Minutes 01-08-91MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HELD
IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1991 AT 7:30 P. M.
PRESENT
Maurice Rosenstock, Chairman
Jose' Ag uila
Nathan Collins
Murray Howard
Daniel Richter
David Beasley, Alternate
(Voting)
William Cwynar, Alternate
(Voting)
ABSENT
Gary Lehnertz, Vice Chairman
(Excused)
Cynthia Greenhouse (Excused)
Chris Cutro,
Director of Planning
Tambri Heyden,
Assistant City Planner
Jorge Gonzalez,
Assistant City Planner
Yamile Trehy,
Asst. City Attorney
Chairman Rosenstock called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.
After the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, he recognized
the presence in the audience of Commissioner Arline Weiner
and Marina Haberman, member of the Code Enforcement Board.
Mo
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Beasley announced that he would be abstaining from
voting on item 2, "PARKING LOT VARIANCE, Abita Springs Water
Co., Inc.," which appeared on the agenda under "NEW
BUSINESS, PUBLIC HEARINGS", because he drew the plans.
The agenda was approved as presented.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of December 11, 1990
Mr. Ag uila called attention to the third line on page 3 and
said the vote on whether the Board should have full size
plans was not passed unanimously. It was a 6-1 vote.
Mr. Richter moved, seconded by Mr. Beasley, to approve the
minutes as corrected. Motion carried 7-0.
- 1 -
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOY'TON BEACH, FLORIDA
JANUARY 8, 1991
COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONDITIONAL USE
1. Project Name:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Legal
Description:
Description:
The Hair Garden
None
Helene C. Harrington
1100 South Fedsral Highway
(approximately 12 feet north of the
intersection of South Federal Highway
and Castilla Lane)
Lots 1 and 2, less the W. 15' thereof,
PARKER ESTATES, a subdivision of Boynton
Beach, according to the plat thereof on
file in the office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach
County, Florida, in Plat Book 10, page
37
Request for conditional use approval to
allow for the establishment of a 450
square foot beauty salon within an
existing office/retail building
Ms. Heyden made the presentation by reading from the Planning
Department's Memorandum No. 91-003 (Addendum A attached to
the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City
Clerk). Based on the fact that the proposed beauty salon
will not exacerbate existing conditions on the site or
adjacent properties, the Planning Department recommended
that the request be approved, subject to the following
comments:
Engineering Department
"In accordance with the provisions set forth in the City of
Boynton Beach, Code of Ordinances, specifically Chapter 13,
Section 13-16, the applicant for the above referenced
project shall seal coat and restripe their parking facility.
The parking facilities shall be restriped in accordance with
- 2 -
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JANUARY 8, 1991
the City of Boynton Beach Parking Lot Regulations and the
most current edition of the Department on Community Affairs,
Accessibility Requirements.
Based upon the nominal impact of this small hairdresser's
shop, the Technical Review Board has determined that the
applicant shall not be responsible to modify the entire site
to code."
Planning Department
Based on traffic flow issues raised by the Technical
Review Board, it is recommended that the permit plans
submitted for restriping reflect an egress, pavement
arrow at the end of the rear driveway and a do not enter
sign at the southwest corner of the building to
discourage use of the rear driveway as an ingress point
to the front parking area."
Mr. Aguila had the impression Engineering was recommending
that the site be restriped; but when he read Memo No.
90-306CC from Vincent Finizio, Administrative Coordinator of
Engineering, he had the impression the applicant should not
be responsible to do it. Be questioned whether they were
asking the applicant to restripe or not. Ms. Heyden
answered that the restrlplng was still being required. She
informed Chairman Rosenstock that Mrs. Harrington attended
the Technical Review Board (TRB) meetings and was aware of
that.
Mr. Richter had no problem with this, if the applicant
agreed to the staff comments. Mr. Beasley attended the TRB
meeting. Be apprised the Members that Mrs. Harrington was
there and agreed to everything.
Dana Littlefield, representing his wife, Gall Littlefield,
stated that Helene Harrington owns the building. Be
believed Mrs. Harrington had agreed to comply with every-
thing the City requested.
Forms Which Are To Be Attached To Site Plan Applications
Chairman Rosenstock believed he was the one who requested
that all applicants sign a form provided with the site plan
application, saying they will comply with all of the plans
and specifications requested by the City and the TRB.
Helene Harrington's form did not state her position, and
it was hot notarized. As far as Chairman Rosenstock was
concerned, it was not worth the paper it was written on.
- 3 -
MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 8, 1991
Chairman Rosenstock noticed Curt G. Joa's form was not
even signed. He requested that in the future, Mr. Cutro
contact the City Attorney and see how the City Attorney
wants the forms notarized. ~e presumed the City Attorney
would want a title or corporate seal and make sure it is an
enforceable document.
Mr. Cutro reminded Chairman Rosenstock this is a new form
that has been added, ge had a feeling people do not even
know they are there. After elaborating, Mr. Cutro said he
will make sure this is taken care of from now on.
As n~ one wished to speak for or against the request, THE
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Richter moved to approve the request, subject to staff
comments. Mr. Howard seconded the motion, and the motion
carried 7-0.
PARKING LOT VARIANCE
2. Project Name:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Legal
Description:
Description:
Abita Springs Water Co., Inc.
Efram Pesyna
VRT Corporation
3030 S. W. 13th Place (southeast
corner of S. W. 13th Place and
S. W. 30th Avenue)
A parcel of land lying in the W½ of the
NW~ of Sec. 5, Twp. 46 S., Rge. 43 E.,
Palm Beach County, Florida
Request for a variance to Secs.
5-142(f) "Drainage" and 5-142(a)
~'Lighting" of Article X-Parking Lots.
Ms. Heyden made the presentation by reading from the Planning
Department's Memorandum No. 91-001 (Addendum B attached to
the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City
Clerk). The TRB recommended that the lighting variance be
denied and that the drainage variance be approved, subject
to gutters being installed and swales being constructed
along the green areas, both along the right-of-way and on
the site, as detailed in the staff report (Addendum B), sub-
ject to staff comments attached to the original copy of
these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk as Addendum C
and also subject to the following comments:
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JANUARY 8, 1991
Police Department
"Parking lot lighting is not acceptable. Present lighting
system presents night vision problems for officers and a
hazard to their safety."
Mr. Howard read in the Engineering Department's Memorandum
No. 90-310CC that the applicant had not yet complied with
all staff comments provided within the Engineering Depart-
ment's TRB memorandum dated October 26, 1990. (See Addendum
C.) Ms. Heyden informed him that was the reason for the
variances. Mr. Beasley added they would not be ~Dle to
complete the sign off procedure without the variances.
Mr. Cutro asked that Mr. Beasley identify himself, as he
would not be voting on this project and was answering ques-
tions about the plans. (See page 1, "AGENDA APPROVAL",
regarding Mr. Beasley's conflict of interest.)
David Beasley, 118 S. E. 4th Street, stated he prepared the
plans for the project. Ef~am Pesyna, representative of VRT
Corp.oration and also Vice President and General Manager of
Abita Springs Water Co., Inc., 2301 SoUth Congress Avenue,
Boynton Beach, FL 33435, came forward. It sounded to
Chairman Rosenstock as though Mr. Pesyna was willing to
com~ly with one, but it sounded like he was not wiltina to
comp~ly with the one regarding lighting. Mr. Pesyna was
will'ing to comply with the lighting, but he wanted to bring
up h~is candle power. He wanted Mr. Beasley to elaborate on
that. Mr. Pesyna stated they were having a problem with
the Police Department. They were for doing whatever it
would take to bring the security of the building up.
Mr. ~esyna said it is a low travelled area, and they do not
oper~ate at night. They sh~t down at 4:00 P. M. They have
five photocells and the candle power required by the City.
They need to add two light~ to bring it up to the new Code.
Mr. Pesyna continued by saying the Code says the lights
must be on poles. ~e wanted to add the lights to the build-
ing. They had a Light Engineer come on the site and in order
to obtain the proper lighting, they need to add two lights
on the north side of the building and three lights on the
west side of the building. The lights will be angled, so
as ~o direct the lighting down towards the parking lot in a
manner that will not obstruct Law Enforcement Officers in
their duties.
Mr. Aguila questioned whether Mr. Pesyna was willing to go
through the expense of putting the fixtures on the building,
having them analyzed, and if they are found to be
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 8, 1991
inappropriate, going through the expense of putting them on
poles. Mr. Pesyna answered he had already gone through the
expense of having it analyzed. Mr. Beasley had the paper-
work where they analyzed the site development, and they have
a grid laid out for the candlelight power. Mr. Pesyna
stated he has four existing lights on the building and needs
to add fi~e more lights. If Mr. Pesyna finds the lighting
is not acceptable to the Police'Department, Mr. Pesyna
assured Mr. Aguila he will have no problems with moving it.
It had already been said if they can readjust them, it will
be acceptable by the Police Department. Mr. Beasley inter-
jected th-at he talked to Lt. ~ammeck about it.
Attorney Trehy had a question about Mr. Beasley making a
presentation. Chairman Rosenstock recalled that in the
past, individuals sitting on the Board who were involved in
a project were allowed to make comments but not vote.
Attorney Trehy advised that Mr. Beasley should abstain from
voting. Before the meeting, she did not know there would be
conflict, so she had not ch~cked to determine whether Mr.
Beasley should be making a presentation before the Board he
sits on. As it might be improper, Attorney Trehy preferred
that the Agent make the presentation.
Mr. Pesyna went to the overlay, showed what was being done,
and described the lighting the Lighting Engineer recommended.
The bulbs would be directed down, and they would exceed the
City's lighting requirements. If he cannot please the Law
Enforcement Officers, Mr. Pesyna said he will fix the
lighting. He just wanted the opportunity to try to fix it
this way.
Chairman Rosenstock asked Mr. Finizio to come forward, as
he understood he was the Administrator of the Engineering
Department. Ne asked whether Mr. Finizio had any objection
to what was being proposed. Mr. Cutro advised that Richard
Staudinger, P.E., of Gee & Jenson was present. Mr. Finizio
stated he was not making a critique of design. He was
making a critique, based on the City Code. Mr. Finizio
said lighting directed toward the streets provides a night
vision problem for Patrolmen, as lighting is directed
towards their faces as they approach the site. If the light-
is directed downward, they will probably be illuminating
the parking stalls immediately adjacent to where the lights
are l~cated. Parking stalls are also on the extreme side of
the parking lot, and the City Code states that not only
should the parking stalls be illuminated, but the pedestrian
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 8, 1991
walkways that serve the facility should have a suitable
level of illumination to provide for safety. The Code makes
a reference in Sec. 5, 142(g) that the preferred system is
post mounted, perimeter lighting. Although Mr. Pesyna
stated he wanted to far exceed the Code, Mr. Finizio said it
may not be in the best interest of the City.
Mr. Pesyna emphasized that a Lighting Engineer told him he
could maintain what the City was asking him to do. The
Engineer is a specialist in lighting. Mr. Finiz~o apprised
the Members that the information the applicant said he had
was not provided to his office, so he could not forward it
to Gee & Jensom for analysis. If the applicant was willing
to state that if the light levels pose no glare on all of the
adjacent right-of-way and if the applicant was willing to
submit a light ~evel plan that would c~mply with the City of
Boynton Beach and which would satisfy not only the Police
Department but the Engineering Department's specifications
relative ~o Code compliance, Mr. Finiz~o thought Mr. Pesyna
should be granted some consideration. He did not know why
Mr. Pesyna was looking for a variance, when he was now
stating he was willing to comply with the Code.
Richard Staudinger, P.E., Gee & Jenson, stated if the
applicant had a plan he could look at, he could tell whether
the system will allow the lighting at the edges o~ the park-
ing lot and on the pedestrian access routes per Code. He
stated the Police Department should comment on the question
of glare. Fir. Staudinger stated they could look at the
analysis prior to submittal and s~gn off o~ it or if the
applicant would agree to go to some kind ~f system, they
could check it in the field later. If it does not meet
standards, it will have to be upgraded.
Chairman Rosenstock asked whether Mr. Pesyna would abide
with the comments of Gee & Jenson. Mr. Pesyna asked whether
Gee & Jenson had been on his site. Mr. Staudinger replied
Gee & Jenson had not been on the site, and he anticipated
they would not have to be on the site. If a design is sub-
mitted, they can look at it, or they can take a site test of
the lights when the improvements are in place.
Chairman Rosenstock did not think he would put lighting in
place before he had a plan and approval of that plan. He
asked whether Mr. Pesyna was willing to abide by the comments
of the City Engineer. Mr. Pesyna answered affirmatively.
If Mr. Pesyna was going to abide by the City Code, which was
basically what Gee & Jenson had stated, Attorney Trehy
- 7 -
MINUTES PLAINNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JANUARY 8, 1991
wondered what the grounds were for the request for a
variance. There was discussion. Chairman Rosenstock wanted
to allow Mr. Beasley to speak, in order to clear up the
matter. Attorney Trehy felt the law would not allow a
member to speak to his own Board concerning an item on the
agenda.
Mr. Pesyna told the Members he was asking for a variance
because they are trying to k~ep from putting poles on the
property. Mr. Cutro clarified the variance was to allow for
building mounted lights as opposed to pole mounted lights.
Mr. Ag uila advised that the Code does not require pole
mounted lights. There were further comments.
Mr. Howard noted they had heard from everybody but the
Police Department. Sgt. Chris Yannuzzi interjected he was
representing Lt. Dale Hammack of the Police Department.
Although he was not aware of any conversation between Mr.
Beasley and Lt. Hammack, he stated he could represent the
issue. Attorney Trehy advised the Code does not require
saying the applicant will have to comply to satisfy the
comments of the staff concerning their concerns. A safety
concern was one of the comments. The applicant would have
to satisfy the comment.
Mr. Cutro referred to Sec. 5-1~2(g) and said the standards
for review were adopted by Resolution. The standards state
that pole mounted~lights are required. It did not say they
were preferred. The variance was to allow the applicant to
mount the lights on the building. Mr. Cutro did not think
any one in the room doubted that the lighting would meet the
Code. He felt the real question related to Police and glare.
The applicant had indicated he would make whatever adjust-
ments were necessary if he could mount them on the wall.
Mr. Cutro thought that was the condition that should probably
be attached to the variance for lighting.
Chairman Rosenstock asked Mr. Finizio if the City had ever
allowed wall mounted lights as opposed to pole mounted
lights. Mr. Finizio had been with the City for almost six
years, and he had not seen a variance come before this Board
for lighting, based upon the nature of the variance
requested. He read the request and reiterated that he did
not know why they applied for a variance if they were will-
ing to upgrade the site. If they were willing to upgrade
the site, the City should have been provided with the techni-
cal data to verify that.
- 8 -
MINUTES - PLAINNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BO~NTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JAi~UAR¥ 8, 1991
Comments were made by Mr. Cutro and Mr.,Finizio relating to
both the variance for lighting and the variance for drainage.
Mr. Aguila informed the Members that the rear of the Target
retail center on the south side of the building, where there
is parking, there are wall mounted fixtures. Discussion
ensued about the lights, the Police Department, and what the
applicant is willing to do.
Attorney Trehy read Sec. 5-145 (a) (1) from the Code. The
Section referred to when variances can be granted. Mr.
Finizio informed the Members that this site is somewhat
unique because it is surrounded by streets, so the lights
will be directed toward streets. Chairman Rosenstock heard
the developer say he would comply with that request. There
was discussion about the lighting, glare; and what the
applicant had agreed to. Since Mr. Finizlo did not think
the applicant said he would be willing to install perimeter
pole lighting, Chairman Ros~nstock again asked Mr. Peysna
this question. Mr. Peysna replied he had said that. He
thought he had made it perfectly clear.
Ms. Heyden advised she had already talked about the variance
to the drainage. Mr. Finizio apprised the Members that the
applicant agreed to provide all of the swale retention on
site.
It seemed to Chairman Rosenstock that they were slowly
getting to the point where the day will come when an A~chi-
tect or Engineer representing a developer will submit a
blank piece of paper. The City will say, "subject to staff
comments," and the developer will agree to do everything.
Chairman Rosenstock referred to an opinion of the City
Commission sent to tbs City Attorney, which said it will be
fine if a developer signs an agreement saying he will abide
by the staff comments and he puts that on a set of plans
after the fact. As a private citizen, Chairman Rosenstock
thought it was totally and horribly Incorrect, and it does
a disservice to the community.
Mr. Richter noted this project was in an industrial park.
The building is 11 years old, and he wondered when the
lighting and drainage Codes of the City were updated.
Mr. Finizio answered that the Lighting Code was modified in
1987 to increase the level of illumination to a one foot
candle. The City Commission recently passed an Ordinance
where convenience stores are required to have two foot
candles' illumination, so the age of the building has no
relationship to the current Code. Should they expand, they
must modify to the current Code.
- 9 -
MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD M~ETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JANUARY 8, 1991
Mr. Richter asked whether they were expanding the building.
Mr. Pesyna answered they have not expanded their building.
He explained how he applied for a parking lot variance in
May, which was granted in September, 1990. His pro~ect was
stopped again because he was putting in a ramp, so he could
access his building like any other person that has an
entrance level on ground level access. This has been going
on since S~ptember. It seemed to Mr. Richter that there is
no flexibility in the City's approach to people trying to
improve their properties. Mr. Pesyna expounded about all
they have done to comply with what the City has asked. Mr.
Richter commented abo~t projects being stopped, lack of
flexibility, new Codes, and Sunshine Square.
Mr. Cutro clarified it was an expansion of the building by
approximate~ly 2,000 square feet. The building existed, but
the square footage was expanded within the footprint of the
building. Mr. Pesyna said they added office space on the
inside of the building. Mr. Cutro stated that was what had
to~ched this off. Because of the present pitch of the
parking lot, they have had to have the parking lot regraded.
There are some calculations that the City has to get, but
th~ calculations are minor. The parking lot does not meet
today's standards, but Mr. Cutro stated that was something
the Board could gran~, once the applicant does the
improvements.
Motion re Variance for Lighting
Attorney Trehy suggested verbiage for the motion. Mr.
Richter moved to allow the lighting to be mounted on the
building, as opposed to pole lighting, which is required by
Code, provided the property owner complies and satisfies the
safety concerns of the Police Department. If the property
owner does not, he will abide by the City Code and install
the required lighting. Mr. Aguila seconded the motion, and
the motion carried 6-0. Mr. Beasley abstained from voting.
(See Memorandum of Voting Conflict attached to the original
copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Discussion re Variance for Drainage
Discussion ensued about the verbiage for this motion.
Mr. Pesyna stated they do not need gutters. The gutters are
in place. Mr. Finizio consulted with Mr. Staudinger and
advised that the applicant would have to provide drainage
calculations. The applicant should submit engineering data
10 -
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JANUARY 8, 1991
to Gee & Jenson, so Gee & Jenson can verify that the appli-
cant is in compliance with the Code. Mr. Pesyna did not
feel that was fair, nor did he feel that was what the TRB
stated. They have a parking lot like the one in front of
City Hall. Mr. Pesyna showed on the overlay where they
have catch basins.
If the Board turned down his variance, Mr. Pesyna stated he
would have to sell his building because~it would be totally
inaccessible. He told what he wo~ld have to do to meet the
Code and said it would make his property inaccessible for
tractor trailers to back into and deliver supplies and
products for his business. It would nog be feasible or
possible,. Mr. Pes~na again compared tke drainage of his
property to that of the City parking lot, and he indicated
the grassed areas on the overlay. Mr. Pesyna was willing to
do anything within reason, but he s~ressed that he could not
tear up his parking lot.
Under the present Codes, Mr. Staudinger said the parking lot
would have to be completely torn up or redesigned and full
pretreatment would be required. That was not what the TRB's
comments were. That was why there was a need for a variance.
Mr. Pesyna cannot meet today's Codes without a major
rebuilding of the parking lot. As a part of the variance,
Mr. Pesyna is to build certain swales and catch as much as
possible. There is a requirement that it be designed by an
Engineer. Mr. Pesyna stated that Gee & Jenson can field
inspect it to see that is done. Some work must be done
under the variance to catch as much water as possible off
the roofs. If the applicant agrees to do that and provide
documentation, that would be about as good as the Board
could get at this time. Mr. Pesyna agreed to do that and
provide documentation.
Motion re Variance for Drainage
Mr. Aguila moved to approve the request for a variance to
Section 5-142(f) '~Drainage" of Article X-Parking Lots with
the provision that the applicant provides the Cit~ with
engineering drawings, indicating he will do some pretreat-
ment as possible and retain the catch basins that now exist.
Mr. Richter seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Mr. Beasley abstained from voting. (See Memorandum of
Voting Conflict attached to the original copy of these
minutes in the Office of the City Clerk as Addendum D.
- 11
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 8, 1991
NEW SITE PLANS
Project Name:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Curt G. Joa, Inc.
Robert E. Fetrow, P.E.
Gator Engineering Services
Curt G. Joa, Inc.
1500 High Ridge Road (northwest corner
of the C-16 Canal and the Seaboard
Airline Railway)
Request for site plan approval to
allow for the construction of a new
parking lot and a two story, 34,678
square foot assembly building and
modifications to the existing parking
lot
Ms. Heyden made the presentation. She stated one driveway
exists, and another is proposed to be added on the north
side of the new building. Colored elevations were submitted.
The building will be bone white. The roof, doors, and
window frames will be dark bronze, and the signage will be
blue. Ms. Heyden called attention to Memo No. 90-351 from
City Manager Miller. which s!tated:
"As discussed on December 6, 1990 in the morning,
reference the proposed development located at the
southeast end of High Ridge Road (in Quantum Park)
being engineered by Robert Fetrow, P.E., we agreed
that the concrete barrier island between the
northern driveway access and the loading dock area
could be removed, but Subject to the condition that
the dock area be distinchly designated (i.e. heavily
striped/marked). Therefore, this development need
not proceed for a variance for three (3) driveway
accesses to the property.'
The TRB Board recommended approval of the request, subject
to the comments attached to the original copy of these minu-
tes in the Office of the City Clerk as Addenda E through G
inclusive, to the above comments, and to the following
comments:
Utilities Department
Double check valve assembly will be required on the
fire service line.
Work to be in accordance with City of Boynton Beach
details and criteria sheets.
12
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 8, 1991
3. Gate valves resilient seat, AWWA C509.
4. Add gate valve within right-of-way.
5. Relocatin of hydrant now desired.
6. Provide details of fire protection system."
Police Department
"1o With regard to this project, it is my opinion that the
truck dock is a third driveway. As such, a separate
stop sign and stop line are required at the sidewalk.
2. Parking lot lighting that will be present for what will
remain of the existing parking lot is not shown.
3. Additionally, exterior lighting for the new building is
not shown.
4. This project will need to adhere to the City Construc-
tion Security Ordinance 95-8G."
Public Works
"Driveway turn in for dumps~er must be widened.
gates on dumpster enclosure and use high hedge
dumpster enclosure."
Eliminate
to West of
Forester/Environmentalist
"The applicant should revise the plant legend to depict:
a. Identification letters differentiating existing trees/
landscape plants to remain and newly planted materials.
b. Height and specification of newly installed vegetation.
c. 50% native trees and 50% native shrubs required for
newly planted materials."
Mr. Finizio clarified that the third driveway was considered
a driveway, based upon the original layout. Robert E.
Fetrow, P. E., Gator Engineering Services, Inc., 200 Knutb
Road, Suite 214, Boynton Beach, FL 33436, had met with
with City Manager Miller and Mr. Finizio and had agreed to
revise that portion of the pavement so that it would not be
a third driveway. Therefore, a variance would not be needed.
Chairman Rosenstock inquired whether both the Planning
Department and the EngineerIng Department recommended
approval of the project. Mr. Finizio replied the project is
devoid of many required submittals of plans relative to
drainage, drainage calculations, and parking lot facility
lighting.
There were questions by Chairman Rosenstock regarding the
elevations, lighting and drainage. Mr. Fetrow explained the
13
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 8, 1991
drainage problem could be worked out. It was just a matter
of relocating catch basins to swale areas. By eliminating
the second driveway, they were able to eliminate one of the
catch basins. There was discussion by Mr. Fin~zio and Mr.
Cutro as to whether the lighting plan was in the submittal
package~ It was not in Mr. Finizio's backup. Mr. Cutro
emphasized that the lighting plan and drainage plans were in
the package when the package was submitted. He was not
indicating that those plans met the Code, but they were sub-
mitted. Chairman Rosenstock stated it would make it much
easier if someone on the City staff would advise every devel-
oper to comply with the City Code. He expounded on how
developers want everything done expeditiously and their
plans ~pproved righ~ away because large amounts of money are
involved, but they do.not want to comply with the Code.
Discussion ensued about the plans.
Mr. Fetrow read the first comment from the Building ~epart-
ment, which was that they should provide a copy of the
South Florida Wate~ Management District (SFWMD) permit with
the final sign-off plans. (See Addendum E.) If possible,
Mr. Fetrow wanted to get this with the building permit. Mr.
Cutro replied he would still h~ve to meet Cods for tbs
drainage. Mr. Staudi~ger wanted Mr. Fetrow to understand
that even though h~ g~ts an exemption from SFWMD, he would
still ~ave to meet their criteria. The City of Boynton
Beach enforces that criteria, as opposed to the SPWMD.
Mr. Fetrow advised they are going to use a trash compactor
instead of a dumps~er; at the same location. He a~reed to
all o~ the Other comments and added most of them have been
taken care 0f. After discussion about the broken slide
projector and plans, Mr. Fetrow further agreed to comply with
the co~ment~ made this evening.
Motion
Mr. Richter moved to approve the request, including the
trash compactor, subject to staff comments. Mr. Aguila
seconded the motion.
Chairman Rosenstock asked what product Curt G. Joa makes.
Mr. Fetrow answered that they make automated machinery that
makes dress shields for women's garments.
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JANUARY 8, 1991
OTHER
A. DISCUSSION
1o Proposed amendment to Zoning
of nonconforming uses
Code to allow
expansion
Mr. Cutro referred to the Joint Meeting of the Community
Redevelopment Advisory Board (CRAB) and the City Commission.
At the present time, the City Code does not allow for the
expansion of nonconforming structures other than for a use.
Mr. Cutro wanted direction from the Board Members as to
where to put limits on this and what kind of things they
want to see.
Mr. Cutro was proposing that they reorganize the nonconform-
ing uses and structures in the following manner:
1. Purpose and intent.
2. Identi~y nonconforming uses to be covered by Code.
3. Address maintenance and repairs of nonconforming uses
structures.
and
With the expansIon of a nonconforming use, Mr. Cutro asked
what they will allow to be reviewed under the Ordinance.
He said a site plan will be required for any expansion of a
nonconforming use. Mr. Cutro explained why this is
necessary.
At the present time, if you have less than $100,000 worth of
improvements, the modification is approved at an administra-
tive TnB meeting. Mr. Cutro did not think they would be
looking at expansions or reconfigurations of nonconforming
buildings that would be over $100,000, so he wanted direc-
tion on whether or not to hold a public hearing. His
second question was whether the hearing should be held
before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, the City
Commission, or whether a separate Board should be set up to
do this.
Mr. Cutro read the criteria approvals have been based on
and stated he felt the Members would have to look at each
site on an individual basis. After explaining, he stated
this could be done, as it has been done successfully
elsewhere. The TRB had suggested they may want to look at
requiring an impact fee, especially in the downtown area.
Instead of requiring people to put landscaping on their site
and cut down the use of their site in the parking, Mr. Cutro
said they may want to work out an impact fee that would help
offset the cost of providing public parking on the street as
well as public landscaping improvements. He told how this
- 15
MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JANUARY 8, 1991
could be figured out and said about 200 spaces could be
generated on streets in the downtown area. Mr. Cutro stated
the City would figure out a linear footage basis, based on
each site. The linear footage would be transferred into an
impact fee. The cost per linear foot will probably be a
nominal fee. They must also determine when that should
"kick in". Mr. Cutro explained.
Mr. Aguila thought that was an interesting approach, but if
one developer wanted to do something to his site downtown
and the dollar amount did not ~mount to a lot, he was con-
cerned about what the City would do in the meantime until
there are two or three developers. Mr. Cutro answered the
City would probably set up a t~ust fund and schedule out
improvements. He expounded about parking.
Chairman Rosenstock thought the fee should be more than
nominal. When the City has money, it can go ahead with the
project and use the trust fund to pay the City back.
Attorney Trehy interjected there would probably be legal
pr~olems with some of the recommendations being voiced. She
volunteered to work with the Planning Department, and she
elaborated.
Chairman Rosenstock referred to people with zero lot lines,
who are locked in, when there are other places in the City
where their expansion would not be affected, shrubbery could
be put in, and the street could look better. He wanted to
make sure some thought is given to demanding some beautifi-
cation from the person that changes the property. Mr. Cutro
responded there should be discussion as to whether this
should be City wide or only in the redevelopment areas.
~nen properties are developed, Chairman Rosenstock said the
question arises as to who should decide whether the property
owner should be allowed to go ahead with his project. He
brought up the fact that it is stated in the State Statutes
that the P&Z Board has jurisdiction over all land use regu-
lations and planning. Attorney Trehy advised the Compre-
hensive Plan and Land Use Plan Amendments have to go through
the Land Us~ Planning Agency. The City Commission has
stated in its Ordinance that the P&Z Board serves that
function.
Mr. Richtsr reminded the Members that regardless oi the City
Code, the underlying document is the Comprehensive Plan. He
felt the City needed what was being suggested for peoDle who
have been here for years. The City Code and Ordinances and
- 16 -
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JANUARY 8, 1991
the Comprehensive Plan have been updated, but a lot of
people cannot touch their buildings because of the Code.
Mr. Richter suggested that the Planning Department put
together some ideas in draft form so everyone can look at
them and comment in a workshop meeting.
Mr. Cutro wanted to bring it back to the Board as the next
meeting to see if they could do this without a workshop.
Be said the Ordinance would be straightforward. Because of
the lateness of the hour and since there were other items
he wished to bring before the Board, he asked that this be
continued. If it cannot be done at the next meeting,
Mr. Cutro said he would like to set an immediate work~nop,
hopefully, a couple of days later. The Members agreed to
this. Chairman Rosenstock asked Mr. Cutro to be sure he has
the approval of the City Attorney's Office.
Attorney Trehy stated that the Ordinance which will be
drafted commencing tomorrow is the nonconforming use
Ordinance. A separate Ordinance would be required for
impact fees. Mr. Cutro requested that Attorney Trehy get
with him to discuss the impact fee. He explained what has
to be done with reference to impact fees.
In drafting the Ordinances, Mr. Collins hoped they would
take into consideration streamlining the processes one has
to go through to meet the necessary requirements. Mr. Cutro
said they will look at all o~ the applications and see if
there are ways to streamline them. They will look more
carefully at the Ordinances to make sure the procedure that
is presently being followed is what is spelled out in the
Ordinance. After further commenting, Mr. Cutro said he
wants to tie the procedure and the Code together, streamline
the application so it will be easier to fill out, and
develop a handbook that will show the people the process
itself. He explained that part of the problem is that
people get into the process, and they are not sure what is
happening because the application does not indicate how the
process is laid out.
Mr. Finizio apprised the Members that City Manager Miller
authorized him to do a study on the downtown parking
problems in order to provide additional parking. A number
of issues relative to impact fees and how a schedule of fees
could be fairly divided have been discussed. Mr. Finizio
gave an example of how the fees should be divided to be
fair.
17 -
MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACh, FLORIDA
JANUARY 8, 1991
Mr. Cutro wanted to add a condition. He referred to uses
the City does not want :expanded. Mr. Cutro called attention
to a gas company in the downtown area and said it is not a
use that would be compatible with the future downtown plans.
He stated he would try to create a condition that says
expansion of the use has to be at least compatible with
the downtown plans. Mr. Cutro needed direction from the
Board. He stated he scheduled this for a commentary review
before the City Commission. Mr. Cutro hoped to write an
Ordinance that would follow the direction of both the P&Z
Board and the City Commission. At the next meeting, he
will bring the Ordinance to the Board. ~e hoped, at that
time, they would be able to make a recommendation on it to
the City COmmission.
2. Current Zonlng Code distance separation from gasoline
service stations
Mr. Cutro informed the Members that letters had been received
by the City from Lennar Homes; Raymond Royce, Attorney at
Law, Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan & ~yland, Palm Beach
Gardens, FL, and Kieran Kilday, Kilday & Associates, Land-
scape Architects/Planners, West Palm Beach, FL, asking that
this be reviewed. The Code spells out that there should be
a separation of 1,000 feet from the edge of the property to
the edge of the property between gas stations. Mr. Cutro
compared the type of gas stations that existed when he was
growing up to the gas stations of today and said most of the
uses now are not based on location factors that try to meet
a community need. They are based on traffic. Mr. Cutro
gave examples.
Mr. Cutro said the City contacted other cities, and he
called attention to a chart showing their requirements. A
lot of cities that were contacted did not have any require-
ments. Most of the standards were less than 1~000 feet,
which is presently required by the City. Mr. Cutro tried to
get a field sense from the TRB as to what the distances
should be. Two numbers came up: 1,350 feet (an average
design length for a block, which TRB Members felt was
adequate to address safety. The other was 750, which was
~avored because it came closer to reflecting what the mini-
mum distance separation between median cuts Should be. The
theory was that if you make the distance a little bit longer
than what the median requirement is, you go to the next
available median cut. The Building Department did not feel
any distance requirement should be imposed and that it
should be reduced to zero.
18 -
MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 8, 1991
The Planning Department felt the Ordinance should be
rewritten to address three different types of uses: gas
stations, convenience stores that sell gas, and convenience
stores. It was felt these should be separated because all
of them are traffic driven. Mr. Cutro leaned towards
reducing the requirement to 750 feet for the following
reasons:
Many of the other cities on the chart had 750 feet.
Legally, if you can rely on the other cities or other
standards that are similar or about the same, it is the
best defense. No one had 1,000 feet. One city had more
than 1,000, but it allowed three within 5,500 feet.
2. The 750 feet went back to the median cut theory.
Mr. Cutro asked for direction. He wondered whether the
Board wished to expand or reduce the distance requirement.
He said the City is now going back to the cities that have
distance separations to try and find 9ut how they set their
numbers. The City is also asking other cities for copies of
their Code. Chairman Rosenstock inquired whether Mr. Cutro
would come back to the P&Z Board before going to the City
Commission. Mr. Cutro answered that he would be back before
the Board again.
Mr. Richter commented that the present Ordinance has
already given nonconforming uses within the City. He gave
examples and asked what would happen if there is a change
or expansion of the property. Mr. Cutro replied they would
have to look at the individual circumstances. They would
all have to be treated the same. At this point and time,
Mr. Cutro was not trying to correct nonconforming situations.
His intention was to deal with whether the 1,000 feet
properly addressed what needed to be addressed. Mr. Cutro
referred to what happened in Hollywood and uses being
located close to each other.
Chairman Rosenstock questioned how the Building Department
had the "unmitigated gall" to say zero feet. Mr. Cutro
answered he just asked for an opinion, and he did not think
it was anything more than that. He reiterated that he
thought there should be a separation. Chairman Rosenstock
commented about investigations he did with reference to
tanks in gas stations, how they are regulated, accidents,
convenience stores and gas stations. He did not want to
see Boynton Beach look like Hollywood with convenience
stores on every corner or in the middle of every block.
- 19 -
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 8, 1991
Mr. Ag uila asked whether the Ordinance that deals with
distance is an Ordinance specifically for gas stations. If
so, he wondered whether there was anything else about the
Ordinance Mr. Cutro was considering modifying. Mr. Cutro
replied the modifications were toward what should be
separated. The Ordinance presently only separates gas
stations, and there is a definition of gas stations they
have to follow. It does not separate convenience stores, and
it does not separate a convenience store that sells gas from
a gas station. Mr. Cutro did not know of anything that
would p~event a person from coming in and locating a
convenience store that sells gas right next to an existing
service station. He believed the interpretation would be
they could not because they both sell gas, but he felt that
±nterpr~tation would be on very thin ice. Mr. Aguila
thought,they should be separated by 750 feet, but he felt
the~e s~ou~d be de, ink,ions. Discussion ensued about
the terminology and definitions. Mr. Richter suggested
that th~ terminology be cha~ged to "retail fuel sales."
Mr. Cutro recommended that the separation be for those three
uses and any combination: Convenience store, convenience
store and gas station, convenience store and service station,
gas store and service station, etc. Chairman Rosenstock
questioned whether the City could legally do this. Attorney
Trehy wanted to look at it further. She reminded the
Members that the biggest concern was traffic and said that
should be their focus.
Chairman Rosenstock wanted to take a roll call vote on what
the Members thought the distance should be. Mr. Finizio
advised that at the TRB meeting, five departments commented.
Four other departments had no concerns about providing a
distance. The Engineering Department concurred with the
Fi~e Department, that the distance should be approximately
one City block. Mr. Finizio received a notation from the
City Manager that ~is comment and recommendation could not
be enforced until a study, an analysis, and justification
could be provided to uphold his personal recommendation. No
one else was g~ven that notation, so he withdrew his
recommendation for 1,350 feet and stated he would not be put
at risk. Mr. Finizio w~shed this to be reflected in the
public records. He also wanted the Engineering Department's
statement deleted not only from this agenda but also from
the City Commission's agenda package.
Char. les W. ~De Santi, Lennar Homes, 700 N. W. 107th Avenue,
Miami, FL 33172, informed Chairman Rosenstock they are the
20 -
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 8, 1991
distributor of sites to the distributor of gasoline. With
Mr. De Santi was Julian Bryan, a Consultant/Planner,
3191 Leewood Terrace, Boca Raton, FL, who does a great deal
of work for Lennar Homes. Six or eight months ago,
Mr. De Santi had requested that a review or reconsideration
of the present 1,000 foot standard be developed and brought
to the P&Z Board for consideration and ultimately to the
City Commission.
Mr. Bryan wanted to analyze additional cities beyond what
the City Staff had analyzed. They tried to take a number of
cities that were closer in terms of population and character
of population, i.e. age. They also tried to take cities
such as Tamarac, Coral Gables, and Plantation that they
thought were more forward thinking in their land use legis-
lation, regulations, and policies about growth control. Most
of those cities did not have a minimum separation require-
ment, but most of them had a requirement that a gas station
come through as either a special exception or a special use
permit. That gave it an extra opportunity to be reviewed by
the governing bodies of that municipality. Mr. Bryan felt
that was an important point, a~d after explaining, he pointed
out that each 'site can be visited on an individual basis.
Mr. Bryan thought it was interesting that a couple of the
cities had criteria for separation. Even though Coconut
Creek has a minimum separation of zero, it has to have a 400
foot separation betwee~ drives on an arterial roadway. It
further stated that only locations acceptable for gas sta-
tions are on those arterial roadways. The arterial roadways
were as defined in their adopted thorough:fare plan.
Mr. Bryan said the Members could quickl~ identify transporta-
tion corridors. He referred t~ Mr~ ~Cut~o's comment about
sites being generally along th~ more heavlily travelled
arteries. Mr.: Bryan Stated th~ Board cDuld then keep them
out of neighborhoods, which he felt was an extremely
important consideration.
Pembroke Pines requires that gas stations may only locate on
corner lots. Mr. Bryan commented that made a great deal of
sense because traffic is moving in two directions.
Contrary to everybody,s thinking that gas stations generate
traffic, he said they largely do not generate traffic.
People who buy gas are likely on their way from point A to
point B, and the purchase of gas Occurs during that trip.
Gas stations do not create traffic on a thoroughfare. They
create a situation of congestion at intersections by virtue
of the curb cuts being too close to the intersections, etc.
21 -
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JAiqUARY 8, 1991
Mr. Bryan displayed a graphic of the intersection of
Congress Avenue (north and south with a 120 foot right-of-
way) and ~ypoluxo Road (east and west with a 108 foot riaht-
of-way). He referred to the Farm Store gas station and said
this site would be in the southeast quadrant of the inter-
section. The median spacing between the median cuts from
the existimg intersection to the existing street is 660 feet,
and that is the Department of Transportation's (DOT's)
standard at the present time. Mr. Bryan offered to provide
the City Staff With a memorandum from the Deputy Design
Engineer from the 4th District in Fort Lauderdale, dated in
1986, that set those minimum separations for medians. The
660 feet was from center line to center line and not from
parcel to parcel.
If that was the 660 spacing, Mr. Bryan stated ideally, it
would access into the middle of the site, if the scale of
the sites is one acre, 200 foot square parcels. Using the
City's language and the language in a few other cities that
have a minimum separation, they say it is as the profile.
If that is 660, then Mr. Bryan said the distance between the
parcels themselves would be somewhat less. He estimated
where the middle of the tract would be and said it would be
460 feet apart. Mr. Bryan suggested maybe something on the
order of 460 feet might be one that would have some tech-
nical basis because it has the spacing already set out by
the DOT, and it deals with traffic considerations. It
would allow at least the opportunity of both the east and
westbound or north and southbound, as the case may be, to
access the parcel. If it does not allow this to occur at
the median cut, John Doe will be in next week wanting to
put one on the other side to catch the traffic going in the
other direction. This way that argument could be negated.
Mr. Bryan thought gas stations needed to be put at the
corners of two public dedicated streets. They probably need
to be public dedicated streets that are of some hierarchy.
The overriding factors would be the health, safety and
welfare of the community. The streetscape would also be a
factor. Coral Springs allows them anywhere but has extensive
landscape requirements. Mr. B~yan elaborated and said that
was another way to approach it.
Mr. Bryan offered his support and any technical assistance
or research they might provide the Board with. If the Board
wanted to continue to study this through the City Staff or
a committee type forum, they would be pleased to be involved
in that. Mr. Bryan suggested they now have 20 cities,
22 -
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD ~IEETING
BOYNTON BEACI~, FLORIDA
JANUARY 8, 1991
including two counties, and they could see what the cities
and counties said, in terms of historical information. Se
thonght they had two very significant pieces of information:
[1~ the intersection situation, and [2] that they should be
spaced at the median cut.
Mr. Richter asked whether 660 feet was documented as
standard. Mr. Bryan answered affirmatively. Se added that
he had the document, and it can be as little as 400 if the
design speed of the street is 35 or miles an hour versus 45
or 50 m.p.h. Mr. Bryan was trying to use the larger number
because he felt very strongly this belongs on major
thoroughfares. Mr. Richter felt the City woul~ probably
stay out of trouble if it used a standard that has already
been e~stablished. It also seemed to be a reasonable separa-
tion. Mr. Richter said they also have to keep in mind the
growth of the City and the growth of the roadway. At a
future date, ~f they have to add more lanes through impact
fees or otherwiset they should use the higher numbers.
Mr. Bryan agreed with that.
Chairman Rosenstock commented that DOT's concerns are
strictly traffic and the {low of traffic. Se thought the
P&Z Board and the City Commission should take other points
into consideration, such as how many gas stations the City
has, whether the City wants more, etc. Chairman Rosenstock
alluded to whether there would be a problem regarding
safety. He thought they should look into the reasons behind
DOT's distance regulations. Mr. Richter pointed out that
DOT also has to be concerned with health, safety and welfare.
Mr. Cutro felt Mr. Bryan raised a number of very good
points. He was intrigued by the arterial corners and stated
that would automatically force separations because arterials
are generally located some distance from each other.
Usually, there is a prescribed distance DOT has come up
with. The real question is when you start separating them
along the arterial. Since Boynton Beach is fairly compact,
it may be easy to look at the impact quickly.
Mr. Bryan informed Chairman Rosenstock his background has
been in architecture and civil engineering. Chairman
Rosenstock wondered why gas stations have not been placed in
shopping centers. Mr. Bryan told of Raleigh. N. C. requiring
that they be in shopping centers with a minimum acreage.
They further required that they no~ have direct access onto
the arterials but have access only from within the develop-
ment. It was a fantastic idea until the first gas truck
- 23 -
MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JANUARY 8, 1991
pulled in. It was a tractor trailer truck, and it ran over
the median. They quickly changed the regulation to allow
access onto the arterial.
Mr. De Santi thought they were trying to put their hands on
one fixed number and use that as the rule for Boynton Beach.
From the analysis Mr. Bryan did, he believed they found the
distance separation was not the panacea to the problem.
It was a ~eview of the individual requests, or requiring
that every gas station be a special exception or conditional
use, whichever will fit within the City's Code. Mr. De Santi
elaborated.
Mr. Cutro informed the Members he would take this to the
City Commission for a sense of direction from them.
Chairman Rosenstock requested that Mr. Cutro ask the City
Commission for a sense of direction and not a vote.
3. Monthly Packages Received by Members
Mr. Cutro stated that next month, the Members will be getting
large packages because they will include drawings. Mr.
Aguila wanted to make sure they will be seeing site plans,
floor plans, elevations, and landscape plans. Mr. Cutro
hoped they could come with the floor plans. Discussion
ensued about plans. Mr. Cutro requested that the Board
allow him to use his judgment. Mr. Aguila said the Members
do not want to see a copy of the warranty deed, contracts,
etc. There was further discussion.
4. Time of Meetings to Change in March, 1991
Mr. Cutro asked the Members to consider changing the time of
their monthly meetings from 7:30 P. M. to 7:00 P. M. The
Members were in favor of meeting at 7:00 P. M. beginnIng
with the March meeting.
5. Housing
Wilda Searcy referred to vacant ground north of the C-16
canal, and she wanted the Board to look into having housing
on the north side. Chairman Rosenstock informed her it was
not within the Board's province.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting properly adjourned at 10:00 P. M.
TO:
THRU %~
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Zon!ng Board
Planninq Dlrector
Ta~bri J. Heyden
ASSlstan5 Clty Planner
January 2. 1991
The Hair Garden - File NO. 565
Conditional Use (beauty salon
r~questlng conditional use approval to lease 450 square feet of
an exls51ng office/retail building Eo establish a beauty salon
The parcel, zoned C-l, Office Professional Commercial, is located
at 1100 South Federal Highway the northeast corner of South
Federal Highway and Castilla Lane. Last month the City
permitted beauty s~lons in the C-1 zoning district, subject Eo
conditional use approval.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning fsee attached maul: Abutting
t~e sub]ac= pCrcel ~o the north is a small office building, zoned
C-1. TO the eas~ across S.E 6th StreeE, are slngte family homes
zoned R1AA. TO th~ south, zoned C-I, is a bank, TO the wes~
across Federal Highway, zoned C-3, Community Commercial. are a
restaurant, a vacant lot and a gasoline service station.
Standards for Evaluating Conditional Uses: Section ll.2.D of
the Zoning Code conEalns the following standards 50 which
conditional uses are required uo =onfor~. Following each of
these standards is the Planning Department's evaluation of the
application as to whether LE would comply with the particular
standard·
The Planning and zoning Board and City Commlssion shall consider
o~ly smch conditional uses as are authorized under the Eerms of
these zoning regulations, and, in connection therewith, may gran~
conditional uses absolutely or conditioned upon the faithful
adherence to and Df fulfillment of such restrlctlons and
conditions includinq, but not limited to, the dedication of
proper~y for s~ree~s, alleys, and recreation space, and
sidewalks, ~s shall be necessary for the proLec5lon ~f the
surrounding area and the citizens' general welfare, or deny
conditional uses when not in harmony with the intenE and purpose
of this section. In evaluating an application for conditional
use, the Board and Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed use on the general health, safety, and w~lfare of the
community, and make written findings certifying that saulsfactcry
provision has been made concerning the following standards, where
applicable:
I. Ingress and egress ~o the subject proper~y a~d proposed
structures thereon, with particular reference ~o auEomobile
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow ~nd
conEroi, and access ~n case of Fire or casassrophe.
One driveway exists onto Federal Hi ~hway which provides the main
ingress uo the site. Another driveway exists uo the rear of the
building and connects the front parking area ro ~ rear parking
area. This driveway, which functions as an egress drive, axils
onno S.E. 6th Streen. a local s~reet runnlng along the rear or
eas~ Droper=y boundary of the site. It is recommended that this
driveway be marked with signs and pavement arrows to discourage
use of the driveway as an ingress point 5o the front of the
building. This traffic-control recommendation will encourage
Page 1 of
PM NO. 91-003
Junuary 3, 1991
conulnued safe and convenlen~ flow of vehicles, pedestrians and
emergency vehicles within the slse. Adequate pe~estrla~
connecslons also exisf which link the front and rear parnlng
areas to tke building entrances via an arcade.
Off-streeT parking and loading areas where required, with
p-articular attention ko th~ l~ems ~n subsection D.1 above.
and the economic, glare~ noise and odor effects the
conditional use would have on ad]acenE ~nd nearby
properties, and the City as a whole
Sufficient parking is available =o serve office retail uses
within the building which currently ~s leased ko 5wo architects.
a tra~et agency and a realtor. The fron~ parking area ~s
comprised of parallel and angled parking spaces and the rear
parking area is comprised of 90° parking which b~cKs ou5 into
S.E. 6th Streee. The Engineering Department is recommending that
both parking areas be restriped since parking space delineations
have faded.
Based on the dete~uinatlon from the Building Department that the
beauty salon use is hoe an intensified use of the exls~ln~
building, the parking and landscaping are not required uo meeE
curren= standards. However, despite the fact that the ma~n
driveway off of Federal Hlghway and front parking ~rea ~hich 1~
serves, would only allow one-way flow by today's standards, the
Police Department records indicate that the two-way flow
exhibited by this driveway and parking area has functioned
without any significant problems since 1960. This is most likely
attributable Eo tbs low traffic volumes wkich are generated by
the existing uses previously menEloned. Therefore. due to the
small area proposed for t~e beauty salon, it is anElclpated that
the currenE 5raffic volumes exhibited aE this site will ~o~ be
impacted by this use. Also, this use will not have any negaslve
effecEs on adjacent and nearby properties or the City, since
commercial uses are already established in this vicinity.
Refuse and servlce areas, with particular reference 5o the
items in subsection D.1 and D.2 above.
Utilities. with reference ~o location, availability~ and
compatibility.
The existing utilities are adequate Eo serve the proposed use.
Screening, buffering and landscapmng with reference 5o type,
dimensions and character.
AS previously mentioned, the eXlSEl~g landscaping is hOE required
~o meet currenu standards However, the landscaping which-exists
substantially complies with the landscape code. Therefore, no
~dditional screening or buffering is recommended.--
Signs and proposed exterior lighting, with reference ~o
glare traffic safety, economic effecu and compatibility and
harmony with adjacent and nearby properties.
No changes are proposed to the existing signage and lighting
since they do no= 3eopardize traffic safety or negatively affect
the adjacen5 and nearby proper=les which have a similar land use.
7 Required setbacks and other open spaces.
No exterior changes or additions are proposed which require
compliance with currenE setback requirements despite the fact
that the ex~s=~ng setbacks are substandard.
Page 2 of ADDENDLIM A
8. General compatibility with adjacen~ propers!es, and other
properties mn the zoning district
As previously discussed, the surrounding land uses include more
intensive commerzial uses 5o the west than the proposed beauty
salon, and similar commercial uses to the north and south, since
the proposed use will occupy a very small '450 square feet
por~mon oi an existing office/retail building 5nd is no5 new
construction. 1m LS hOE considered ~o be mncompatlble with the
r~sidentiat uses co the east.
9. Height of buildings and s=rucmures, with reference 5¢
compatibility ~nd harmony with adjacenm and nearby
properties and the City as a whole.
The building height is one smory which is compatible with the
surrounding buildings.
10. Economic effects on adjacen5 propermles and the City as a
whole
For reasons already stated, it is nou anmlclpated that the
proposed beauty salon will have an adverse ~mpacu on proper~y
values zn the vicinity, or the City as a whole.
comorehensive Plan Policies: This request, subjecE Lo the
~Eached staff commenms, ls conslssent with ~11 relevaI~t policies
contained within the 1989 Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusion/Recommendation:
The Planning Department recommends that this request for
conditional use approval be approved, subjecu 5o the attached
staff comments. This recommendeElon is based on the fact that
the proposed beauty salon will not exacerbate eXlSElng conditions
on the site or adjacen= properties, nor creaue any additional
negaElve impacms on an area which ls stable and has been
developed for low intensity commercial uses for an exEenslve
period of Elme.
_Tambri J. He~e~ ~
tjh
Attachments
A:HairGard
xc: Central File
Page 3 of ADDENDIlVl A
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
PL~/QqqING DEPARTMEN~EMORANDUM NO. 91-00t
Chairman and Members
Planning and Zoning Board
~ cutro. A.I.C.P.
Planning Director
~Tambri J. Heyden
Assistant city Planner
DATE: January 2, 1991
SUBJECT: Abita sprlngs Water Co.. Inc.
Parking lot variances for tiqhting and drainage
Section 5~145(c)('4) of the code of Ordinances requires that when
a variance Eo Secti~ 5. Article X, Parking Lots is requested.
the Technical Review Board must forward Lo the Planning and
Zoning Board a rs~ommendation, and that the recommendation
forwarded is to be mede part of the public hearing proceedings.
To that end, this memorandum is forwarded, consistent with
5-145 c~14),
Efram Pesyna, agent for Abita Sprlngs Water Co.. Inc.. is
req~esElnG a varlance to Sections 5-142(a) "Lighting" and
5-142~f) "Drainage". Abits Sprlngs WaEer Co.. Inc. a
manufacturer o~ bottled water, recently received administrative
slte plan approval to modify an exmstlnN zndustrial buitdlnq
located at 3030 S.W. 13th Place, which required the parking lot
and landscaping ~o meeE current s=andards.
Section 5-142(a) requires that parking lot lighting shall be
designed ~o meet the levels-of illumination and luminalre types
as specified in the city standards. (a~opted by resolution by the
City Commission; 5o provide a safe environment. Specifically,
the applicant is requesting relief from having to install
pole-mounted lighting necessary 5o supplemen= existing
building-mounted fixtures which do uot meet the minimum, average
illumination level required of one footcandle per square foot of
paved area~ The applicant lS ~equesul~g to retain the
buildinq-momnted fixtures by-replacing the existing lamps with
higher intensity ones.
Section 5-14E(f) requires that storm water be contained on-site
and that drainage structures hav~ a storage cap~clty of a minimum
of 2.5 inches of rainfall in one hour and comply with City
standards. City standards require that catch basins be located
· n grassy swales ~o provide for pretreatment of storm water. The
applicant is requesting uo retain the existing drainage syste~
which has catch Dasins located in paved areas, providing minimal
pretreatmenE. For an explanation of the code requirements, the
nature of the variances requested and the variance justification,
please refer ~o the a=tached Notice of Public Hearing and
application.
on Thursday, December 20, 1990, the Technical Review Board (TRBI
men to review the plans and documents submitted and--to formulate
a recommendation with regard no the varzances requested. After
review and discussion, the TRB recommended that the request for a
lighting variance be denied until additional information was
submitted regarding the type of fixture and lamp type and size.
which has not ye5 been receiPed. However, after visiting the
site, the Police DeparEmenn prepared the attached memorandum
which report~ that they find the existing building-mounted system
unacceptable. This is due Eo the nature of the fixtures which
shine out from the building making it difficult for officers to
patrol and see into the site from the street. Intensifying the
lamp size would exacerbate this condi$ion.
With respect to the drainage variance, the TRB recommended
approval of the existing system sublecr to the applicant
Page 1 of ADDEND_II~ B
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMOPJ%NDUM NO. 91-001
TO: Chairman and Members, Planning and Zoning Board
SUBJ: Abita Springs Water Co., Inc. - Parking Lot Variance
DATE: January 2, 1991
installing gutters to discharge roof drainage ln~o the pervious
area to the rear (south) of the building and constructing swales
from all other pervious, grassed areas, including the public
right-of-way. These measures will aid in partial presreatment
and help 5o improve ssorm wa~er quality.
Tambri J ~yden ~.
tjh
Attachments
A:AbitaPL~
xc: Central File
-2-
Page 2 -Of ADDENDII~ B
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-310CC
December 21,
1990
TO: -Christopher Cutro
Director of Planning
FROM: Vincent A. Finizio
Administrative Coordinator
RE: TECHNICAL ~I~ BO~ CO~S
~ITA SPRINGS WATER CO~
P~NG ~T V~CES
D~INAGE
SITE LIGHTING
The Engineering Department herein submits this memorandum as a replacement for
Engineering Department memorandum'90-302CC, dated December 14, 1990, relative
to the abo~e-referenced parking lot variance requests.
During our most recent Technical Review Board meeting, the applicant, in
conjunction with the Technical Review Board has agreed to ~rovide a suitable
amoun~ of roof drains which shall discharge to a fully sodded and irrigated
storm water retention area to be constructed immediately south of the structure.
The storm water retention area shall be designed by an Engineer, r~gistered
within the State of Florida and shall include measures to swale'all on-site
grassed areas, including the development of fully sodded and irrigated swales
within the roadway rights-of-way.
The applicant shall modify the existing site lighting which is mounted on the
face of the building to an activation system comprised of a photo-metric cell.
The Engineering Department in conjunction with the Police Department agreed
during our most recent Technical Review Board .meeting to visit the site with
the Engineering Department's calibrated light level indicator in order ~o
determine illumination levels within the above referenced par.king facility.
The applicant during the meeting has agreed to modify the lighting system in
accordance with our findings. Should the light level readings fall below that
which is required by the Code of Ordinances, the applicant agrees to place a
sufficient amount of perimeter post mounted lights to insure compliance with
our codes.
As this agreemen~ would'be in conflict with the intent of a variance request,
the applicant should be contacted by.your office to determine whether or not
they which to withdraw the variance request for Section 5-142(a), "Required
Lighting".
Note: %he applicant has not yet complied with all stafC comments provided within
Engineering Department TRB memorandum, dated October 26, 1990.
Vincent ~. Finizio ~ ~
VAF/ck ADD~qDLI~C
,FORM 8B MEMO; ANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
'COUNTY, UNICIPA , AND LO'CA PUBLIC OFFICE,S ]
I
COUN'rY
D.a, TE ON WHICh vorE OCCURRED
FHE BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected b6ard,
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting-conflict of interest, under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although
the use of this particular form isnot required by law, you are encouraged.to use it in making the disclosure required by law.
Your responsibilities under the. law ~when.~,~ ~, .... faced, with., .~.~.a~ :measure. in~ ..... .~s'~hich~ you~ .have. a conflict.~ .... of interest, wi. II v,.ary.greatly tie' pending
on whether ~,ou hold an elective or appointive positron. F~S~' th~s reason; ~please p~ay close attentton to th~ in~trdc~ions on'this form
before completing the reverse sid~ and filing the form.
INSTRUOTi~N~ FOR 'COMPLIANCE WIfHSECTION '1~i.3143,~ FLORIDA STATUTEs. ·
_ ECTED OFFICERS:
A person hoIding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures'to the special
gain of a pnncipal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in .the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person hold ng appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a government ageucy) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appointiv¢ local office otherwise ma)' participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must
disclose the natur~ 01~the con'flict befc~re making an)' attempt to influence the decision by.osal or. written communication, whether
made by the'officer'or at hi~ dir4ction. ~' '
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
T,~ ' ~ VOTE WILL BE !tAKEN:
" u should complete and file this form/before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for
~ording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
· A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
· The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest.
1F YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
* You show d disclose orally t, ~atare o[ your conflict in the measure-before part ¢ patmg.~ '. .... ' '
· You should'complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the nerson responsible for recording the min~
of the meeting, who should ~ncorporate the form ~n the minutes. - , · ~ \ ?' - ~ , , ?5~.,,, .... ,. , ' !
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
~/"/SZ"'/' , hereby disclose that on
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
./~ inured to my special private gain; or ·:
inured to the special gain of
· by whom Fam retained.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest
"r'- z. -/-/de
in the measure is as follows:
/ THE
Date Filed
Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §t12.317'(1985), A.FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRI~15
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
CE FORM 8B - 10-86 PAGE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
MEMOPJ%NDUM NO. 90-514
November 26, 19,90
TO: Chrls%~bpher cutro, Planning EirecTor
THRU: Don Jaeger, Building & Zoning DirecTor/~/--
FRQM: Michael E. BaaS, Zoning & sxTe Development AdminIstraTor
RS: TRB Comments - November 26, 1990 Meeting
Upon review of the above mentioned project, the following list of commen~s
must be addressed in order to conform with.Boy--ton Beach City codes:
1. pr-~vlde a copy of the South Florida Water Management District petit
with the final Slgn-of~ plans.
2. speclfy on sheet C l'of 6 that the handicapped parking sign is m6unted
seven feet ~rom grade to the bo5Tom oi the sign.
3. specify on sheet E-1 the depth that the site lighting pole is required
To be installed below grade To withstand a wlndload of 120 MPH.
4. Revlse dumpsEer enclosure detail drawing To show a minimum clear
openzng width of ten feet measured lnside of gaue and post mateYial.
specify the color of the dumpsTer ~nclosure walls.
5. I recommend, for verifying the required number of parking spaces that
each paTking space be chronologically nunkbered.
6. Provide the following information for the require~ handicapped
accessibility walkway that ~eads to the entrance of the building fr~m
each handicapped parking space:
1. Show the location and t~-pe of material proposed for the walkway
~specify Ehickness)
il. Specify the type of-walkway finish material and verify ~urface Is
non-skid with no elevation difference greater than 1/2"
iii. Identify the width of the walkway
iv. Specify the slope and length of the_walkway
v. Identify the pavement elevation at each handicapped parking space
vi. Show the location, width, length and elevation of the level
platform thah is req~ired at-~he handicapped entrance to the
building
vl~, Where required provide detail elevation and plan v~ew drawings ~f
the handicapped handrail, specify the location, height and rail
configt~raTlon
ShOW on the plans the location of the required accessible walkway
leading ~o ~he handicapped entrance of the building ~rom the public
si(~walk. Specify -the following data for the walkway:
i. Specify type of material
li. Identify width of walkway
111. Specify the slope and length of walkway
iv. Sta=e the surface is non-skid and there will not be a difference
~n elevation greater than 1/2"
v. Identify the location of the handicapped e~rance To the buildinq
v~. Show the location, width,_ length and elevation of the level
platform that is ~equired at the handiqapp~d entrance to the
b ilding RECEiVeD
Page ]/ of ADDENDUM E
PLANNING DEPT,
Memo ~o christopher cutro~
Re:'Curt Joa, Memo ~ 90-514
November 26, 1990
Page TWO of TWO
8. Show on the plans a t!rpical section and elevation view drawing of the
exterior stairs. Specify ~he size of the riser and tread in compliance
W~th the requiremenus of the building code. Identify the color ~ud
tarpe of material proposed for the stair(s) including the visible sides
of the stairs and landing. Specify on the plans that the ~tve load
capacity o_f the stairs complies with Chapter 12 of the Building Code.
9. Provide a ~ypical section and elevation view drawing~of the exterior
stairs handrail and guardrail. All handrail and guardrail data shall
comply with the requirements of the Building Code~ Specify the color,
helght, and rail configuration of the rails. Include a statemenu
verifying that .~he structural stability of the rails complies with
Chapter 12 of the Building Code.
10. Specify on the east~a~d west elevation drawing of the building that
all slgnage shall comply with the. sig~ code
11. specify the color proposed for the downspouts leaders and gutter~of
the building.
The outline, config~ration and'material show~ and i.denulfied on the
pro3ect drawing(s) submitted with the plan(s) for final sign-off are
req%~ired ~o match in every respect the colored drawing(s) approved by
the Ci-ty commission during the approval process of the pro]ecu. The
color of each exterior finish material shown on the final sign-off
plans is required to be identified b~ name, color number"and
m~nufacturers uame which are required to match in every respect with
the color(si shown on the drawing(s) approved by the City Commission.
A manufacturer's color chart showing and identifying all approved
color(s) ~s required 5o be submitted with the plans for -~inal
sign-off ·
13. Specify on sheet L I of 1 the t!rpe and location of the proposed lawn
grass material,
14. specify on sheet L 1 of 1 the number of species of the new hedge and
tree Landscape material, show the computations of the total amount of
hedge and tree material complying with the required percen5 native
species count.
15. Show on sheet L 1 of I the required vehicular use area continuous vlsua.
barrler along the west property line between the southwest corner of
the building and the south property line. Specify the width of the
~andscape area and the proposed type of landscape material.
16. specify on sheet L 1 o.f 1 the widt~ of the required perimeter
landscape area along the west, east and sou~h property line of the
east building slue.
17. I recommend, t~e creation of a harmonious greenbelt, specifying the
uree landscape material alon~ the 25 feet perimeter greenbelt of lot
51 C uu match the tree species, Live Oak and wax Myrtle,'of the
abutting lot ~o the south.
18. specify on thespians ~he overall height of the building.
~: ald ' ~
CURTJOA - SDD
Page
2 of ADDENDUM E
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT M~oRANDUM NO. 90-293
November 29, 1990
TO: 3. Scott Miller
City Manager
Adminls:rative Coordinator of Engineering
Page.'l of ADDENDUM P //
In accordance with the City of Boyn~on Beach Code of Ordinances, Chapter 19,
Sections 19-17~ Plan ReqDirad, includin~ Chapter 5, Article X, Boynton Beach
Parking Lot Regulations, Sec~iom 5-142 inclusive, the applic~n~ for the above
referenced pr,oject shall submit the followin~ information, technical data and
plan revisions.
1. I~ accordance with Section 5-142(a) Required Lighting and Section 5-142(g)
Lighting Standards, submit a comprehensive parking facility lightlng plan
which shall include photometrica depicting illumination levels, 13ca~ions
of lighting standards~ fixture types, mounting heights and a statemen: that
the lightins-system is photo-cell activated. I recon~mend the applicant
obtain a courtesy copy of Chapter 5, Article X, Parkin~ Lot R~gulations,
including s~ndards and specifications and appendixes.
2. Provide a handicap stri~ing detail that is consis~en~ with the requirements
of the DCA Accessibility Manual. Section 5-142(k), Handicap Requirements.
3. Provide thermoplastic pedestrian crossings from the wes~ parking facility [o
the east site crossing High Ridge Road. Section 5-142(c), Traffic Control.
Number of driveways indicated on plans exceed number of allowable driveways
as specified ,within Section 5-142(h)(7), Driveways. The applicant has the
right go enter ~n~o a formal variance ~rocedure relative ~¢ seeking relief
from the aforementioned Section. Should the applicant not obtain relief
through the variance procedure~ the applica~ must delete one of the three
driveways.
5. The depicted ingress/egress approaches (~riveways) shall be revised ~o
indicate a ~adius of~25 feet. Section 5-i42(h) (2), Driveways.
6. Provide a s~ormwa~er drainage system for both parking facilities that
complies wit~ requirements of Section 5-142(f), Drainage including Section
5-142(g), Drainage Standards. Percolations and test data and drainage
calculations are required in all instances.
7 -Provide a comprehensive plan. depicting all elevations, drainage gradients,
cross-sections of grassed swales and retention .areas in accordance with
Section 19-17(k), Engineering & Technical Data, including Section 5-142(g),
Parking Lot Construction Standards.
8. There currently exists a number of dumps[ers placed on pavement areas which
are nog addressed in the submitted plans. Ali dumpsters shall be placed
within preconstructed dumpster enclosures. The Engineerin~ Department fo~
the City of. Boyn~on Beach recommends the applicant co~sider a trash compactor
in lieu of numerous dumpsters.
9. Place no:e on plans that the existing sidewalks, whick are broken and avulsed,
shall be replaced with nmwly constructed sidewalks as determined by the
Engineering inspect6r. The sidewalks shall aontinue through ~ngress/egress
approaches and be 6 inches in these areas. The s~e~m.~tragsiti°~ed
through the approadhes in such a fashion as to co~%~]e~i~handicap
requiremen{s. Section 5-142(g), Sidewalk Standards.
NOV Z~ ~30con,t.....'
t0. All stormwa~er inlet structures shall be located in grassed areas. Re locate
infer structures situated within paved surfaces into grassed areas~in
1t, Swales located within the public rign~s-of-way shall be' constructed Pm
accordance with Section 5-142, Swale Standards mhd he fully sodded and
irrigated,
12. Approaches situated within the public rights-qf-way shall be comprised of a
minmmum of 6 inches~of apB%oved D.0.T. iimerock compac~ea go 98% of maximum
~incent ~ Finizio ~
VAF/ck
Cc: Chris~opher Cutro, Director of Planning
Page 2 of'~_DDENDUM F
TO:
THRU:
FROM~
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PL-ANNING DEPARTMENt MEMORANDUM NO. 91-00~
chairman and Members
~lanning an~lng Board
christopher Cutro, A.-I.C.P.
Planning Director
Tambri J. Heyden.
Assistan5 City Planner
January 2, 1991
Curt G. Joa File No. 561
site Plan (modiflcaslons to existing building and
additlon of a new building)
Please ba advised of the following Planning Deparsmen5 comments
with respec5 to the above-referenced slte plan:
1. Site plan rider application was not completed and submitted
with site plan application. A blank site plan r~der is
'attac~ed to be completed and filed with the Planning
Department prior to applying for a permit.
2. Two copies of page 4 of the site plan application have been
submitted which have differen5 site da=a caIculations..
Accurately complete-.this page of~the=aPPlicati°n.
3. Delineate the 25 foot greenbelt that is required along the
east property line of lot 51 C within Quantum Park which is
being used for parking.
_7.H.17.
4. Add a ncte 5o the plans
shall be sound baffled.
5. Add a graphic
page 5, item
6. Indicate the
application,
7.
Appendix A - Zoning, Section
that any roof-mounted ec~lpmen5
Appendix A - Zoning, Section 8.A.6.
scale'to %1.1 drawings, site plan application,
2.
adjacent land uses on the site plan. Site plan
Rage 5, item 3.
The ssorm water design, particularly in
of the existing building,-does not meet
requirements of the ComprehensIve Plan,
Policies 3B.2,3 and 3B.2.7 with regard
percclation into grassy swales.
the parking lot east
the presreatment
Drainage Subelement,
to znfittratlon by
tjh
A:CurtJoa
ADDENDUM G
Attachments
xc: Cennral File