Agenda 08-23-11
I
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MEETING AGENDA
DATE: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 TIME: 6:30 P.M.
PLACE: Commission Chambers, 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Introduction of the Board
3. Agenda Approval
4. Approval of Minutes from July 26, 2011 meeting
5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff
6. Old Business:
None
7. New Business:
A.1. Literacv Coalition of Palm Beach County (NWSP 11-003) - Request for New
Site Plan approval to construct a 12,204 square foot office building on a 1.41-acre parcel
located at 3651 Quantum Boulevard, in the PID (Planned Industrial Development) zoning
district. Applicant: Literacy Coalition of Palm Beach County.
B.1. Indoor Athletic InstructionlTrainina (CDRV 11-008) - Request to amend the Land
Development Regulations (LOR) to 1) allow Indoor Athletic Instruction I Training
establishments in the M-1 zoning district without limiting their size or restricting
their location to multiple-tenant buildings on properties fronting on arterial or
collector roadways; 2) change the definition of Indoor Athletic Instruction I
Training to emphasize athletic activities; and 3) expand the definition of Indoor
Entertainment to include indoor playground and play centers. Applicant: City-
Initiated.
C.1. Wall Sianaae (CDRV 11-009) - Request to amend the Land Development
Regulations (LOR) to clarify the methodology used to calculate the maximum wall
signage allowed for any given building or tenant space. Applicant: City-Initiated.
8. Other
9. Comments by members
10. Adjournment
The Board (Committee) may only conduct public business after a quorum has been established. If no
quorum is established within twenty minutes of the noticed start time of the meeting the City Clerk or
her designee will so note the failure to establish a quorum and the meeting shall be concluded. Board
members may not participate further even when purportedly acting in an informal capacity.
Planning and Development Board Meeting Page 2
Agenda August 23, 2011
NOTICE
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WITH RESPECT
TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. (F.S. 286.0105) THE CITY SHALL FURNISH
APPROPRIATE AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES WHERE NECESSARY TO AFFORD AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY AN
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN AND ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF A SERVICE, PROGRAM, OR ACTIVITY
CONDUCTED BY THE CITY. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, (561) 742-6060 AT LEAST TWENTY (24) HOURS
PRIOR TO THE PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE YOUR REQUEST.
S:IPlanninglPlanning & Development BoardlAgendas - 2011IAgenda 8-23-11.dot
t
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON
TUESDAY, JULY 26,2011, AT 6:30 P.M. IN
COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PRESENT:
Roger Saberson, Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director
Leah Foertsch James Cherof, Board Attorney
Sharon Grcevic
Cory Kravit
Brian Miller
Warren Timm
James Brake, Alt
ABSENT:
Matthew Barnes, Vice Chair
Chair Saberson called the meeting to order at 6:29 p.m.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
Ms. Grcevic led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
2. Introduction of the Board
Chair Saberson introduced the members of the Board. A quorum was present.
3. Agenda Approval
Motion
A motion was made by Mr. Miller to approve the agenda. Mr. Timm seconded the
motion that unanimously passed.
4. Approval of Minutes from June 28, 2011 meeting
Motion
A motion was made by Mr. Timm to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Miller
seconded the motion that unanimously passed.
I
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, FL July 26, 2011
5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff
Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, reported the outcome of the items that
went to the City Commission following the Board's review for the July meetings. At the
July 5th City Commission meeting, there was one item which included the Code
Amendment that allowed nightclubs, restaurants and cigar bars within Mixed-Use Pods
of a Planned Industrial Development district. It was approved on second reading. At the
July 19th City Commission meeting, there were two items on the agenda for approval.
First, the Sibia office building New Site Plan for a two-story 8,806 square foot medical
office building was approved. Second, the first reading of the Florida Friendly
Landscape and Code Amendment that was being processed was approved.
6. Old Business
None.
7. New Business
Attorney Cherof administered the oath to all those intending to testify.
A.1. PNC Bank (NWSP 11-001) - Request for New Site Plan approval to
construct a 3,300 square foot bank with remote drive-through lanes on a
0.70-acre parcel located at 1520 South Federal Highway, in the C-3
(Community Commercial) zoning district. Applicant: PNC Financial
Services Group.
Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, presented the request for the New Site Plan. The property is
located at the northeast comer of Federal Highway and Woolbright Road. The future
land use designation is local retail/commercial land use. The zoning is C-3, Community
Commercial. The site currently supports a gas station with vehicle repair and a
convenience store. To the north is a multi-family development, Bermuda Cay, zoned R-
3; to the east is the same development; to the south is Woolbright Road and then the
Riverwalk Shopping Center with a bank outparcel, Wells Fargo, and that is all zoned C-
3. To the west is Federal Highway and across Federal Highway is the mixed-use Las
Ventanas, zoned Mixed-Use-Low. To the southwest, is the Sunshine Square shopping
center and Valero gas, zoned C-3. Edward McDonald, professional Engineer with
Bohler Engineering is the agent representing the applicant, Gina Anderson, with PNC
Financial Services Group. They are requesting a Site Plan approval to construct a
3,300 square foot bank building with a remote drive-thru center, accessed by three
lanes, including one lane for an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM). In the redevelopment
of the site, all existing structures would be demolished and all underground equipment
which included fuel tanks, monitoring wells and septic tank would be removed. All
demolition, debris removal, and mitigation of the site would be required to comply with
all applicable
2
I
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, FL July 26, 2011
local, state and federal environmental regulations. The Site Plan shows two access
drives, both right-in, right-out, one on Federal and the other on Woolbright. Circulation
from each driveway is two-way and continues throughout the parking lot.
Staff determined that the elimination of a bypass lane around the remote drive-thru
center would be acceptable due to the site circulation layout. Pedestrian walkways are
provided that extend from the parking areas to the building and connect to continuous
sidewalks. The building would require 14 parking spaces based upon the standard of
one parking space per 250 square feet of building for bank use, for a total of 18 parking
spaces, including one designated for handicap use.
The bank would generate less traffic than the existing use on the site. Palm Beach
County Traffic Engineering granted traffic concurrency approval for this project with a
build-out year of 2012.
The building complies with all setback requirements of the C-3 zoning district, as well as
the Urban Commercial District overlay zone. The floor plan shows the PNC bank
project would include a highly engineered design that meets the green building
standards of a LEED volume certification program, specifically tailored for new
construction of retail buildings. The plans indicate that the building components would
maximize energy performance. The City encourages LEED design and construction
through expedited permitting for this type of project with provisions and incentives of the
City's newly adopted Green Building Ordinance.
Ms. Zeitler continued to explain how the building would blend with other retail buildings
in the area as far as exterior colors, roof design and lighting. Staff recommends, as a
condition of approval, some decorative medallions or other elements, consistent with
other retail stores in the area, be added to the facades to break up large expanses of
blank walls and provide more visual interest. There are areas in the south elevation that
are proposed to comply with the Art in Public Places requirement. The art would
compliment the architecture of the building and enhance the ambiance of the
development. Approval of the artist and artwork was still pending by the Arts
Commission.
Ms. Zeitler discussed the landscape requirements. The City Forester recommends as a
condition of approval, a total of twelve identified trees be preserved and placed on site
and to be in conformance with City requirements and also be in compliance with Crime
Prevention requirements.
The Development Application Review Team reviewed the request for a New Site Plan
and recommended approval, contingent upon satisfaction of all 25 conditions of
approval.
Mr. Miller inquired what the impact to the City would be and Ms. Zeitler advised that
3
I
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, FL July 26, 2011
would be determined prior to the City Commission meeting as that study was not
completed yet.
Ryan Thomas, Engineer with Bohler Engineering and representing PNC Bank, 1000
Corporate Drive, Ft. Lauderdale, was asked to address the question raised by Mr. Miller
regarding the economic impact. Mr. Thomas advised there were typically 8-12 full-time
employees for a site of this type and the construction cost would be between $2-3
million. However, he would prefer to defer the question to PNC for more accurate
figures.
Mr. Thomas thanked Ms. Zeitler for her presentation and confirmed the details she had
presented. He presented a slide show depicting the Site Plan that was approved by
City staff and advised there were a couple of comments on the 25 conditions.
With regard to vehicular access, there were meetings with Palm Beach County and City
Engineering staff. The fire route contemplated was from Federal Highway, through the
site and out onto Woolbright Boulevard, that was approved by the Fire Department.
With regard to Bermuda Cay, the initial design for the project had a lift station on the
north side of the site that was to have a 500 foot long directional drill underneath U.S. 1
to the south, which created concern for the City Engineering Department. To maintain
that type of pipe, it would be 10-15 feet deep underneath the intersection. Looking for
an alternate solution, the City directed Bohler Engineering to Bermuda Cay. Several
meetings took place with Bermuda Cay and as a result of the meetings, a couple of
letters were sent. One letter was from the City of Boynton Beach Engineering
Department and one from Bermuda Cay's Homeowner Association, both talking about
the proposed sewer connection being done with Bermuda Cay. Initially, the lift station
was on the north side of the site. There is now an agreement with Bermuda Cay to go
through their parking lot, and they would dedicate a 12 foot easement to tie into their
sanitary sewer that was located a little north and east of the proposed site. As a result
of the meetings, Bermuda Cay had requested a few items which are being complied
with. One item was a six foot pre-cast wall. The drawings were submitted to them and
they were extremely pleased with how it would look and how it would change the look of
their neighborhood, as well.
There had been discussion with regard to the public art portion of the project. As part of
the commercial development of Boynton Beach, it was required to contribute some
public art. There are a few ideas on how it would be accomplished. There was a trellis
proposed and a screen wall on the south side adjacent to Woolbright. There was a
screen wall that extends north of the building to the entrance on Federal to screen the
drive-thru, as requested by staff. The southern screen wall was pretty unique. The
landscaping architect had been working closely with City staff and came up with a
landscape plan which everyone was pleased with.
4
I
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, FL July 26, 2011
Chair Saberson asked whether Mr. Thomas agreed with the conditions of approval and
Mr. Thomas indicated most of them were agreed with, but had some comments on
others.
Item # 1 called for two fire hydrants and Mr. Thomas indicated it was worked out with
the Fire Department and Engineering Department that the single hydrant on the north
side of the building provided the fire protection required with the hose length. Ms.
Zeitler advised she will follow up as this condition was added after the DART
(Development Application Review Team) meeting occurred.
Item #2 had to do with the grinder/lift station and all the issues with Bermuda Cay. Now
that the issues with Bermuda Cay were resolved, the grinder station would no longer be
required. He advised after discussions with Ms. Zeitler and Mr. Breese, it was decided
to come back after site approval and do a minor administrative amendment to remove
the lift station, which benefits all parties. Mr. Saberson advised that the Board could
not actually remove the conditions, but could provide direction to put a plan in place
before it goes to the City Commission.
Item #7 reads that all lighting shall be metal halide. Mr. Thomas advised that was
discussed at DART and indicated that the firm is very LEED conscious and all of the
lighting is LED. He advised this was discussed with staff and they indicated it would be
worked on. Ms. Zeitler expressed she would follow-up with the Police Department as
the metal halide condition was one of their standard conditions.
Item #14 would be discussed by Paul Griggs as it dealt with Planning and Zoning.
Paul Briggs, Gensler Architects, 2020 K Street NW, Washington D.C., advised he
wanted to briefly discuss Item #7 regarding the metal halide lighting locations. The
metal halide lighting was also required with the under canopy lighting and wall mounted
wall packs and these were typically LED. He wanted to make sure those items were
included where metal halide lighting was required.
Mr. Briggs showed a slide presentation and explained all the items required to maintain
a certified LEED building project. On the exterior of the building, recycled content
products would be used wherever possible. He continued to explain the building
concepts both inside and out and mentioned that all plans follow a green sustainable
concept.
Ms. Grcevic mentioned issues she had with the landscaping and wanted assurance that
they would remain low in areas near the street for safety and that they would be low
maintenance so that little or no water irrigation would be required.
Michael Gross, Landscape Architect, Bohler Engineering, 1000 Corporate Drive, Ft.
Lauderdale, discussed the landscaping. He commented the shrubs and landscaping on
5
I
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, FL July 26, 2011
the corners would be low maintenance and would be a maximum of 18 inches in height,
along with a grass strip on the Federal Highway side. The irrigation is designed to
Florida Friendly standards with separate zones to increase water efficiencies.
Motion
Ms. Grcevic moved to approve PNC Bank (NWSP 11-001) request for New Site Plan
subject to all staff recommendations subject to the recommended conditions of
approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Miller and was unanimously passed.
B.1. Cuthill's Bar (COUS 11-003 I MSPM 11-002) - Request for Conditional
Use and Major Site Plan Modification approval to allow an existing 1,563
square foot building and a new 1,025 square foot chickee hut (totaling
2,588 square feet) to be used as a bar/nightclub on a 0.29-acre parcel
located at 417 North Federal Highway, in the CBD (Central Business
District) zoning district. Applicant: IMAEC, LLC and AEC Property
Holdings, LLC.
Eric Johnson, Planner, presented the details of the site plan modification. The
property is located at 417 North Federal Highway. There is a right-of-way for NE 4th
Avenue and farther north is an existing commercial building; to the south is Veterans
Bicentennial Park; to the east is the right-of-way for North Federal Highway and farther
east is the Promenade project. To the west is the right-of-way for NE 4h Street; farther
west is an existing commercial building. The subject property is zoned CBD and its
underlying land use is Mixed-Use. The proposal calls for a 1,563 square foot building
and a 1,025 chickee hut on 0.29-acre parcel. The property is small and is comprised of
multiple parcels to form one lot. The existing building is located at the southeast corner
of the site and the existing parking spaces are west of the site. The proposal is to
occupy the existing building, develop the site with a chickee hut and improve the
existing parking areas. There are currently 11 parking spaces on site and the proposal
is to increase that from 11 to 14.
The landscape plan shows existing plantings on the site and will remain. The proposal
included the planting of more trees and shrubs, all of which would comply with the
Code. A bar/nightclub by definition, in the CBD, is a Conditional Use and therefore
each Conditional Use request had to demonstrate compliance with the standards that
are evaluated. There are 13 standards for evaluating Conditional Use. The first being
ingress and egress. The entrance will be relocated along NE 4th Avenue, and would
combine the off street parking spaces and would also have safe-sight triangles. With
regard to refuse and service areas, an existing dumpster enclosure is located on site.
The site complies with the City's requirements for potable water and sanitary sewer.
Seating was proposed inside the building, inside the chickee hut and outside in the
loggia. There would be a total of 150 seats in all the areas. Placement of the building
6
I
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, FL July 26, 2011
and the chickee hut are consistent with the Federal Highway area, particularly within the
Urban Commercial District Overlay. The site is located in study area #3 of the Federal
Highway Corridor Redevelopment Plan and compatible with that Plan. With respect to
economic effect, while holistic data cannot be accurately provided, generally speaking, it
would be a positive impact. Revenue would be obtained from fees such as utility fees,
assessment fees and others. There would be approximately 10-15 people employed.
According to the Code requirements, data is required as to the sound emitting devices
and equipment. The problem, according to the applicant, was the equipment had not
been chosen yet, so providing a sound analysis would not be possible at this time.
Staff, as a condition of approval, has recommended that a new Code Amendment be
brought forth to address this particular issue. At the time this was implemented, the live
entertainment permit was not available. Rather than requiring the applicant to go
through a Conditional Use application and also the live entertainment permit, it was felt
that new language would be put in place prior to the applicant applying for a business
tax receipt, which the applicant would have 18 months to apply. Although the study
called for the applicant to apply for a live entertainment permit which would include a fee
and a lengthy process in addition to a Conditional Use permit, if staff presented new
Code Amendments that would address the situation, taking both permits into
consideration, it would act as a hybrid so in the future, if another bar or nightclub wanted
to come to the City and they do not have sound equipment picked out, it could be
addressed more appropriately. The sound study would be addressed in condition #21.
As to parking, the applicant stated there would be 10-15 employees and the site
currently would have 14 parking spaces after the development was complete. Under
normal circumstances, based upon the number of seats proposed, a total of 60 parking
spaces would be required. For the record, Mr. Johnson wanted the following to be
included as part of the minutes.
"In pursuant to Part III (LDR) Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 2C, bars and
nightclubs require one parking space per 100 square feet, but no less than one
space per 2.5 seats. Based on this standard, the project would require a total of
60 parking spaces. However, the Code contains a special adaptive re-use
provision as applicable to properties located in CBD. The structure is allowed to
be enlarged in the manner not to exceed 100% of the gross floor area. No
additional parking shall be required if the use is changed or seats are added.
Therefore, this project is not compelled to add any additional off-street parking
spaces, pursuant to the above provisions."
In fact, these provisions were intentionally created in order to stimulate business activity
in older properties that would otherwise remain unimproved and possibly unoccupied,
given the inability to accommodate all necessary site improvements associated with
current parking regulations.
7
I
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, FL July 26, 2011
Mr. Johnson advised that the Promenade had public parking available for projects such
as this. However, the Promenade parking was only available until 12:30 a.m. The
applicant was prepared to address this concern. In 2000, the CRA completed a parking
analysis for the area for which Mr. Johnson provided a hand-out to the Board. This
analysis was done prior to the Promenade being complete. According to the hand-out,
there are parking deficits in two areas. The Promenade helped to overcome that area as
the parking available exceeds the deficit. The issue was the 12:30 a.m. limitation, which
in their agreement with the CRA; they are allowed to restrict access to parking spaces.
They have not been approached on the issue of keeping it open longer. The Staff had
produced a condition of approval for this very purpose.
Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning Consultants, advised they are requesting the
Conditional Use in the Site Plan and confirmed what Mr. Johnson presented. He
advised the property owner had reached out to property owners on the west side and to
the north to get a commitment to use their parking spaces during non business hours.
He advised he had gotten permission to use those parking spaces. There was a
comment made about people walking across the street to get to the Promenade garage
after leaving a bar and Mr. Miller advised there was a signal and a crosswalk there and
hoped that those provisions in place would make the crossing safe.
Mr. Miller advised the staff report was reviewed and there was agreement with all of the
conditions. The additional condition would be to address the issue of the Promenade
parking which was generated through discussion. Mr. Johnson read the draft condition
for the record:
"To restrict the hours of operation to no later than 12:30 a.m. Written
documentation, acceptable to the City, must be provided to confirm the
availability of additional off-site parking (within a reasonable distance) in order for
the hours of operation to be extended beyond 12:30 a.m."
The Board was in agreement with the wording of the condition. Ms. Grcevic commented
that with the availability of parking from the neighboring business, she did not feel the
Promenade parking would be an issue. She also inquired if the chickee hut would be a
bonafide, to Code, structured chickee hut, not a Seminole built chickee hut. Mr. Miller
advised although it was Seminole built, there would be electrical and all building Codes
would be met.
There was further discussion on the parking issue and possibly investigating the option
of valet parking. Mr. Miller advised that valet parking had already been decided and
would be incorporated into the plan.
Mr. Miller suggested coming back with the type of sound equipment that would be
utilized. He felt that a project like this is not put together and then after it is put together,
the sound equipment is chosen. It should all be part of the overall project that would be
8
I
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, FL July 26, 2011
approved. Mr. Miller of Miller Land Planning advised that staff addressed that issue with
the changes made in some of the ordinances where that information would be provided
and the regulations would be complied with.
William Hagestron, 532 SE 28th Avenue, advised he owned the automotive shop
directly west of the proposed site. He advised he talked very briefly about parking with
the applicant and in the plan, there appeared to be alot more parking than he had
discussed with the applicant. He also advised the purchase of the property was also
discussed with the owner, as well as other properties in the area, but Mr. Cuthill decided
to purchase the proposed Federal Highway location. He inquired as to the promenade
parking and advised he thought it was for everyone, so there should not be an issue
with customers of Cuthill's utilizing it. He advised his building was available for parking
as he did not run his business full time at the present time.
Mr. Johnson advised that on behalf of Board Member Barnes who was absent from the
meeting, he wished to read an email addressing a concern Mr. Barnes had with the
application. Mr. Barnes contented that the pedestrian crosswalk was located directly in
front of the applicant's property and did not have the "countdown signal" for pedestrians
to look at while crossing Federal Highway. He stated it was a long walk across Federal
Highway and although the length of the stop signal for vehicular traffic appears to be
long enough for pedestrians to safely make it across the road, countdown signals would
help pedestrians cross Federal Highway safely and comfortably.
Mr. Saberson asked the Board if there were any recommendations relevant to Mr.
Barnes' comment. Mr. Johnson indicated the signal Mr. Barnes was referring to was
located at the Federal Highway right-of-way and that he attempted to contact the
appropriate staff members that would be able to discuss it further but was unsuccessful.
It would most likely require coordination with FDOT (Florida Department of
Transportation). There would be an extra expense involved in installing a new signal.
Mr. Saberson confirmed that before the next Commission meeting, Mr. Johnson would
have further conversations with the staff members to determine whether there should be
another condition. Mr. Johnson would follow up but thought the condition would be
more appropriate coming from the Planning and Development Board rather than staff.
Mr. Saberson wanted Mr. Johnson to investigate it futher with the idea in mind of not
mandating a condition, but for staff to consider the condition as to whether or not, in its
opinion, felt it was warranted. If so, the matter would be discussed at the City
Commission level. Mr. Miller of Miller Land Planning advised it would be an FDOT
issue and felt no one had enough information at the present time to approve or
disapprove it as far as to what it would entail or what the requirements would be.
Mr. Miller inquired if the project were approved, when would construction begin and was
advised as soon as the permit could be acquired. He wanted to know why there were
no comments from the Police or the CRA regarding this project. Mr. Johnson indicated
they had reviewed the project and any comments were eliminated because the Site plan
9
I
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, FL July 26, 2011
complied with whatever they commented on. He indicated they were endorsing the
project.
Mr. Johnson wanted to discuss the live entertainment permit versus the sound study.
The live entertainment permit does not require the sound analysis. The Conditional Use
application requires the sound analysis. The live entertainment permit relies more on
the City's existing sound regulations and operational performance standards. The City
Code has certain decibel levels that each business must adhere to, so while there was
work being done on creating new language and drafting a new ordinance, he wanted to
advise that staff was recommending that the applicant not have to submit the sound
analysis in connection with this application. He felt that it would be more appropriately
addressed later when staff drafts new regulations specific to these types of applications.
This was addressed in condition of approval #21.
Mr. Saberson asked if this would be doing away with the sound study analysis in all
cases or would some cases require it? Mr. Rumpf advised he was one of the team
members who worked on the live entertainment permit process, which took several
months to put together. The intent was to rely heavily on the City's existing sound
regulations. To require additional building materials to prevent any sound from radiating
through a building might be excessive. There was a sound system in place in the City
that, if enforced, theoretically required uses not exceed a certain decibel threshold
based on the time of day. He advised this would be intended to be more business
friendly, with a faster means of reviewing live entertainment applications from various
restaurants and bars in the City. Many have been operating "unlawfully" in the City with
the type of activity they had been conducting and entertaining patrons for many years.
It would be retrofitted to motivate more activity and create a vibrant atmosphere
downtown, which the Mixed-Use districts and developments are intended to
accommodate.
Mr. Saberson wanted to confirm that this meant that the existing sound analysis would
be terminated that would otherwise have been required when the Code amendment
comes forward. In addition, the City would rely exclusively on the provisions and
ordinances that currently exist that certain decibel levels must be met in business
activity. He also inquired if the City actively enforces that ordinance. Mr. Johnson
confirmed this. There was further discussion on the sound ordinance and decibel
requirements. Ultimately, the sound issue was the responsibility of Code Compliance in
that if a business did not comply with requirements, the live entertainment permit could
be taken away for up to one year.
Motion
Mr. Brake moved to approve the site plan with staff recommendation subject to all
conditions of approval and including one read by Mr. Johnson and agreed to by
applicant. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that passed unanimously.
10
I
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, FL July 26, 2011
C.1. Beverage and Food Manufacturing (CDRV 11-007) - Request to amend
the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to 1) modify the definitions of
certain industrial uses to allow an accessory component to include retail
sales, tasting rooms, and facility tours; and 2) to allow such industrial uses
within the C-4 (General Commercial) zoning district. Applicant: City-
Initiated.
Mr. Johnson advised the proposed request would further business and economic
development. The intent of the Code amendment would revolve around five primary
initiatives or reasons. 1) the business and economic development initiative; 2) the
sustainability initiative; 3) internal consistency for regulatory compliance; and 4)
implementation, feedback and current objects and City vision. This Code amendment
was to further business and economic development. The City had been approached by
a couple of entrepreneurs who want to open a microbrewery in the City. Currently, the
Code prohibits distilling and brewing activities. Because micro brewing is on the rise,
staff reevaluated the prohibition against distilling and brewing, and reevaluated the
Code to determine if it was something that the City would want. Mr. Johnson handed
out a chart that indicated Florida was listed 44th out of 50 states as far as
microbreweries per capita.
He advised that microbreweries and craft breweries were something to be considered in
the City. The business model of the microbreweries and craft breweries was three-fold.
1) producing and manufacturing the beer on site; 2) distributing across the County,
State and hopefully the nation; 3) they want to have tasting rooms, which is an area of
the facility that the public would be invited to come in and taste their product and also
taste comparable products, as well as retailing other items. In order to allow a
microbrewery in the City, the prohibition against brewing and distilling had to be
removed and a provision added to allow a tasting room. Staff evaluated this and asked
if the public should be invited into the industrial areas and should there be a bar or
nightclub in the M-1 zoning district. The answer was no. It was something staff felt that,
with the proposed provisions, it would be inviting a bar or nightclub in the M-1 zoning
district. The tasting area would be for the patrons to come in, taste the product and to
keep them from lingering, the hours of operation had been restricted. In the C-4 zoning
district, it would be different. In the M-1 zoning district, beverage manufacturing, dairy
manufacturing, food processing, frozen foods, ice cream, dessert tasting room, would
all be permitted uses in the M-1 zoning district currently. In order to allow a beverage
manufacturing establishment to have a tasting room, it would need to be expanded to
the food manufacturing aspect also. If a food manufacturer was in the City and wanted
people to come in and taste their product, as long as it complied with all the standards
of the City, it seemed like a logical fit to expand it. The definitions were changed to
allow for the tasting room with certain size regulations and thresholds that would have to
be maintained in order to not have a bar/nightclub in the M-1 zoning district. In the C-4
zoning district, it would be a Conditional Use to have these types of uses and a bar or
11
I
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, FL July 26, 2011
nightclub is allowed in this district.
Mr. Timm advised he had been in these types of places in other states and felt they
were also really good restaurants. As a restaurant type of operation, he felt this would
contribute tremendously to the success of Boynton Beach and he would endorse it. Mr.
Miller inquired how many cities in the County allow these types of businesses and Mr.
Johnson advised he did not have the information on hand, but did review the
municipalities in the County that may allow a craft brewery to locate there. They tend to
be in industrial areas because the industrial areas are where there are low rents, large
spaces and high ceilings, as these types of uses require those things.
Mr. Rumpf advised this was the second request they have had in the last six months.
The first one had to be turned away since there was no Code to accommodate the
business plan. The second one advised they were looking in the area, had gone to
Delray and the areas all have similar Codes to the City. Mr. Rumpf further explained
the mechanics of the breweries.
Mr. Kravit inquired whether the Code, as it currently stands, permit the brew concept
now and Mr. Rumpf advised it did not. The production of beverages was allowed, but
not alcohol. The production of beverages was allowed to a certain degree, but not with
an on-site retail component. This was the aspect that would need to be addressed. Mr.
Kravit further inquired if the City would consider amending the proposed changes to
include a brew pub concept and if an immediate application was anticipated for a
microbrewery from the entrepreneurs that inquired. Mr. Rumpf indicated yes and
advised that Mr. Johnson had been working very closely with the second contact to
work out the restrictions and learn about the operation of the business plan to see how it
works. There was a building he was targeting in one of the northern pockets of the City
Mr. Miller suggested inviting the person to address the Board and explain exactly how
this concept would work.
Mr. Johnson advised that originally there was going to be a restriction imposed that
mandated the beverage produced on site would only be able to be sold on site, but it
came to staff's attention that those in the industry sell each other's craft brews and it
was part of their plan in order to reach distant markets. Mr. Kravit inquired whether that
should be stricken from the proposed language and Mr. Johnson advised they had
already omitted it. Mr. Johnson inquired if additional language should be added
immediately and Mr. Saberson suggested to simply delete the sentence so it would not
read lito be sold on site".
Motion
Mr. Timm moved to recommend approval to the City Commission with the amendment
on page 4 discussed previously. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kravit and approved
12
I
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, FL July 26, 2011
unanimously.
8. Other
None,
9. Comments by members
Mr. Miller asked if there was any feedback on his question concerning lighting on South
Federal Highway and Mr. Rumpf indicated that Jeff Livergood was in the process of
researching. It was a DOT right-of-way and they would be responsible for the lighting,
but may be part of the roadway improvements.
10. Adjournment
Mr. Timm moved to adjourn and was seconded by Ms, Grvcevic. The motion passed
unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
,-, a
" 1" t
U~{( tz,1..(,(,,:2..c;-
Ellie Caruso
Recording Secretary
13
I
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 11-027
TO: Chair and Members
Planning & Developmerif Board
Ii ' jL/
THRU: Michael Rumpf "f!A.l
Director of Planning and Zoning
FROM: Eric Lee Johnson, AICP r
Planner II
DATE: August 10, 2011
PROJECT: Quantum Park Lot 16 (Literacy Coalition of PSC / NWSP 11-003)
REQUEST: New Site Plan approval to construct an office building on a 1.41-acre parcel in the
pro zoning district.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Property Owner: Quantum Corporate Center, LLLP
Applicant: Literacy Coalition of Palm Beach County
Agent: Kenneth R. Carlson
Location: Quantum Park Lot 16 (see Exhibit "A" - Site Location Map)
Existing Land Use/Zoning: Development of Regional Impact (DRI) / Planned Industrial Development
(PID)
Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No change proposed
Proposed Use: Office
Acreage: 1.41 acres (61 ,482 sq uare feet)
Adjacent Uses:
North: Existing light industrial building with multiple tenants, classified
Development of Regional Impact (DRI), zoned Planned Industrial
Development (prO), with an Office Industrial (01) Quantum Park PIO land
use option;
South: Undeveloped land, classified Development of Regional Impact (DRI),
zoned Planned Industrial Development (PID), with a Mixed Use (MU)
Quantum Park PID land use option;
East: Right~of-way for Quantum Boulevard; still father east is existing light
industrial building with multiple tenants classified Development of
I
Memorandum No. PZ 11-027
Quantum Park Lot 16 (Uteracy Coalition of PBC I NWSP 11-003)
Page 2
Regional Impact (DRI), zoned Planned Industrial Development (PID), with
an Industrial (IND) Quantum Park PID land use option; and
West: Undeveloped land Lot 16-A (drainage easement); still farther west is an
existing lake (Quantum Park Water Management tract); and still farther
west is an existing office building (United Way of Palm Beach) classified
Development of Regional Impact (DRI), zoned Planned Industrial
Development (PID), with an Office (O) Quantum Park PID land use
option; and
PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION
Owners of properties within 400 feet of the subject site plan were mailed a notice of this request and its
respective hearing dates. The applicant has certified that signage is posted and notices mailed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 04-007.
BACKGROUND
Site Features: The subject property consists of 1.41 acres with over 181 feet of frontage on
Quantum Boulevard. The site is currently undeveloped and contains several
mature trees, a drainage easement, and a utility easement. According to the
survey, the highest elevation reading is 14.7 feet, located at the western portion of
the lot.
Proposal: Mr. Ken Carlson, agent for the applicant, is seeking new site plan approval to
construct a 12,204 square foot office building (headquarters for the literacy
Coalition of Palm Beach County).
According to their website, the organization was started in 1989, and their mission
is to improve the quality of life by promoting and achieving literacy. Their goal is to
ensure that every child and adult in the County becomes a reader. The
organization has direct service programs aimed at serving individuals from infancy
through adulthood. The objectives of their programs are as follows: 1) help
families in poverty improve reading and English skills; 2} teach adults with low
literacy skills in the workplace and in community centers; 3} provide training on
literacy strategies for staff members at child care centers, family care homes and
after school programs; 4) work with pediatricians to introduce low income families
to the importance of reading with their children; 5} provide reading partners who
share books weekly with three-year-old children to help them blossom into life-long
lovers of books and reading; 6} coordinate a home visiting program that
encourages verbal interaction and educational play between parents and their
preschool children; 7) coordinate an AmeriCorps program whose members tutor
children, youth and adults and serve as high school graduation coaches: and 8}
provide professional development workshops for adult education teachers and
administrators.
Staff understands the project would be completed within one (1) phase with a
build-out date planned for late 2012. It is anticipated that a total of 89 people
would be employed with the possibility of increasing staff within the first five (5)
years of operation. Staff also understands the breakdown of employees would be
as follows: 40 AmeriCorps members who would provide weekly training on a
specified day and attend meetings; 17 full-time (14 of which work in the office all or
I
Memorandum No. PZ 11-027
Quantum Park Lot 16 (Literacy Coalition of PBC I NWSP 11-003)
Page 3
most of the day); and the remaining 32 would work part-time (5 in the office, 27 in
the field). The floor plan (sheet A4.0) illustrates the proposed layout of offices,
conference and meeting rooms, kitchen, and the book distribution center. All
construction will be in conformance with the Florida Building Code. The project
has been reviewed and approved by the Quantum Park Architectural Review
Committee.
The applicant intends for this development to be a green project, and while the
City's review has been underway, the applicant is considering the requirements for
both the City's Green Building Program or LEED certification (U.S. Green Building
Council). It should be noted that staff and the applicant have had numerous
meetings and communications regarding the sustainable attributes of the project,
and staff anticipates the project would satisfactorily meet the necessary
prerequisite standards and achieve the minimum necessary electives (if not more)
of the International Green Construction Code (IGCC) and I or achieve a LEED
Silver rating.
ANALYSIS
Concurrency:
Traffic: A traffic impact statement for the project was sent to the Palm Beach County
Traffic Division for concurrency review in order to ensure an adequate level of
service. The Palm Beach County Traffic Division approved the traffic analysis on
June 22, 2011 and has determined that the proposed project is located within the
previously approved Quantum Park DRI and therefore, meets the Traffic
Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. The County determined the
project would generate a total of 235 new trips per day, 31 net A.M. peak hour trips
and 25 net P.M. peak hour trips at project build.out in 2013.
School: School concurrency is not required for this type of project.
Utilities: The City's water capacity, as increased through the purchase of up to five (5)
million gallons of potable water per day from Palm Beach County Utilities, would
meet the projected potable water for this project. Sufficient sanitary sewer and
wastewater treatment capacity is also currently available to serve the project.
Police/Fire: Staff has reviewed the site plan and all comments have been addressed. Fire
Rescue staff expects to provide an adequate level of service for this project with
current or expected infrastructure and/or staffing levels.
Drainage: Conceptual drainage information was provided for the City's review. The
Engineering Division has found the conceptual information to be adequate and is
recommending that the review of specific drainage solutions be deferred until time
of permit review.
Access: A driveway opening is proposed at the southeast corner of the site along Quantum
Boulevard. This driveway would be wide enough to accommodate both vehicular
ingress and egress. Safe-sight areas (triangles) are proposed on both sides of the
driveway opening to ensure safe traffic movements.
I
Memorandum No. PZ 11-027
Quantum Park Lot 16 (Literacy Coalition of PBC / NWSP 11-003)
Page 4
Parking: The project proposes a total of 12,204 square feet of gross building area. The site
plan depicts parking spaces located east of the proposed office building fronting
Quantum Park Boulevard and to the south, abutting Lot 17. According to Part III
(LOR), Chapter 4, Article V, the minimum off-street parking requirements for office
buildings is based on the following methodology: One (1) parking space per 300
square feet of gross floor area. Normally, this methodology is sufficient to
determine the minimum number of required parking for office buildings. However,
the floor plan for this project proposes an atypically large meeting room,
representing more than 15% of the floor area, and staff understands that the
Literacy Coalition operation would include hosting frequent meetings to include
numerous individuals involved in training exercises, fund raising and general
business, and programming. This intensity of activity, which is greater than that of
a typical office use, is reflected by the more intense parking ratio of one (1) parking
space per 100 square feet of gross floor area. Because of the frequency of such
meetings, staff has determined that both methodologies shall be utilized. When
the ratios are combined, this office would require more off-street parking spaces
than a standard office building. Therefore, based on the proposed floor plan (and
respective parking methodologies), the project would require a total of 54 parking
spaces. The site plan shows that 57 spaces are provided, including three (3)
handicap accessible spaces.
The 90-degree parking stalls, excluding the handicap space, would be
dimensioned nine and one-half (9 Y2) feet in width and 18 and one-half (18 %) feet
in length and include continuous curbing. All proposed parking staUs, including the
size and location of the handicap space, were reviewed and approved by both the
Engineering Division and Building Division. In addition, all necessary traffic control
signage and permanent markings will be provided to clearly delineate areas on site
and direction of circulation. It was the applicant's intent to place the parking in
front of the building "in a fashion as to create a round-about that circulates around
a lovely landscape feature with benches encouraging outside gathering."
Landscaping: The site plan tabular data indicates that 34.65% of the subject property would be
pervious, consisting of landscaped and open space areas. Several existing trees
will be either relocated on-site or removed and mitigated. As indicated in the plant
list of the landscape plan, the project proposes seven (7) different types of trees
and 21 types of shrubs / groundcover. Almost 70% of the plant material would be
native to Florida, and pursuant to city standards, all have been selected that have
"low" or "medium" watering needs as recognized by the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) Waterwise manual.
The foundation planting area proposed east of the building would be three (3) feet
- four (4) inches in width, approximately two (2) feet deficient per the minimum
standard. At the time of permitting, the applicant agrees to revise the plans to
expand this area to five (5) feet wide and include trees that are at least one-half
(1/2) the height of the building in accordance with Part III (LOR), Chapter 4, Article
II, Section 6.B (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval). Staff understands that it
will be the applicant's intent to install 16-foot tall Alexander palm trees when the
plans are revised at permitting.
Building and Site: The proposed project is designed as a one (1 )-story building, configured like a
square, and comprised of offices, book distribution areas, and meeting rooms. As
depicted on all plans, the building would comply with all setbacks required in the
I
Memorandum No, PZ 11-027
Quantum Park Lot 16 (Uteracy Coalition of PBC / NWSP 11-003)
Page 5
PID. According to the applicant, the building location was strategically placed on
the site to maximize the occupant's view of the lake while encouraging the
connectivity of the building to the Quantum Park Exercise Path. The main building
entrances, which would face east toward the off-street parking lot adjacent to
Quantum Boulevard, consist of a loading area and handicap accessible entries. A
main pedestrian walkway would connect the existing sidewalk located along
Quantum Boulevard, through the parking lot, to a front door proposed at the
southeast comer of the building. To encourage alternative transportation, the
project would provide covered bicycle racks both inside and outside the building.
A butterfly garden area is proposed on the north side of the building within the 20-
foot side interior setback. It has been designed to accomplish the following: 1)
Provide a combination of adult nectar sources; 2) Incorporate native materials; 3)
Provide consistent host plant materials throughout the different growing seasons;
4) Provide different flower colors, and shapes through-out the growing season; and
5) Provide different micro-climates (sun & shade areas) in the area. The tree
materials (Live Oak, Dahoon Holly & Wax Myrtle) selected for this area would
provide for the different micro-climates, while the shrub species would serve as
food sources and act as "host" plants.
The project's water retention area is proposed along the west property line within
the 30-foot rear setback. The engineering plan (sheet C-2.0) illustrates that
stormwater would drain west to the rear of the building without the use of
exfiltration trenches. The passive design is advantageous to the applicant
because it reduces their initial and on-going (maintenance) costs.
Building Height: The one-story building elevation (sheet A5.0) indicates the highest point of the roof
would be 31 feet - six (6) inches, The peak of the roof at the main entrance would
be 30 feet - six (6) inches. However, most of the roofljne would be dimensioned at
19 feet - six (6) inches. The proposed building heights are well below the
maximum height of 45 feet allowed in the PID. This variation in roof heights not
only serves an aesthetic purpose, but also a functional as the project has been
designed to allow for natural lighting (or daylighting) into the interior of the building
where children are learning and reading. "Daylighting" design is the practice of
using windows, skylights, and other means to bring natural light into a building
interior with the intention of reducing energy use and creating a high quality indoor
environment for learning. Studies in California have shown that students who had
access to daylighting generally performed better than those students who did not.
Building Design: As illustrated on the elevation drawings, the exterior of the building would be
designed with smooth stuccoed wall surfaces, low-pitched barrel-tile roofs, and
other Spanish Mediterranean architectural features. The main base color would
be a soft creme color (Sherwin Williams "Travertine" - SW 7722) with darker earth-
tone accents (Sherwin Williams "Dromedary Camel" -' SW 7694 and Sherwin
Williams "Toasty" - SW 6095). Decorative aluminum shutters would extend out
over each window on the south fa<;ade. These shutters, in addition to the glazing
proposed on each window would help to minimize the solar heat gain, All window
glazing would appear gray and all wall sconces, railings, canvas canopy, and
doors would be green. As previously mentioned, the building interior would have a
large meeting room proposed in the core of the facility. All offices, generally
ranging from 120 square feet to 150 square feet, are proposed along the perimeter
of the interior space. While not shown on the floor plan, staff understands that a
I
Memorandum No. PZ 11-027
Quantum Park Lot 16 (Literacy Coalition of PBC / NWSP 11-003)
Page 6
majority of the interior of the building would have access to natural light.
According to the applicant. the "building design emphasizes natural day lighting
and view, thus creating and encouraging the whole learning experience." The
Quantum Park Architectural Review Committee approved the project on June 27,
2011.
Site Lighting: The photometric plan (sheet A2.1) proposes a total of nine (9) outdoor
freestanding lighting fixtures within the off~street parking area. The project is
designed as such that light from the poles would not spill onto adjacent properties
or onto Quantum Boulevard. All footcandle levels would comply with the minimum
and maximum thresholds as provided for in Part III (LDR), Chapter 4, Article VII.
Site Signage: The elevation drawing shows a 75-square foot wall sign is proposed on the east
fac;ade above the main entrance, which would comply with the sign code - a
maximum of 111 square feet allowed pursuant to Part III (LDR), Chapter 4, Article
IV, Section 4.C.1.
The site plan and elevation drawings also show the location and design of the
proposed monument sign. It would be located near the point of vehicular ingress I
egress, but outside the safe-sight triangle. The structure, as proposed, would be
five (5) feet in height and 32 square feet, which would comply with code.
However, the sign does not comply with the Quantum Park Master Sign Program
with respect to the proposed height, style, and materials. Therefore, prior to the
issuance of a sign permit, the monument sign would have to be redesigned to
comply with the Program or the Program amended through the submittal and
approval of a formal Sign Program application (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of
Approval).
Public Art: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant would be
responsible for compliance with Ordinance 05-060, the "Art in Public Places"
Program (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval). At this time, no proposal has
been made with respect to compliance with the Program. The applicant has not
yet determined if they would provide art, eco-art, or a combination thereof.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed this request for New Site Plan and recommends approval of the plans presented,
subject to satisfying all comments indicated in Exhibit "cn - Conditions of Approval. Any additional
conditions recommended by the Board or City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the
Conditions of Approval.
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Quantum Lot 16 (Uteracy Coalition of PBC)\Staff Report.doc
j
SMU
N
390 195 0 390 780 1,170 1,560 ..-
I 'F~ E
S
-.. --_._._..---~---~_._. --- .-. .~,-~
~! I
f ;1 !
a .{ I
n
LITERACY COALITION i ~
OJ I e
= 1 OF PALM BEACH COUNTY ~ I ~
1-1 II I a.
CO BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA I'd
- I~
I I j~
X
WI Ci~\ LOCATION MAP i
I
~.... I'~
'OJ !!l~
0; lli~~
a IP~
I
i.
I II!
I
III I
III
I
iezl
- --
--- I JJJJJ
....., """""'"
---
~ ,'fO<lJ~.:,><........_j~~I.u...'"'_"#'
~~ ~~~-~~-~'~
- ....~y
-- (:~ c:r.l...~ N,~:I:I
~ ~~~:=-~_._.
~~ =:tfu.~
.......- .' lLI(.~_~_ IInB
t:. =rir~
t: e:-=~!~~"
~ DRAWING INDEX D
I. 'v..
IA,.a J
---,,-.-.--- ---- --- -", --- -'-- -
-
t
,.."_.="""',.,_""....,^''''''''"''~.~,~,,,._..,....''.c,'.'m~' EXHIBIT "B"
I I
I '. 'l'~\:' ",-r-- / 'c....' I
~ ~~' ~r~i~ i~I-) ,- ~.-" .~_. t;
~ -t>- \ l-" ,." ".
-, ~. - -
i ~ _ J~. , _ ..:_~:::~:~ ',:_~:=::--r--~ !
!t; ~ - - '. - /" .." , ~
;;j ..-,.--- ::- -:::~~~- - -
~ : ---~
b - !' I
I ~ '. il',
~ L \
~ :;e ! 'I
' ~ ,
. ~ t!
, I f"
: II it
~ : I .~
~~.'. '~I: 1
~~I l!~:1
'I
:.' !l'~i.i'.' '- f)i: :' I I
fj ;N~. ^'
I ~~Pr,,,.
..on
;~i~- .
~. I'
~eH~
~J~~, I
I
I ~I; i.i~
: ~~ ~h
I ~ ~ ~~~ ~
'b ,~f:
~ )q t
'li '
~ ~
I ~
I~
t::
'"
too .,
~ .'
~ I
~ I
1
\
~'IS' ,--- I~'--
'~itWnr'ww~w~ ~~JW~...';ili II' 'ilr Wit:
H~ I' i~\~i!.l.~ ;;i ~!~ !~~ ~iU ~ i"i' .gr Ii . ill i 1,iQl. ~,l !;~.~ ~ i
~ ~ t'l'r~ 0." ~I. t~' i~~; r 'I o. k. ~ liE! .i', li ~ 1
~ i ;~iii~~i m u! ;:i m~ I !!il' f~~ ~m ~.l i~.; Ii!! ii.! g i.
".. ; f~-f!m !li .g~ ~j I'Q~ ~ ni , ,~U "" ~ .. iF ~'f' ~.~ ~
~ : j4i~U.~ Jft ~~id >~.~~ ~ frl~; ~~;.:.'. i~.!l' ~ II'.. ~~i ;'.1 ~f..1i I' !
~ I !~![!h ~. E.hcr hi ~ ,~~~ i~:)~ ~! ~II dl; l: I I
'" 'I '1"~13Ite ~~ it. ~~t ;!~ g 1~~i ti~ iM ~ ! I !,~ ~N ~~ . Ill.
Y,. ., 9 . ill! .lli .'~ "-~o I"" 9': i ~~ .
~ ~,.. - ttj;" ~ : ~ " l' \ \
;_...... _~.~_ L.w ~~.J
(t'..J rID
~ I I r--iT;:r.'~. "mrn- !
H~ ~~, II~!~! 1.. ~ 'II ~.i !
?i b.1 I~'.I I · '!J I
. .. I~~ Rbi ~~II!I ~' ~r" I' <> if. ~.. i ..
I 8 I' '~d.i . ~~~ j~~.. h' d... ~i~!. I. ~ I /'....: !.. .;~.. f \:1
\ i'5 ~i,'F ~~ !~. i~ !~ ~~J~ ! ~ i i f. I ~! ' , I
~J ..Ct'~ ~....,.. ~_' !l'i..... \ ,). to-l j
~ ,U~~l !t..?L.' ~!. ~i ~~i~~ iii' ~ IJI i "I
~ i i ~}, ,at ~.l~ .~ a~~;. li 1 ' . ; .. ; ,
~ . ~.j ";J 0 m ! ~.it ~; i . t. ' "
l.1 I,i~i ~~i~ II~ "II I~ i~h.1 ~. }i~. . I i I ,,~ ti f~ I
~ ; .1 ~ ~!l Ot !: ~" ti'I' ' , ~I!~;~: '! '\'. !, ~~ "
c . I ,. .~II ~1; I I .<.-. .
'"i L---....u .-----1 ; .: ~_~ I'
!:i Ui'n I.,.i '.
;: =1 Ii, f
_ 'll .
I I
[[] D =:.~- ~--. KliNN8f'H II. c.t1lLBDJ/ - ARCJmlltT. P.'" urru:r........ IN I'iUI /llJUaxnrrr ~~
'1\.... p.&.'_~_ C:l~__ 1.--__ _----.J_
"V ~L~ C 1tiNl2E.~CEti'TPDlI!!'vE''''-lfil"n M!QI,Ij&tlILW. -~
1 . ~"_.'::E:= L'J.=-==== DEarPIEL05!A04.FL.OfltfDA AACCCMe,. p.:;l"I'Nj'OHeeAC""p~OA~U.._~
a ENNETI1R.CARJ. CC1_.u~__ 1.6.__ ~~== ".4)((~)42'1.n:. -~~_
j
'_"""""~"~'~~'_"'""~M",,,,",,,,,,,,,,",,,,,""G""""' E XH 18 I T II B "
I -- - I
! I
I ~ I
m t----------+--..-~.--.~---__r_
~r7 1I1'.~ "'t-.'''---A-- _..~..~:_~r . ,.' .-,.~ N' ....!:.}
r,<".l 'I ~t'_.~ i '\ ! i I I 1 i 1
t~ ; \ i~ I \ t ~ _ _ '__ _
~ <""j I. i I, v''- . "='~=f====~.' ". - rr1
~~ -e-r-I i rlL.~! I' .,j i~. I'i CUi~. i.R hr.. ill' fN ,I iii' '.::' 's... ! II!
c::: i Ii! i~ . ',f i'~ I "ll '~li tIl '1" -. ~ - i I :
:.; 1"' - . ...... J:"-:u ... ~- -, ,~ ;, 1
t-. ".", '---, ~I!I~'\ '<" I
~ ! i:: i <" i .. .... ~ ......... t. .'~' . , ''T-' r ! i
<:> '. II.". '.~.. ftt....=. J. '!:p.. ..-....._-................-.-..-.-..-.T I.W ~ II
~ I' +.-~ t ". j ~ g;,~)t~... -- j ,""," , ,
"0 'i .. ( , j ~ " II , ,r I' j 'j
. _ l .. .' . 1t:. .,.,., ~., 1 ' '!
t: 'I. I; '. i . . . '. ~--' ~ ----'0-'
~ I ,1! ! '= ' I , '.. ,,"~.,d..! 'I' : ·
. I ~~' ........ l' '.'.. ,. ...':== . I I, .
, I t. i _ [I. ! il~.... 'i 'j ~ . 'I '1
' . ,'1 I. ~ '..,,' '..' ,
4l+1--Lt~ ...,.:S:-...lJ --._--- ~~ "ir.1ll=C '1 +j~ ~. ---J"
-! I j~: 'l~l ! ! l · !~ ~ i~ ~~ -~i4e -r-< . ~ i 'I !
i "'i-' , <: I ' ! .. L",j r;~'~; 'i
r i !c, '-,..~' '.' I . \ ~.,._-----i fR i ~ l !! i ~
I 1 r, r ~ <1 , II~ ~ -. ____m"__ .. '.p. =il~""'"
i,' i~ .'~-lf ~',:-.'~ !i~i I <-fX~;T;~.: !',' ..'! ~'i.
.' I. L~~.-.C..-.:.,.. --'..... ,: i. 4-- --- ,~/ -~- ~.'.-:.' I_.-,_L. - .'.~J'. l..~.., [-
i~ ~ ' (,' I ' Q [;'i<C ': ~ \ , [.1- I
,. " ---. -- 1 I h ~h'O<' b ~,. -- -.. .... I,.r.
I. 1 "l ' ~ '."'~ ".. I . .. I
'# ' " : l a "T"'"!., r' ~ ~ . '
I.~ .'. I : .~. ,r.. i. i, ' ~j>. i...,J' ~I. ,,--to I.
i~ l'~" . .' 'II! ' ... ~";' 1 'II '. 1
., ,. i l' . ...;....J. ---'o-'l.
, j L__ -- - ''-=~l'- I~'-I; i ~ .:~..,~. ~ i!i?~ :!:~. ~ -- l! '
'I r-r. i" ' ~;. . -. - '-J-., . ~ ~~., , I
:,~ f,:a '. . E ' --...' i
i 1 tt1 ii . I ~ ~; - '.. !:
, ~ i /- '---.......t=='-...--. 'W =--= .
i ' :' :. I ' r " -,I ) ... ,
, '" ' ___~ ~._--- I , I!;!;!J, I' ,... -#Ii __
, !~. : .._~,.,... 'i' i' r J i' ll&i :
, ,---. , >t.. .' ". '"
I' t-l. .' ..... I~ .' . ! "'..' li~ '...' ~! =:- 'i II. L. - . 1. I~
.... ~ ;' ,l [I,,: lla~ _i ~ I \ >'~ t t, I.. ' I!o
"" L' , " ii -~ Fg,,~ Ii , I. - ~ , ;N !
~ :".. , , , ,.-, '-I .-. I ' , @ ------'I"
.' , -----' '. :::'':-_-~::::~ I'i : 'I '~,!~ ==;;=j' ~ "\ . , :
- --.--. "',..,",.'----"----~ I - E ,. I -..:i ;
HI " l~--.JJ~.".., !I. ,. '" J. I I.
i~ I i.. '. ,.,: ".'! " .. 'l€ , ~!ll ---- '.
' .': : .. :.. ;,. .~l 't if ~ I(I:l 1 !!lU ~ ,: ,~ i1' I
I'" ." t.....--'l. .'...... .~. ((1.(;...1 i~. -[I ~i "\ 'I III'.. ~ IdLtJj,., .' w. !~ !
., , .' ~'Ii!" ,~, II ' ~ 17 \...Hi .. ~
-'1 ll: 1(.%-~.lu,~II~ffTJ.; i I '~i _~U.i., '._--,..---i
~Ii +.----J~-: r __ " __ J f! ~
, i I I I I - [ ; ;
t=-J~~.~~ NO' -. H ~~,.. ,.. -...t
J.----...- ----~..::.~:....- -~-~ --
~)
- ~. . ,+ ~- :: I
p ~ ~r.' a~ · 'n
,; ~ ~,1 ~t ~"
ttl::l ';~~}t'1~.'.
· ~ 'f"'''l ".+ !
..., · r,." f .
>-- -,.." "j ,.~
""' f ~. ~i -'
?:: i I Ii if !
~ I i ~. ~. I
~ U"<pq
q IF U ~
I" t I~ I
f i ,'; I
1~~~~
Ii r \ ~ d
~ :.' ~ [;
n r, ~
. e ~ I
!
,
wD-~'~~ ~~
~ ~~.-. 6. DNJII"rIJ Jl CARl8tJN - JJlCarr8C1'. P.A. urIIIII:1 cau.mu- OF PAlM I/IM:JI CIJI1JfIr
, 1'-. -_"...""-- c,,==,= ' " --
I ~ te.WI>_-:!Z-Tq2_.. .6_~ ""'E"'IJiIJIl'CIItc:.eme!l:~~fTE.l 3It!QI.fIQt!ILVO,
I . . ~ ~ ---~ 6. _ CI!'l1lflm..D eEAQ.l. \I\...ORIOA. A4 CQtN>'1e BO"n4"Qt,\ R,4Gl..\ t=\-OltJC~ S~t> .~__._
I a F.NHlfTHR. CAlif .$oW__~_ 6 -- =.~== flAx('Ie.4~~'~~
t
W'''i<''<u:'.\;.',,~ \~ \~-...~.(, :!\J:,,'\11(l'<!\,.oIwV,"'~1 ....,." P....l""fl~'.pto~.,.~ EXHIBIT "B"
I ~
-$- t I
1'1' I~ I'll!
, (~l ~ J 'ii-~ I y!!
, \)J 'IE 9ft > .i~ i
.~/ ~ ,',,;,'! 'ji ~ I
,1!1, i1 ~ ,- I
i8 &8 ,.,,-~~
~ ;~ ~LL1@;\i~~~ ~~
I h,
q ~ ~ ' i , _Y ~D~ Ii ,~
I ~ ).. i : ' . ' ,: '1~ ~~ i
... ....~IEJl ~ c ;;:
to: 0,)
<) 'ill' . ' ...
~ , t'
ii " " t.~
<:> tl. to
~ '.' ~i ...
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
, I
i
I i
i
I i
;
, ,
i
, :;'"
I ~~
'~
~. j:i!. ~~
~,
:;r, ~:f q
~I' ll~ ~
t--
~ ;
...
i ~ \Jl. !~~~~ ~
I r .- , f'r ;;:
~ . '- -~. a
! ,~.-4I't. 01.0- l ~ t ~ ~~ If ::!
I ,
! '~ ,~~ i ~
~ -r-~ !;l ~ ~ ; I >,
... i~ '@ .j!> @! ~ . . !
tIl -1--,--, I H ~ ~ ! 1
~ I ~ ~n;.T H ~ ; l I
~ I <:l : ~ n ~ ! i
~ ~ri~,#
~ ~o~ j CrJ
, ~ -;.. tt1 ""I Q1 f; r. 1 ~ ~
r~ ~~:!"'~,O\ ~ j ~ ~ ; ~
l:;,",,~ ~ Vt I
I ".,;.. q & i !
~ ~!>:~: --
, ;;0 (') ,~ i ~ i r i
I j. ~ ::Z:'< . ~ " i 12
,~ I i ~ t. i
.t;- n ~ I ;
@ @ IIJ' l ~ f : ~
i - f i I i
i · 2 - ,
i ~ ~ "
~ I ~
i ~ ~
I > .
~ ~
! .
i I l
. ~
~ i i
I
I
I
I
i
[ED -...,~ ~ ~
-..- 6__ UNIIft'H If. CAJU3llN - ~lICHl1'llC7'. Po... utnJC1~"'''''''lIU:1/_
p.w.._~~ 6__ ~-~-
~......JQiJ.P- 6_ Mbe1 e.. ~ CENTBR 0PIt/V& fiUlrlf .. 3MI~!lL..o. ~_..-
~"I--!:S?____ 6.____ Pr-JIlPIl!LD el4CM. fl\.atlD. AA~.,*, BO"."NTo.l e.!.A.C;ot, ""_QRl;OA ~~,. __--=
~ClIIIIlofU>.~~ ,:).--- ~(M4)..tI2'.ae..&a !Il,6x ~M4) 4'1-~
.._lh_1IooM.M
t
EXHIBIT liB"
-''-'<.'"'' ;0-+ ANlJ
~J
:~
"/-"..
:-!F
H
~~
---
II' IW!
I
0' -. ~~ , I Ire I
U~~ '1' - .
~~ i . ,j ~ ~ ~ ---
::P'f .: <) \ ~~ I ~
ii ,~.> ". ~~... c ;<..
!,~ l f f~ ~ . q,; ~ .
Ill! r c II! ~~.
· ~~t ~ 3
fr >.-(
~~: a~ q
d:", f , I < ~j' {[ c;;::;.-
,Ill! ' ill H ~~' : ': ~= _ '"
I"', I I ~r \,~ lLa----~~
)iH Uj . ~ .J !;= ~ j
,..... '.. 'I ~."
'c' !: 'I < I
\ ~
I !
~.
~ -
-,
~ -----~
~~.I ~ >~. ~.,~~~
I ~:~ .~~::. q" ~
i ----. 0ilMH....... ~V!tt ~~:. lfit;t ~ ~
-----';:':....L ,.~ j~1 to I;;;
i ~___ ~~ r" ~\Si
~ . ._-, ~ .g"
,... L ~.~. .;::t',,"~~.r~_ll~~ ~ f~~
jo '~'~'. -- ;,;~",~ " -
! !~.~ i.'~~~r.'~~~~f .'.,
, . OJ ~'l"--- j~ .~o
~ 8O.ll.[y""" .~i ~<- ..,.
1-- -r'~=-- 1 ---!. tgj
----~ -------- ~
;. __- ----- _____ I
~ 'C ____ I
>, --- I
------ I
I
,,~
· Landscape for: DESIGNED BY'
a- r;- Literacy Coalition CARTER &: ASSOCIATES
~ Of Palm Be.ach LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC.
i B t B h FI 'd 74 H.E. Slt1 AV~. O<Hroy _of>. FL 33483
oyn on eoc. on 0 60;-272-9621 LA. 831
I
EXHIBIT "B"
H~H~}
HH~ ,.
!~~[~~ ~ .
, ,L
~~':-. ~ ~
Illl r
tp' 0, 1
n
g' ~~~~
{ ~ ':.- ,. ~ it
I -1~J~ti'
" - l' '- I- . ..
~ G:. lit ~, b"~.
~ ~I . - ..'~~' ::11
~.<'".~'\
!Bi; ! c:; j 'J/-" iCi'Y'
c- \ .g
S ~'2 ~ P.
c: ~ ~(\
::'+ '''''.~ ,.
z.
s~ ,,~
1- c
~!:: ..
CI:Il"'l ji ~
H (lJ<J
o?;
I 0" .
'F..7' I.
IT f.~ I <.1'> if
;,,'"
;.: '1; ':D ,.; .....
f; ~'. <'0 ~(I -
,.-< 'i
021-
0iC1S
r .~, li
: lH Ht ~~ ~
'0
>,
h
.
f ,! , i '. '"
nl H Ii I. J j ,;,01.;
'II'~ .'
i ~~E
r lj ; i I! 11r ; ~~r
f at
[' m
;:- :<- ~ ri -
l .: ~ ~
:.."
~ it~
~ ;.
! f~~
i; r~'
C- rr;
~ ~ ~t
ro I ,.'
J] I ~ ! I I, .
~ ----- ! ~ I
;, 1''''''' ;;H\':" i" "i' i' m., , 'i"; '" ,', w....... ,. ..,' '".,,,,, ..,'. '..., 'I
"; ,. ["";'" .', ,,' 'a'" 'I'"'' , ,p 1. ,,', :' "'" """" "",."",,, '1"""" ,j
{ t
I~ j 1
1i'
1:", '" t H:
,
,
"z ( f
~ <
, ..- .!....
}
. ! landscape for. DESIGNED BY:
r " j- ~r~~ j Literacy Coalition CARTER & ASSOCIATES
'" I ;,i;." ,.
f\) ~:l ~ ::: r - Of Palm Beach UNDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. ;:
~ Boynton Beach, Florida 74 H,E. 5th A~. Delav 8Erc.d1, fL 33-463
561-272-'1621 lA. &:]1 '!!
I
':<l''''''''''''".:tIII;lt'>!, ~ ,:",_~'H ';I:t1i 1.~JH1:"'(, fl.M'.......tr.IlrnlII ~-t:I,.I'M.D,.".'1'htW'lWl EXHIBIT "B"
It --,
I
I
,
~
I ~ ~
.~ ~g I
i ~ ~~
tl>i
\ ~ +,~ I
it.:
t-o
1 :... ~ ---
I l\o ~ I
I ~ ~ I
j
~ I
~ I
~
,
\
I
1
,
"->'~
.- \
I
~v, "!('f' 1
.~ I
~' i., . ,I
~: ~~ -
::!
~ ,
", i
,'" 1
I
~ " !
! ~r
~ ~ ;"
,
!
1
i
I
f) !
i
i
I
1
I
.--- -- I
1
1
1
,
- -~ --,- - - .- - - - -- -~---
I
I
- ~--~ ~_.. I
--------- i
I I
j I
I
!
~ ,'\ ,
.....'1"..11 ,
l'~; i1 if r.; ~i ,m ~ I
~~ .j'- j, l ~. t "t' ~8 i
I; ! t ti ,~,!
.~ ,G ! , t' ~i ~l:'~ - !
f~f 0;. 0 ~ .. . ~ ..
t-o -". II . ~ " 11~. ...
i"l ti>.' ~., ~r if I' ~ C;
t.~ I! I , . I-f' :.:
ej .~ .!~ I ", ~ !t
;' 1: , ! j - '-! ~
~ 'n,~ ,} i..,
~~! '''l 1 , d ~Sr~ ."
, ~ i",l. "'~ ~, I. ~ ...'~~
1 I> ~ 3 ~ ~ H~l
i ~ fl; I ~ . I oliif
"..l~i"i
!fI'~F'~~~
~H , ~ ~ ~ ers.~
,.; ! !. ~ r ?I~!
;~r ! ! & i ~~i"
"~ . . h!'
I "a1j
I ~J D -...~.~. ~ ~
-~- 6___ QNNrI'H It CJAJILS(J)/ - Mr:J1Jr/la". P.... __tI11'AU16111:BCIIf1//IT
---"",- D._.. '-- --' '----- ....,)
~ -""'""-- D._ llNI2' ~. Nl"Ll.flOM ~~ ORtvE &.d11:" ICl _GWHU1tL.~ ---
-'-1fiL- ~=== O~I!!E.ACW,!tLClIt2OA ... ".,.,<WI !3OTWTo" ~ F!,.MlDA 3:i46 ..~~
oowr.'KA>_~ PI-I.(fM:.4)421~ 1-AX !~) .q";.MQ'! . -
_11,-
I
'. 1. .. P"''',''"
~-r--'" t" ..til >'j
..c'~ ;f 0.-
./: 'l;,~
// .,"""
, 1'. 1ile is designed in the Mediterranean style but features a water channd
thbC~lIey that hides the channe/lock, improving aesthetics. Vanguard Roll
popular tile profile in the world, faithfully re-creating the beautiful Mediterranean
and Southern France.
-Unique colors and blends can enhance any architectural theme
Jperior strength ,,;nd durability of concrete tile
1VRMS6662 t!f Burnt Mission 1VRCS7117
, Jif'.;;i. "
\VRts7049 . ~ Ch'mp',,, ere,1ft )
~~-,d;iL.'~'.8~1
/
~.\':i~
"f'''''
;/ .~
i
I
I
--.'.... ,-
" "
. .
,
I
VRMS6493 Pinto Blend 1VRSS06S9 I
CQlor Coat Finish i
~YJ Visions I!l Distinctions ~ Classics
I
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions of Approval
New Site Plan
Project Name: Quantum Lot 16 (Literacy Coalition of Palm Beach County)
File number: NWSP 11-003
Reference: 2nd review plans identified as NWSP 11-003 with a June 21. 2011 Planning and Zoning
Department date stamp marking.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
1. On sheet C-2.0, refer to standard comment #24 & #25. Either show an
existing fire hydrant on Quantum Boulevard and its location in relation
to the proposed building, or place a new fire hydrant at the northeast
comer of the property.
2. On sheet C-2.0, reflect the location of Section F-F on the site plan.
3, Utility construction details shown on sheets C-3.0, C-5.1, C-5.2 & C-
5.3 will not be reviewed for construction acceptability at this time, All
utility construction details shall be in accordance with the Utilities
Department's "Utilities Engineering Design Handbook and
Construction Standards" manual (including any updates) and will be
reviewed at the time of construction pennit application.
FIRE
Comments: None
POLICE
Comments: None
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments:
4, Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate
additional comments. Acceptance of these plans during the DART
(Development Application Review Team) process does not ensure that
additional comments may not be generated by the commission and at
permit review.
5. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings
of the proposed construction,
6. A water-use pennit from SFWMD is required for an irrigation system
that utilizes water from a well or body of water as its source. A copy of
the permit shall be submitted at the time of permit application, F.S.
373.216.
I
Quantum Lot 16 (Quantum Park Literacy Coalition of PSG)
COA
Page 2 of 4
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
7. If capital facility fees (water and sewer) are paid in advance to the City
of Boynton Beach Utilities Department, the following infonnation
shall be provided at the time of building permit application:
a. The full name of the project as it appears on the Development
Order and the Commission-approved site plan.
b. The total amount paid and itemized into how much is for water
and how much is for sewer. (CBBCO, Chapter 26, Article IT,
Sections 26-34)
8. At time of penn it review, submit separate surveys of each lot, parcel,
or tract.
9. Pursuant to approval by the City Commission and all other outside
agencies, the plans for this project must be submitted to the Building
Division for review at the time of permit application submittal. The
plans must incorporate all the conditions of approval as listed in the
development order and approved by the City Commission.
10. The full address of the project shall be submitted with the construction
documents at the time of permit application submittal. The addressing
plan shall be approved by the United States Post Office, the City of
Boynton Beach Fire Department, the City's GIS Division, and the
Palm Beach County Emergency 911.
a. Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning & Building Division, 2300
N. Jog Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33411-2741(Sean McDonald
- 561-233-5016)
b. United States Post Office, Boynton Beach (Michelle Bullard - 561-
734-0872)
11. The training center room shall be separated by a minimum 1 hour fIre
rated wall if the building is sprinkled and a 2 hour wall if the building
is not sprinkled.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None.
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: None.
I
Quantum Lot 16 (Quantum Park Literacy Coalition of PBC)
COA
Page 3 of 4
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
12. The Palm Beach County Traffic Division is requiring that building
permits shall be secured by the applicant prior to "Year Ending 2013."
13, The applicant is responsible for compliance with Ordinance 05-060,
the "Art in Public Places" program prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy.
14, The site plan (sheet A2.0) tabular data indicates that 58 off-street
parking spaces are provided. However, only 57 were provided. At the
time of permitting, the tabular data must be corrected to reflect to the
accurate number of provided parking spaces.
15. Pursuant to Part 1lI (LDR), Chapter 4, Article IV, Section 4.A.9, all
properties shall be identified with the respective property address. The
numbers and / or letters shall consist of characters that are six (6)
inches in height. Revise sheet A5.0 accordingly at the time of
permitting, The site address shall be required to be identified on both
the building and the monument sign,
16. Any proposed monument sign must be designed in accordance with
the adopted sign program for Quantum Park. Prior to the issuance of a
sign permit, the monument sign would have to be modified to comply
with the Program or the Program would have to be amended through
the submittal and approval of a formal Sign Program. application
17. On the landscape plan (sheet L-2), discrepancies exist between the
labels and the plant list. For example, the plant list indicates 292
Dwarf fuebrush whereas the labels add up to 342. At the time of
permitting, please revise accordingly.
18. At the time of permitting, revise all plans so that the foundation
landscaping (proposed east of the building) is at least five (5) feet in
width and contains trees that are at least one-half (1/2) the height of
the building, in accordance with Part III (LDR), Chapter 4, Article II,
Section 6.B.
19. At the time of permitting, on the landscape plan (sheet L-2), revise the
note, "All trees, shrubs, & plants on this site shall conform to the
requirements of "Low watering needs" materials as specified in the
South Florida Water Management District's "Waterwise" publication.
Revise it to indicate "low and medium waterin,g needs."
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Comments; To be determined.
I
Quantum Lot 16 (Quantum Park Literacy Coalition of PBC)
COA
Page 4 of 4
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments: To be determined.
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Quantum Lot 16 (Literacy Coalition ofPBC)\COA.doc
I
DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT NAME: Quantum Park Lot 16 (Literacy Coalition of Palm Beach County)
APPLICANT: Literacy Coalition of Palm Beach County
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 551 Southeast 8th Street, Suite 505, Delray Beach, FL 33483
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: September 6, 2011
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request for New Site Plan approval to construct a one-story, 12,204
square foot office building on a 1.41 acre parcel located at Quantum
Park Lot 16.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Quantum Park Lot 16
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
X THIS MA TIER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the
findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows:
OR
THIS MATIER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the
relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative
staff and the public finds as follows:
1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
2. The Applicant
- HAS
- HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested,
3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set
forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included".
4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
_ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof.
- DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this order.
7. Other
DATED:
City Clerk
S:IPlanningISHAREO\WP\PROJECTSIQuantum Lot 16 (Literacy CoalItion of PBC)IDO.doc
I
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING
Memorandum PZ 11-030
TO: Chair and Members
Planning & Development Board
FROM: Eric Lee Johnson, AICP r
Planner II J0
Michael Rump~ ~ .
THROUGH:
Director of Planning and Zoning
DATE: August 9, 2011
RE: Indoor Athletic Instruction I Training (CDRV 11-008)
Amendment to Land Development Regulations
OVERVIEW
The rewrite of the City's land development regulations (LDR) allowed staff to perform a
complete review and analysis of each standard, regulation, and process. As part of the post-
adoption process, staff anticipates the periodic need for, and is prepared to expeditiously process,
updates and amendments to the LOR for one or more ofthe following reasons or initiatives:
1. Business and economic development initiatives;
2. Sustain ability initiatives;
3. Maintaining internal consistency;
4. Achieving regulatory compliance; and
5. Incorporating implementation feedback necessary to meet original or current
objectives and vision.
NATURE OF REQUEST
Amend the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to 1) allow Indoor Athletic Instruction I
Training establishments in the M-l zoning district without limiting their size or restricting their
location to multiple-tenant buildings on properties fronting on arterial or collector roadways; 2)
change the definition of Indoor Athletic Instruction / Training to emphasize athletic activities;
and 3) expand the definition of Indoor Entertainment to include indoor playground and play
centers. This code amendment, if approved, would further the initiative for internal consistency
in the LDR, in that the current restriction that limits the location of these establishments to
I
arterial and collector roadways in the M-l district was an unintended consequence resulting from
the wholesale changes to the code by the LDR Rewrite project. In addition, the proposed code
amendment would further business and economic development by allowing more properties to
be available to indoor playground and child play centers - a type business that is becoming more
popular in the recreation industry.
BACKGROUND
Up until last year, gymnastics, dance instruction, cheerleading, karate studios, and other similar
athletic instruction related types of businesses were defined and regulated differently within
commercial and industrial zoning districts. These discrepancies represented an inconsistency in
the zoning regulations, often challenging staff to quickly interpret and apply the code, resulting
in errors, either by staff, or by business operators, realtors, land owners, or a combination
thereof Also, there was a great deal of confusion on the public's part as to where these types of
uses could locate and the rationale behind those zoning decisions.
Last year staff comprehensively evaluated the aforementioned uses, and discovered that many of
them rely on building designs with taller ceilings and larger spaces in order to accommodate
their specific training apparatus and physical routines. These requisite characteristics are
typically found in buildings on sites located in industrial areas, more so, than in commercial
centers. To address this issue, staff 'created provisions for "Indoor Athletic Instruction I
Training," which essentially blended the aforementioned uses into a single principal use, The
use is currently defined as follows:
INDOOR ATHLETIC INSTRUCTION - An establishment primarily engaged in
offering instruction or training in arts or recreation, including martial arts, gymnastics,
cheerleading, batting I golfing, and dance studios, and other similar types of uses having
the same characteristics and special needs as confirmed by staff
Staff created a new blended principal use and it was approved by the City Commission on June
1, 2010 (Ordinance 10-012). However, when the entire LDR was overhauled in December of
2010 (Ordinance 10-25), staff soon discovered that a restriction had been inadvertently placed on
the subject use in the M-1 district, essentially limiting it to multi-tenant buildings on properties
that front on arterial or collector roadways. While it not uncommon for this restriction to be
applied to many other non-industrial uses in the M-l district, it is inconsistent with the intent of
Ordinance 10-012, and as a consequence, the code needs to be amended accordingly.
As previously mentioned, Indoor Athletic Instruction I Training is considered a blend of different
types of activities that may be commonly found in other similar principal uses. The underlying
characteristic of the subject use however, is the "instruction and training" component to the
operation. To add clarity to the code, it is staff's opinion that the current definition (see above)
needs to be changed to emphasize this point, the distinction between the subject use and other
similar principal uses (i.e., Gym, Fitness & Health Club). The proposed change is shown in the
section below.
Lastly, staff has received inquiries from businesses that provide indoor recreational activities for
children, particularly those establishments with indoor playgrounds and play centers. Staff
believes indoor playgrounds and play centers, as a principal use, will be a growing industry,
2
j
especially after the economy rebounds and residents have more disposable income for recreation
and entertainment. This type of use however, is not explicitly itemized under a particular
principal use heading in the zoning code. To be more user-friendly and avoid future confusion,
staff is recommending changing the current definition of Indoor Entertainment to include the
aforementioned activities. Currently, Indoor Entertainment is allowed in the C-2, C-3, C-4,
CBD, PCD, SMU, MU-Ll, MU-L2, MU-L3, MU-H, and M-I districts. Staff further
recommends the inclusion of indoor playgrounds and play centers under the heading "Indoor
Entertainment" in all these zoning districts with the exception of C-2, due to the small
Neighborhood Commercial (a less intense commercial zoning), as well as limiting the use to
properties abutting major thoroughfares in the MU-Ll, MU-L2, MU-L3, and M-l districts. The
M-I district is being considered for this addition based on similarity with the other uses in this
category as well as similar building design needs (e.g., tall ceilings, large spaces, etc.) that are
commonly found in the industrial district. However, the restriction of their location to arterial or
collector roadways is a prudent compromise that maintains the integrity of industrial lands for
industrial uses, while limiting conflicts between businesses catering to small children and heavy
industry, truck traffic, and congested sites.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
To meet the intent of Ordinance 10-012, the following changes to the definitions and Use Matrix
of the LDR are recommended:
Part III (LDR), Chapter 1, Article II
ENTERTAINMENT, INDOOR - An establishment primarily engaged in operating
amusement arcades / parlors" billiard halls, bowling alleys, paint ball, shooting ranges,
skating rinks, playground and 'Play centers. and the like. Arcades include any electric or
electronic machines (i.e. pinball, video games) which provide amusement, enjoyment, or
entertainment, and must comply with Chapter 849, Florida Statutes. See
"AMUSEMENT ARCADE."
INDOOR ATHLETIC INSTRUCTION 1 tRAINING - An establishment primarily
engaged in offering athletic instruction or training ~ arts or reereatiOf\, including martial
arts, gymnastics, cheerleading, batting / golfing, and dance studios, and other similar
types of uses having the same characteristics and special needs as confirmed by staff.
See next page
3
I
Part III (LDR), Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.D
-
P = Permitted Residential Commercial Mixed-Use Indus Misc
C = Conditional
A = Accessory ! ...
X = Prohibited !Xl
~ ~ ""> ""> C/)
..- N ('I') ""> w
. (see Legend) <f 0 ...J ...J ...J J:
I 0 0.. Cl Cl ::> I I I :) 0 I-
J (see Legend) ..- ..- ..- ..- ~ C? ::> ::> J: ..- N ('I') """" m () ~ ::> ::> ::> ..- 0 ::> w 0
I ~ I I . I . I I
JJ (see Legend) a: a: a: a: a: Q: 0... :2 () () () () U a.. (f) ~ ~ ~ ~ :2 a.. D.. a: z
ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT & RECREATIONAL
I 2
Indoor Athletic 6
Instruction..L IP P P P P P P P P P P 9
I' . . . . . . .
Trainihq 44
I 68
Part III (LDR), Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.E
67. Entertainment, Indoor.
a. C-2 district. Limited to Amusement Arcades and shall be only
allowed in a shopping center ~ located on an arterial roadway.
b. M-1 district. Limited to indoor p/avaround I plav centers and
Amusement Arcades only.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the proposed amendments to the definitions, Use Matrix, and
corresponding restrictions as noted above be approved.
S:\PJanningISHAREDlWP'SPECPROI\CODE REVlEW\CDRV 11-008 Indoor Athletic Instruclion- Instruction lIICDRV 11-008 Indoor Athletic Instruction-
Training StaffReportdoc
4
I
DEP ARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING
Memorandum PZ 11-033
TO: Chair and Members
Planning & Development Board
FROM: Eric Lee Johnson, AICP if
Planner II Z
Michael RumPf1()
THROUGH:
Director of PlannIng and Zoning
DATE: August 15,2011
RE: Wall Signs (CDRV 11~OO9)
Wall Sign Area and Building Frontage
Amendment to Land Development Regulations
OVERVIEW
The rewrite of the City's land development regulations (LDR) allowed staff to perform a
complete review and analysis of each standard, regulation, and process, As part of the post-
adoption process, staff anticipates the periodic need for, and is prepared to expeditiously process,
updates and amendments to the LDR for one or more of the following reasons or initiatives:
1. Business and economic development;
2. Sustainability;
3. Maintaining internal consistency;
4. Achieving regulatory compliance; and
5. Incorporating implementation feedback necessary to meet original or current
objectives and vision.
NA TURE OF REQUEST
Amend the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to clarify the methodology used to calculate
the maximum wall signage allowed for any given building or tenant space.
j
BACKGROUND
Prior to the approval ofOrdinan.ce 10-025 (LDR Rewrite), the sign code was more explicit with
respect to the methodology used in determining the maximum allowable wall sign area
According to the prior, longstanding LDR, the maximum area was based on the linear building
frontage. Therefore, sign area is logically intended to be a factor of length of building frontage
and presence along the principal roadway, rather than a factor of building depth or perimeter.
However, the term frontage was inadvertently excluded from the new code when the written
standard was rearranged into tabular format. The omission of frontage from this clause
potentially changes the meaning or interpretation of this standard, which would allow signs that
are excessive in size and inconsistent with the intent of the City's sign regulations.
The below example describes the nuances between the two (2) possible interpretations, each
utilizing the existing sign code regulation where maximum sign age is calculated using the
formula of one and one-half (1.5) square feet of wall sign area being allowed for each linear foot.
A certain building is located in a commercial zoning district and has frontage on Main Street.
The length of the building along Main Street is 150feet. The other three (3) sides of the building
are also 150 feet long, but they do not have frontage on any other streets. The maximum wall
sign area is ],5 square feet for every linear foot.
Example 1 - "Linear Building Frontage"
Under this methodology, the maximum allowable area is based on the actual building
frontage, which in the above scenario is only one side of the building (150 fee~). This
translates to the following:
].5 s..f of wall sign area x ISO linear feet;::; 225 square feet of wall sign area
Example 2 - "Each Liner Foot of Building or Tenant Space"
Under this methodology, the maximum allowable area is based on allfour (4) sides of the
building becaU''1e there is no stipulation for frontage, resulting in 600 linear feet.' This
translates to the following:
],5 sf of wall sign area x 600 linear feet = 900 square feet of wall sign area.
It is clear from the above examples that the term "frontage" is critical to the methodology when
determining maximum allowable wall sign area. This methodology continues what has been
enforced for many years in the City and is consistent with the standard method found in most
sign codes throughout the country.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
To meet the intent of the original sign code, and to enhance the appearance of the way it would
appear on the LDR, the following changes are recommended to Part III (LDR), Chapter 4,
Article IV:
2
I
See next page
b. Maximum SieD Area (Table 4-13). The maximum allowable wall sign
;ea is a factor of the zoning district within which a building is located and the
length of such building. Specifically, it shall be based on the ratio of wall and to
acb linear foot of building frontage or tenant space frontage. The maximum
allowa.ble ai'ea for '::all sigas is a factor af the zomng distriet and loogili of the
building walL Wall sigHS shall be allowed iR flee<:wd-anee ':lith the foUo'.ving table:
..
Ratio of Maximum Allowable Signage Area
Zoning District Sign Area
" (square feet) Bnilding Frontage
Residential
Single-Family districts I
R-2 I
POOl 1 sJ. 1- foot
R-31
!POOl
eBD
Industrial
Commercial, excluding
eBn 1.5 s,f I-foot 3,4
Mixed Use
Miscellaneous
1 Wall signs are allowed for nonresidential develooments within the following: 1)
single-family residential districts: 2) the R-2 and PUD districts: and 3) all developments
containing multiole-family residential uses (in excess of 10 dwelling units). The
cumulative signage area shall not exceed 32 square feet. The top of the sign(s) shall not
exceed the height of 10 feet. Wall SigIW ar-e allewea fer R81'H'esidemial develel3ffiElBts
within single family r-efOideBtial, two family FesiElefltial aHa pltHmed I:lmt de'/elerlBeBt
zomRg d.i9triets, and within all clevelepmeBt9 eel'ltaiBiRg mltk:iple family residential liSes
(if! e*eess af 10 EhvelliRg umts). The tap sf the SigR(S) shall not $.01386 the height of IO
~
2 Wall signs are allowed within all developments containing multi-family
residential or nonresidential uses.
3 Pursuant to Section 5.C.2 below, the maximum wall sign area may be increased
by 10% to allow for additional si.gnage on rear facades of multiple-tenant buildings
within nonresidential developments.
4 For a multiple-tenant building designed as an indoor shopping mall, the
maximum allowable wall sign area may be increased, provided the total signage area (per
wall of a major department store or center store containing an exterior customer entrance)
does not exceed 10% of the area for each fayade.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the proposed amendments to the sign code as described above be
approved,
S:\planningISHAREDIWP\sPECPROJICOOE REVlEWICDRV 1]..009 Wall SignsICDRV 11-009 Wall Signs StatT Repon.doc
3