The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 11-22-11 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, November 22, 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 October 25, 2011 meeting 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: A.1. HealinQ Grounds lSPTE 11-008) - Approve request for an eighteen (18) month time extension for the Healing Grounds New Site Plan (NWSP 10-002) Development Order approved on March 16, 2010, at 220 & 226 West Boynton Beach Boulevard within the C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district. Applicant: Bridget Keller. B.1. Subway ReQional Headquarters lMSPM 12-001) - Approve request for a Major Site Plan Modification to construct a 2,166 square foot addition to an existing 1,978 square foot office building for a total of 4,144 square feet on a 0.29-acre parcel in the CBD (Central Business District) zoning district. Applicant: The Feldman Group - Subway of South Florida. C.1. Quantum Park Development of ReQionallmpact lDRI) Lot 75 lMPMD 12-001) - Approve request for a Master Plan Modification to the Quantum Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Master Plan to convert the land use option on Lot 75 from 01 (Office and Industrial) to OIC (Office, Industrial and Commercial), to accommodate a 94,000 square foot flooring showroom business. Applicant: Douglas B. MacDonald, Quantum Limited Partners. D.1. Electric Vehicle lEV) Infrastructure lCDRV 12-001) - Approve request to modify the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to 1) create provisions in the supplemental (zoning) regulations for electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure; 2) create new definitions pertaining to electric vehicles and infrastructure and amend the existing definition of minor automobile repair to include battery exchanges for electric vehicles; and 3) create provisions for signs commonly associated with EV infrastructure. Applicant: City-initiated. E.1. Temporary Banners - "Feather Banners" lCDRV 12-002) - Approve request to amend the Land Development Regulations (LDR), Article IV. "Sign Requirements", Section 4, establishing provisions and standards for temporary feather banners for a one (1) year trial period. Applicant: City-initiated. Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda November 22, 2011 Page 2 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. 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:\Planning\Planning & Development Board\Agendas - 2011 \Agenda 11-22-11.dot MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011, AT 6:30 P.M. IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Roger Saberson, Chair Matthew Barnes, Vice Chair James Brake Leah Foertsch Sharon Grcevic Cory Kravit Brian Miller Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director Stacey Weinger, Board Attorney ABSENT: James Brake Leah Foertsch (Resigned) Vince Piraino, Alternate 1. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Saberson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Miller led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board Chair Saberson introduced the members of the Board. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Ms. Grcevic moved to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Miller seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 4. Approval of Minutes from September 27, 2011 meeting Motion Mr. Miller moved to approve the minutes. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, provided an update on the items that went before the City Commission over the last two meetings. Two items were approved by the City Commission. The first was the Habitat for Humanity re-zoning and land use Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2011 amendment items intended to accommodate a small sub-division Habitat for Humanity wanted to establish in the vicinity of SW 6th Avenue. In addition, there were two code amendments. One related to indoor athletic construction. The other related to the calculation of wall signage for a business. This amendment reinserts a word that had been in the Code for several years which limits it to the facade or frontage of the building and not necessarily the perimeter of the building. 6. Old Business None 7. New Business Attorney Weinger administered the oath to all those intending to testify. A.1 Publix at Sunshine Square (COUS 11-004/MSPM11-004) - Approve request for Conditional Use/Major Site Plan Modification for drive-thru pharmacy in association with previously approved Publix reconstruction Sunshine Square shopping center located at the southwest corner of East Woolbright Road and South Federal Highway within the C-3 (Community Commercial) zoning district. Applicant: Jami Passer of Edens & Avant. Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, located the property at the southwest corner of Woolbright Road and Federal Highway in the C-3 Community Commercial zoning district. Jennifer Vail with Land Design South is the agent representing the applicant, Jami Passer of Edens & Avant Sunshine, LLC. They have requested conditional use and major site plan modification approval for a drive-thru facility at the proposed Publix grocery store. As part of the approved redevelopment modifications, the former Publix building was razed and will be replaced with a larger Publix store, with over 14,000 additional square feet. The proposed drive-thru would be for the Publix pharmacy and would be located on the south facade of the new Publix building. In December, 2010, minor modifications were approved by staff, with a reallocation of some building square footage and a reduction in overall building area of almost 9,000 square feet. These modifications included the design of the proposed drive-thru facility, with a by-pass lane along the south facade of the Publix grocery store. Land Development regulations require Conditional Use approval for any type of drive-thru facility. Therefore, staff required as a condition of approval, for the Minor Site Plan Modifications, the drive-thru window could only be constructed if Conditional Use approval was obtained through a separate application. No exterior modifications are proposed to the Publix grocery store building to accommodate the drive-thru facility other than the addition of a window. Additional pavement markings are proposed to distinguish between the entrance for the one-way drive for the drive-thru and the area designated for truck deliveries. 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2011 Ms. Zeitler continued to explain the landscaping and how it would provide adequate screening and buffering of the proposed drive-thru facility, yet would comply with visibility requirements for security purposes. This Conditional Use was considered to be compatible with surrounding commercial development and was suitable for the site. In addition, the proposed Publix pharmacy drive-thru facility would benefit and serve the community. Ms. Zeitler advised that the Development Application Review Team reviewed this request for Conditional Use and Major Site Plan Modification to allow the proposed Publix drive-thru facility. Staff also evaluated the project with the Conditional Use standards and staff's report to the Board, and recommends approval with no conditions. Jennifer Vail, Land Design South, 400 Columbia Drive, West Palm Beach, advised she was the agent for the applicant, Edens & Avant Sunshine, LLC. She indicated representatives from Edens and Avant, as well as Publix were also present. She reiterated they were present to request a Major Site Plan Modification and Conditional Use approval for the drive-thru for the proposed renovated Publix pharmacy. She presented the Board with displays showing site plan graphics and all the modifications that were previously approved in 2010, along with the current proposed plan. Mr. Miller inquired if there would be security cameras at the drive-window and Ms. Vail indicated there would be cameras along that facade of the Publix building, directed toward the pharmacy drive-thru. Motion Vice Chair Barnes moved to approve the Publix at Sunshine Square Conditional Use Approval and Major Site Plan Modifications. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that unanimously passed. B.1. Timeless Life Care (SPTE 11-009) - Approve request for a one (1 )-year time extension for the Timeless Life Care New Site Plan (NWSP 10-004), Conditional Use (COUS 10-001), and Variance (ZNCV 10-005) Development Orders which were approved by the City Commission on June 1,2010. Property located at 623 South Federal Highway within the MU-L2 (Mixed Use Low 2) zoning district. Applicant: Bradley Miller of Miller Land Planning Consultants. Ms. Zeitler advised Timeless Life Care project was approved for a six-story assisted living facility, just under 93,000 square feet, providing 144 beds within 87 units and 1,000 square feet of ancillary retail. A variance request had been approved for the reduction of two parking spaces. Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning Consultants, was 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2011 the agent representing the property owner, Eastside Lofts Development, LLC. They are requesting a one-year time extension for the Timeless Life Care New Site Plan, Conditional Use and Variance Development Orders approved by the City Commission on June 1, 2010. The original approvals are valid for 18 months and are scheduled to expire December 1, 2011. If this request for extension were approved, the expiration date of the site plan, including concurrency certification and the Conditional Use Development Orders, would be extended to December 1, 2012. There had been no previous time extension applications for this project. Ms. Zeitler further advised that the developer indicated that additional time was needed due to challenges in obtaining financing related to the economy. The developer also advised that construction drawings for the project were being prepared for an anticipated building permit application submittal in mid-2012. Staff recommended approval of this first request for a time extension subject to one condition of approval, which would be that the original conditions of site plan approval still apply. Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning Consultants, 1501 Corporate Drive, Suite 240, advised he was representing the owners. Some time ago, they recognized time was coming to a close and proceeded to meet with staff. At one time, they had financing lined up, but it fell apart. They had been spending time trying to find any means of financing that was available, but given the economy, financing was difficult to obtain. They were closing out some of their own projects by the end of the year which would hopefully give them cash flow and financing would not be needed. The hope was that more time would be given in order to move the project forward. The problem was that most financers want pre-sales which was extremely difficult to do with an assisted living facility due to the prospective party not being able to see what they would buy. Motion Vice Chair Barnes moved to approve the Timeless Life Care request for a one-year time extension for the site plan subject to staff conditions. Mr. Miller seconded the motion that unanimously passed. C.1. Stonehaven HOA (MPMD 11-001) - Approve request for a Master Plan Modification to the Stonehaven Master Plan to reduce the rear yard setback from fifteen (15) feet to one (1) foot for Lot 112 in order to accommodate a home addition on an existing 14 foot by 18 foot concrete slab installed at the time the house was originally constructed. Property located at 1747 Banyan Creek Court within the PUD (Planned Unit Development) zoning district. Applicant: Stonehaven Homeowners Association. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, advised the Stonehaven Homeowners Association was requesting a Master Plan Modification to reduce the rear yard setback from fifteen (15) feet to one (1) foot for Lot 112 in order to accommodate a home edition. The PUD is a mix of single family homes and garden apartments. The HOA approved the request 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2011 from the homeowner to construct a small bedroom addition at the rear of the house on the concrete slab poured at the time of the original house construction. In the HOA letter of request, the Vice President of the HOA states that the lot in the rear of the house directly abuts a section of community property approximately 30 feet wide which runs from the street to the drainage lake. The addition would in no way affect access to the lake, utility easements, or the site lines of any of the neighbors. The Board of Directors would require other owners that request a change to undertake a separate petition process. Mr. Breese indicated staff would typically look at the balance of the master plan and look at other lots under similar situations and suggest that they be included in the master plan. Since the Homeowner Association Board wished to review each request on an individual case-by-case basis, staff respected their decision, so the request before this Board was only for this particular lot. Staff reviewed the request by comparing it with other planned residential developments throughout the City and similar type of amendment requests. Staff previously processed two requests for Boynton Lakes North for rear yard setbacks to reduce them to a two foot rear setback on all properties abutting any body of water in the development. Since the proposed improvements associated with the request would occur within the homeowner property lines only, staff believed that the rear setback request for amendment to be appropriate and would not impact any of the neighbors. Therefore, staff is recommending the request for the Master Plan Modification be considered non-substantial and approved, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit E, Conditions of Approval. Voncile Smith, the property owner, was present for questions. Voncile Smith, 1747 Banyan Creek Court, advised she had been working on this issue since last February. She was told that she would initially just need to get the Homeowner Association Board to approve it, which was done in March. An architect began working on the plans and a contractor was contacted and then was told that an official amendment needed to come before this Board and ultimately before the City Commission. She expressed her hope that the Board approve her request. Vice Chair Barnes inquired whether the addition would be painted to match the house and Ms. Smith indicated the planners had been looking at the architectural draft and she believed the only issue had been with the air conditioning system The changes were addressed and made. Motion Ms. Grcevic moved to approve the request for a Master Plan Modification to the Stonehaven Master Plan to reduce the rear setback from fifteen (15) feet to one (1) foot for Lot 112 in order to accommodate a home addition on an existing 14 x 18 foot concrete slab installed at the time of original construction. Vice Chair Barnes seconded the motion that was unanimously approved. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2011 D.1. Wholesale Motor Vehicle Dealer (with no on-site sales) (USAP 12-001) - Approve request for Use Approval to add Wholesale Motor Vehicle Dealer (with no on-site sales) for Lot 70 only, to the approved Quantum Park Planned Industrial Development (PID) approved use list. Property located at 2027 High Ridge Road within the PID zoning district on a lot with the (01) Office and Industrial use option. Applicant: Scott Backman of Siegel, Lipman, Dunay, Shepard & Miskel LLP. Eric Johnson, Planner, advised this was a Use Approval to allow a wholesale vehicle dealer on Lot 70 in Quantum Park. The existing land use is DRI (Development of Regional Impact) and the zoning district is PID (Planned Industrial Development). In Quantum Park, each lot has a PID use option and the option for Lot 70 would be 01 (Office & Industrial). Mr. Johnson advised he provided a list in the packet that contained a laundry list of different uses that were allowed in the 01 designation. However, a wholesale vehicle dealer was not one of them. The Board was being requested to amend the permitted use list to allow the subject use. Mr. Johnson further explained that the 01 designation was intended for general wholesaling activities. However, staff did not construe a wholesale vehicle dealer to be similar to other more traditional wholesaling businesses. The determination was based on the operational characteristics, zoning use descriptions, and standards associated with vehicle dealerships. Such operational uniqueness was, in part, contributed to parking intensity and site layout, traffic characteristics, signage, and potential customer activity which greatly contrasts the site standards and capacity of properties designed and built for warehousing. This was an industrial type of area and a wholesale vehicle dealership would not be compatible with the development for which it was proposed. Mr. Johnson advised the applicant had proposed a type of operation that would not necessarily Invite customers to the subject property. Staff understands that all sales would be conducted off premises. There are 11 operational performance standards that the City had that each use approval request had to be evaluated on. Those standards are: noise, vibrations, smoke, dust, dirt, odors and fumes, toxic or noxious matter, fire and explosion, heat, humidity or glare, liquid and solid waste, electro-magnetic interference and hazardous material and waste. The applicant had stated that none of these standards would be violated and staff concurs. However, to insure the proposed use remain as a wholesaling type of use, three conditions of approval were incorporated. Staff recommends approval of the wholesale dealership, provided it complies with the conditions of approval. Bonnie Miskel, 5355 Town Center Road, Boca Raton, was present on behalf of the tenant. She explained how the proposed business would operate. She advised essentially vehicle owners would come to the property and park in front of the business. One of the employees would inspect the vehicle, and if it was accepted, they would go into a very small counter area, transact the business, turn over the title, and leave. The vehicle at that point would be brought into the warehouse area and stored on a temporary basis. This business would be entirely wholesale. They are licensed only to 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2011 sell to the trade, so they cannot directly sell to any member of the public. They work through the West Palm Beach auction company and the auction company sends drivers down to pick up the cars and transport them back to the West Palm auction lot. The auction company would serve as a facilitator. The storage of the cars would be temporary. They would only be able to take in as many cars as they were able to store until the vehicle could be delivered off-site. They expect to transact somewhere between 30 and 60 cars a month. They have no problem complying with staff's conditions and recommendations. They would be in violation of Florida Statutes, Chapter 320 if they attempted to sell to someone other than the trade. Mr. Miller inquired as to how many people they would be employing. Ms. Miskel estimated approximately five to six employees would be on-site in the office. Mr. Miller wanted clarification as to what would be done if the car was in need of repair and Ms. Miskel indicated no repair work would be done on-site. The vehicle would either be repaired off-site or sold as is, as 99% of the vehicles are sold that way. Lynn Goldberg, 9529 Foxtrot Lane, Boca Raton advised the business model was based off buying. With CarMax right there, it works together. In answer to the question regarding if the vehicle needed repair, she remarked that was the beauty of wholesale. The vehicle would be bought based on what the car needed or did not need. Mr. Miller inquired of Ms. Goldberg if she had experience with this type of business and she advised she had this type of business in other locations in Florida, Maryland, Washington D.C., Virginia and Delaware. Chair Saberson inquired whether the Board should include that sales would occur solely and exclusively at off-site auctions. Ms. Miskel advised they would like the flexibility that if something was sold off-site to the trade in some other form other than an auction in the future, they would have the ability to do so. Vice Chair Barnes indicated he understood that the plan was not to conduct on-site sales, but felt, in essence, the public would be selling to the applicant and wanted clarification from the Board attorney if that could cause a problem. He also expressed concern that he saw this as "half a CarMax" where only the buying part was the business being conducted, and not the selling and felt this would create more on-site traffic with vehicles coming in than originally stated. Mr. Johnson informed the Board that part of the lease agreement with Duke Realty was that they could not violate their lease agreement by parking cars outside. Ms. Miskel responded that wholesaling was already in the PID and that wholesaling does envision the acquisition and the distribution of product, but it was to the trade. In any wholesale business, you would also have the same level of transaction. She felt the best case scenario was two cars in a day. When thought about at that volume, it was a really minor number. State statute does not look at the "buy" component; it looks at the "sell" component when it defines what wholesaling is. The statute only limits the 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL October 25, 2011 sell part of it and limits selling to the trade. She further advised the tenant was limited, by lease, to not only the square footage operated, but also the number of parking spaces used. There were a number of different restrictions and limitations. She mentioned that part of getting approved for this was the City component, but also the State comes and inspects the site for the same reasons the Board had concerns with. They make sure that this particular use was not going to infringe or encroach on anything around it and that it was the appropriate location for its use. The DMV had already approved the site. They felt very comfortable, based on the nature of the license request, that there would be no burden on the neighbors, and that it was an adequate facility to house the expected transactions. There was continued discussion on the nature of the use and the fact that there would be transactions taking place. There were also inquiries as to how the business would be advertised and whether local people would be hired. The Board turned to Attorney Weinger for an opinion on whether the way it was stated with the conditions was acceptable. She stated she felt the conditions imposed by staff would be consistent with the zoning plan. She did not feel anything would have to be changed. She agreed that the statutes and State law governs their business and therefore would be acceptable. Motion Ms. Grcevic moved to approve the request for use approval to add a wholesale motor vehicle dealer with no on-site sales for Lot 70 only. The motion was seconded by Mr. Miller and unanimously passed. 8. Adjournment Motion There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Miller moved to adjourn. Vice Chair Barnes seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m. ~lll.L' (l1..((.ur Ellie Caruso Recording Secretary 8 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 11-041 TO: Chair and Members Planning & DeveloPrt) Board Michael Rump~ Director of Planning and Zoning THRU: FROM: Kathleen Zeitler /Cb- Planner II . DATE: November 14, 2011 PROJECT: Healing Grounds / SPTE 11-008 REQUEST: Site Plan Time Extension PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: Nancy Keller, DVM of White Elk Enterprises, LLC Applicant / Agent: Bridget Keller Location: 220 & 226 West Boynton Beach Boulevard (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map) Existing Land Use/ Zoning: Local Retail Commercial (LRC) / Neighborhood Commercial (C-2) Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Uses: Holistic Veterinary Clinic (3,416 square feet) and ancillary human massage and acupuncture spa services Acreage: 0.60 acre Adjacent Uses: North: Right-of-way for Boynton Beach Boulevard, and farther north at the comer of NW 3rd Court and Boynton Beach Boulevard, a retail store (Hair & Nails Perfection) on 0.29 acre classified as LRC land use and zoned C-2; and to the northeast, a single-family residence fronting on Boynton Beach Boulevard on 0.18 acre classified as LRC land use and zoned C-2; South: Three (3) parcels, each with a single-family residence and classified as Low Density Residential (LDR) and zoned R-1A (Single-Family Residential); East: A day care center (Lighthouse Academy and Child Development Center) on 0.62 acre classified as LRC and zoned C-2; Page 2 Memorandum No. PZ 11-041 SPTE 11-008 West Right-of-way for NW 2nd Street, and farther west, a service station with repair bays on 0.70 acre classified as LRC and zoned C-2. BACKGROUND Ms. Bridgett Keller, agent for Nancy Keller, DVM of White Elk Enterprises, LLC, is requesting an eighteen (18) month time extension for the Healing Grounds New Site Plan (NWSP 10-002) Development Order which was approved by the City Commission on March 16, 2010. The original approval is valid for 18 months and therefore was scheduled to expire September 16, 2011. If this request for extension were approved, the expiration date of this site plan would be extended to March 16,2013. According to the original site plan staff report, the Healing Grounds project was approved for a one (1 )-story 3,416 square foot holistic veterinary clinic and 200 square feet of ancillary human massage and acupuncture spa services on 0.60-acre at 220 and 226West Boynton Beach Boulevard in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-2) zoning district (see Exhibit liB" - Plans). ANAL YSrS The site plan approval is valid for 18 months, in which time the developer is required to secure a building permit for the project. According to Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2.F.6 of the Land Development Regulations (LDR), an applicant may request to extend the approval of a site plan for an additional time period, not to exceed 18 months, provided that such request for extension is filed prior to the date of the expiration of the original 18-month period. In this case, the applicant has met that requirement. The Planning & Zoning Division received the extension request on August 22, 2011, approximately one (1) month prior to the expiration of the site plan. Per Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2.F .6.a of the LDR, there is no limit to the number of extensions that may be requested. There have been no previous time extension applications for this project. Per Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2.F.6.c. of the LDR, the following criteria shall be used in the review of requests for site plan time extensions: (1) Any recently adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, redevelopment plans, or Land Development Regulations that would cause the approved site plan in its current configuration to become noncompliant. (2) In determining good faith, some factors to be considered are the following: (a) the extent to which a land development permit (if applicable) has been applied for by the applicant and/or approved by the Engineering Division; (b) when construction approved by such land development permit has occurred (construction which is commenced immediately preceding expiration generally indicating a lack of good faith); (c) the extent to which there has been a bona fide continuous effort to develop but because of circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. It was not possible to meet the time limitation; and (d) the applicant has applied for or secured any building permits, or other types of permits from external agencies, including anticipated dates for the issuance of the aforementioned permits; (3) The payment of any impact fees, including utilities or art in public places; (4) Site plan compliance with the concurrency requirements and of Palm Beach County and the city's Land Development Regulations; and, Page 3 Memorandum No. PZ 11-041 SPTE 11-008 (5) Any other pertinent information that the applicant can provide that would justify the request for site plan time extension. Ms. Keller, agent for the property owner, indicates in the justification letter (Exhibit "C") that construction bids that were received were grossly overpriced at $300 per square foot, making the project too expensive. The letter also explains that extensive site work for a water main and fire hydrant along with proposed LEED building components added to the project cost. The justification letter states that as far as progress is concerned, the applicant has met with the architect to implement value engineering and has hired a general contractor. As such, an 18-month time extension is requested to extend approvals from September 16, 2011 to March 16, 2013 and allow additional time to secure a building permit for the project. The site plan time extension would still be subject to the original conditions of site plan approval which includes the requirement for traffic concurrency approval prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this first request for an 18-month extension of the approved site plan (NWSP 10-002) for the Healing Grounds project, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "D"_ Conditions of Approval. If this request for an extension was approved, the expiration date would be extended to March 16, 2013, and all conditions from the original approval must still be satisfactorily addressed during the building permit process. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Healing Grounds\SPTE 11-008\Staff Report.doc EXHIBIT "A" - SITE LOCATION MAP HEALING GROUNDS SPTE 11-008 . I I" r- l 1 11! I ':- NW4T~AVE~/ III i - f- R-~A- f-~~~E (, ~~~/ U) I ,U) -j [:::> 0 -<1 (~ l t-- o I!.! 0./ ~""""'_~-- ~ I Z ~.,.;~ /---~, -~~A . I N ~v - ... r ...q~~ ~ ~~- I - ~ L - ...,~ ~__ I "<Q~~~I L_~ I-~j /:~~rC421 L-r'- i i ____J r C-2"\" f I I , i I \ /- __U", [ i -----, /, /, / / /,# ,;/ /.. -----.~ - ~-'~-1C' , ~ "~..;' ~, ~ " .-J r ~!, /''''~'/' // ~I C C-2 ~;~f:'?- :;;~ 1 SITE I -2, , RL. -k~. -- -, II '-r I -----r [I : r I I : 1: NW 1ST AVE - -r-- ... in- j -It-] Wi U) o ~, i ; ... 'I ~c-I 1-""r-OTI~i Z : Z' i I I W OCEAN AVE · ~TJ i'IT,II. Rj1 ~ 1_ '" R-1A =- I [[II T-~- I. i 85 0 170 340 510 N 6~~E '~ S EXHIBIT ns" ... II I .i 11 ... II I ! .liI'. ... r '. ~ --I -'I ~ ~iJ I~ i l 'i I j Iii. IIII ilu II, I ! · I I I ~ J t 'I i I I Ii II I; If . (- hI -II, i I II hll ,~. I t II I I jlilg 'il II III ! II! i I ql ~ il,!. ~ ~ ~ .-l ,. ! III ~ III r. 'I jl m ~Il Il'~ili! I'I~II!' ~~ I ... .. i! 1.1 I . 511111.11 III 1::~1::1i; (l (l SlFil ! II JI ~ I ~~ i a ~= ~B t i sl i - - I~ '1 II r --~-;;.;------ l~re): .~l________ 1 1 I I ~ I \ o(O)(i'l<i J .: I % 1/[[ : i - 11:1 oN .... n+;':-~ --~ .:t~l .... "".... II J I ~ :i I: r L (g [ ~llJ1 I: 9 I ~ I!il ~ n I J:lI ~ '-rl I I~ ~-! L_~jt-~ ~l11 e ,@,ll '11/:1 /'I I r- I II I II IEl I. rt----- t'1P1 ==b.. ~ -- R _==l l ~.ii_ · JI I I 1 I I a @l ~. "IAI - @l - I~e) iiil I I I It' i - I_-l_\. Ip !!il!:ll I r ]!!l I@. [~. ~ot\ -" i ill ; : i 11 ~ JP'i .. ~ I (lI) ] l ~ ! ~ @ -'I !8 ~ Uli 11111 ! !"7~ I r l r i - r;;,r, \ r! l r'--- 12l-..J - I ,~~. ~ R C'l $61 @.II)I -. _ m I / ~ l ~ \@I j@! ~ V 4~ ':~:"l~-~ \?i"~ ....~J. I. G! , '- 111. d f\d1 ,~ ~ 08' 1--. I. ~. I!l J / rle' --../ ~ rtiJ ~ I~ I ~ '/ :I~~-' - 1i'I. - L...);! 1:l I : R..J.. -..-:;1 ==l ~ ~ I.l -!- - ~~;r. ~ ~ ::_- +i.J I ~N I......... I. 1......_ @)' - - - i 31 I 13~ --- .. ~ ~>~' --j 'fitgL1 c ~:.>. ~I ~,),~. ~ ~ i fr~ I ,. "' "'J. lei II "J.: ~ L___-, eo I J~~ l I~~ !llii8 ~ ~ ~ r I ""81 ~". 10/!iI" I@J I I EIIII I "'""t:,b ~ )j ..1 '~. li .. I ) 1-' 1=t'1Ir I!lll , ~" I j ~ : 1';:1" l Gl: 1'1... .....rR~ ~ ~- .. l!: p21@J1 ~I ~r'h.1.. IlL/'" ~D ! ~ ~ ~ _~~ ~ .' _ r-- ~ ! L ---';'9"- --- e---t~ --- ('.:1- \ GJ - --- --- -- ~ (~ C~) m (~ c ~ ~ d l!J @) laii WI - ~ ~- ... .- ~- ... ~ ~ I j I i .... .'= ... L. ~ .... IiI, IIh~1 i!i!a' I"!I~ . i!hu . 2 j I ~ ~ ;i ~ a: ... ~.' IId._ I ~ll j ~iI II .~ i II !Ii IIlli II Illu 11111I u Ib IIlI III nllll ,I II 'I !::j Ii ~ if ~ II ~ ~ "'" ... -- -- . I I I I , , I I I t I I i I , I 1 I I I I I I I , , I I 1 I I I t ~, '. I I I 1 I , I I I I I I I I , I I ~ I..... If' , I J 1 I , I I I I I ~~1-~ ~ ~~ ~i ;~ T" I , I , f I I , I I I , I I , I I , I ! ,~ I ~I , I I , I I , I I I I 1 I. I I I I , I l~ r~ I f I I I I , I I , , I I I , I I I I ~ . i i ~~ ~i ~i N . t , t 1 I I i I r I , t I t I , . I I I 1 I I i I , I I t I , I , I I t I , I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I J t , t I I I I 1 I , I I I I I t I I -, I , I t , J I I I I I I , I I I I 1 I t t t .. , , I 1 ! i I I r I I .6 ~ z ~l? 8~ ~';" ~~ 1t ~~ -- ii 1"" l"I L 'II j ~j; I i llil i! ,IU. i,l 911. ! i" H II II-'ll ~ I iI,D x ~ ~. lli dl.J IlIiD f ~ I ' 11'1 dl I II; I i ~ alii' I..' !III~ .ulllll_11 ,Iilld ... II.... '" ".. ~.11.. t1111~'" ~ ~ -----"'!!F h ~J II H 1111 u II. T "Jr' I I . I ~ I ~~ tbJ~ I -- tit Ii '!~I.lfBI ,d ,I I I EXHIBIT "e" Nancy From: Sem:- To: Subject: BRIDGET KELLER [mangokeller@bellsouth.net] Thursday, August 18, 201111:18AM Nancy Letter to City for Site Plan Approval Extension - APPROVAL NEEDED City of Boynton Beach Mr. Mike Rumpf Planning & Zoning Director 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33XXX August 17, 2011 Dear Mr. Rumpf, Re: Healing Heart Grounds 220 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Site Approval Extension Approval Date: March 16, 2011 Expiration Date: September 16, 2011 On March 16, 2011, Healfng Heart Grounds was given site plan approval. This approval is due to expire on September 16,2011 (18 months from approval date). I would like to request an extension on the site plan approval. As requested, I have included a check for $500 for the extension. As you may know, Dr. Keller and I have been in touch with the City over the last year regarding our concerns. At our last meeting on August 9th, we voiced our concerns and asked for some feedback in order to move forward. The reason for extension and delay to the project are as as follows. The bids that we received we grossly overpriced with construction coming in approximately $300 square foot. Bringing the cost to $1 million to $1.2 million. Site work was almost $200,000. We received three bids form reputable companies all stating that there is extensive site work such as water main, fire hydrant, and fencing. In our case. the area for the water main would not allow machines to dig adding to the burden on the owner. Also, in biding this project. we have leamed that our efforts to build a ~green" Lead certified building have pushed up the costs. An example of this expense in our electrical package. This will need to be redrawn to make it affordable. Our goal is to still be efficient and environmentally conscious while still making it affordable to build. At our last meeting, we understood that the Utilities Department is planning to upgrade water and fire hydrants along Boynton Beach Blvd. in the next 18 months. Hopefully, this timing will take this responsibility off the owner. And, we understand that the City will allow us to add fencing and pickup where the existing concrete fence ends. It will not be necessary to make a double fence in some areas of the property. These updates by the utilities department and fencing status significantly help the owner. As far as progress, we have hired a general contractor to provide us with some value engineering to get costs to a more affordable price. We have a meeting scheduled with our architect, Annie Carruthers, on Friday, August 26th to implement the value engineering into our building. I hope that I have clearly explained the delayed and tired to reassure you of our progress moving forward. Dr. Keller and I can be reached at the following phone numbers and I or emails: Bridget Keller Cellular: 305-788-1013 Home: 305-945-8679 mangokeUer@ beUsouth.net .~ ,-::; : )~~ r~ l':~~f ~.~t-~ -"~ji ~.. I'.' {. ,"." ,. ',' t.., ';, .,< t;.~.;':;. ,_~. "', ',.:,-<l .''CL.' " Nancy Keller Office: 561-547-8277 Cellular: 561.704-4715 medicinevet@healinaheartvet.com /_~:1 ,~..~~ : I :.~ ~ 'r;~ i I appreciate your help with this matter. ,_. . t., ~ -"} l i- t_ ,~", ~",- _.1, _ - ~ ~ ......,. "at t7 (:~~!";:,?~ .....~..~~~>r. 1 Sincerely, 0; J~ BoJ Keller Owner's Representative 2 EXHIBIT "0" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Project Name: Healing Grounds File Number: SPTE 11-008 DEPARTMENTS INCLUD REJECT E ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None RECREA TION AND PARKS Comments: None FORESTER/ENVIRON M ENT ALlST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. The approval of the Site Plan Time Extension is subject to the 17 conditions of approval of the original site plan approval (NWSP 10- 002). ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS To be determined. HEALING GROUNDS (SPTE 11-008) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Page 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUD REJECT E ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS To be determined. MWR/kz S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Healing Grounds\SPTE 11-008\COA.doc DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Healing Grounds APPLICANT: Nancy Keller, DVM AGENT: Bridget Keller AGENT'S ADDRESS: 3181 NE 165th St, N Miami Beach, FL 33160 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: December 6, 2011 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request approval of a site plan time extension of 18 months for a 3,716 square foot veterinary clinic on 0.60 acre in a C-2 zoning district. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 222 West Boynton Beach Boulevard (SE corner of Boynton Beach Blvd and NW 2nd Street) DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER 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 "0" 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 DA TED: City Clerk S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Healing Grounds\SPTE 11-008\DO.doc DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 11-050 TO: Chair and Members Planning & DeveloPJL.(t Board Michael RumpfW). . Director of Planning and Zoning THRU: FROM: Eric Lee Johnson, AICP, LEED Green Associate Planner II DATE: November 16, 2011 PROJECT: REQUEST: Subway Regional Headquarters / MSPM 12-001 Major site plan modification approval to construct a 2,166 square foot addition to an existing 1,978 square foot office building for a total of 4,144 square feet on a 0.29-acre parcel in the CBD zoning district. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: JEMSS, LLC Applicant: The Feldman Group - Subway of South Florida Agent: Agustin Amaro Location: 508 East Boynton Beach Boulevard (see Exhibit "A" - Site Location Map) Existing Land Use/Zoning: Mixed Use (MX) / Central Business District (CBD) Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Use: Office Acreage: 0.29 acre (12,640 square feet) Adjacent Uses: North: Right-of-way for Boynton Beach Boulevard; still farther north is an existing restaurant (Bud's Chicken) zoned CBD; South: Unimproved right-of-way (alley); still farther south is paved land owned by the City of Boynton Beach, zoned CBD; East: Existing retail (Ace Hardware), zoned CBD; and Right-of-way for Northeast 4th Street; still father west is undeveloped land owned by the Florida East Coast Railroad. West: Memorandum No. PZ 11-050 Subway Regional Headquarters / MSPM 12-001 Page 2 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: Located within the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) area, the subject property is 0.29 acre with 100 feet of frontage on East Boynton Beach Boulevard and over 126 feet on Northeast 4th Street. According to a past appraisal, the site was originally developed in 1958, but was completely renovated in 1999. Several businesses have been licensed at the subject site, including Ridgeway Plumbing and Dr. Love's Orthopedics medical office. According to City records, the Subway Regional Headquarters has operated from this location since 2000. Proposal: Mr. Amaro, agent for the applicant, is seeking major site plan approval to construct a 2,166 square foot addition to an existing office building (headquarters of the Subway Regional office). Staff understands the project would be completed in one (1) phase with a build-out date of early-to-mid 2012. The current Subway Headquarters employs five (5) full-time and four (4) part-time individuals. The applicant anticipates that an additional employee may be hired after completion of the project. The floor plan (as shown on SPA-1) illustrates the proposed layout of offices and meeting rooms. ANAL YSIS 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 October 31, 2011 and has determined that the proposed project meets the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. The County determined the project would generate a total of 45 new trips per day. No building permits are to be issued by the City after the build-out date of December 31,2015 (see Exhibit "0" - Conditions of Approval). 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. The existing water and sewer connections currently serving the existing building would be used by the new building addition. The existing water service is located at the northeast corner of the existing building. The sewer line serving the building is located in the alley on the south side of the subject parcel. Police/Fire: Staff has reviewed the site plan and all comments have been addressed. Staff expects to provide an adequate level of service for this project with current or expected infrastructure and/or staffing levels. Memorandum No. PZ 11-050 Subway Regional Headquarters / MSPM 12-001 Page 3 Drainage: Conceptual drainage information was provided for the City's review. The Engineering ~ivision 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 (see Exhibit "0" - Conditions of Approval). Access: A driveway opening is currently located along the west side of the property. No major changes are proposed to the driveway, other than minor improvements in order to comply with current code. Parking: According to Part III (LOR), Chapter 4, Article V, the minimum off-street parking requirements for office buildings is based on the following ratio: One (1) parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. The project would require 14 off- street parking spaces, and it would provide 14 spaces. The request includes minor changes to the parking lot, including moving the handicap space farther south near the new main entrance (where the building addition would be constructed). The 90-degree parking stalls, excluding the handicap space, would be dimensioned nine (9) feet in width and 18 feet in length and include continuous curbing. All proposed parking stalls, 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 would be provided, in order to clearly delineate areas on site and direction of circulation. Landscaping: The site plan tabular data indicates that 2,326 square feet or 18.3% of the subject property would be pervious, consisting of landscaped and open space areas. The landscaped areas currently contain a variety of trees and shrubs, including Live Oak, Cabbage palm, Foxtail palm, and Adonidia palm. With respect to the southern portion of the property, the site currently contains four (4) mature canopy trees (Live Oak) and a palm tree (Cabbage palm). Of these trees, the Cabbage Palm would remain in its current location at the southwest corner of the property within the eight (B)-foot wide perimeter buffer. Also to be retained within this perimeter buffer are two (2) mature Live Oak trees. However, the other mature Live Oak located near the rear-center of the property would be relocated within the buffer, in order to accommodate the construction of the new building addition. The foundation planting area proposed west of the existing building would be three (3) feet - eight (B) inches in width, which is one (1) foot and four inches deficient per the minimum standard (Part III (LDR), Chapter 4, Article II, Section 6.8.3.). After completion of the project, this landscape strip would contain four (4) Adonidia palm trees and two (2) varieties of Jasmine ground cover. The west and north landscape strips abutting the rights-of-way are also deficient in terms of their width. However, staff has determined the landscape plan qualifies as an alternative landscape plan pursuant to Part III (LDR), Chapter 4, Article II, Section 5 because it meets the purpose and intent of the landscape code in that it 1) maximizes the preservation of natural amenities; 2) accommodates desirable trends in landscape design and plant selection; and 3) is a creative design considering the small size of the subject lot. One factor to consider is that the site is already developed and vested with a site plan depicting the proposed addition in its earmarked location. The configuration of the existing parking lot would generally remain the same and Memorandum No. PZ 11-050 Subway Regional Headquarters / MSPM 12-001 Page 4 no additional spaces are being proposed, due to the lack of space with which to expand. Likewise, any expansion of the aforementioned landscaped areas would likely cause the off-street parking area to become noncompliant. Secondly, the width of the landscape strip along the western property line abutting Northeast 4th Street is compromised, because a public sidewalk was installed on the subject property instead of within the abutting right-of-way. Therefore, any opportunity to increase its width is extremely limited, due to the presence of the sidewalk. However, the proposed tree spacing within this landscape strip would exceed the minimum standards required by code, and despite there to be two (2) new freestanding outdoor lighting structures located within, or near the landscape strip. With respect to the landscape strip along the north property line, the deficiency is mitigated by the presence of three (3) Silver Buttonwood and two (2) Crape Myrtle trees within the abutting right-of-way along East Boynton Beach Boulevard. A site visit revealed that a third Crape Myrtle is also located within the right-of-way; however, this tree is in poor condition and needs to be replaced. The applicant is proposing a pergola/trellis feature, a series of knee walls, and three (3) freestanding outdoor lighting structures within the northern landscape strip. These are proposed to provide the project with more usable open space, in conjunction with promoting the aesthetic considerations reported below in the "Site and Building" portion of the staff report. The irrigation plan complies with the Waterwise irrigation design guidelines as follows: 1) bubblers are installed on all newly planted trees; 2) low angle spray and Xeri XPCN Series Nozzles are utilized (pop ups only where required) directing water at roots ot plantints; 3) rainsensor devices are used; and 4) a well and pump system is utilized as the source of water, thereby conserving potable water. Site and Building: According to the survey, the lowest ground elevation is 12.05 feet. The existing building has a finished floor elevation of 13.34 feet, and the proposed addition would have the same. During the review of previous development approvals for the property, staff noted the site was approved for a major modification involving the parking lot, landscaping, and site lighting in the early 1990's. In addition, the prior site plan depicted the future footprint of the proposed building that is under review by staff in this application, along with the corresponding required amount of parking for the existing building, and future addition as well (see Exhibit "C"). After approval of the major modification, the parking lot was completed and, as depicted on their approved plans, accommodated the required parking for Phase II. However, the plans associated with the major modification did not include the requisite building elevations and other pertinent details, and as a result, the City Commission indicated the need for the project to come back before them for approval when the applicant was prepared to proceed with Phase II. The project is designed as an "L" shaped, one (1)-story structure. In the CBD, the required building setbacks for this project are as follows: Front - 0 feet; Interior side - 0 feet; and Corner side/Rear - eight (8) feet. The proposed addition would comply with all the aforementioned minimum setbacks. Staff acknowledges the location of the subject site as within close proximity to the traditional "downtown" of the City where setbacks are limited and buildings are generally located close to the sidewalks. As such, it would be staffs preference to redesign the plan such that the proposed building addition would be located closer to the abutting rights-ot- way (Le., north and west property lines), in order to encourage a more urban and pedestrian-oriented design. However, the CBD does not contain maximum Memorandum No. PZ 11-050 Subway Regional Headquarters / MSPM 12-001 Page 5 setbacks and the applicant is not compelled to modify the design. As a compromise, the applicant has agreed to install both an aluminum pergola/trellis and knee wall along the sidewalk along the north property line abutting East Boynton Beach Boulevard. The pergola would be 12 feet in height and the knee wall would be one (1 )-foot - seven inches tall. These elements would serve a dual purpose. First, they would effectively screen the off-street parking areas from the abutting rights-of-way, and therefore, meet the purpose and intent of the exterior building and site design standards of the CBO. Secondly, and from an aesthetic perspective, they would help to enhance the appearance of the Boynton Beach Boulevard corridor by providing a sense of human scale while serving as an informal temporary seating area. The site plan shows the location of the proposed bicycle rack and trash receptacle. Both would be located along the north elevation of the existing building underneath a roof overhang. The survey shows the location of the two (2) catch basins in the existing parking lot. All stormwater from impervious surfaces would drain into these areas. Building Height: The maximum allowable building height in the CBD is 45 feet, except under certain circumstances whereby it may be increased to 100 feet. The elevation drawing (sheet SPA - 2.1) indicates that the roof deck of the existing and proposed building is 11 feet in height. The project proposes a five (5)-foot tall parapet along the entire perimeter, except in two (2) instances where the top of the arched elements would be 20 feet in height. This variation in heights is intended to enhance the appearance of the building by adding dimension and variety, as well as to screen any rooftop equipment (e.g., air-conditioning units). Building Design: As illustrated on the site plan and elevation drawings (sheet SPA -2.2), the proposed addition would ultimately create an ilL" shaped building. The exterior walls would be adorned with modern elements, consisting of rounded parapets with metal cap flashing, rounded black awnings, green-tinted glass windows, and Visa Lighting wall sconces. The proposed building surface would be stuccoed. The proposed building colors are subtle and compatible with the surrounding buildings. With respect to the downspouts, the project will be redesigned with internal roof drains at the time of permitting, in order to conceal or camouflage their appearance, and thereby comply with the aesthetic considerations of Part III (LOR), Ch 4, Art III, Sec 3.A.8 (see Exhibit liD" - Conditions of Approval). It is noteworthy that the rear fagade of the proposed addition is highly visible from as far south as East Ocean Avenue, due to the presence of rights-of-way and undeveloped properties in between. Staff cannot predict when redevelopment of these lands will occur, or to what extent this visibility will be reduced by the future development; and therefore recommends that the windows and awnings proposed on the rear fagade be continued along the entire length of the wall in conjunction with installing uplighting at the base of each existing and relocated Live Oak within the south landscape buffer (see Exhibit liD" - Conditions of Approval). Site Lighting: The project proposes five (5) freestanding outdoor lighting structures, which are unique in design relative to anything else in the City. Staff initially had concerns regarding the exposure or visibility of the bulb within these structures, but the applicant has provided staff with specifications and assurances that the bulbs would be shielded with white, translucent, UV stabilized acrylic inside the die cast Memorandum No. PZ 11-050 Subway Regional Headquarters / MSPM 12-001 Page 6 aluminum "Corral" -brand rings. Also proposed are 13 wall-mounted lights (wall sconces). All light fixtures would be located in or around the off-street parking area and none would spill light onto adjacent properties or abutting rights-of-way. All footcandle levels would comply with the minimum and maximum thresholds as regulated in Part III (LDR), Chapter 4, Article VII. Site Signage: The elevation drawing shows a 26-square foot wall sign is proposed on the north fa9ade above the building addition, which would comply with the sign code - a maximum of 89.08 square feet is allowed pursuant to Part III (LDR), Chapter 4, Article IV, Section 4.C.1. No other site signage is proposed. Public Art: Because the applicant indicates the proposed improvements would be valued at less than $250,000, the project is exempt from the Art in Public Places requirements (Ordinance 05-060). However, if it is determined at the time of permitting that the valuation exceeds $250,000, the Public Arts Administrator has already reviewed the plans and has noted several places where the art can become part of the architecture and/or a component of the project. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for Major Site Plan Modification and recommends approval of the plans presented, subject to satisfying all comments indicated in Exhibit liD" - Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval. 5: \Planning\SHARED\ WP\PROJECTS\Subway Regional Headquarters\Staff Report.doc 180 90 0 I 180 360 7~05 Fee 540 I API GROUP, INC 592' VISTA UNDA LANE BOCA RATON. FlORIDA 334J3 ,;;"..-;-~-:;-<;~ .:?~7f20 SUBWAY REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS - ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS SITE PLAN SPA-1 - /l'J.< -'7'~ .~ ~ _ (~'I m........ f~~ ~~7'_=-== --::::f:;"'i r" ~"1fuU:ltlnat~~r1~~\'n., iC- ~~ , !-:- I t II" ~. -:" -'.. I ;1 ,.) I," l~" I r--- -----,1 ' I . '; -!.. l? !l I ~ ~_U I J D -~~~- ~ "'-- I.. . 1,1_ I' . ~~'1 ~'J ,- .,. I'.~..-- 1 ' 'f -~""'...'.- '" '- 0 - ~ - .t. .- - . "~ -i~:; 1~ L _-u.IlQ(;iI"_ P~"'_l"'~~ =~""'~'~n - BOVNTON BEACH BOUYLEVARO ---7-1 ~_-. r; ~_. ~- _-,,~ f-_.. =--!:-:-- ~ , ~ ..,::;::.=~- . ' .__...._ / I ~ . \\. '" I-'~-%~.:%"'~~:-ir-=.~~. ~ . ~ I~ ~ ~~tr- -_. .. ... Z ~ t ~~' . -c-. h.__ "..~ '\'" A"', ~ :r~ "?- "', __...ft "" ~/ '",~, . ..: ..-:..~:aL. _.....n '1' '~- .: _;'''"-'1'1-- - , %~. lII..r.-.,~ ,. .r I: ::--bd. " , I ~;~~ ~ ill ~~j."" . --~ I". : ....-:: ~~I' '- n_.._ . .~': ,i~" . ;~ 1.;1~:.t '-~ I~ f ?'!;li ' _' , ; ~, 00-<'1'" . i~ ! .~ ~I :::<._ ~ 4~' ,,'. I; ~?;ji -I;.:: tu ,~ ~.~~I' ~ l:! ~ ~~ I ~ :;; r::. "" " " ~ ~ '1~ ~~jll \ _' .. :ill~ ~1 --'-'.' I ~ ul I~.; ~~.1 \ ~ Z - ,.: ~"' "7 ;--:::= "" ..,;::::: II .,' ./~./.L~"'.~, ~ I ........F :1iif;.-,,::,%~~~ n ~ ~'. I fl ~~~../..r~,-, - l:..--.'WO, r 'J E:];', ~ L ' . ,.~~.:.: a.. ~_ is I O. \ . .; .... " \'- i~ ~ .. -\ ,. ~ ~ ~~., I .. ~IUT-.....r:I;""'~"'I" . C . '...J ~, I "'I ----=:;~= ii " ~ 5 .. I .~. II .1 't: Ol ':: I . . ~ I. , ~: ~ 'lJ."i ,! ~ -. . ..._.....' t::. UJ "'r;-I ..... ~~....._. 'i) .~..tf1.~ -. ,-._. '.' u ,/ f ~.--'- -=" .. - r1 l .- -'ir=1' II n~: ....../D...'l ~ '.. . -, n ~ ...rt' I ._ -._ t:. :r ~-------, ~H FlOl)R El I ~ .' \,........... , .:;~ l lM"~1Y.Iw._ I~ ;;;'11 J. __n.... -;% "A1! ~ "" l'fW~~"'~.',: (] r; _.~ ==.....~ ...... 100' . - I""f\ ,.n........'" '-Y .;..... - 2'ASPHALTAUEY --"'1\ 00"_ · Jl ~ --- , " . J ~-. ...- t ..-"'" 11 ..-- ..:-.:-- ~ ...._, , . .. ...- ~. "'__I:t;:f ._ .....-: U ...- ..jo,o- ....... SITE -\!:=... e_ ~ "~~J J ".::: &. 1'- _ ,::. ~ '-- elf -~-'---- -.... l"'_ -. _'" O;-,1;Il:lIIIIo _ ~....... ~ -- -. I 0,;;, '"_ ! -,.- I - . . . -- --- -::- ~ !.~ ...o.oj J ..._ ,__ . ~ _... I ~ --- I.. . i . 1.... .-- I ___ .~. I LJ '"'-' -.t. VICINITY IMP . ~.,..-- ,- .. ~ f2\_'~:PUN \5J t.... ........-y - I r _:. · L I - "=l , I -- ,. PROJECT NOTES ........- ....~fboo"f_"-~ oCl' "("""f~I~1t... --.-...................., - ......-, ~....- _~..f'III1_........cno'.r"_......lI:.."..,.. ..........W"OI"_._ ==...:'...:",(0 .f._-......a<loC tIM'lllU.latJJo-..... ~~ClIIt....'-.......fIC..."...~....'_~f _'."I'''U') ......~...c~...lra,loaG...........-..__..~ .~...~""*....,,...~..l~ =,a;lIIlII~I~_"""""""'~~1ZW\f'" ~"... ...._J1__........lf~~_IQ--"_..-s_.... .......l....,..~... ,..._..... aa.o.&L l""-tt\,lllq .....,...,,""......IDIIt<IIOI,l,......... 'tI:l ~fllol..... .......,_~'OI'..I_ _.......""'fOC.......a.-.oo."-;,."... -......~.,1'l'OI.~""00K'1'_.........,...~ .".....,.NE.~'IOo._......Wol.IIII --- .....~ru;, --- .'....1.-..0........ .~.......~ -- tIDn.."'...~...._ ~=~:~r.::::~~.::.~~ .II'.........~~...... ........ .1'\...,......,.....,-...i'I,~_ -.. _.,..-.-~ .., ~.''''''a... ~-...oof~_ co r- eo I >< W ; ~"1';-" - ~_.._._ ..___"'_,r. =:..."'.:..=~~lo.~~,.._...f' _~....._., .........- -.A.o..DIIn.bIODlo.-..c..r1.tt .....-..:.taoI.toro."*l~.rtlt..t<<FO.. l"lotftXl't_. - -.....~~._~.-I..'"'~,."""""'.~ ...._.-,~...~a:-._._.....-..:... "~_',_I'I~"'-'u::RI .~ ~~"'~"'~a;D'.~ ~~~~='=~.=-- ......D'l'I~ .....,...,....'r-......~_..__..._'..._..._ -".............,..._~-~.. ....:u-.rPI:::8111 ...totitI.~......SOtJlll'_........ .......lIh,-..., u-...,,~_ .~IQ...,__~'f~.,'tol,i.:~(III'".~..........:ll!CW ~~~tLL....T..."'I....._.~.........ut _....._,,~,...".I't"'""""'"IC_1 00_.....1........ ...~'I_"..... ~...........".~~t...ctrw~~lt.- f _cu....-."'.....611....... /' ~-r I-t- ELEVATION NOTES: ~=tI:~'=~::::.n~::.-~~~=:u=.':~~~..=c:. _1...uP'I~.4J.~"~""""" !"'1~ =--=== I ~~J'ST~L~~~~1 INC. SUBWAY REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS - ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS eOCA RA TON. FlORID~ 33-433 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 15611392.7120 ;~.:::;....._.._--._.__..._--_. SPA-2.1 _ ............... @ ,- .'[ . , , I . '. wUlt'lCVAfO'Ira ;..:~.;. [fj ~~~~~ / ::<,,:=:--- J' -I .--w-c,PmII.........'" ' ~ ....'-~ ( f ....___......~r_ [ /_ w.__....,.. :::..~~ *t_...... - - - - 1 - -~ t1~ '.... ,;> _,__~ ~-f"" -- -- - , "'1 , , ..' ..~.".~~ -"'IIro-'" r m ?- m I x W Q) ~.~!lE'1'ATlDH _o~...... - ~ ... J '1 , _....,.'lU"'--~........I.-. ,...""...."......""'~~ ......,.,-~,;, --"'-~.IYMI"""",r.'" ..""'- I .' -, ~'1IIUJ'f'I '-':"l~"...,....__ _..-'II.....o;3III'~ ............ I I f -..- ..... .-,--- -...,.._..'...............N'''t -. - - . ____......~"I"M""'.... ......'.00011lllo""'"......... .......--.~ -.........~.1II'_,flll'_i liI:D'''''OC:I.H'f'''~T _~B"_ ....~...~o........"'"".. ~-...~~....",- I . f ~..-- -- ./ .~IlI011C<-orulL.oaII. // ..._~.....~ , ....~ I .. __..~.'Qo&WW"t~... . "I -', i It "-~'->1.~'-J"'-=- M i "~ '"'~ __I L r , 1" , - \ f \ :;:~~-::....,.... .... ELEVATION NOTES: ~~..--=~::::.i..~:'-:'~~=.__~..:;,:,~~~...:-~ ~.-."St.'no._aru...-~"".....ra '-'1-.. I API GROUP, INC. 5921 VISTA UNOA LANE BOCA RATON, FLORIOA JJ4JJ (56\) J92.] 120 ....-...-.---------------... , ..'It. .~_.. ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SPA-2.2 - SUBWAY REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS @ ~-- JI.s.Tttl:.....-.,..".. .....~. - - I -.w.~...... ..._......0Il0.# .~I- ."'-.cJIOI1KlI e-"...._ -- "- " ~~ )I' \ II -!I II II " '. --, " -.. ...,._"'__W\llt,,.....~,,.,_ ______...U/III1........ f I ; -,- - -- - - - - - ==-1 ';'. UNE OF AOJACEHT BUlLDING ',,J "1 - ,-~........ , ~ ~/ / ~t,,~..~~--- "' .1 ""';:0...- / ' .__ot'll:llloC"ftooI.......r.a.. "' - - j -- ~ "'" " -- I '" - U~(hOgrfIl'V<<TC' oI(dWII~_ .~_~......,.""""Ii,.,~_ ......~.....IH1_...'~ ..- ~~_.....I..-nJ..... mill - \ \ lOIMI'II'Of'lI'>>U""C'o'al..... / 'I"W!""""" , ~ / /- =--:'-.. \ J 7 I / _" .__1 I' " ra:r"";JPA.1;..N".........,..,. (ff1_rw-~O\,ee'"''' ..:c:n'~_ .......~...."..""'f".... co I- co I >< W ~ ~ i f j I 1 -) ~ ,- ...._..~~,..-,- _................~....... . ~ ~.....\<Of1__..-*1 .. .. -- = = = -- ~)~ ) ~ J~ ~ r::~. " '" '" ........ --- t I r ~- - __......-.c"'_ ~ ~- ....".....~(J--....IJC&...,'. /" / IIIDIIbc........"-f1 /' 1S :::.~_.,~.. , ~-~I~~I'_... /' ./ I~ ......,.-.__ ,/ _.,.r ~~I"OoI'_I'..... "/ eo r- eo I >< W -~.~. - . .. ... EXHIBIT B M \~ :-1 -\. , SUBWAY REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS- ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS I API GROUP, INC. 5921 VISTA LINDA LANE . BOCA RATON. F LOR 10 A 33-133 - Ph; 561.392.7120 Fax; 561.392-7502 SPA-7 W ALKW A Y BENCH Tin 00ct.rMft n. t,. prcp.,t~ 01 API QR{)JI frc. and ~!'G1 not bo '.ptod.ad wltfQ.lt tf1ll ...unln CXJII'tMOt1 01 PI G~otP. I"~. COP'V~KiHT 2~ 'E-f 11109/11 gNERAL PLANTING NO-IES . ....~~_III..'~.'..........._'IIIIno;J..~.......,...."" 'NWVP/......~I-".......lJ'\I'ISJ'l..'fII"-"a ~""Agn..l~..-.. 1-..- I ..~_'1_..lIIIc.~ltD"IlI._ I ,.......-.-....~~I......_~....~........,""___ .......................,H~W...............,~~'-"...'fI~ , ~_'.......IIII._~{)I~Jll~"1aII""'two~crctt-,...,.tr.-TV'~ l_'pqal~t I 1Io&~._If'wM..~............_,lJ)"'~,W"""",Ol"'__ ~"""""-~~er,.~~~... , ~"'ft"lQlalr''''.'''''''''''''''hNI'IW''''''~'''''''o.W . ..---....-Wjl..-.""-I..~lOO"......_...........~~.eo....~ .II "-J"!---..6-lIllolft1!'wl1llRl. . M~............z"'~"'''''Il'''U"I:IC(1I~d~~ tJ"L.-oll~__~....-.........iI~III_"~ ,jO&.u.:.~11't IU"'~ "All. o..t:CAU Ot fLJ)IiIIgA..DtC. ." 11"U--W~.'~b""""w-"-"""_{N'''_rllInIflP1''. " ~QMlrl~... rw~""__~_'''''jll4olIli1R 1'1 .......,.,,_..-.-.....c...,..,.... ~.....-:II~""'t!'I..........". ~-'~ I}, ,_ cw-. ""1'\ .............~... ~ ....___..".... IS. """""..&lI.~~........~.......,~U....if ~~_...a ,rltt!o'~A IT C' ....lIIl::JO,ftPIlI:IoMT , 2J ~-- ) W CONSTRUCTION I OFFICE USE ',," . '~------'- '^ . . ,/-----.~.. r..J x:::qt-QJp:)jj..u_~.1.U4_J.u._:CU.Q:':.L;J.....l.1 ] , 'I )oi:!O I \ ~ ~ , . 1 r I __...J_____ _ _ _ _ _. _ __ L____~.............-_ , " \ t \ 1 OO~"QO' / '-__ ...-----' ......... 14..1' , t-ml "'\4; Q.I. ~Irc"" - 9- --~ - """""" f-- EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING LA ,.UMt, \C:,~" - ~ s,.t[(T 140. LP-1 ~ m:1 ""'" ........ '\,WoOl -... ~~~!,~~~ IJO ) ~~~,.... ~'OA.'i.~'rn.... CJ. :I 1............-.-~ ..~....... .-...- - &aT . ......"... T... ~ ~ rr.-. ... ALA 10 ..,..~rrp"oLu 1t>.14.-W CJI(l 11 ~"........."-1'-';""'''-''a.._ JCl....~~:oe.W I.,.. . c...-~I'" Jc.a.....tclolI1QCW ":U . ...,.......,.r"""~"""'~ J0^'-,,10\.7O:,.... J43 It ~~......(-Tf.rIl..1 'GN..I~:OC'... f." 1.1 ~,J'"CI:l~..w..~ JQ.l.L.I~lroc.... "U \41..... Y:ro ~,.~......'~ JON,.. tl'OA lroc...., Ji.t U1 ......"'-""'~.,~........ 'Q.t.l..~1~... !la;I .........4 klo..oQll_"~~ 101"1 ........._~~ ~ 1'..,.............. ..UMq.~...~lIOOf..--..lrw T~............~ "Oft....sS*'-'d.u-loII~.....~fIWI~...~~~...ltIIItJ.l~ "" ~ .1'01 "-......-... I" "'-In IllOW _ 10""" ... ...aroo ....... ... ~ Ill.... ",n-...r IN1'hf' iII-otl"*". ..--....... ~~'--1ntI' --.aJII~., "'1'"ft',"'h~"'~Mr1i1n~,...Jltld.JI"~"""~"""-'- ........ .."II"....."_-....,.~--~....... __ ............... .........-, ~O"'.M~... ~.IOO'l""""'''' ~....ootIto-tO~fRr. ~..... 1tOi~'........~L""'-O"'''.....~~...~Utr. 1~'t;Ton.......burv~..... A.luft'..hRWC~It>_.___....__..~~ ......~ .....~....~........I...~lIl"...........,a~tu"Iw~ ~l'>oICl",IMI~o...n. '-_''''''1illlllXlff(l" ~I.M' c:::::::J EXISTING OFFICE USE en I- - en I >< w PLANT LIST ~!~~~~ "OV 'o-~,..(';Nol,- us ~ ~t.'"'tIduIl~~ ...."l.....fII~..... 1P'J '~natlllUUa"~~ I<lJJ . ""'''''~'~I'''' ~ '--_'~o..lI" I;.F$~ 1J111i.~.~!iU'&'9_ } o.,'.'n.IJI'l'l'Y""l,~o.l... "'kO"'",-J ~~'~l\u~ "IKM'"-1 ~..~-... . .II s.o..P~C".....O'~ 1 ~..... itI,....,........... , ..~..~..., 1.~'I"'C'A..'C1'... 'rOA"s'n.... "'~$m,'" 1J1~.'trl l.nJ1\.lOL fl. 1704. I~. ~ 17 OA. J'O." t~~'-4Cl,,,,, 1,.1...t.l4,lNIo'\..... u::rOA, '*-... LANDSCAPE PLAN ~" . r ~ ~ , I .;; <:> "t . ~" , ~ -t ) ~ V] I h ~ t~ r! w 5~ 'I .... B~~ .'~('.. > .i~!j fT fj Ij. i U < t, !-t ~.4~fl I- ~f~#i V] ~~W ~ ~~W c:t 8.~ ,1 ~ ~ ': 3 :1 ~ SITE E. BOYNTON BEACH BLVD. 1 (I". Ui'..-.r. vrwQJ lI) ffi~ 1-'"' 0:'" ~~ 00 0'" ifjffi re: " ...Ii!' <~ Z'" 0; tH wa: O:r >-~ <el ~a alw ::;J~ lI)g lI) Z o f= < > o z Z W 0: Z <( ...J 0.. W 0.. < U lI) o z < ...I 'BUCHANAN P.E CONSULTING me, ~ E1LCTIlIlCAC..Ut~lICAl'PI,.1JI.WIN'lo ~.~ i.I/ .'..a.~..~ ~ !.~~ '."? -"'( .-. - y... '!'to'!'1I)k .. ~~.. .. __ ~~~=:..:. -: ... I API GROUP, 5921 VIS T A UNOA LANE BOCA RATON. FLORIDA 3........ (5/;11392.7120 ;.;--...._~-..._.._------ -- '" - - - - ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS PHOTOMETRIC PLAN PH-1 - -~ -...... ...... ..... r;\ = -= - ~ SUBWAY REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS U '-.... > '.. > i , I ; I ) I > " .A.. sc '6 ~ , ':15 1~ 13 "j.:l " A--r-j sc '2.1 ~, ''Os ~ :-.7 ~~~~ ..,..sc ~SC"'- - 71 'sc '.2 - UI !l.1 U,' 0> U, U.l U.I O. 111 .... " /- ^ ,/". "'IOIOWIEntJC~ ;;....~ -- .... -^- ^---^-- ^ ~---",,--...... 0' .1 Ii! 01 .... - U. ll-O U. '-. -'. '^- '" co ~ CO I >< W ,,~ - ~---:::::::- - ..-- I U/l.'-Mlf::lE 5CJ'1[.OUL.I: j -- I --- ~ a. '-'_ ,_..... 1, - - ~ "'- ... fl~"" -...tr, , 1:-....... , .u'ooc.-..... . -..... ) l'a.lr.... ~ 'ftolq ~. ~-. :.~..,~'~- r J \"'~II""JU. , "" Wlo:':rll . - J: ..;M~~ ; -= 0.,,,,, to'Ul ". ...",Jl.Jo~. , ."',..,...... :' ~ SlAnsnc!>> !i_ ..._ il.......~ ...-- ~I""",,,---,,,,,- ~----------- . - ... ~- -~~ I ! l I I " - i Ul I~ . Il ~~:J I i > > I > > > 1 r i > ) r .. I \ (.\-./vvv 2.),,'58 'J./".:587' ~" l ,58 16 , ';t,0 l' 7.8 1.l 78, 73 7' 'u ~. 72 '=SC~SC ~c 'B C ~3 13 15 1.1 'H ':)6 I -,SA ~c ,. 1>1 1,_ ~ 1 1/ 13 '41 .1 ~c 1.6 !O, ~. !d' '4. ,8 '0 SC 7.8 -,,f) "5.4 "Ii ,. l' ':>.9 SC - ,~ 'H ..., ,7 1.; '<1/ ~_a r -,SA v......... ... ..... '6 .., '30 l' '3.' 7. '30 .... v - v,. V' V ." v ..........". v v v ...,,,~..... U, o 1l> < / ( t ( < < <. < < < < <. < 0' U2 0' U2 02 02 11) III ( '\ ( < < < <. " < < < < \ < ~ , ~ SlJ o ~ :....L- a) :r: >< LlJ l I ~I .....J m I ~ I ~ I 2 I ~I liJ I -~.l- <{ I ~ I lJ..! 1 Z , - - -+-- I ~ S~TIE ~LA~ N.E. -~- 4th STREET ~ UGHr~N~ SCALE: 1Rll~O' FIfE (QQ!JpY -..... = 1=1-=1~=r=I=I= ZONED C.B.D EXISTING ONE STORY C.B.S. COMMERCIAL BUILDING EXISTING ONE STORY C.8.S. COMMERCIAL BUILDING I . I r..n o:i (:) I 0~ I >- =:! 1 O::=> 2 CD:;: I U"l :<i! g I wD~1 Z (Y"! oliJ"'! liJ~ 0:: ~ I =>0 _~u.1 u... I I --_J ~ ( >- <1: :s: u... o l- I Cl fi:: >- W ..J ..J .~_... '0 o N ,~~.....~ --. &==.:'1. z 00 2 ..... WIDC -- 0 Q ..... C 0( OW(!l .dl ~ ;r; . .....::i:- r- .....:1: . II: l!l OCO:i OJ l!! as 2: 1Il-1.. WID", ~ ii ~ U t!~ ~ o:m LL:,.... ~.~g ~~ <( c- u.... w~ g I ~ ~'ltm~ w~~~6"'" d ~UJ~i.~ ~ ~~~~.::. ~ Exhibit "0" Conditions of Approval Project Name: Subway Regional Headquarters File number: MSPM 12-001 Reference: 2nd review plans identified as a Maior Site Plan Modification with an November 8, 2011 Planning and Zoning Department date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None. FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: 1. 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. 2. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the proposed constmction. 3. CBBCPP 3.C.3.4 requires the conservation of potable water. City water may not, therefore, be used for landscape irrigation where other sources are readily available. A water-use permit 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. 4. At the time of permitting, add a general note to the site plan that all plans submitted for permitting shall meet the City's codes and the applicable building codes in effect at the time of permit application. S. 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. 6. The full address of the project shall be submitted with the constmction documents at the time of permit application submittal. The addressing plan shall be approved by the United States Post Office, the City of INCLUDE REJECT Subway Headquarters MSPM 12-001 Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 3 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 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) 7. SHT. SPA - 1 - Doors in toilet rooms shall not swing into the required clear floor space for fixtures. 8. The south and west walls of the new addition are required to have a 2- hour fire rating per table 602 of the Florida Building Code. PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None. FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: 9. The irrigation plan must follow the WaterWise irrigation design guidelines when submitted to the City, particularly with respect to the following: 1) Bubblers installed on all newly planted trees; 2) low angle spray and / or windmill heads only (no pop ups) directing water at roots of plantings; and 3) other water saving design features. PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 10. No building permits are to be issued by the City after the build-out date of "end of year 2015," as referenced by the approval letter issued by the Traffic Division of Palm Beach County. 11. At the time of permitting, on all pertinent plans, show the pedestrian connections that are proposed through the landscape strip that abuts Boynton Beach Boulevard, and make sure that each plan matches each other. 12. At the time of permitting, place a note on the elevation drawing (sheet SPA-2.1) that "all equipment located on the building, if any, shall be painted to match the building [Part III (LDR), Ch 4, Art III, Sec 3.A.9]." 13. At the time of permitting, correct the site plan tabular data and the landscape plant tabular data so that the total pervious area matches on both plans. Subway Headquarters MSPM 12-001 Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 3 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 14. External downspouts shall be enclosed within the building stmcture on any building elevation visible from public rights-of-way or areas within the property accessible by the public [Part III (LDR), Ch 4, Art III, Sec 3.A.8.]. At the time of permitting, revise the elevation drawings to comply with the aforementioned design restriction. 15. At the time of permitting, on the elevation drawing (sheet SPA-2.1), indicate by note that all rooftop equipment must be completely screened from view at a minimum distance of 600 feet [Part III (LDR), Ch 4, Art III, Sec 3.A.9.]. 16. At the time of pennitting, on the elevation drawing (sheet SPA - 2.1), correct the methodology regarding the maximum allowable wall signage so that it is based on one (1) square foot of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Comments: 17. Staff recommends incorporating two (2) additional windows (real or faux) and awnings over each into the design of the rear fa<;ade of the proposed building. These changes to the drawings may be made at the time of permitting. 18. With respect to the south landscape buffer, staff recommends uplighting the two (2) existing Live Oaks and the two (2) relocated Live Oaks. These changes to the drawings may be made at the time of permitting. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. S:\Pla nning\SHARED\WP\PROJE CTS\Subway Regiona I Headquarters\COA.doc DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Subway Regional Headquarters APPLICANT: Larry Feldman of The Feldman Group - Subway of South Florida AGENT: Mr. Agustin Amaro AGENT'S ADDRESS: 508 East Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: December 6, 2011 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Master site plan modification approval to construct a 2,166 square foot addition to an existing 1,978 square foot office building for a total of 4,144 square feet on a 0.29-acre parcel in the CBD zoning district. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 508 East Boynton Beach Boulevard DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER 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 "0" 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 DA TED: City Clerk S:\Pla nning\SHARED\WP\PROJE CTS\Subway Regiona I Headquarters\DO .doc TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: PROJECT NAME/NO: REQUEST: Applicant: Agent: Location: Existing Land Use: Existing Zoning: Proposed Land Use: Proposed Zoning: Existing Use Option: Proposed Use Option: Acreage: DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 11-048 5T AFF REPORT Chair and Members Planning and D~v~IJrnt Board Michael Rumpf W - Director of Planning and Zoning Ed Breese ~ Principal Planner November 10, 2011 Quantum Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Lot 75 (MPMD 12-001) Master Plan Modification to the Quantum Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Master Plan to convert the land use option on Lot 75 from 01 (Office and Industrial) to OIC (Office, Industrial and Commercial), to accommodate a 94,000 square foot flooring showroom business. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Douglas B. MacDonald, Quantum Limited Partners Eugene A. Gerlica, Gerlica Inc. Lot 75 Quantum Park (see "Exhibit A" - Location Map) Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Planned Industrial Development (PID) No change proposed No change proposed 01 (Office and Industrial) OIC (Office, Industrial and Commercial) 3.02-acre lot Quantum Park Lot 75 MPMD 12-001 Staff Report Memorandum No. 11-048 Page 2 Adjacent Uses: North: Lot 76 of Quantum Park (Premier Interstate development) containing the north half of the building on Lot 75, the farther north CarMax auto dealership, both with the (OIC) land use option; South: Lots 73a-74 of Quantum Park, which constitute the balance of the developed Premier Interstate buildings, with the (01) land use option; East: Right-of-way for CSX Railroad and Interstate 95; and West: Right-of-way of High Ridge Road, then farther west are vacant Lots 56 and 57, both with the (01) land use option. BACKGROUND Mr. Douglas B. MacDonald of Quantum Limited Partners has submitted a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) to the Quantum Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to change the land use option on Lot 75 from 01 (Office and Industrial) to OIC (Office, Industrial and Commercial) in order to accommodate a 94,000 square foot flooring showroom business for the property owner, Duke PGC at Quantum, LLC. An amendment to a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) is governed by Florida Statutes Chapter 380.06 (19) - Substantial Deviations. The applicant has submitted a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) in accordance with the statutory requirements. The NOPC is reviewed by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), previously known as the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and the City. The original DRI Development Order adopted a Master Plan for Quantum Park. The Master Plan has been amended over the years, with the most recent change (NOPC #16) being approved on August 15, 2006. The Florida Statute governing the DRI process, Chapter 380.06(19), provides for and anticipates amendments stating "There are a variety of reasons why a developer may wish to propose changes to an approved development of regional impact, including changed market conditions". The current Master Plan is depicted in Exhibit "B" and the proposed modification is depicted in Exhibit "C". ANAL YSIS At the mandatory pre-application meeting, both staff and the applicant's agent, Eugene Gerlica, agreed the proposed modification was minor in nature and appeared to be a non-substantive change. Mr Gerlica subsequently addressed a letter and justification statement to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) requesting a determination of the non-substantive nature of the proposed change and recommendation of such to the Department of Economic Opportunity (see Exhibit "0"). If both parties agree, the need to file a formal NOPC would be eliminated, instead simply requiring the City review of the corresponding Quantum Park Master Plan modification. Quantum Park Lot 75 MPMD 12-001 Staff Report Memorandum No. 11-048 Page 3 The TCRPC has reviewed the proposed NOPC and has prepared a letter indicating no objection to the non-substantive determination, which means the City would simply process a Master Plan modification based upon the lack of regional impacts (see Exhibit "E"). The letter from the Regional Planning Council along with the justifications from the applicant have been forwarded to the DEO for review and staff expects their comments to mirror that of TCRPC. As such, staff is only processing the request for a Master Plan Modification for Lot 75. Staffs review of the proposed modification involves the analysis of the change from two (2) perspectives. The first being the potential for creating additional regional or local impacts. The second being the consistency and compatibility of the proposed changes with the regulations and policies adopted by the City through the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations and other applicable studies. Relative to the potential to create any regional impacts, staff is in agreement with the Regional Planning Council that there would be no impacts of a regional nature associated with the proposed modification. Staff also does not expect any local impacts associated with the modification over that which would be allowed under the current land use option. The number of vehicular trips are capped for the DRI and the simple change associated with this lot will not significantly impact the trip generation nor increase any approved building thresholds. With regard to the consistency and compatibility of the proposed changes with the regulations and policies adopted by the City, staff has consistently stated opposition to lands within the Quantum Park Planned Industrial Development (PID) district being converted from Industrial to Residential/Mixed Use options which eliminate the potential square footage devoted to industrial, warehouse and manufacturing users. In this instance however, the land use option of industrial is retained and a commercial option is added (01 to OIC) for flexibility in the attraction of potential tenants. This request to move the OIC boundary further south on the property allows the use boundary to more closely coincide with the originally constructed building wall of the northernmost building, prior to the physical connection between it and the southerly building on Lots 73 and 74. Additionally, the type of commercial tenant may be somewhat limited to showroom type of businesses (furniture showroom, appliance showroom, carpet & tile showroom, mattress showroom, etc.) based upon the amount of on-site parking, as the site was originally designed to allow approximately 16% of the space to be office and 17% as commercial. The use being proposed, flooring showroom, would not adversely impact the parking, as parking for such a use would be calculated at 1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area, which aligns with the current parking ratio for the balance of the 198,114 square foot leasable space on Lots 73 and 74. While staff supports the addition of Commercial to the Office and Industrial land use option on Lot 75, staff would caution that any further request to continue the land use option of OIC further south for the balance of the property (Lots 73A and 74) could not be supported by staff, as that could potentially lead to a further reduction in potential industrial space. The owner, Duke PGC at Quantum, LLC, has been advised of this position and are in agreement. Quantum Park Lot 75 MPMD 12-001 Staff Report Memorandum No. 11-048 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Division recommends that this request for Master Plan Modification be considered non-substantial, and approved subject to the comments included in Exhibit "Fit - 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 Park Lots 73a-76\Lot 75 MPMD\ MPMD 12..CJ01\Staff Report.doc EXHIBIT ..A.. - SITE LOCATION MAP QUANTUM PARK OF COMMERCE DR. ~~ , ~ (,' .. --... ;.........-c. n ~./.oj I \, l t.. If ' 1 ,.'-.~ '-'j I _J 1 .... .:':, ,I : I-:....'r'~, L..J- ~.J - ~l ~~~:;;~.~;~ j 'ilUJ;I!j] ~'EJj~ . ~rri-I-r~'1/ U':?!j.: j".,l!j ('f::.&.:i:;..o'. ~:.1.lj. I' .-.,q l\!:F(!g.J--- ~,' ;', r -.~) r.'-1.:i "_1 ~.;,.j"l-' \: I r.':,!' Ii} I I ; )' ;......".1. U i GJ IP~~& r.. \"::..' ::;.: ~i_._.~: _:. ->;'FI~ /..:;' . rf:/ '.., "J ---<4- ". 1 r:,r-' -.'i~-'--Tlj~kj !1 @~~.,~I~~'ii:.~:,~~r~."J <~:~, \ / '\ '\ ; . .l I - 1 II I (.~ .... ~..J..!- I I ' V, I r t ~'\', ~ I 10 ,I! '-", L'};n;.: ", ..: )'",.- .... '-. ; \ ?- '.," ___1- ,i i(::]~-'/ $1./,c~ '~'~f- . .~~~-'~- ,//'~:: j ~ ./ "j .,'J ~ ~.! L/ ',.) . 'dIJ:..-. .,j.. ~ r ! i " '1 .' / L-L.... ~ li ') (T1J.J..] " .' I' '--:.. l.'.' ~_A-- , . r '). T T 1'1 I \ - . I~ I I, '.' /' L :' L'. i I "j r . '/~--Lt I / 7 r. ".- .--7"'~---. -,_ fEr- 'O:"~_>/.'.'.!; :,...'..1/'........, ~.;:l;~ 1i'.M"l7i-. -~'.-~~...\ I r- - C~:\ / ; I lotfU," ~ T bJ i r---- I ~~I J1 \Rtf~~', ',0" ~pO MLN,-i~E;j ~ "'-' -: L.c..=-::l >7'.", J L.., ,I r- I . ".. '. /' , / ; - - --- i I __J \ . I~':-- >.~. 1'- 1-- - ! / ~\,__/ j- \, I I .~ -; I '~--- F--!----~ __L --1 r---j-f- , _ ~~__~---__ \ 1.t_J ~m [1./ '/ -l ,I., {'<:>t-'C---rT-- ~[l- -~--~----,-~ :..- .1..:.' , -'11-- I \. \-' . ,.1 ~--LJ-j ~~ J t-L , I ! l--!~--4-----+ ~.+ ___1__1 -! 1.= .---.-. .. . ..., 1""" n'- l;T- b:L E F-~-L - ~-- J --.... 1,100 I 550 o 1,100 2,200 3,300 N -- ~~: s EXHIBIT ..A.. - SITE LOCATION MAP QUANTUM PARK LOT 75 (MPMD 12-001) ~ ' '-'0..' -- . -'r '_'" \. 1., I ----/-~I~~:>.::) i __~!l fl) I 68-A;' --;! COMM I 0) 1- ----__' 01 !' 80 ! I I, , / --..""------68-8 / / !. ~ , - -_ i I I J.;, ! ~~ ! ~t-~-----fI ~ / ------ -.- f LlJj / '^ / -----~~__I C!); COMM / "'rI I OJ / 9 79 ' ~ ;----.-____ 70 ! cif--______ I !JJ --------. / ::r; ---.-" J.;, / -'--- - -! $2; COMM I .ce / 01 ! :/:/-------:~ / ...... ; 72 f I -----! ( --- I..tl---. C~~M /1' I . -- . / I I '-'. ; ; t "'. I ;,/ ole \. 1/1 i! 76 \, r . I / /-----.--- ! ... I I ------, . / ! otTO ole -~ ----~ I /1 I'. 75 "\, . I ---, ........, / ..... 'I / '. . 01 J /<.\ 73-A I HIGH RIDGE RD -"/01 \)- ~_._- 1 \ \. 51-0 I \. O. J I 01& \ .___ \ IND/R \.-.- --- - 7!s-B 50-A \ INO INO \. 51-A \ 50-8 Ai j-----~ -'. ;/ I . , I ! I ! ; / J .1 [~lJ) / '" SAND PINE PRESERVE 71 r- \ =-___J r~7 !==i=- ~I F7=.l SITE I yW-.J:- .- lip ! I : r~ In 01 57 INO PUBLlX 55 'J.jJ INO 48 01 51-8 / N $~t S 370 185 0 I 740 1,110 370 i . ... t~i *Ie~ ... ~c ;!;lD",~ 11!~=l ti<fjja ~Ec""[J g~~~ ~~En~ ~~~. ~ ~~ I . ~ '" ~un ~ ~ ~ ~ I . ~" ~ i. ~ !iI a . 1- ~ ~ ~ t,1 , ~ ~ I EXHIBIT B I I I , I ~ ~ ~;;! g PI" i i ; Ii ~~,i~!i;;_~ ~ 1-.::1 .. ~,.... z .... :z.., ~Po1~~~i.i ~ 8~~~~ ~ ! d !i; ~ i "~ ~ ~ ill 1> ~ j " ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i :il ~9 ~B~~ m ! ~ ~ i j~ ~i' i ~ ~ ;~ ~ ; is :~ I ~ ~ ~ 8~ !l' 6 .~ ~ E. ~ ~~ ~' !:1 .~ ~ i ~ ~ EXISTING MASTER PLAN CONGRtsS "'\'EIlUE ~ " ~ ~ :; . ~ ~ ~ I ; "2 ~ ~ 11 ~ .." ,'" "'- " " Up, flJl:' ! ~ ~ c g:i: ~ G~ :; m . . l!! ! i lD ~ I b ~~~t ~ U'I:xJ ~~QQQQ O~~~ I ,. 0 C::I:C1 ....0 ~ rr1A;'J t""1 5E;> ~ ~ :!:: r ~~~o ~ .::2tf)~ ~ o ""0 i"i <II ?it z > n .., " lW1 ~ '" '" '" .- '" '" ,,""" -m ",,"~ ON'" Ul",l~!,- (n=",~ ~ beno ~i;j8:$1 ;..,.......Ul ... 0,,"0 <0"'''' ". >>> )to>'> )I- >>> 0 oon !ilj;J!;l!;l ~!;l!;l "''''''' ill "''''''' ~CHIIIIl ..,"'''' '" l1 en tn ","'''' ~ "lU::QQQ oC)zzg 10Q dCrn ~~o~ t; ~ z ~~~~~ ~8~~ c c -d3n~o 5~~Si '" '" ~c~:: fT1~iJ~ > z ~~5~ ~~j!: 0 s h~ cc -< .- ~~~ f!:~ " 0 I ~ -< z J;:;:fi1 ~~ Ii ;~ c ~~ ~ 0 ~ i!I ",p: '" . i n l!\ zz> 3S~ 1- oo i~ '" 00 .- . In :::j~ E :en c!m 00 tit ;;I'" :::j .-~ 0 '" z Q f!: f!: ~ ~ ~ ... I ~ ~ ~ i ... ~ ~ ; ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Ii ,.ii I_Ie iiJ~ !r~ : !i~ U!! ~ 'ill ~ : I !!~ I ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ EXHIBIT "e" iiiii Ii Ii I ~~ gP ~q ~~ ~~~!~ iqi ~:s~h il~ ~s ~B~~~ ~f ~~ ~i~?~ g~ ~~ Ii: a ~o <J ;I a ~ j;i ~c ~ ~ I r ~BI ~ ! J~~. i ~ ~~; ~ iI ~.. e ~ . i ~~ ~ ~ 6 ~~ ~ c ~ s~ e ~ II ~~ ; a ~~ I :s PROPOSED MASTER PLAN ~":--------~~ $-~ Q~ ------------ ~ :;; CII I 'IIl1t'll1lr"'NAIlQIatr lR"" I 1VJ4'f,l 1'-] QllIIo"l J ? a: ~ f: <J ~~~~ E.~!QOQQ002~ I ~ ~~ft~ ol~ ~.o ~o ~ Ii ~! ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~~~i;;~;;~~ i i ~8m8iniii I i I . f.l J. '" . i i1i 1- ~ I ~ lis O~~ _0 i!i~g D~~~I ~ !8~~~ ~;~~~ I m Il"~R~,,~~~ t qil~-t ~a~p o ~~o 2~~~ ~ li~ ~ ~) ~ ~~li h ~ ~~~ u %1 ~I ~ Ii ~ ~ I II ~ ~ II i~ I [ I I I --:Em ---- ... ~ . ~ I ~ ~ ~i ; i i !l 00, ~ ~~ I ~ ~ EXHIBIT "0" gerlicainc. P.o. Box 880668 Port St. Lucie, FL 34988 gerlicape@comcast.net 772-971-9491 October 25,2011. Michael Busha Executive Director Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 421 SW Camden Avenue Stuart, Florida 34994 HAND DELIVERED RE: Quantum Corporate Park DRI Request for Concurrence of None Substantive Change Dear Mr. Busha: Our office is assisting in a proposed amendment to the Quantum Corporate Park DR! that includes amending the Master Site Development Plan to change the DR! land use designation one lot, Lot 75. Lot 75 is part ofa single development on 5 lots. The subject property, identified as Parcel #08- 43-45-16-33-000-0740 on the Palm Beach County Property Appraisers website, is owned by Duke PGC at Quantum, LLC, "Duke". It consists of Lots 73A, 73B, 74, 75 and 76 as shown on the Master Site Development Plan. Currently, lot 73A, lot 73B, lot 74 and lot 75 have a DR! land use designation of OfficelIndustrial (Oil). Lot 76 has a DR! land use designation of OfficelIndustrial/Commercial (Oil/C). Duke proposes to amend the Quantum Corporate Park DR! to re-designate Lot 75 from OfficelIndustrial to OfficelIndustrial/Commercial, consistent with the designation of Lot 76 in the parcel. This change would enable the owner to initially lease approximately 94,000 square feet of the vacant 198,114 square feet of an existing building. This request will not in any way increase the intensity of the development or the external traffic impacts. Based on our review of380.06(19) and the attached Justification Statement the above request is of a nature, impact and character whereby it is not a substantial deviation and does not require the filing of a "notice of proposed change." The applicant, Quantum Limited Page 2 of2 Mr. Michael Busha, TCRPC October 25,2011 Partners, Ltd.; the land owner, Duke; and, the City of Boynton Beach are requesting the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's concurrence on this determination. To assist you in the review, we have enclosed a reduced copy of the proposed Master Site Development Plan for Quantum Corporate Park with the subject parcel highlighted. Thank you for your time and consideration. Feel free to contact me.with any questions at 772-971-9491. Sincerely, Eugene A. Gerlica, P .E. President Enclosures Cc: Douglas B. MacDonald, Quantwn Limited Partners, L TD, QPPOA Declarant (w/encl) David B. Norris, Esq., Cohen, Norris, Weinberger and Wolmer (w/encl) Robert Close, Duke Realty (w/encl) Mr. Michael Rumpf, Director, Planning and Zoning, City of Boynton Beach C: HOerltcaIne FilesWOPC 17\TCRPC Request/or Coru:urrence ltr 20111025.docx phone.772~71-9491 gerllcainc. P.O. Box 880668 Port St lucie. FL 34988 gerlicapeOcomcast.net Justification Statement Quantum Corporate Park - DP.:I We contend this proposed change to the Mater Site Development Plan is of a minor nature. The amendment is being pursued to facilitate a 94,000 sq. ft. flooring retailer to occupy space in an existing and vacant office/warehouse building. The Master Site Development Plan modification is being processed as such by the City of Boynton Beach, pursuant to the City's ordinances. We also contend this proposed change meets the intent of statute 380.06(19)( e )2.k, whereby the nature, impact, or character of the proposed change does not require a filing of a ''Notice of Proposed Changell. Listed below are statements of fact that justify our contentions. 1. The proposed change involves only a single lot, Lot 75,3.02 acres. 2. The proposed change involves only a DR! designated use change for Lot 75; a change from OfficelIndustrial (01) to Office/Industrial/Commercial (OIC). 3. No change is proposed in the building area thresholds for Office, Industrial or Commercial development as currently approved. 4. There is no change in the traffic generated because there is no change in the building area thresholds for office, industrial or commercial development. 5. There is no change in the traffic generated because there is no change in the maximum number of residential units. 6. There is no change in the traffic generated because there is no change in the maximum number of hotel rooms. 7. This Quantum Park DR! and the current development thresholds, if proposed as a new project today, would not by a DRI. 8. The Quantum Park DR! has been amended seven (7) times since 1999 and each amendment was determined to not be a substantial deviation from the original DR! approval. 9. The development is nearly built out and the development intensity is significantly below the approved thresholds. ./. r t" - )' , C: \\Ger/icoInc Fi/esWOPC 17Wopc.h1st(f/i:aitmlsto,iimimLf1ocx .' . ~ '.' ~ """ ' -~_r. <~ 110" ,~:~..._ -':': ..."-. oL..... . phon..772H97~~9~ . , EXHIBIT E ',J.~ . .~. ,- T REAS U RE:- C OA-s~r "J!:? G lQJ~A:l. .. "I " ~ Ij S;r , '. l~ u c f E , 'I:) .'. ". i ,"' - C .' " ".~ " "" LA N N'I1N G ' .. 0 UN {..I 1. '. 'I. - < ,. . ~ . . ___ H I . , . i " INDIAN-'RIVER '.. I MART1N PALM B E AC H November 2, 2011 Mr, Michael Rumpf, Director Planning & Zoning City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Subject: Quantum Park Development of Regional Impact - Non-substantive Modification Dear Mr. Rumpf: Council received a letter dated October 25, 2011 from Eugene A. Gerlica of Gerlica Inc, concerning a proposed amendment to the Master Site Development Plan of the Quantum Park Development of Regional Impact. The proposed amendment is to change the land use designation on Lot 75 from Office/Industrial (0/1) to Office/Industrial/Commercial (OIlIC). Lot 75 is 3.02 acres and contains an existing building totaling 198,114 square feet (SF), This change is being requested to enable the owner to lease approximately 94,000 SF of the existing building to a commercial business. Mr. Gerlica has requested that Council confirm that the proposed change to the Master Site Development Plan could be processed as a non-substantive modification without going through the Notice of Pl'Oposed Change process. Section 380.06(l9)(e)2.k. allows the local government to process the change locally if the state land planning agency, in consultation with the regional planning council. agrees in writing that the change is not a substantial deviation and does not create the likelihood of any additional regional impact. Please consider this correspondence as the Council's letter of no objection to the City processing this change locally according to the statute mentioned above. If there are questions please call, Michael 1. Busha, AICP Executive Director MJB:pgm cc: James Stansbury, OED Eugene A. Gerlica, Gerlica Inc. "Regionalism One Neighborhood At A Time"- Est.1976 421 SW Camden Avenue - Stullrt, FloridA 34994 Phone (772) 221-4060 - FIlX (772) 221-4067 - W.l\!J'L.j"!;_rlLl,;~ EXHIBIT "F" Conditions of Approval Project name: File number: Reference: Quantum Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Lot75 (MPMD 12-001) Master Plan Amendment for Lot 75 I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I PUBLIC WORKS. General Comments: None PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic Comments: None UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: None Conditions of Approval 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: 1. To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: 2. To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Quantum Park Lots 73a-76\Lot 75 MPMD\ MPMD 12-001\COA.doc DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Quantum Park DRI Master Plan Modification Lot 75 (MPMD 12-001) APPLICANT'S AGENT: AGENT'S ADDRESS: Eugene A. Gerlica, Gerlica Inc. P.O. Box 880668, Port St. Lucie, FL 34988 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: December 6, 2011 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request Master Plan Modification to the Quantum Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Master Plan to convert the land use option on Lot 75 from 01 (Office and Industrial) to OIC (Office, Industrial and Commercial), to accommodate a 94,000 square foot flooring showroom business. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Lot 75 Quantum Park DRI Master Plan, Boynton Beach, FL DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "C" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER 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 "F" 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:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Quantum Park Lots 73a-76\Lot 75 MPMD\MPMD 12-001\DO.doc ~'~~~ < rn I ~,. ,k _ . ' "J .:to'. r. ~:';:~' ......"1 "'-"1 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND ZONING Memorandum PZ 11-049 TO: Chair and Members Planning & Development Board Eric Lee Johnson, AICP, LEED Green Associate t Planner II 11 I) I U Michael Rumpf t.A--~ I Planning and Zoning Director FROM: THROUGH: DATE: November 16,2011 RE: Electric Vehicle (EY) Infrastructure CDRV 12-001 OVERVIEW The rewrite of the City's land development regulations (LDR) allowed staff to perform a complete review and analysis of each standardl 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 initiatives; 2. Sustainability initiatives (to further general energy conservation and/or the Climate Action Plan); 3. Internal consistency (those amendments warranted to address identified internal inconsistencies or errors); 4. Regulatory compliance (responses to changes in State and / or county laws and regulations); and 5. Implementation feedback (those adjustments in standards, regulations, and processes neces8ary to meet original or current objectives and vision). The proposed request would further item #1, Business and economic development initiative and item #2, Sustainability initiatives. 1 NATURE OF REQUEST Modify the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to I) create provIsIOns in the supplemental (zoning) regulations for electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure; 2) create new definitions pertaining to electric vehicles and infrastructure and amend the existing definition of minor automobile repair to include battery replacements for electric vehicles; and 3) to create provisions for signs commonly associated with EV infrastructure. BACKGROUND Automobiles with internal combustion engines are by far, the most popular type of vehicles. However, the cost of operating them has steadily and often times, dramatically risen over the last decade due to increases in oil prices, leaving consumers searching for more fuel efficient and/or alternative-energy vehicles, such as hybrids and electric powered. Also, a significant segment of the consumer market is becoming more environmentally-conscious and desiring to reduce their carbon footprint, and thus electric vehicles are becoming a more popular solution to the traditional oil-dependent automobiles. An objective of the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) is to incentivize the use of renewable/alternative energy sources. The CAP contains an implementation strategy (4.3.8) that states the following: Support initiatives to increase the amount of, and access to, alternative fueled vehicle infrastructure such as fueling stations. An electric vehicle is any vehicle that operates, either partially or exclusively, on electrical energy from the grid, or an off-board source, that is stored on-board for motive purpose. For the purpose of this staff report, "electric vehicles" will include hybrid vehicles, and EV infrastructure is generally described as being comprised of 1) the electric vehicle; 2) infrastructure (charging equipment); and 3) signage commonly associated with such charging station. No greenhouse gases (OHO) are emitted directly from electric vehicle because no fossil fuels are burned and no tailpipe is required. This attribute is attractive to environmentally-conscious consumers. Critics will argue however, that the environmental benefit of electric vehicles is misleading, because the power plants that provide the electricity for the vehicles still emit OHG, particularly those plants which use coal as its main resource. An article in Discovery News (July 2010) reported there are no carbon footprint benefits from power plants using coal, and that up to 50% of the power plants throughout the country are fueled by coal. Proponents of electric vehicles quickly rebut that within any given area, it is much easier to control the carbon output from a single power source, such as a stationary power plant rather than from 100,000 vehicles. Generally, the overall consensus is in favor of electric vehicles as being the more environmentally-friendly choice. Also, from a national safety and homeland security 2 perspective, political leaders desire to be less dependent on foreign oil, and tapping into alternative energies is a means to that end. ANALYSIS According to a January 31,2011 news "ideo on SmartPlanet.com, analysts predict that up to 13% of all cars sold in 2020 (presumably in the U.S.) will be electric vehicles; and it is expected that sales will continue to rise, especially as the price of electric vehicles go down. Manufacturers typically extol the virtues of electric vehicle ownership, by highlighting the green aspects of them and the relative ease of refueling (charging) with simple low-voltage circuits typically found in residential and commercial buildings. However, when trying to mass market electric vehicles, industry leaders say a major hurdle is the lack of opportunities away from the home where vehicles can be recharged. This perception, they say, leads to what some have called "range anxiety." The term, which was first used in 1997 by the San Diego Business Journal, was commonly associated with electric vehicles and is now simply described as the fear of "running out of gas," due to either the lack of public places to recharge or because of faulty/deficient batteries. In sales, the public's perception, whether real or false, often becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy, and as a result, industry leaders had to quickly address the issue. To address this concern, companies have begun installing EV infrastructure (charging stations) at various locations for public usage. According to SmartPlanet.com, manufacturers of EV charging stations are currently evaluating commercial sites (e.g., Best Buy, Costco, and Cracker Barrel) throughout the country when planning for EV infrastructure. A 2009 press release by ECOtality North America, the manufactures of the Blink brand of EV charging stations, indicates their EV Project, which started in the winter of 2010, "will oversee the installation of approximately 14,000 commercial and residential charging stations in 18 major cities and metropolitan areas in six states and the District of Columbia. The project will provide EV infrastructure to support the deployment of 8,300 electric vehicles. The project is funded by the u.s. Department of Energy through a federal stimulus grant, made possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)." In an article this year (June 2011), ECOtality North America claims to have installed 1,200 units in Tennessee alone and is aiming for 2,500 installations by the end of this year. Staff acknowledges that EV infrastructure is more popular in the western United States that in the east; however, there is growing evidence to show that technology and demand is slowly making its eastward manifest destiny. The Center for Automotive Research (Deployment Rollout Estimate of Electric Vehicles, January 2011) notes that Florida has shown a commitment to promote hybrid vehicle ownership through a number of government and private incentives. In 2009, there were 15,000 retail hybrid registrations, ranking Florida as one of the largest markets, along with California, New York, and Texas. In fact, during a three (3)-year period between 2007 and 2009, over 44,100 registrations were made, representing 5.3% of the total in the U.S. While electric vehicles are not as popular as hybrids, the sale of fully electric vehicles is expected to steadily rise within upcoming years, albeit minimally; but estimates are always subject to change, especially if oil prices spike or other incentives to ownership are available. 3 According to a Bloomberg Businessweek article published in January of2011, more and more companies are starting to use electric trucks (for their fleet), which they say are ideally suited for urban deliveries. The State of Washington is known to be a leader in planning for BV infrastructure. They recognize that support for electric vehicles is both an economic and environmental priority, so in 2009, the legislature passed a law encouraging the use of electric vehicles by supporting charging infrastructure. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), a metropolitan planning organization, in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Commerce created a model ordinance for BV infrastructure, and as of the date of this report, at least three (3) cities (i.e., Mountlake Terrace, Lacey, Kent, and SeaTac) have already adopted their version. Staff reviewed these ordinances and used them in drafting the provisions of the proposed ordinance contained herein. While staff notes that the aforementioned ordinances took effect in cities located across the continent, staff also recognizes that it is very important for the City of Boynton Beach to stay current on emerging trends and to serve as a leader in Palm Beach County and the South Florida area. As advances are made in BV technology and as more affordable choices are available, staff (and the City) must anticipate future demands and plan for BV infrastructure accordingly. In recent years, the City has been approached by vendors desiring to install BV charging stations on City-owned and/or public property. Staff researched the availability of BV charging stations within a 30 mile radius of City Hall. According to ChargePoint America and assuming their database is coordinated with others, the query revealed that few public BV charging stations exist near City Hall, the closest are located in downtown West Palm Beach, Delray Beach, and Deerfield Beach. This represents an opportunity for the City. PROPOSED LANGUAGE Part III (LDR), Chapter 1, Article II AUTOMOTIVE, MINOR REPAIR - An establishment primarily engaged in minor automotive repair services such as oil change, lubrication, engine tune-up, battery replacement. carburetor repairs, tire mounting and balancing, and the replacement and / or repair of external parts of engines. ELECTRIC VEHICLE lEV) - Any vehicle that operates. either partially or exclusively. on electrical energy from the grid. or an off-board source. that is stored on-board for motive PUTDose. ELECTRIC VEHICLE mY) CHARGING LEVELS. Three battery charging are generally as follows: levels of LEVEL 1 - Considered slow chareing. It requires a 15 or 20 amp breaker on a 120-volt Alternating Current CAC) circuit and standard outlet. This 4 level of charginu: can fully recharge a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) between eicl1t (8) and 32 hours; LEVEL 2 - Considered medium charmne. It requires a 40 amp to 100 amp breaker on a 240-volt circuit. This level of charmne can fully recharu:e a BEV between 4 and 6 hours; and LEVEL 3 - Considered fast or rapid charu:ing (a.k.a. "DC fast charge"). It requires a 60 amp or higher dedicated breaker on a 480-volt or higher three-phase circuit with special grounding eQuipment. Charging time ranges from 25 minutes to 40 minutes. ELECTRIC VEHICLE lEV) CHARGING STATION - A public or private parkine space located together with a battery chargine station that permits the transfer of electric energy (by conductive or inductive means) to a battery or other storage device in an electric vehicle. PUBLIC - A publicly accessible EV charging station is either 1) publicly owned and publicly available (e.g.. public library or City Hall lot) or 2) privately owned and publicly available (e.g.. shopping center, non- reserved parking in multi-family developments. etc.). PRIV ATE - A EV charmne station that is either 1) privately owned and has restricted access (e.g.. single-family home. multi-family parking) or 2) publicly owned and has restricted access to the general public (e.e.. fleet vehicle parking for police). Part III (LDR), Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2.F .1.c c. Exemptions. The following work shall not be required to undergo site plan review as required by this chapter: (5) Installation of fire alarms; er (6) Voluntary life safety responsive projects when endorsed by the Fire Marshal, Director of Development or Director of Planning and Zoning; or-;- ill Installation of Level 1 or Level 2 Electric Vehicle (EV) chareine stations at existing off-street parking spaces. 5 Part III (LDR), Chapter 3, Article V, Section 3.Z. Z. Electric Vehicle lEV) Chantine: Station. Miscellaneous. 1. Permits Required. . The installation of an EV chanting station shall comply with all applicable regulations and permitting requirements required by life-safetylbuilding codes and these land development regulations. 2. Allowable Location(s). EV charging stations shall be allowed in all zoning districts, but only in connection with a lawful principal use. In addition, the followin2 restrictions shall apply: a. In residential zoning districts. EV charging stations shall not be available for public usa2e. except for where used in connection with a multi-family or non-residential use~ b. All EV charging stations shall be located within a conforming parking space. or in an area specifically designed and designated for EV charging. Any parking stall used for an EV chargin2 station is allowed to be used in the computation of meeting the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces. The preferred location shall be such that a single EV char2in2 station could service two (2) parking stalls. c. The provision for an EV charging station may vary based on the design and use of the primary parking lot: however. in all instances. the proposed location must ensure the safe and efficient flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. particularly within the designated parking stall. and that the placement of each (including associated eauipment) would not impede or conflict with landscaping. wheelchair accessibility requirements. or other site elements. d. No EV charging station shall be installed within a designated handicap space unless it is specifically designed and intended for handicap use only: and e. Level 3 EV charging stations shall be prohibited m connection with any residential use. f. An EV chargin2 station may be proposed within a public right-of-way: however. at minimum. a rililit-of-way permit shall be required in accordance with Chapter 2. Article III. Section 4. Each location shall be subiect to review and approval bv the City Engineer or designee. 6 3. Sie:nae:e. Also see Chapter 4. Article IV. Section 4.D for special signage that is allowed in connection with EV charging stations. 4. Maintenance. EV charging station eQuipment shall be maintained in all respects. inc1udine: the proper functioning of the charging equipment. A current phone number and other contact information shall be pro\ided on the charging station equipment for the party responsible for maintenance and operation of the equipment. 5. Safety. Information on the EV charging station must identify voltage and amperage levels and time of use. fees. or safety information. When the EV charging station space is perpendicular or at an angle to curb face and charging station equipment. adequate equipment protection. such as wheel stops or bollards shall be used. 6. Data to be Available. To allow for maintenance and notification, owners of any new public EV charging station shall provide information on the station's geographic location. date of installation. eQuipment type and model. and owner contact information. This information shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works. 7. Restrictions. The property owner of a public EV charging station shall have the authority to place restrictions on the number of hours that an EV is allowed to charge. in order to deter indefinite charcinwparking. AA. Miscellaneous. Part III (LDR), Chapter 4, Article IV, Section 4.D. 5. Electric Vehicle mY) Charwe: Station Shm. a. Each public EV charging station shall have at least one (1) posted sign. but no more than two (2) signs displaying operational information such as voltage and amperage levels. hours of use. fees, safety information and penalties related to misuse. The size of each sign shall not exceed two (2) SQuare feet. b. Directional signs for EV charging stations may be allowed. provided that each complies with Section 4.CA above. except that the maximum allowable size shall not exceed two (2) SQuare feet. In addition, a maximum of two (2) off-premises directional signs located within public rights-of-way may be allowed. All signs associated with EV charging stations. if proposed within rights-of-way. shall comply with the Federal 7 Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2009 edition or latest supplement thereof. and with the permitting and processing requirements of the City and any other entity having iurisdiction over the subiect right-of-way, CONCLUSION / RECOMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the proposed code amendment to add provisions for EV infrastructure. This amendment would implement a CAP recommendation and encourages innovative ways for the City to be more sustainable. Also, it promotes business/economic development, and helps the City to keep pace with neighboring cities. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\SPECPROJ\CODE REVIE\V\CDRV 12-001 EV Charging Statjons\~taffRepOlt.doc 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND ZONING Memorandum PZ 11-051 TO: Chair and Members Planning & Development Board FROM: Michael Rumpf Planning & Zoning Director DATE: November 17, 2011 RE: Temporary Banners - "Feather banners" CDRV 12-002 OVERVIEW The subject code amendment has been initiated by the City Commission, in response to an initial request from two (2) local business operators who were concerned for their ability to be located by customers, as well as for their continued success. The attached agenda request forms to the Commission provide further background information on this matter, as well as proposed regulations, and the analysis of impacts. This matter was first discussed by the Commission at its June ih meeting, and then subsequently on July 5th, b st d I I b th A I. I' b th I Novem er l' an ast y on Nove merl5. t t lIS ast meetll1g on Novem er 15 , tIe Commission approved on First Reading, the proposed trial banner provisions, except that the trial period would not be 6 months, rather than for 1 year as originally intended. A PowerPoint slide show will be presented to the Board to further describe the proposed addition to the temporary banner section of the sign code, as well as to explain the proposed standards and provisions intended to govern this 6 month trial period. Any recommendations from the Board will be forwarded to the Commission for consideration at Second Reading of the proposed ordinance scheduled for December 6th. MR Attachments S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\SPECPRO.T,CODE REVIEW\Banners & Feather banners - 2011 \StatJ Report - P&D 112211.doc 1 13.A LEGAL November 1,2011 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 1, 2011 D OPENINGS D PUBLIC HEARING D OTHER D CITY MANAGER'S REPORT D ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS D UNFINISHED BUSINESS NATURE OF D ADMINISTRATIVE D NEW BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM D CONSENT AGENDA [8J LEGAL D BIDS AND PURCHASES OVER $1 00,000 D FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS CODE COMPLIANCE AND LEGAL D SETTLEMENTS REQUESTED ACTION BY CITY COMMISSION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 11-030 - FIRST READING - Request to consider amendment to City Code regarding temporary banners to allow "feather" banners EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: The City Commission previously reviewed this item on July 5th, and acted to support the modification of the City's sign regulations to allow "feather-style" banners in addition to the static banner that is currently allowed by the LDR for temporary display purposes. The Commission directed staff to return with an ordinance containing the corresponding amendments to accommodate said temporary signs, including provisions or standards that address maximum size and the anticipated locational and quantity issues. Staff is also to prepare to implement administrative processes that resolve the anticipated processing and monitoring challenges. Options for consideration, as well as the background information and analysis on which the proposed amendments are based were provided in the July 5th agenda item, and that agenda cover sheet has been included as an attachment to this item. The recommendations from that report have been listed below as an introduction to the proposed amendments. The recommendations reviewed and supported by the Commission on July 5th read as follows: Oriqinal Recommendations If the Commission desires to increase the advertising mechanisms and visibility for businesses, while minimizing the overall potential impacts on the streetscape, staff recommends that the sign regulations be amended to consider the following: 1. Provisions for vertically-oriented, pole-mounted, ("feather") including size and height standards and type of banners allowed and discouraged; 2080f256 2. Establishment of a density standard to set a limit on the number of banners to be simultaneously displayed (i.e. 1 banner per 300 linear feet of frontage); 3. Optionally, because this provision could represent a net reduction in total banners allowed at anyone time (compared to current regulations), the density limit could be written to only apply to those banners placed adjacent to the roadway, and all other banners would either be required to be placed a maximum distance from the roadway or property line and subject to a separate density ratio); 4. Currently prohibited signs and provisions that allow limited sign movement; 5. A minimum of 1 banner would be allowed regardless of linear frontage; 6. The maximum display period remains at 90 days; 7. A sunsetting provision to ensure the impacts are monitored and ordinance extended only if minimal negative effects and net benefit to the area businesses; 8. Impacts on visibility particularly at intersections and driveways, and on views to traffic or pedestrian signage, bus stops, transportation information signage, emergency signage, or to other signage or information that is intended to direct or inform the public; 9. Provisions to accommodate small, uniform "A"-frame signs at shopping centers and restrictions regarding uniform size and design, location, and pedestrian scale and purpose (to be adopted under separate ordinance); 1 O. Needed amendments to the application fee schedule to account for anticipated increases in processing and monitoring time and costs. Staff also recommended that the proposed changes be in effect for a trial or pilot period during which time staff would evaluate the impacts and benefits from the subject amendments. Staff recommended that the temporary period last for 12 months, and at the end of such period the Commission would review the findings and determine whether the ordinance should sunset or be extended. Proposed Text Amendments Modify Part III. Land Development Regulations, Chapter 1, Article II. Definitions and Chapter 4, Article IV. Sign Regulations, as follows: Terms and definitions - Insert description/definition to allow for a feather banner as a temporary sign in addition to the static banner currently allowed, to include the various typical shapes/styles commonly seen but limited to feather banners - "bow", "teardrop" and "flag" (rectangular-shaped). Height/Size standards - Add size standards for feather banners to include a maximum height of 1 0' 6", overall measurement., and a maximum width of 30". These odd dimensions are based on the various "standard" sizes provided by a sample of manufacturers or suppliers researched by staff, and the differences in width dimensions between the feather or flag banners and teardrop banners. Whereas width dimensions for bow banners can start at 2', teardrop banners are wider starting at around 34". Given the varying shapes of feather banners, no maximum area standard is being proposed. Lastly, for consistency, this maximum height standard will also apply to the static banner that is currently allowed by the sign regulations (there is currently no applicable maximum height standard for static banners). Quantity standard - To prevent proliferation of banners along the streetscape, a maximum of 1 feather or static banner per business will be allowed per display period, and at a maximum intensity or quantity of 1 feather or static banner per 300 feet of linear street frontage with a minimum of 1 banner per property on which an approved 209 of 256 business operates. Banners placed on or within 5 feet from the building far;ade or supporting components will not be subject to the intensity/quantity standard. Location - Similar to current restrictions applicable to static banners, feather banners shall not be placed within the site triangle of driveways or intersections, shall not be attached to landscaping materials, and must be placed behind the shrub row of the landscape buffer. A minimum setback of 10 feet. Not to be placed in parking spaces or drive aisles. Duration - Similar to current regulations for temporary banners, the maximum cumulative display period shall be 90 days per calendar year. Evaluation period - It is difficult to project future permit activity and the overall visual effect of these proposed feather banners. Therefore staff recommends that the proposed changes be in effect for a 12-month trial or pilot period during which time staff would evaluate the impacts and benefits from the subject amendments. At the end of such period the Commission would review the findings and determine if the ordinance should be extended. Purpose - To prevent such signs from being used to solely attract attention without communicating the subject business and/or product, the proposed regulations should prohibit such signs that are blank or that contain no wording, logo or other message associated with a specific store approved to operate on the subject property. Fee requirements - Staff proposes to apply the same zoning permit fee as applicable to static banners. If the process required in conjunction with the processing of feather banners is significantly more staff-intensive than for static banners, staff will propose an amendment to the fee schedule as necessary to reflect the actual processing time experienced with the first several applications. The administrative process will include both automated and manual aspects. A-frame signs - A-frame or "sandwich" signs are use to identify and locate businesses, promote merchandise or services, attract customers, provide direction and information in a pedestrian setting, and can be accomplished without any impact on the streetscape through proper proximity to business entrances, and uniformity in design. Such signs are frequently used by restaurants for displaying daily menu options or values and are being proposed for accommodation by City regulations. One (1) sign shall be allowed per business, and each shall be non-illuminated and constructed of durable materials compatible with the project. The size of each sign shall be of a scale that is consistent with the scale of the adjacent storefront, building, and sidewalk width, and are limited to five (5) square feet. Staff will require uniformity within a plaza or other multi-tenant center through involvement of the leasing agent or property owner, and the use of the respective sign program and minor site plan modification process. Staff proposes to forward these proposed amendments in ordinance form for first reading, to confirm Commission direction, then circulate the item to the Planning & Development Board prior to final reading of the ordinance. How WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? N/A 2100f256 FISCAL IMPACT: An increase in demand for zoning permits is anticipated but the magnitude of increase is difficult to estimate. ALTERNATIVES: Approve code amendments as proposed, modify as desired, or not approve amendments to the sign code thereby preventing any additional types of temporary signs within the City. 211 of256 ORDINANCE NO. 11- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARTICLE IV "SIGN REQUIREMENTS" BY AMENDING SEC. 4 "STANDARDS" TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION B. 10 ENTITLED "FEATHER BANNERS" PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, staff is proposing amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to modify the sign regulations to allow temporary feather banners in commercial areas; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Commission to modify the sign code on a trial one (1) year basis after which time the City Commission will evaluate if the use of temporary feather banner signs provides benefit to the business community in balance with aesthetic considerations which might negatively impact the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT: Section 1. The foregoing whereas clauses are true and correct and are now ratified and confirmed by the City Commission. Section 2. Article IV "Sign Requirements", Sec. 4 "Standards" to be amended to add a new subsection B. 10 entitled "Feather Banners" as follows: Terms and definitions- A "feather banner" is a style of a temporary lightweight sign comprised of a partial metal or plastic frame, pole, and/or base to which a vinyl, nylon, canvas or polyester fabric sign face is attached. Depending on the shape and type of movement, such signs may also be called a "flutter", "tear drop", "flying", "wing", "bow", "blade", or "rectangular" banner. Height/Size standards - A maximum height of 10' 6" overall measurement including support portion of sign, and a maximum width of 30". Materials- The sign face shall be nylon, polyester vinyl or canvas and neither the sign face nor the sign frame shall contain glitter, florescent, metallic, or reflective materials. Number of banners- Along business or shopping center frontage, within 25 feet of the property line: 1 feather banner per business (as evidenced by business tax receipt) per 300 feet (or less) oflinear street frontage. A minimum of one banner shall be allowed along the frontage if linear 2120f256 frontage is less than 300 feet, and banners shall not be placed along a single frontage when the property has multiple frontages. Banners placed on or within 5 feet from the building fayade or supporting components: I feather banner per business (as evidenced by business tax receipt). Only one banner (i.e. feather or fixed banner as provided for in Sec 3.BA) shall be permitted and displayed per business at anyone time. Location - Feather banners shall not be placed within the site triangle of driveways or intersections, shall not be attached to landscaping materials, and must be placed behind the shrub row of the landscape buffer. The minimum setback shall be 10 feet from the property line, except that the setback may be less than 10 feet if still placed, as described herein, within an existing landscape buffer with a continuous hedge row. Banners shall not be placed in, or otherwise block parking spaces or drive aisles. Banners may not be placed on sidewalks. Duration - The maximum cumulative display period shall be 90 days per calendar year. The duration period shall run for consecutive days. Application- An application shall be required for each banner, shall include a scaled plan or drawing that identifies the location of and setback for the proposed banner, and indicates the length of the property frontage ifbanner is to be placed less than 25 feet from property frontage. The application shall be signed by the business owner and the property owner. Fee requirements - Permit applications shall be processed following the same process used for processing other zoning permits, with a fee based on reviewer wage and review time. The minimum fee for each application shall be $50. Deposit- $100.00, refundable on or before the expiration of the 90 day permit, provided the applicant surrenders the original permit. Penalties: $50 per day or portion of a day for each banner displayed without a permit or after the expiration of a permit. Section 3. Should any section or prOViSiOn of this Ordinance or any portion thereof be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the remainder of this Ordinance. Section 4. Section 5. Authority is hereby given to codify this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately and shall automatically be deemed repealed at the one year anniversary of second and final reading. FIRST READING this _ day of ,2011. 213 of256 SECOND, FINAL READING AND PASSAGE this day of , 2011. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Mayor - Jose Rodriguez Vice Mayor - William Orlove Commissioner - Woodrow L. Hay Commissioner - Steven Holzman Commissioner - Marlene Ross 2140f256 ATTEST: Janet M. Prainito, MMC City Clerk (Corporate Seal) 2150f256 11. A UNFINISHED BUSINESS July 5,2011 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2011 D OPENINGS D PUBLIC HEARING D OTHER D CITY MANAGER'S REPORT D ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS [8J UNFINISHED BUSINESS NATURE OF D ADMINISTRATIVE D NEW BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM D CONSENT AGENDA D LEGAL D BIDS AND PURCHASES OVER $1 00,000 D FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS CODE COMPLIANCE AND LEGAL D SETTLEMENTS REQUESTED ACTION BY CITY COMMISSION: Request to consider amendment to City Code on temporary banners. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: This item is in follow-up to the discussion held at the June yth Commission meeting. Staff was directed to meet with the two owners of local businesses who where present and addressed the Commission, to determine how other cities regulate banners, and to propose possible amendments for Commission consideration including provisions for a "feather"-style banner. A "feather" banner is construed to be a banner oriented vertically and mounted on one side to a pole enabling it to move, either swivel around the pole, or "wave" freely and rotate, depending on the design and wind strength and direction. The industry has various labels for these types of signs or banners, which should be understood as the magnitude and type of movement is a factor of material and design (or shape and framing). Although some terms are interchangeable and there was not total consistency found throughout various manufacturer or vendor websites, staff understands the different styles to be described as follows: . "Feather" or "bow" banner appear to be general terms for a lightweight, vertically- oriented banner with minimal framing that curves outward at the top to match the curved shape of the fabric (similar to a bow from a bow and arrow); . Vertical flag-style banner is similar to the bow banner but rectangular in shape with a top horizontal bracket and lose bottom to allow moderate free motion and reasonable visibility of the printed information; . "Teardrop" is a feather or bow banner except that the banner is shaped like a teardrop with a taut outside edge to restrict free or waving movement and maximize visibility to 300 of 332 the text or message on the banner. Movement is uniform facilitated by the pole base which swivels with the wind direction; and . Feather banner "flag" appears to be very light weight and with minimal framing to allow maximum free movement. Mayor may not contain text or copy, with an emphasis on the free waving motion rather than visibility of printed information. Staffs presentation of this item will include a slide show of digital images of the banners and other signs described in this report. Current Reoulations The current regulations read as follows: 4. Banner. a. New Development. (1) A temporary banner, not to exceed 20 square feet, is allowed for a maximum of one (1) year for a new multi-family residential development or non-residential use. The permit to allow for such banner shall only be issued once a certificate of occupancy has been approved for the project. (2) For multi-family residential developments and projects located in mixed-use zoning districts, an additional banner of equal size and shape may be allowed, provided that both are placed at the main point of vehicular ingress / egress. This placement and symmetry may be repeated at one (1) project entrance per frontage with a maximum number of two banners per entrance and maximum height of 15 feet. b. Existing Development. A temporary banner, not to exceed 20 square feet, is allowed for existing multi-family developments and non-residential uses. This banner is allowed for a maximum of90 days within a one (I)-year period. c. Landscaping. Banners, if placed within the landscape strips abutting rights of way or perimeter landscape buffers, shall not be attached to any trees or shrubs. In these instances, banners shall be placed behind the shrub line and their location must comply with the cross visibility and safe sight standards of Section 4.A.3 above. d. Miscellaneous. All banners, regardless of location, shall be removed within 12 hours upon the posting of a tropical storm or hurricane watch. Banners may be used in the following types of temporary signage; 1) project development signs; 2) construction sign; 3) special temporary sales event; 4) seasonal sales event sign; and 5) Recreation and Parks Special Event Sign. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to the aforementioned type of temporary signs. See the appropriate subsections of code and their respective regulations for each type of aforementioned sign. The above-described standards and provisions are summarized as follows: . One, 20 square foot banner to be displayed up to one year at a new multi-family development or at any new, non-residential development; . Two, 20 square foot banners to be displayed at one driveway per project frontage for up to one year at a new mixed-use development; 301 of332 . One 20 square foot banner to be displayed for a cumulative maximum period of 90 days for an existing business or development; and . Banners may be displayed either on a building fagade or mounted on posts and placed on the subject property, except such placement shall not block views at corners and if placed in the landscape buffers, said banners shall be placed behind the "shrub line" and not be attached to any trees. It should also be explained that current regulations are intended to prevent signs from moving and creating inordinate distractions or a cluttered appearance along a roadway corridor. The sign regulations (Ch. 4, Art. 4, Sec. 3) prohibit any signs that flutter or are animated, as well as specifically prohibit pennants and streamers. Therefore, the sign regulations are interpreted to require banners to be mounted so that they do not wave or move freely in the wind, and therefore preclude the use of a feather banner. Feedback from Two Local Businesses As directed, staff met with the operators of two businesses that brought this issue to the Commission, and who currently operate within the Marathon Music Center located on the west side of N. Congress Avenue in front of the Boynton Mall. Staff informed them of the current regulations and in particular, that banners may be displayed along Congress Avenue as well as mounted to the building fagade. Staff also listened to their respective advertising objectives, and ideas for increasing the City's sign provisions. Both operators have purchased a feather banner. Whereas one operator desires to place the banner along Congress Avenue, the other operator accepts the potential negative visual impacts of that location, and in contrast, prefers to display the banner at the northern property line which is along the mall entrance road. This same operator, after realizing the benefit to business activity from displaying the feather banner, desires to be allowed to display the feather banner year-round. The operator recognizes that too many banners simultaneously displayed would be a detriment to the streetscape, but opines that regulations could prevent that circumstance, as well as ensure equity between different businesses within a multi-tenant center. Comparable Banner Requlations Staff researched other codes to find that several comparable cities in the area allow banners to be temporarily displayed; however, most Cities sampled limit this provision to the grand opening of a business and not a pre-existing business, and three of the seven codes researched allow "feather" banners. This information, in addition to the maximum display period and mounting restrictions, are summarized in the table below: Boca Delray Lantana Lake W. Palm Wellington Jupiter Raton Beach Worth Beach Allowed? Only until New New New Non-profits New New permanent businesses businesses, businesses, businesses businesses sIgn IS holiday community or or special or special installed, or period, or special event, event. event. for special special or end of event. event. business sale. Max. No. 1 1 3 2 4 per street 1 1 frontage 302 of 332 Max. 32 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 24 sq.ft. 12 sq.ft. 40 sq.ft. 12 sq.ft. 32 sq.ft. Size: Duration: 60 days 4 weeks 14 days 15 days 37 days 7 days 14 days (eligible for 30-day ext.) Feather No No Yes No No Yes* Yes Banner?: Other Only Limited to Affixed to Not mounted Mounted Reqts. placed twice / year. light poles, to to 2 posts - on bldg, - Not attached to min. 5 ft. structure or or bldg, no utility poles or setback. landscaping. Not to higher landscaping. Min.of5' plants. than 15'. setback. Of the cities surveyed, West Palm Beach allows the greatest display period, which totals 67 days (37 days plus a 30-day extension option), and Boca Raton allows 60 days. Other Information and Observations Code History - This section of the Land Development Regulations remained unchanged for many years, and allowed a new business to display a fixed banner for a maximum period of 90 days, and allowed an existing business to display a banner for a maximum of 14 days (essentially allowing for the promotion of one or two sales events per calendar year). In early 2009, the City Commission amended these regulations to allow existing businesses the same 90-day display period as new businesses, and the ordinance adopting these amendments was only in effect for 1 year. As no measureable impacts upon the city were realized during this test period, these standards were re-adopted within the LDR Rewrite in December of 2010; Observation - The current banner provisions for new and existing businesses appears to be under-used. Staff conducted a very simple "windshield" survey of selected corridors with a concentration of commercial businesses to find very few businesses displaying a permitted banner. It is not known whether this circumstance is due to the lack of familiarity with the City's sign provisions, or if such permitted "static" banners are not as visible and therefore not worth the effort required to obtain the banner and necessary approvals; Observation - In the few areas viewed by staff, more feather banners were observed being displayed than the standard, code-compliant static banners; Observation - Various methods of attracting attention to businesses was observed, and most techniques are contrary to the City's sign regulations. Two of the most visible methods include window advertising, commercial vehicle signage, and other forms of signage including snipe signs and small "A"-frame signs. Window signage is the most visible form of advertising, and examples include New York Carpet and Tile and Cort Furniture stores. Window signage is allowed by the new LDR; and even encouraged to create the traditional storefront image; however, window signage is limited to either 20% or 3 square feet of the window area, depending on the location of the window in proximity to the business entrance, and is not intended to be large enough to be visible to passing motorists. As for vehicle signage, vehicles were observed being parked intentionally within spaces located nearest to the street. The new LDR also prohibits the parking of such vehicles with visible signage, within 25 feet from the front property line for more than 4 hours within a 24-hour period; and Permit activity - Development Department records indicate that 10 businesses have been issued one or more banner permits during the past 6 months. 303 of 332 Alternatives Option #1: Status quo - The relatively low use of the City's banner permit option may not justify a change in current regulations, leaving the type of banner and duration of display to a properly mounted static banner and 90 days, respectively. Option #2: Increase display period - This could be done for either a temporary test period similar to Ordinance 09-13 which "sunsetted" after 1 year, or without a sunsetting provision. The display period could be increased to a period desired by the Commission, whether it be for 180 days (the doubling of the current 90-day display provision), or for a greater period. A variation of this could be to maintain the current standard of 90 days, but as a base period that may be extended for additional periods (i.e. 30-day increments with a corresponding fee for each extension). Option #3: Allow feather banners - This scenario would only include a simple code amendment allowing the feather banner in addition to the current static banner, but without any change in the maximum display period. Given the uncertainty of the magnitude of use and visual impacts upon the streetscape, staff would recommend that such an amendment be evaluated for a period of 1 year, as a checkpoint for determining impacts and benefits, and the net value of such provisions. As an option, the adopting ordinance could contain a sunsetting clause so that it naturally expires unless there are no negative findings and extended by separate action by the Commission. However, by introducing signs which are now allowed some movement, caution should be given to the exact wording, the terms and definitions, and prohibitions to maintain the integrity and defensibility of the City's sign regulations. Option #4: Allow feather banners w/density limit - To address the concern regarding possible proliferation of banners and a degraded streetscape, the City could include in the amendments a density limit so that only a set number of banners are simultaneously allowed on a given property (e.g. based on linear street frontage). This would require the establishment of a rather arbitrary standard such as a maximum of 1 or 2 banners per 300 feet of street frontage. Under this standard, and without a limit on parcels with multiple frontages, the Marathon Music Center would be allowed either 3 or 6 banners at anyone time (the northern boundary is approximately 600 feet and the eastern boundary along Congress Avenue is 295 feet). In addition to this center, the frontage dimensions for other properties in the area, along with anticipated banner allowances, are as follows: Business/Property Fronta~e (ft.) 1 per 300 ft. 4 2 per 300 ft. Marathon Music Ctr 295/600 3 5 Brus Room 215 1 1 Toys R Vs 294 1 1 Olive Garden 170 1 1 V-Haul 279 1 1 KFC (west store) 157 1 1 Dick's 5191 1 1 Mall 1,7001 5/1 L 10/1 L Sports Auth.lB&N 4,5003 15 30 1 - Old Boynton Road frontage only. 2 _ If the Mall is construed to be a single property/owner, then only one (1) may be allowed per frontage. 3 _ Includes 3 frontages. 1 frontage is appx. 1,500 ft. or 5 banners. 304 of 332 4 _ 1 per property minimum regardless of dimension of frontage; 1 per single occupant parcels; not to exceed 1 / 300 ft. for multiple tenant properties. Shall not exceed the total business on the property. Of course this option operates on the principle of first-come, first-served. It would also include a provision that allows 1 banner per single-occupant properties, regardless of linear frontage. Other notable aspects of this option include the increase in the complexity of the City's monitoring process, the increased competition for banner permits during holiday or other commonly recognized days of the year, a positive impact on permit revenues, and the increased obligation to conduct site inspections. The owner of the Marathon Music Store recommended that the duration for displaying banners be unrestricted, and that the issue of equity be handled through a rotational provision in the regulations. Meaning, if the maximum banners are permitted, the next banner permit application filed with the City is placed in a queue in the order of it being received, which would then "bump" the displayed banner that has been displayed the longest. The banner that is bumped can then be the subject of a new application and be placed in the queuing sequence (and so on). This option would represent a further intensification of the City's administrative and enforcement processes, and possibly result in the permanent display at the streetscape of waving banners of various colors and shapes. Recommendation If the Commission desires to increase the advertising mechanisms and visibility for businesses, while minimizing the overall potential impacts on the streetscape, staff recommends that the sign regulations be amended to consider the following: 1. Provisions for vertically-oriented, pole-mounted, ("feather") including size and height standards and type of banners allowed and discouraged; 2. Establishment of a density standard to set a limit on the number of banners to be simultaneously displayed (i.e. 1 banner per 300 linear feet of frontage); 3. Optionally, because this provision could represent a net reduction in total banners allowed at anyone time (compared to current regulations), the density limit could be written to only apply to those banners placed adjacent to the roadway, and all other banners would either be reauired to be placed a maximum distance from the roadway or property line and subiect to a separate density ratio); 4. Currently prohibited signs and provisions that allow limited sign movement; 5. A minimum of 1 banner would be allowed regardless of linear frontage; 6. The maximum display period remains at 90 days; 7. A sunsetting provision to ensure the impacts are monitored and ordinance extended only if minimal negative effects and net benefit to the area businesses; 8. Impacts on visibility particularly at intersections and driveways, and on views to traffic or pedestrian signage, bus stops, transportation information signage, emergency signage, or to other signage or information that is intended to direct or inform the public; 9. Provisions to accommodate small, uniform "A"-frame signs at shopping centers and restrictions regarding uniform size and design, location, and pedestrian scale and purpose; 1 O. Needed amendments to the application fee schedule to account for anticipated increases in processing and monitoring time and costs. As indicated above, staff would evaluate the impacts and benefits from the subject amendments over the first 12 months, and advise the Commission as to whether the ordinance should sunset or be extended. 305 of 332 How WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? N/A FISCAL IMPACT: The magnitude of increase in temporary banner permit revenues is difficult to estimate, and would vary depending on the ultimate action taken. ALTERNATIVES: As described in the above staff analysis. 306 of 332 13.A LEGAL November 15, 2011 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 15, 2011 D OPENINGS D PUBLIC HEARING D OTHER D CITY MANAGER'S REPORT D ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS D UNFINISHED BUSINESS NATURE OF D ADMINISTRATIVE D NEW BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM D CONSENT AGENDA [8J LEGAL D BIDS AND PURCHASES OVER $1 00,000 D FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS CODE COMPLIANCE AND LEGAL D SETTLEMENTS REQUESTED ACTION BY CITY COMMISSION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 11-030 - FIRST READING - Request to consider amendment to City Code regarding temporary banners to allow "feather" banners. TABLED ON 11/1/11 EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: The City Commission previously reviewed this item on July 5th, and acted to support the modification of the City's sign regulations to allow "feather-style" banners in addition to the static banner that is currently allowed by the LDR for temporary display purposes. The Commission directed staff to return with an ordinance containing the corresponding amendments to accommodate said temporary signs, including provisions or standards that address maximum size and the anticipated locational and quantity issues. Staff is also to prepare to implement administrative processes that resolve the anticipated processing and monitoring challenges. Options for consideration, as well as the background information and analysis on which the proposed amendments are based were provided in the July 5th agenda item, and that agenda cover sheet has been included as an attachment to this item. The recommendations from that report have been listed below as an introduction to the proposed amendments. The recommendations reviewed and supported by the Commission on July 5th read as follows: Oriqinal Recommendations If the Commission desires to increase the advertising mechanisms and visibility for businesses, while minimizing the overall potential impacts on the streetscape, staff recommends that the sign regulations be amended to consider the following: 1. Provisions for vertically-oriented, pole-mounted, ("feather") including size and height standards and type of banners allowed and discouraged; 497 of 527 2. Establishment of a density standard to set a limit on the number of banners to be simultaneously displayed (i.e. 1 banner per 300 linear feet of frontage); 3. Optionally, because this provision could represent a net reduction in total banners allowed at anyone time (compared to current regulations), the density limit could be written to only apply to those banners placed adjacent to the roadway, and all other banners would either be required to be placed a maximum distance from the roadway or property line and subject to a separate density ratio); 4. Currently prohibited signs and provisions that allow limited sign movement; 5. A minimum of 1 banner would be allowed regardless of linear frontage; 6. The maximum display period remains at 90 days; 7. A sunsetting provision to ensure the impacts are monitored and ordinance extended only if minimal negative effects and net benefit to the area businesses; 8. Impacts on visibility particularly at intersections and driveways, and on views to traffic or pedestrian signage, bus stops, transportation information signage, emergency signage, or to other signage or information that is intended to direct or inform the public; 9. Provisions to accommodate small, uniform "A"-frame signs at shopping centers and restrictions regarding uniform size and design, location, and pedestrian scale and purpose (to be adopted under separate ordinance); 1 O. Needed amendments to the application fee schedule to account for anticipated increases in processing and monitoring time and costs. Staff also recommended that the proposed changes be in effect for a trial or pilot period during which time staff would evaluate the impacts and benefits from the subject amendments. Staff recommended that the temporary period last for 12 months, and at the end of such period the Commission would review the findings and determine whether the ordinance should sunset or be extended. Proposed Text Amendments Modify Part III. Land Development Regulations, Chapter 1, Article II. Definitions and Chapter 4, Article IV. Sign Regulations, as follows: Terms and definitions - Insert description/definition to allow for a feather banner as a temporary sign in addition to the static banner currently allowed, to include the various typical shapes/styles commonly seen but limited to feather banners - "bow", "teardrop" and "flag" (rectangular-shaped). Height/Size standards - Add size standards for feather banners to include a maximum height of 1 0' 6", overall measurement., and a maximum width of 30". These odd dimensions are based on the various "standard" sizes provided by a sample of manufacturers or suppliers researched by staff, and the differences in width dimensions between the feather or flag banners and teardrop banners. Whereas width dimensions for bow banners can start at 2', teardrop banners are wider starting at around 34". Given the varying shapes of feather banners, no maximum area standard is being proposed. Lastly, for consistency, this maximum height standard will also apply to the static banner that is currently allowed by the sign regulations (there is currently no applicable maximum height standard for static banners). Quantity standard - To prevent proliferation of banners along the streetscape, a maximum of 1 feather or static banner per business will be allowed per display period, and at a maximum intensity or quantity of 1 feather or static banner per 300 feet of linear street frontage with a minimum of 1 banner per property on which an approved 498 of 527 business operates. Banners placed on or within 5 feet from the building far;ade or supporting components will not be subject to the intensity/quantity standard. Location - Similar to current restrictions applicable to static banners, feather banners shall not be placed within the site triangle of driveways or intersections, shall not be attached to landscaping materials, and must be placed behind the shrub row of the landscape buffer. A minimum setback of 10 feet. Not to be placed in parking spaces or drive aisles. Duration - Similar to current regulations for temporary banners, the maximum cumulative display period shall be 90 days per calendar year. Evaluation period - It is difficult to project future permit activity and the overall visual effect of these proposed feather banners. Therefore staff recommends that the proposed changes be in effect for a 12-month trial or pilot period during which time staff would evaluate the impacts and benefits from the subject amendments. At the end of such period the Commission would review the findings and determine if the ordinance should be extended. Purpose - To prevent such signs from being used to solely attract attention without communicating the subject business and/or product, the proposed regulations should prohibit such signs that are blank or that contain no wording, logo or other message associated with a specific store approved to operate on the subject property. Fee requirements - Staff proposes to apply the same zoning permit fee as applicable to static banners. If the process required in conjunction with the processing of feather banners is significantly more staff-intensive than for static banners, staff will propose an amendment to the fee schedule as necessary to reflect the actual processing time experienced with the first several applications. The administrative process will include both automated and manual aspects. A-frame signs - A-frame or "sandwich" signs are use to identify and locate businesses, promote merchandise or services, attract customers, provide direction and information in a pedestrian setting, and can be accomplished without any impact on the streetscape through proper proximity to business entrances, and uniformity in design. Such signs are frequently used by restaurants for displaying daily menu options or values and are being proposed for accommodation by City regulations. One (1) sign shall be allowed per business, and each shall be non-illuminated and constructed of durable materials compatible with the project. The size of each sign shall be of a scale that is consistent with the scale of the adjacent storefront, building, and sidewalk width, and are limited to five (5) square feet. Staff will require uniformity within a plaza or other multi-tenant center through involvement of the leasing agent or property owner, and the use of the respective sign program and minor site plan modification process. Staff proposes to forward these proposed amendments in ordinance form for first reading, to confirm Commission direction, then circulate the item to the Planning & Development Board prior to final reading of the ordinance. How WILL THIS AFFECT CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES? N/A 499 of 527 FISCAL IMPACT: An increase in demand for zoning permits is anticipated but the magnitude of increase is difficult to estimate. ALTERNATIVES: Approve code amendments as proposed, modify as desired, or not approve amendments to the sign code thereby preventing any additional types of temporary signs within the City. 500 of 527 ORDINANCE NO. 11- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARTICLE IV "SIGN REQUIREMENTS" BY AMENDING SEC. 4 "STANDARDS" TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION B. 10 ENTITLED "FEATHER BANNERS" PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, staff is proposing amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to modify the sign regulations to allow temporary feather banners in commercial areas; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Commission to modify the sign code on a trial one (1) year basis after which time the City Commission will evaluate if the use of temporary feather banner signs provides benefit to the business community in balance with aesthetic considerations which might negatively impact the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT: Section 1. The foregoing whereas clauses are true and correct and are now ratified and confirmed by the City Commission. Section 2. Article IV "Sign Requirements", Sec. 4 "Standards" to be amended to add a new subsection B. 10 entitled "Feather Banners" as follows: Terms and definitions- A "feather banner" is a style of a temporary lightweight sign comprised of a partial metal or plastic frame, pole, and/or base to which a vinyl, nylon, canvas or polyester fabric sign face is attached. Depending on the shape and type of movement, such signs may also be called a "flutter", "tear drop", "flying", "wing", "bow", "blade", or "rectangular" banner. Height/Size standards - A maximum height of 10' 6" overall measurement including support portion of sign, and a maximum width of 30". Materials- The sign face shall be nylon, polyester vinyl or canvas and neither the sign face nor the sign frame shall contain glitter, florescent, metallic, or reflective materials. Number of banners- Along business or shopping center frontage, within 25 feet of the property line: 1 feather banner per business (as evidenced by business tax receipt) per 300 feet (or less) oflinear street frontage. A minimum of one banner shall be allowed along the frontage if linear 501 of 527 frontage is less than 300 feet, and banners shall not be placed along a single frontage when the property has multiple frontages. Banners placed on or within 5 feet from the building fayade or supporting components: I feather banner per business (as evidenced by business tax receipt). Only one banner (i.e. feather or fixed banner as provided for in Sec 3.BA) shall be permitted and displayed per business at anyone time. Location - Feather banners shall not be placed within the site triangle of driveways or intersections, shall not be attached to landscaping materials, and must be placed behind the shrub row of the landscape buffer. The minimum setback shall be 10 feet from the property line, except that the setback may be less than 10 feet if still placed, as described herein, within an existing landscape buffer with a continuous hedge row. Banners shall not be placed in, or otherwise block parking spaces or drive aisles. Banners may not be placed on sidewalks. Duration - The maximum cumulative display period shall be 90 days per calendar year. The duration period shall run for consecutive days. Application- An application shall be required for each banner, shall include a scaled plan or drawing that identifies the location of and setback for the proposed banner, and indicates the length of the property frontage ifbanner is to be placed less than 25 feet from property frontage. The application shall be signed by the business owner and the property owner. Fee requirements - Permit applications shall be processed following the same process used for processing other zoning permits, with a fee based on reviewer wage and review time. The minimum fee for each application shall be $50. Deposit- $100.00, refundable on or before the expiration of the 90 day permit, provided the applicant surrenders the original permit. Penalties: $50 per day or portion of a day for each banner displayed without a permit or after the expiration of a permit. Section 3. Should any section or prOViSiOn of this Ordinance or any portion thereof be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the remainder of this Ordinance. Section 4. Section 5. Authority is hereby given to codify this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately and shall automatically be deemed repealed at the one year anniversary of second and final reading. FIRST READING this _ day of ,2011. 502 of 527 SECOND, FINAL READING AND PASSAGE this day of , 2011. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Mayor - Jose Rodriguez Vice Mayor - William Orlove Commissioner - Woodrow L. Hay Commissioner - Steven Holzman Commissioner - Marlene Ross 503 of 527 ATTEST: Janet M. Prainito, MMC City Clerk (Corporate Seal) 504 of 527 Rick Scott GOVERNOR 08 ,';:-r'~.?"~,-- f-"'-~~-??~ .t-t.'E<_ &~x~i;r "-Wl!l Doug Darling execunve DIRECTOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT rf ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY November 21, 2011 Mr. Michael Rumpf Director, Planning and Zoning Department City of Boynton Beach 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 RE: Quantum Corporate Park Development ofRegionallmpact (File No. ADA-I084-04&) - Non-substantive Modification Dear Mr. Rumpf: On November 15, 2011, the City of Boynton Beach notified the Department of a proposed change to the Quantum Corporate Park development of regional impact located within the City. The City, along with the developer of the project, requested a determination of whether the proposed change may be reviewed and adopted as a non-substantive amendment to the development order without the need for submittal of a notification of proposed change pursuant to Section 380.08(19), Florida Statutes. The proposed amendment would change the land use designation on Lot 75 from OfficelIndustrial (OII) to OfficelIndustriaJ/Commercial (Oil/C). Lot 75 is 3.02 acres and contains an existing building totaling 198,114 square feet (SF). This change is being requested to enable the owner to lease approximately 94,000 SF of the existing building to a commercial business and is consistent with the land use on adjacent Lot 76. The applicant states that the DRl is near build out and the request will not increase the intensity of the development or the external traffic impacts. The 2011 Annual Report for the Quantum Corporate Park DRI shows that the development is approved for 637,900 SF of commercial with 582,397 SF developed and 1,722,700 SF Industrial with 1,428,608 SF developed. The Department, in consultation with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, agrees that the proposed change to modify Map H is similar in impact to the changes enumerated in sub- paragraphs 380.06(19)(e)2.a-j, F.S., and does not create the likelihood of any additional regional impacts. Thus, pursuant to sub-paragraph 380.06(19)(e)2.k, F.S., the proposed change does not require the filing of a Notice of Proposed Change. However, the City must render the amended Development Order to the Department. TIle Caldwell Building 107 E Madison Street Tallahassee, Flonda 32399-4120 850245 n05 TIvtroo 1-800-955-8771 VOice 1-800-955-8770 FlortdaJobs.org An equal opportumt} employer/program_ AUXiliary aids and servi~ are aVlUlable upon request to individuals with disabilities All voice telep~./ numbers on thiS document may be reached by persons using TTYrroD equipment via the FJonda Relay Service at ill A. Mr. Michael Rumpf, Director November 18, 2011 Page 2 of2 If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Laura Regalado, Planning Analyst, at 850-717-8508. ~mx j/t1 ~ Mike McDaniel, Chief Office of Comprehensive Planning MM/1mr cc: Mr. Michael Busha, AICP, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Mr. Eugene A. Gerlica, P .E., President, Gerlica, Inc.