Minutes 02-11-05MINUTES OF THE AGENDA PREVIEW CONFERENCE HELD IN
COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2005 AT 10:00 A.M.
Present:
Jerry Taylor, Mayor
Mack McCray, Vice Mayor
Bob Ensler, Commissioner
Carl McKoy, Commissioner
Absent:
Mike Ferguson, Commissioner
I. Call to Order
Dale Sugerman, Assistant City Manager
Jim Cherof, City Attorney
Janet Prainito, City Clerk
Mayor Taylor called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. City Clerk Prainito announced
that Commissioner Ferguson would not be present.
Mayor Taylor gave an update on Mr. Bressner, who is starting to improve and has been
moved from ICU to his own room.
II. Other
A. Informational Items by Members of the City Commission
Vice Mayor McCray will discuss for a future agenda under Item XII. "Other" an article
that appeared in the Palm Beach Post regarding the Boynton Inlet.
1. Discuss City Manager - Vice Mayor Mack McCray
Vice Mayor McCray requested that this item be deleted from the agenda.
2. Contribute $1,000 of Vice Mayor Mack McCray's Community
Investment funds to the Boynton Ministerial Association
Vice Mayor McCray requested that this item be moved to Future Agenda Items with a
date to be determined.
XlI. Legal:
A. Ordinances - 2nd Reading - Public Hearing (Addressed Out of Order)
5. Proposed Ordinance No. 04-049- Re. Amendment Policy
1.16.1 of the Future Land Use Element by adding a Mixed Use-
Meeting Minutes
Agenda Preview Conference
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 11, 2005
Suburban (MX-S) land use category; providing for consistent
zoning districts, allowed uses, density and intensity of development
(TABLED ON 01/18/05
Commissioner Ensler inquired if the approval of the Boynton Village item was
contingent upon the revised SMU Ordinance. If this was the case, he felt that the SMU
Ordinance should be addressed prior to the Boynton Village items. It was agreed that
this item would be moved up as the first item under XII. A. Legal.
III. Announcements, Community & Special Events & Presentations:
B. Community and Special Events:
Heritage Festival - Month-long celebration of Black History Month
that informs the public of the ties that bind the African-American
community together through the enjoyment of arts, education and
pride in African-American accomplishments and heritage -
Weekends in February.
Commissioner McKoy inquired if this was a City-sponsored event. Vice Mayor McCray
responded that it is supposed to be and is one of the events slated for District 2. Vice
Mayor McCray pointed out that each Commissioner has a certain number of events for
their District and this event is for District 2.
Vice Mayor McCray did not think that staff took hold of this event, and he was
disappointed in the publicity for the event. Mr. Sugerman pointed out that the CRA is an
additional sponsor and provides money and staff for the events.
Mayor Taylor inquired how the City sponsored the events. Vice Mayor McCray
responded that the City provides funds and in-kind contributions. Vice Mayor McCray
did not think that the City did its fair share and many citizens feel that the City let them
down. Since the CRA contributed $12,000 towards the events, it appeared that the CRA
has taken over the event. As a result, there were not enough Afro-American events
scheduled for the Festival.
Mayor Taylor inquired how much money the City contributed. Vice Mayor McCray
pointed out that the City contributed in-kind services and the money that is contributed
comes from the Commissioners.
Wayne Segal, Public Affairs Director, reported that last year the City provided $13,000
of in-kind services. The City's Special Events budget contributed $2,500. Commissioner
McKoy was concerned that the City was not doing enough to help the Festival and he
requested being furnished with an update. Mr. Segal noted that there was a five-year
plan for this event and he felt that the direction recommended by the consultants has
gone awry. Commissioner McKoy also requested being furnished with the actual budget
for the festival.
2
Meeting Minutes
Agenda Preview Conference
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 11, 2005
Vice Mayor McCray heard that staff refused to go to Sara Sims Park and the Police
Department refused to allocate any manpower. He questioned why the event was
moved from the Ezell Hester Center to Sara Sims Park where it had been held
successfully in the past. If the CRA wanted to move the event to the Heart of Boynton
for marketing purposes, Vice Mayor McCray felt that this move was premature and he
would like the remaining events moved back to the Hester Center if possible.
C. Presentations
1. Proclamations:
a. Rotary International Day - February 23, 2004
This proclamation has been added to the agenda and copies have been furnished to the
Commission.
New Congress Middle School presentation of the School Board of
Palm Beach County by Angela Usher, Planner and Helen Lavalley,
Planner
Commissioner Ensler requested that this item be added to the agenda. The bid for the
new Congress Middle School would be going out soon, and he would like the
Commission to be briefed on what the plans are for the School
VI. Consent Agenda
Ms. Prainito reported that an additional set of minutes would be added to the agenda as
Item A.4., City Commission Workshop - January 31, 2005. Copies of the minutes were
provided to the Commission.
Bids and Purchase Contracts - Recommended Approval - All
expenditures are approved in the 2004-2005 Adopted Budget
1.
Award Bid for 'ANNUAL SUPPLY OF SODIUM HYROXIDE
(LIQUID CAUSTIC SODA), Bid #014-2821-05/CJD, to ALLIED
UNIVERSAL CORPORATION of Miami, Florida, with an annual
estimated expenditure of $166,000 for the Utilities Department
Commissioner Ensler noted that the backup indicated that one of the bidders was a
minority firm and another bid was "incomplete. "He inquired what kind of "minority" firm
bid on the item and was the "incomplete" bid also a minority firm.
Bill Mummed, Director of Financial Services, was not certain why one bid was
"incomplete," but based upon the documentation that had to be completed, there is a
minority businesses form that must be completed and he assumed that this was not
properly done. Therefore, they were not able to determine if the firm was or was not a
minority business. He was not sure what kind of "minority" firm submitted a bid. If the
Meeting Minutes
Agenda Preview Conference
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 11, 2005
Commission so desired, they could list the type of minority firms that submit bids.
Commissioner Ensler requested that he be provided with this information for the
Tuesday meeting.
Commissioner Ensler inquired why the minority firm that bid lower on one item was not
selected for that one item. He would like the work split between the firms. Mr. Mummert
explained it has been a past practice not to split bids, but he would look into it for future
bids.
Award the 'CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION STUDY", RFP
3015-1610-05/CJD TO MGT OF AMERICA of Tallahassee, Florida,
with an estimated expenditure of $66,000 (PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO R05-)
Commissioner Ensler inquired why this particular bidder was selected, since there were
seven lower bidders, two being minority firms. He inquired if the two minority firms were
acceptable to the City and whether or not they were qualified to do the work. He
requested that this information be available for Tuesday.
Mr. Mummert explained that an RFP is not the same as a competitive bid. When looking
at an RFP, the committee tries to select the most qualified company to perform the
work. Price is considered, but the qualifications and ability of the firm is looked at to
meet the scope of services. Based upon the committee's review, they felt that this firm
was the best to meet the scope of services.
Commissioner Ensler asked how the seven other firms that responded could be
disqualified. Mr. Mummert explained that the committee did not feel that these other
firms could meet the scope of this project and the qualifications of the firms were quite
varied. Some firms have not performed these types of services in the State of Florida or
performed the work for much smaller-scale cities. The firm being recommended is a
national firm and has performed this service for numerous municipalities in the area.
Therefore, they were selected based upon their qualifications and price. The committee
felt that for the price, the firm could meet the scope of services, while serving the City.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that from the submissions, two finalists are selected who must
then make a presentation to the committee. The two finalists are graded and the firm
with the highest grades is selected.
Mr. Sugerman explained that the City did follow a process that Commissioner Ensler
referred to. The City accepted proposals from anyone who wanted to submit one and
eleven such proposals were submitted. The committee reviewed all proposals and then
determined that only two of the eleven met all the criteria, which actually is the
prescreening. After the two finalists make their presentations, the finalist chosen goes
to the Commission for approval. Vice Mayor McCray pointed out that the Commission
does not have to accept the recommendation, which Mr. Sugerman confirmed.
Meeting Minutes
Agenda Preview Conference
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 11, 2005
VI.C. Proposed Resolution No. 05-012 Re: Approving and adopting grant
funding policies (TABLED TO FEBRUARY 15, 2005)
Vice Mayor McCray will be removing this item from the table to be addressed. Mayor
Taylor asked Attorney Cherof if he had any comments. Attorney Cherof explained that
since the last Commission meeting, some changes were made to the Resolution.
Proposed Resolution No. R05- Re: Authorizing the execution of
a Task Order with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for final design and
construction services for the Wilson Center Building, pool and park project
in the not-to-exceed amount of $519,400
Mr. Sugerman noted that there is an alternative in the agenda backup to add a splash
pool. If an interactive play pool were added, the costs would increase by $164,600 for
design and construction services. Construction of the interactive play pool would be
approximately $1.1 million. Staff is not recommending including these expenses at this
time, since there are no funds available in the current fiscal year.
Commissioner Ensler asked about the difference between a splash versus a spray pool.
Wally Majors, Parks and Recreation Director, responded that the interactive play pool
referred to is a play area that includes water with some depth, between 12" to 24". A
spray ground has interactive play features, but has no accumulation of water. If it were
determined to move forward with a splash pool, it would require a lifeguard, whereas a
spray ground does not have this requirement. Also it would cost much less to maintain a
spray ground. Commissioner Ensler inquired what the $164,600 applied to. Mr. Majors
stated that it was for an interactive play pool with accumulated water depth.
Commissioner Ensler asked what the cost would be if a spray pool were added. Mr.
Majors did not have this information, but noted an interactive play pool would have
significant infrastructure costs. Commissioner Ensler clarified his original
recommendation and stated it was a spray pool that he had in mind, not a splash pool.
Mr. Sugerman recommended awarding the contract without this additional item in order
for the project to move forward. During this period, staff could perform an analysis of
additional costs for design and construction of a spray ground. If the Commission chose
to include either of these amenities, it would have to be added as a change order in any
event, since there was no funding available at this time. Mr. Majors pointed out that the
master plans include the opportunity to add this feature at a future date. Vice Mayor
McCray inquired if the Commission approved this item, would it include approving an
opportunity to add this amenity. Mr. Majors stated that this would be possible.
Commissioner Ensler would like this approved now and to find the money from another
source. Mayor Taylor noted that the City is building a wonderful new project at the
Wilson Center. He was not opposed to adding a spray pool, but felt it would be best to
wait until the funds were located.
Meeting Minutes
Agenda Preview Conference
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 11, 2005
Vice Mayor McCray requested that the Commission still be furnished with the costs of
adding a spray ground. Commissioner Ensler recommended including a spray ground in
next year's budget and he will be pulling this item from the Consent Agenda.
Proposed Resolution No. R05- Re: Approving concept plans for
the Intracoastal Park Clubhouse as prepared by CH2MhilI, providing
direction to staff regarding the desired location of the clubhouse on the
site and authorizing Task Order No. 05-05-01 to CH2Mhill in the lump sum,
and not-to-exceed amount of $181,255 for final amhitectural design and
construction oversight services for the Intracoastal Park Clubhouse.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that the Commission would have to determine the location of
the clubhouse. Commissioner Ensler asked staff for their recommendation. Mr. Majors
felt that the best location would be next to the water. Jeff Livergood, Public Works
Directors, concurred that by placing the clubhouse along the water would be a good
revenue-generating tool and he was in favor of this location.
Mr. Sugerman pointed out that the item must be pulled from the Consent Agenda in
order to make this decision.
Proposed Resolution No. R05- Re: Ratifying the action of the
South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Board of
January 20, 2005 as follows:
Authorization to enter into an agreement with the City of Delray
Beach to expand their contract for the reuse line with Chaz
Equipment for Area 1 reclaimed water system into the South
Central Plan in the amount of $415,240 with the cost to be split
50/50 from each city's capital funds; and
Authorization for chairman to sign agreement with Solid Waste
Authority for South Central to participate in the construction and
operation of the Biosolids Pelletization Project. The construction
cost of $5,643,362 will be split 50/50 from each City's Capital funds.
Commissioner Ensler felt that due to the costs involved in Item 8.b, it would be best to
pull the item in order to give a brief presentation.
With regard to Item 8.a, Commissioner Ensler asked where the reuse lines would be
located. If the lines were going to be located in Delray Beach, he questioned why the
City should pay half of these costs. He noted that they are currently in negotiations to
have all the lines that are in Boynton Beach owned and operated by Boynton Beach and
the same would apply to Delray Beach.
Nem Gomez, Interim Utility Director, responded that the lines in question are located
entirely in Delray Beach. Commissioner Ensler inquired if they are going to separate the
lines, why should Boynton Beach pay half the price. Mr. Gomez would have to check
Meeting Minutes
Agenda Preview Conference
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 11, 2005
into this. Mayor Taylor thought that when the treatment plant was originally funded both
cities paid for it and initially Delray Beach did not benefit from the plant. Commissioner
Ensler noted that the negotiations are for the City of Boynton Beach to give Delray
Beach money for their five golf courses. Commissioner Ensler felt that each City should
be responsible for their own lines. Mayor Taylor recommended that Commissioner
Ensler contact Bob Hagle, Executive Director, who could explain the situation.
Vice Mayor McCray did not think it was necessary to have a presentation. Mr.
Sugerman recommended that Mr. Gomez provide a report.
VI.G. Authorize the use of $2,000 of Community Investment Funds by
Commissioner Carl McKoy for Heritage Fest 2005
Commissioner Ensler and Mayor Taylor both requested to contribute $1,000 each from
their Community Investment Funds to Heritage Fest 2005. Vice Mayor McCray
requested to add $2,000.
VIII. Public Hearing
Three items for Seaview Park Club (NWSP 04-014) - New Site Plan
Approval
1. Proposed Ordinance No. 05-006- Amending Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map
2. Proposed Ordinance No. 05-007 - Rezoning
Mayor Taylor noted that the Commission was just provided with some additional
documentation, and he would like discussion at the meeting limited to only issues not
previously discussed in an effort to avoid repetition.
X. Future Agenda Items
Mr. Sugerman stated that a new Item H would be added that would read "Disposition of
Old High School for the March 1,2005 Meeting.
B. Proposed Lease Agreement with Boynton Woman's Club (TBA)
Vice Mayor McCray inquired if there is a date for this item. Commissioner Ensler noted
that there are many items under Future Agenda Items that have no target dates and
requested that dates be furnished for the next meeting.
With regard to the Boynton Town Center items, Commissioner Ensler would like to
have the park dedication situation cleared up.
Commissioner Ensler noted that even though a site plan has not been presented, it
appeared that a Super Target would be going on this property. He read in the
7
Meeting Minutes
Agenda Preview Conference
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 11, 2005
newspaper that a Super Target was being built out west in the County, and Target
agreed to many conditions imposed upon them by the County. Some of these
conditions would limit the size of the building and included fountains and walkways. He
would like the developer to agree to these kinds of conditions with the City as well.
Mayor Taylor felt that these kinds of questions should be addressed to the applicant. He
also thought that there was nothing definite with Target and the applicant was looking at
other options. Commissioner Ensler asked Mr. Rumpf to address this.
Mr. Rumpf explained that the application that the Commission would be hearing is to
allow a big box in the C-3 zoning district. The City does not have these unique design
requirements or to limit the square footage of a single project.
Commissioner Ensler inquired that when the property was rezoned would it be part of
an SMU or does it only apply to the residential portion. Mr. Rumpf stated that technically
it does not, but with regard to the master plan and design, staff is trying to require some
design elements in order to create continuity between the two projects. This would
include pedestrian walkways, design similarities, parking lot enhancements, etc. Mr.
Rumpf recommended trying to get some verbal commitment from the applicant. Staff
has generated a specific preliminary list of design comments for both portions of the
entire master plan.
Commissioner Ensler requested that staff furnish the Commission with the requirements
that the County has requested for the Target out west. Mr. Hudson furnished this before
the close of the meeting.
Commissioner Ensler asked if the Commission could impose these requirements as
part of the site plan. Attorney Cherof was not certain on this and would speak with staff
to determine what the County did. He would also have to look at the County codes.
Commissioner Ensler would recommend tabling the item in order to provide staff
enough time to look into this.
Quintus Greene, Development Director, stated that the reason the applicant has opted
for C-3 zoning as opposed to SMU zoning was because some of the concerns
Commissioner Ensler raised were addressed as part of the SMU zoning.
B.I. Proposed Ordinance No. 05-014 Re: Request for
amendments to the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 22, Streets
and Sidewalks, related to street naming and renaming, construction of
sidewalks, access to and work with public rights-of-way, and providing for
appeals, work requirements and surety (TABLED ON 02/01/05)
Jeff Livergood, Director of Public Works, noted that this is a significant policy change in
the Ordinance re-write. There is a requirement in the City that when there is new
construction, sidewalks should be built adjacent to the new construction. However, in
the past there have been locations where it did not make sense to have sidewalks and,
therefore, the developer was provided a waiver. Staff would still allow waivers, but the
8
Meeting Minutes
Agenda Preview Conference
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 11, 2005
developer would be required to pay a fee-in-lieu of constructing a sidewalk. Each City
District, of which there are four, would have a fund to accumulate these fees. The fees
could then be used to build sidewalks where needed, especially in and around grade
schools.
Vice Mayor McCray requested that that there be one motion to remove all the items that
have been tabled under Legal. Attorney Cherof responded that this was allowed.
B.2 Proposed Ordinance No. 05- Re: Approving the exemption
from provisions of Section 101.657, Florida Statutes related to early voting
Mayor Taylor pointed out that if the City opted for early voting, there would be costs to
the City. Mr. Sugerman pointed out that the Commission is being asked to opt out of the
ability for early voting.
Vice Mayor McCray asked for clarification on the article in the Palm Beach Post
regarding the $160,000 cost for the Inlet and would the study have to be done before
they go to Tallahassee. Mayor Taylor noted that the $160,000 is for a feasibility study of
the inlet and would not be done for sometime. Currently, the City is trying to get the
State to pay for the study.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
City of Boynton Beach
Corr~ioner
Commissio?m~
(February 14, 2005)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
5O
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
EXHIBIT P
BIG BOX ORDINANCE
PART 1.
Unified Land Development Code of Palm Beach County (ULDC), Article
5.C.1, Architectural Guidelines, (page 35 of 63), is amended as follows:
CHAPTER C DESIGN STANDARDS
Section 1 Architectural Guidelines
I. Laree Scale Commercial Develooment
Laroe Scale Commercial Development shall be defined as any laroe ~ieqle tenant retail
use. with or without accessory tenants, in a sin(31e buildinu, between 65,000 and 200,000
aross souare feet. These reaulations shall apply to all new developments and
develoaments meetinq the requirements of Ad. 5.C.I.D, Effect
1. Sinule Tenant Limit
Deviations from these requirements shall not be permitted
a. CL FLU
The maximum buildinq size for a sinqle tenant shall be less than 65.000 qress
square feet.
b. CH FLU
The maximum buildieq size for a sinqie tenant shall be 200.000 cross square
feet.
1_) Exception
An additional 10.000 square feet shall be permitted, for a total of 210,000
aross sauare feet, subject to BCC approval and the followinq requirements:
a) Perimeter landscapinq buffer widths and plant material reauired bv Art
7.F.10.A, Perimeter Buffer, shall be increased bv twenty percent
b_.). One additional pedestrian amenity shall be required in addition to the
requirements of ArL 5.C. 1.L2.e, Pedestrian Amenities
c~ A minimum of fifty percent of the walkwavs reauired by Art. 5.C.l.l.3.d.2),
shall be covered, providina overhead shelter from the elements. Covered
areas shall be evenly distributed between the furthest parkinq stalls and
public entrances.
d_~ A maximum of two out*parcels shall be permitted, subiect to the followinq:
(1) Walkwavs consistent with those required by Art. 5.C.1.1.3.d.2), shall
be provided to both out~arcels from a public entrance for any sinql~
tenant havina areater than 200,000 aross s(3uare feet.
(2) Buildina square footaqe for convenience stores with aas sales and/er
auto service stations shall be deducted from the additional 10,000
sauare feet permitted under this excention.
If the proiect is to be phased, all of the above improvements shall be installed
in the first Phase,
2. Facade Orientation
For the cumoses of this section, facade orientation shall be defined as follows:
a. Front facade: The wall of a buildinq containin(3 the nrincipal public entrance. Tho
front facade is nenerallv located parallel with and facino the principal parkinq
area for the buildinq.
~ Side A facade: The wall of a buildin(3 containinq a secondarv public entranco.
The Side A facade is (3eneraliv located para(lei with and facinq secondary parkinq
area for the buildinq.
c. Side B facade: Any side buildinq fac..ade not havinq a secondary public entranc~
~ Rear facade: The rear wall of a buildina aenerally cenosite the front fac.,.ade.
3. Sin(31e Tenants 65,000 Gross Square Feet or More
Developments with sinqle tenants occupyin(3 65,000 (3ross square feet or more shall
be subject to the requirements of Table 5.C.1.1-12, Larvae Scale Commercinl
Development.
This space left blank intentionally.
Underlined lanouaoe indicates proposed new language.
Language c.-c:::_~ cut indicates language proposed to be deleted.
... (ellipses) indicates language not amended which has been omitted to save space.
Relocated language is shown as italicized with reference in parenthesis.
SECOND READING
January27,2005 Page
EXHIBIT P
BIG BOX ORDINANCE
59
Notes
1_. An',' side or rear facade with a secondary oubl~c entrance shall meet t~e re~uirernents of Side A above.
2~ Front facade re~uimrnents shall be used for any facade that is oriented towards a str~t
60
61 a. Roofline
62 ~ Paraaet Articulation
63 a_~ Articulation in parapet shall be required with a minimum of five feet for
64 front and side A facades, and any fa~ade oriented towards a street;
65 and. two and one half feet for side B and rear facades.
66 b~ A Paraoet return is required with a lenqth equal to or exceedinq the
67 required oaraoet articulation.
68 b. Facade
69 1} Receases/Proiections
70 Facades qreater than 100 feet in lenqth shall incorporate mcesaes and
71 projections along the total lenqth of the fac,,ade, in accordance with Table
72 5.C.1.1-12. Larae Scale Commemial DeveloP, lent. ReQuired recesses
73 and Droiections shall be distributed alon= the facade with a max[mum
74 spacinq of 150 feet. Recesses and projections shall be fi.om finished
75 qrade to reofline.
76 2} Fenestration Details
77 a_~ Windows
78 Windows shall be Provided in accordance with Table 5.C. 1 .I-12, LarqP
79 Scale Commemial Development
80 {1) A minimum of 70 percent of windows on front and side A fac~adR~
81 shah be transparent, or window box disPla¥inQ only merchandise.
82 The remainin= 30 Dercant may be non-transparent
83 ~ Windows shall be at pedestrian scale.
84 3} Exterior Treatment
85 a_~ A minimum of two different types of buildino materials shall be used,
86 with a 70 cement-30 cement ratio. A chanqe in stucco or use of
87 windows will not count toward meetino this requirement.
88 b_} Exoosed outters or rain leaders are permitted if decerative in nature.
89 4) Covered Walkways
90 a) Facades with a public entrance shall provide covered walkways alonq
91 a minimum of 70 percent of the overall lenQth of the front facade, and
92 30 Dercant of the overall lenqth of side A facades.
93 ~ Covered walkways shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width,
94 unobstructed, with aDDrePrJatelv sDacad columns and pitched roofs.
95 c. Public Entrances
96 ~ A minimum of one public entrance shall be provided alonq the front
97 facade.
Underlined lanauace indicates pmposad new language.
Language ~ccccff c::t indicates language proposed to be deleted.
... (elfipsas) indicates language not amended which has been omitted to save space.
Relocated language is shown as italicized with reference in parenthesis.
SECOND READING
January27,2005 Page
EXHIBIT P
BIG BOX ORDINANCE
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
2_). One additional secondary cublic entrance shall be orovided on a side
facade, subject to the followinc~:
a_} The secondary entrance shall be accessible to the oublic durinQ the
same business hours as the orimarv entrance, or from 10 a.m. to 6
p.m.. whichever is less.
~ Secondary oublic entrances shall be located a minimum distance of
25 percent ~f the lenqth of the side A facade, from the corner of the
front facade.
Pedestrian Amenities
~ One public amenity shall be orovided for every 50.000 souare feet. or
fraction thereof, includinQ but not limited to oublic art: (not deoictinQ any
advertisino): fountains (of at least eioht feet in heiaht. 16 feet diameter:
peroolas: bell or clock tower: and nublic seatinQ areas tnot in conjunction
with a restaurant}. Required pedestrian amenities shall be a minimum of
800 seuare feet and 25 feet in width.
~ A minimum of two pedestrian pathways a minimum of ten feet in width
leadine from the furthest oarkino soaces to oublic entrances shall be
required. These pathways shall incorporate the use of decorative
pavement, trellises, seating, ceroolas, arbors. Qazebos and landscaoinQ.
[Renumber accordingly.]
PART 2.
ULDC, Article 6.A.1.D.2.c, Rear Parking, (page 15 of 39), is amended as
follows:
CHAPTER A PARKING
Section 1 General
D. Off Street Parking
~*;' Location of Required Parking
c. Location of Front. Side and Rear Parking
A minimum of ten percent of the required perking speces shall be located at the
rccr cr side and/or rear of each building it is intended to serve, A public
pedestdan walk shall connect the parking areas to a store entrance. Such
pedestrian access way shall be a minimum of four feet in width, clearJy marked,
well lighted and unobstructed.
1) Larqe Scale Commercial Development
Develooments with sinQle tenants occuovinQ 65,000 areas square feet or
more shall locate perkin;:l in accardanca with Figure 6.A. 1.D-3, Location of
Front. Side and Rear ParkinQ. as follows:
a~ ^ maximum of 75 percent of required parkinq shall be located at the front.
b~ A minimum of 15 percent of required parkin~l shall be located immediately
fronting a side A entrance.
~ A minimum of 25 oercent of the required earkinQ soaces at the side or
rear, as indicated in Fiqure 6.A.1.D-3, Location of Front, Side and Rear
Parking.
The BCC may waive this requirement if the applicant demonstrates there is
an unusual site confiQuration and/or unioue circumstances, and the
alternative site desitin clearly meets the intent of this provision, by incraasin~
the oroximib/of oarkina soaces to oublic entrances, reducino the visual bliQht
of laroe excanses of surface carkin~3 areas, and imcrovine eedestrian
connectivity.
Underlined laneuaQe indicates proposed new language.
Language cm=c-'~- __.ut indicates language proposed to be deleted.
.. (ellipses) indicates language not amended which has been omitted to save space.
Relocated language is shown as italicizedwith reference in parenthesis.
SECOND READING January 27, 2005 Page
158
159
160
161
162
PART 3.
EXHIBIT P
BIG BOX ORDINANCE
ULDC, Article 6.A,1.D.3, Off Street Parking (page 32 of 63), is amended as
follows:
Fluure 6.A.1.D.3. Location of FronL Side and Rear Parklml
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
Froat (Me. mum o~ 75% of required parking)
Big Box in Excess of
65,000 square feet
Rear Parking '
I~)A minimum of 15 percent of recruited Darkin~ shall be located immediately frontina a side/~,
entrance.
(~) A minimum of 25 oercent of re~uired Darkina shall be located on t~e side or rear.
rRenumber all subsequent f qures accordinqly.]
PART 4.
ULDC, Article 7.D.11, Foundation Plantings (page 25 of 52). is amended as
follows:
CHAPTER D General Standards
Section tl Foundation Plantings
~." Lar(;e Scale Commercial Development
In addition to the reouirements of this Code, developments with sinole tenants occuoyinq
65,000 omss souare feet or more shall be subiect to the followinq foundation plantin~
standards:
t. Dimensional Requirements
a. Plantinq areas shall be in accordance with Table 5.C.1.1-12, LarRe Scalp
Commemial Development, or Table 7.C.3-1, Minimum Tier Requirements
whichever is qreatsr.
b_. Foundation olantinq shall meander alonq buildinq facade, and shall not bn
entirely located at the base of the buildinq
2, Easements
No easement encroachment shall be permitted, except for bisectincl utility easement,-,
and pedestrian walkwavs
3. Plantinn Reouirements
a. One tree or ealm for every 15 feet of facade,
b~ Trees/palms shall be evenly distributed alonq the facade
c~ The heiqht of plant material shall be in relation to the height of the adjacent
facade or wall. The heioht of 50 percent of required trees or palms shall be w
minimum of two-thirds of the heiaht of the buildinq.
PART 5.
ULDC, Article 7.F, Perimeter Buffer Landscape Requirements (page 34 of
52), Is amended as follows:
Underlined lanauaoe indicates proposed new language.
Language c.'.~c_-cd out indicates language proposed to be deleted.
... (ellipses) indicates language not amended which has been omitted to save space.
Relocated language is shown as italicizedwtth reference in parenthesis,
SECOND READING January 27, 2005
Page
2O4
205
2O6
2O7
2O8
2O9
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
22O
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
23O
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
24O
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
25O
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
EXHIBIT P
BIG BOX ORDINANCE
CHAPTER F PERIMETER BUFFER LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
Section 10 Lar(]e Scale Commercial Development
Perimeter Buffer
In addition to the reauirements of this Code. develooments with sinale tenants 65.000
(]ross souare feet or more shall be subject to the followin~ standards:
1. R-O-W Buffem
The width, berm and plantinq requirements alonq streets, thoreuf:!hfares and/or other
means of vehicular access shall be upqraded as follows:
a. U/S Tier
1_.) A minimum 25 foot wide buffer,
2) A three foot hioh berm.
b. Glades and Rural/Ex Tiers
1) A minimum 50 foot wide buffer. If a lake/retention area is located alon.q a R-
O-W, the buffer may be solit to border the oerimeter of the lake, 25' alonq the
street and 25' alona the interior side of the lake.
2) Reouired trees. Palms and shrubs shall be double the quantities required
under Art, 7.F.2, Trees, shrubs and hedqes.
2. Comrretlb|litv Buffers
The width, berm and plantinq requirements alonq property lines adjacent to
compatible uses shall be upqraded as follows:
a. U/S Tier
13 A minimum 25 foot wide buffer.
2) A three foot hk]h berm,
b. Glades and Rural/Ex Tiers
1) A minimum 50 footwide buffer
2) Reouired trees, oalms and shrubs shall be double the quantities required
under Art. 7.F.2, Trees, shrubs and hedqes.
3. IncomDatibilitv Buffers
The width, berm and plantinq requirements alonq property lines adjacent to
residential and other incompatible uses, and vacant properties with a residential FI U
desiqnation, shall be uooraded as follows:
a. U/B Tier
1) A minimum 50 foot wide buffer.
2) A four foot hiqh berm.
2) Re(]uired trees, palms and shrubs shall be double the quantities required
under Art. 7.F.2. Trees. shrubs and hedqes.
b. Glades and Rural/Ex Tiers
1) A minimum 50 foot wide buffer.
2) Required trees, palms and shrubs shall be double the quantities required
under Art. 7.F.2. Trees, shrubs and hedqes.
4. Encroachment
No easement encroachment shall be permitted in required perimeter buffers, except
for bisectino utility easements and required safe sight distance easements not tn
exceed a maximum of fifty nercent of the required buffer width.
5. Perimeter Sidewalk
A perimeter sidewalk a minimum of shall be required in all R-O-W buffers 50 feet in
width, and shall meander throu(]h the buffer.
$. Berm
Berms shal~ be staqqered~ rellinq or offset, as indicated in Fiqure 7.F.10.A-13,
Typical Example of Staooered, Rollinq or Offset Berm.
PART 6.
ULDC, Article 7. F, Perimeter Buffer Landscape Requirements (page 34 of
52), is amended as follows:
Figure 7. F.10.A-13, Typical Example of Staggered, Rolling or Offset Berm
Underlined lanouao~* indicates proposed new language.
Language c.":-c-~='J, cu'- indicates language proposed to be deleted.
... (ellipses) indicates language not amended which has been omitted to save space.
Relocated language is shown as italicized with reference in parenthesis.
SECOND READING January 27, 2005 Page
EXHIBIT P
BIG BOX ORDINANCE
Buffer
Width
Varies
LINE TYPES:
Property Line
Contour Line
Buffer Boundary ~
207
268
269
27O
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
28O
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
29O
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
3OO
[Renumber subsequent figures accordingly].
U:~zoning\CODEREV~2004\Ordinances~Big Box\l-27 2nd Reading2.doc
Underlined [an(~uaoe indicates proposed new language.
Language cm==_~J_ cut indicates language proposed to be deleted.
... (ellipses) indicates language not amended whic~ has been omitted to save space.
Relocated language is shown as italicizedwith reference Jn parenthesis,
SECOND READING January 27, 2005 Page