5 -

This request is consistent with stated intent of the code. The proposed development is actually being denied

exemptions to many of these development regulations based on trying to develop a property located in a

rural area; that should be developed consistent with the protection of the natural environment; and in a

manner that is consistent with other rural developments. The granting of the variance will confer upon the

applicant the rights and privileges that are acceptable and appropriate in other PDD’s or in rural

developments districts.

4. LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS

CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PARCELS

OF LAND IN THE SAME DISTRICT, AND WOULD WORK AN UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP:

V.1, V.2, V.3, V.4, V.5, S.1, S.2, S.3, S.4, S.5 -

The literal interpretation and enforcement of the code on this site will deprive the applicant and the

surrounding community a development that has the potential to be a model for future rural projects. As

stated above, many rural development districts as well as other PDD’s are implementing development

regulations that this site is prohibited from using. The RR-PUD should be granted many of the rural

subdivision exemptions as detailed in Chapter 11 of the ULDC. RR-PUD district is not defined under the

recognized as a rural residential district. Many of the standard subdivision regulations may have an

unintended impact on the protection of the natural landscape and in conflict with the intent of the RR-PUD.

The very idea that code was written to encourage equine activity but equine are not permitted shows the

internal conflict of the code that was clearly unintended.

5. GRANTING OF VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE

REASONABLE USE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE:

V.1, V.2, V.3, V.4, V.5, S.1, S.2, S.3, S.4, S.5 -

The variances represent the minimum variances that will make possible the “reasonable” use of the parcel

of land. The reasonable use of this specific parcel, and within this community, is to not develop this

property under the guidelines and policies which represent a non-rural character and a lack of sensitivity to

disruption of natural areas.. If the variances are approved the reasonable use of the land or the developable

area will only constitute approximately 58 acres of the 152 acre site. The 94 acres remaining will be open

space and lakes per the 60/40 split as required by the RR-PUD. Clustering the development, and allowing

the applicant to protect the site’s natural areas is a more reasonable use of the property. It is also more

consistent with the intent of the RR-PUD.

6. GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES, GOALS, OBJECTIVES,

AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS CODE:

V.1, V.2, V.3, V.4, V.5, S.1, S.2, S.3, S.4, S.5 -

ZC May 1, 2014 Page 311


The intent of the comprehensive plan and the code as it relates to rural development is to preserve the rural

character of those communities. The variances requested, will permit the applicant to develop the site

preserving not only the rural character of the area but in a manner that will protect this site’s large

vegetated areas. As mentioned, the variances requested are exemptions that other rural development

districts provide. This particular development is proposed to be a mix between a rural subdivision, and a

standard PDD. The ULDC has some internal conflicts when it comes to this particular mix and the

variances will allow this development to move forward consistent with the code and comprehensive plan.

These variances do not represent an unintended precedent or an outright violation of the code or

comprehensive plan. These variances permit more thoughtful design practices by permitting lot layouts that

can be individualized based on existing site conditions.

7. GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR

OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE:

V.1, V.2, V.3, V.4, V.5, S.1, S.2, S.3, S.4, S.5 -

Not granting the variances is more likely to be injurious to the area involved as it would not give the

applicant the controls to develop the site in a manner that protects well over half the site as open space.

Denying the variance, means that this property would be subject to standard development practices which

would discourage public access and connected open space, as well as minimize the protection of existing

vegetative areas. The rural character of the development would be diminished. The denial of the variances

would be counter to the recommendations of the Jupiter Farms Community Plan, which has a strong desire

to protect the native habitats, and rebuff the connection to a potable water source or sanitary sewer system.

The proposed project is consistent with the rural development pattern that is established, no adverse

impacts are anticipated by approval of the variances and the proposed development of the site.

On behalf of the applicant, Gentile Glas Holloway O'Mahoney & Associates, Inc. respectfully request approval of this

application. The Project Managers at Gentile Glas Holloway O'Mahoney & Associates, Inc. are George Gentile, Dodi

Glas, Jamie Gentile and Ben Dolan.

ZV/SV/PDD-2013-02920 Application Nam - Palm Beach County

Documents

Transcript of ZV/SV/PDD-2013-02920 Application Nam - Palm Beach County