Loading...
Minutes 11-12-86EXCERPT FROM PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M. Page 10 - Paragraphs 1 - 3 Z imme rman: Ail right, Carmen. I think my comment was at TRB, we have filed an ecological report with both the City and Treasure Coast that makes the initial establishment of these wetland areas our responsibility. The Development Order runs with the land, and at the time that it was passed, it did not incorporate bonding of these various items. We just feel that under the subdivision code, which is what determines bonding, that bonding is not required for these kind of improvements. It's asking for another degree of protection that, quite frankly, I don't think you're entitled to under the Development Order. It's a change in the Development Order asking us to bond something that was not bonded as a part of that Development Order. And on that basis, I mean, we're not trying to escape our commitment to do these things; but by the same token, bonds are, especially on items of work like this, bonds are difficult to get, and there is an expense involved. When you're looking at placement of nearly 8 million dollars worth of bo~ds, what you're letting happen is the tail wag the dog. You're talking about relatively mino~ pieces of work, compared to the cost of the rest of the improvements. And I don't think we Would jeopardize our standing, and our Deuelopment Order standing, and our zoning and the ability to pull future permits, if we're willing to bond 9 million dollars worth of work, you know, for the sake of not bonding 300 thousand dollars worth of work. It's just that it's another hoop that we have to jump through, so to speak, and I think an unnec- essary one at this point. De Long: Are you saying it's not required . . . Annunziato: I disagree with that. This upland and littoral zone is a part of the whole drainage plan for (Inaudible) part of the water quality program which is part of the required drainage (Inaudible). I don't want, we think that technically we're in the limits of the subdivision regulation. If there's an alternative that you can offer, I think we'll be very much willing to listen to that, other than just we'll do it because we're here. - 1 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 De Long: Annunziato: Zimmerman: Annunziato: De Long: Annunziato: Are you required (Inaudible)? This is the first instance where we've had to require littoral and upland zone vegetation. I might add that we're a little bit concerned about precedent here and what it might lead to down the road. We feel that the Development Order is a binding contract that's basically negotiated "we'll give you zoning, you give us these things", and your policing is your ability to pull the zoning, to restrict building permits, and to find us in violation of the Development Order. That's what we would be, if we did not complete these requirements. We would be in violation of the DeVelopment Order, and you have a whole series of rights under the Development Order to come after us. I don't see why we need to be adding on top of that another level of bonding, particularly because it's a difficult thing for us to do, especially in an area that's not well defined. It's for a bonding company to figure out, well, what's it going to take for a payment--I mean, you're really not asking for just performance bond, you're asking for payment bond, too, and for them to try to sit down and determine what's this going to take to replant a littoral zone and a wetland to Treasure Coast's satisfaction, is something that could become very sketchy on their part and very difficult for us to comply with. We just don't think it's another level that's necessary in the process. Once again, I would counter that the concerns are that the installation occur, and that it meet the department's (inaudible) in timing. That it occur by a date of time certain. And those are our concerns. Is Mr. Zimmerman correct in pointing out to you that at any time they didn't perform properly, they could be stopped? There's a problem with that. There's a problem with that. Quantum will be selling properties. Say, for example, Quantum, in effect, has nego- tiated to sell a parcel to Publix. Would it be responsible for the City to fail to issue permits - 2 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 De Long: Annunziato: to Publix, because the park developer did not complete the required wetland installations? I think, and we talked about this, frankly, and we talked about it internally, I don't think that's proper. Publix is not the park land developer. He's the Publix 55 acre site developer, and there's a difference. When you issue a permit, it's based on the condition of, the conditions of issuance are those, you know, related to the group of the site plan and the construction plans for the buildings and so forth. It's more difficult, if not impossible, to have, to attach a condition like this to Publix as a lot developer, than it is to attach it to the individual developer that's taking the 540 acres and taking it from it's current condition and putting into a position where it's a subdivision. We talked about it internally, and it just didn't seem like it would be appropriate to--and then furthermore, the timing issue--Do you make sure, do you require from the time Publix is built or from the time the fifth lot is developed? I don't know if that means internal timing. I would just make two observations to get to the heart of the matter I think Mr. Zimmerman (Inaudible). One, I don't think the insurance climate in the State presently is one such that it's that easy to get things bonded. I know that for a fact. Albeit, if you have a set of parameters within which a developer is to operate, then how far do you do beyond those clear cut parameters and impose additional restrictions, which I consider infringement of property rights. How far do you go? I mean, where's the sense of fairness? Where do we stop? Where do we try to, we're here to please, to a degree, basically to protect the City. But we're also here to accomodate and talk to people and try to make things work. How far do you want to go? Is the bond absolu- tely required? In this instance, there's no question that in the language in the Development Order there's no reference to bonding. But these are requirements, and we believe that it's part of his drainage system, it's part of his water quality system. We can make the technical - 3 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Huckle: Zimmerman: Huckle: Zimmerman: arguments if we really have to. I don't think we have to go that far if there's another way to do this. But this is part of his drainage system; it's shown on his construction plan. It's to be installed in connection with the construction of his lakes. What time sequence would this come on your plans? Do you have a definitive plan for the construction of these two items that we are discussing? There's two parts of it. There's construction of the slope, and then there's planting. Planting is tied very strongly to availability of materials. What you're asking for in a Development Order is to plant materials that are typically not available for sale. I mean, you're basically planting weeds. What you're forced to do is go out and buy materials. That's why it's very hard to determine a bond or to determine how much you're going to have to pay for them, when you're asked to find weed plants of a certain size to plant within the wetlands, and yes, that's exactly what we're being asked to do. We're being asked to plant indigenous wetland materials. Regardless of the price, though, what is your time sequence for doing that kind of thing? What I was getting at is, under this part of the project, the lakes will be sculpted. I mean, they will build the lakes, and they will set out the areas and the slopes of where these wetlands will be put in. At the time and the way the ecological report reads right now, is we have specified in detail how the plantings will occur and what materials will be utilized. If when it's time for the plantings and the materials are not available, then we will have to get into a process of renegotiating with Treasure Coast and tell them it's time to plant, this isn't available, this is, and we get our ecologists to go up and meet with Treasure Coast, and come to an agreement on what we're finally going to plant within it. That time sequence, when it's going to be done is very difficult to say. It will be done on this day here, in this month, depending on how much back and forth negotiation there is before we can come up with - 4 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Huckle: Annunziato: Zimmerman: Ryder: an answer. And this is a new area. It hasn't been done very much up until now. It exists in a lot of Development Orders today, but it has not been executed, and nobody really knows. And that's why we don't want to be in a position of bonding and insuring that it's going to be done on this date and at this time, and we really feel that the Development Order controls us to a very great extent. It says DRI's by their process of Development Orders give certain requirements that are going to go with the initial developer and other requirements that are going to run with the land. It's a "glitch" in the way the law's exercised in the way it's applied that has a lot of intrinsic loopholes in it. I don't know how to solve the problem. Well, my point was that in many developments that we have approved, we have had a sequence of buildings like clubhouses and things--you have to have your clubhouse established after at least Phase Two and before Phase Three and Phase Four and all that kind of thing. That kind of concept cannot be implemented for protection of the City in place of bonding? We have one phase. There's one phase of construction, and final acceptance of the drainage system by South Florida Water Management will probably not take place. I don't know, I mean, we may try to talk them out of it if we have a problem, but that will probably not take place until these plantings are in, so that we would expect to do the work within this time frame. What we're saying is there are enough restrictions on us now--the South Florida permit, the DRI, that say we have to do this work in order to con- tinue development. It's just our belief that bonding is not needed as an extra hammer hanging over our head. Mr. Zimmerman, you say there's no question about the fact that the responsibility will be yours to do that and not possibly Publix in the future? Zimmerman: Absolutely. - 5 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Ryder: Zimmerman: De Long: Zimmerman: Annunziato: De Long: Annunziato: De Long: Annunziato: Trauger: Zimmerman: Is that true? Yes. And I recognize Carmen's argument is that he's got to get us through a third party system. I mean, it's just because of the way land development works, if we don't keep up our end of the bargain, we fail in a contract to Publix and then Publix gets into trouble with the City. And the way to get at us is through Publix, but that's the reality of land develop- ment. That's not something we invented, and . . . That's been used time and time again. Yes. And I realize that's the path you have to use to get at us, but I think it's appropriate and I think it's accepted custom. I don't think that's the path we have to use to insure that the applicant performs consistently (Inaudible) his development. No, I don't think we're saying that. I think we're saying it's a path that's been often used and used effectively. But I don't think we have to do that. I think what you're saying also is that this is an innovation. We've required bonding all the time for signalization. It's the first time you want to impose bonding on this kind of a situation. My own feelings are not in the form of a question, but by observation I would think that enough restrictions and safeguards--and I for one would not want to see the imposition of an additional safeguard of imposing bonding on this applicant. There's no timing on that safeguard. Is there any such thing as a letter of credit or any other thing that we could use for the assurance besides the bond? That's essentially the same thing. What you have is control over 560 acres of our land. You've got that. - 6 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Annunziato: Zimmerman: Annunziato: Huckle: Annunziato: Huckle: Anunziato: Huckle: Annunziato: Huckle: But there's no timing in which these require- ments, and this, I think if we went back and revisited the Development Order, that would be a problem we would have to address. In other words, if it were traffic, you can't do thus and so until these improvements are in place. That's one way to introduce timing. Or before 1990 this has to be in place. But the way the Development Order was drafted, there was no timing element imposed. So what you're just saying, and rightly so, we may be doing this for the next ten years and we're asking for . . . Carmen, exactly what you're saying is, what you said is, in the drafting of the Development Order there is something that was on oversight then that you'd like to take another whack at us now. If I don't like something in the Development Order, I can't come to you and say let's bend the rule my way because I didn't like the way this was negotiated. However, this is part of your drainage system. Your drainage system is a required improvement. This is no different than the pipes that have to go in, or the holes that have to be dug. It's another element of the drainage system. In that regard, it's a required improvement. Is the drainage system bonded? Of course. Well, then that's the answer. Well, we're asking if there's another way to do this based on the problems that have arisen here, to advise us. Give us an opportunity to evaluate (Inaudible). But this is part of the drainage system. It's part of the water quality system in connection with the drainage at the site. Why can't it be part of the same bond? Well, it can be. That's just what's been suggested here. This sounds like a separate bonding request. - 7 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Annunziato: Zimmerman: Annunziato: Trauger: We have not been faced with littoral zone deve- lopment in the past. However, I might add the Regional Planning Council, in the review of our Evaluation and Appraisal Report, it is reported to Council that they've recommended that we include in our Comprehensive Plan the require- ment that these kinds of conditions apply, whenever you have construction of lakes. So it's something we're going to be facing, if the Council determines that this in an important public policy. Well, just one thing I'd like to add with respect to the comments and the part of the drainage system. Your subdivision ordinance has a definition of what is a drainage system. This is not part of the drainage system in accordance with the definition of what we're dealing with. So I would suggest to you it's like the landscaping along the streets (Inaudible). We're not here trying to find a way not to do this work. We're trying to find a way not to bond it, because bonding is a particularly dif- ficult thing for us to do. And it's also par- ticularly difficult for us to give exact time frames, when everything's going to be completed. But we are required to do this work. We're going to go about it diligently. We don't want to have the lake system of this unplanted and unsightly. We're going through a tremendous expense to improve our whole site. We're not going to want to leave it torn up for the sake of not doing the lakes. We're going to go about it diligently, we're going to do it as quickly as we can. I just don't think bonding is the way to solve it, especially relative dollars to what kind of bonds we're going to be placing. We're going to be placing, as I said, you know, multi-million dollars worth of bonds. As a matter of fact, our fee that we're going to pay is going to be an excess of the bonding that you might want for the wetlands. Well, it's a problem. presented for . . . It's a problem we've Ail right, Carmen, from that particular part of the problem in this process, is this question any different to be negotiated before it goes to the City Council? - 8 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Annunziato: Zimmerman: Annunziato: Huckle: Annunziato: De Long: Zimmerman: I don't think that it is. I felt it was incum- bent upon staff to point out to the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council those aspects of the Development Order which required but lacked an element of enforcement behind it. To do otherwise, I think, would have been remiss on our part. I'm willing to talk about this with Mr. Zimmerman further. Maybe we can arrive at a different way to look at it. My only plea would be is that we're here, and we're really trying to do a development and execute it in a timely fashion. And if you really have a fear that we're not going to complete our work, then I would say pursue this avenue, pursue bonding. But in the overall approach of what we're doing, the sensibleness of us not completing this, I don't think exists. I mean, there's no reason for us to escape doing the planting and these things. And at that point, bonding only becomes an obstacle to us to get the work done and get it completed. And on those grounds alone, I would ask the City to be a little more pro-development and to move forward and to let us do the work without the bonding. I certainly believe that Deutsch-Ireland has every intention of complying with every aspect to the letter of the Development Order. But the problem is, you may not be dealing with Deutsch-Ireland. You may be dealing with some- body else. But how will we know that? In fairness to George, I truly believe that D-I is going to do it right. They have the full confidence of the staff. But as a matter of public policy, there's an ordinance that you're supposed to be enforcing. Do you feel as you did with the other items that you can mitigate some compromise . . We feel very strongly about it because of the precedent setting nature. I mean, the next question is there's a 1.8 million dollar required fee to be paid toward the interchange. You know, I don't want to be standing up here, - 9 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 De Long: Zimmerman: Huckle: Zimmerman: Annunziato: Huckle: Annunziato: Ryder: Zimmerman: you know, a year from now when Carmen's no longer here, and somebody asking me to bond 1.8 million dollars of interchange improvements. I mean, it's a serious consideration in the direction that you're going, and if that wasn't an important part of the Development Order, we really think that bonding would have been a Development Order requirement. . . And it is not, and that's the point. Right, that's the point. Is it my understanding that under "C" that you are agreeable to the . . . Yes, we understand it, but what we would ask is to be able to use escrow funds there, in lieu of a bond, just because it's so far down the road before those signals will be required. I think that solution is an appropriate one, because we've done that in the past where the money's been escrowed with Palm Beach County, and when the County has determined that the signal is ready, they just draw funds to do the installation. Why can't that same type of thing happen with the other two items? Well, the difference is we wouldn't be spending the money, the public wouldn't be spending the money to install the littoral zone and upland vegetation. Whereas with the signal, when Herb Kahlert says the time is right, he would instruct Charlie Walker, and Charlie Walker's signal installation contractor to pay the funds. I'm not sure it can be resolved here. Carmen, you have, there were several items which Mr. Zimmerman brought has brought to our attention. You will have to report on those to Council. I would suggest that for us to handle that is . . . Could I recommend a motion that would approve it with those items I specified held in abeyance for final conclusion at City Council time? - 10 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Annunziato: Huckle: Annunziato: Trauger: Annunziato: Trauger: Annunziato: Trauger: Annunziato: Huckle: Annunziato: Zimmerman: Annunziato: Huckle: Annunziato: Huckle: ?? Huckle: I would not recommend that. I would recommend that they be included and between now and next Tuesday we have to meet with those appropriate staff members, and staff will report back to the City Council with the results that those discussions were. You want us to accept all the TRB recommendations with the proviso that you . . That we meet. That we negotiate these ones we've indicated. Yes, I think that's a better way to bring it to the Council. The lakes that need all the vegetation he's talking about, is that all the on site drainage, or does some of it go off some place else? It's all on site. Ail on site. Well, there's more. We haven't finished. I guess it is the last of what we've got. Oh, I have one dumb question to ask. vegetated littoral zone? What is a It's the vegetation in the area. . . The weeds. It's the weeds that grow . . . Well, it's the word "littoral" that gets me. Well, it's the vegetation that grows in shallow water and just above the mean water line. That's what a littoral zone is. Well, literally we . . . That's not the same spelling, this is L-I-T-T- for the audience, it's L-I-T-T-O-R-A-L. - 11 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Annunziato: Huckle: De Long: Huckle: Annunziato: De Long: Annunziato: Trauger: Ryder: Annunziato: Zimmerman: Trauger: Huckle: Annunziato: Huckle: Trauger: De Long: Trauger: They're a part of the water quality system. Now, if anybody out there knew what it was . . Are you suggesting we pass this subject to staff comment? As is. Staff comment. We make no reference to the items that . . . Well, I think it's clear that we're supposed to meet and talk about some of these things. Ail right, then the motion should, let's say, we approve subject to staff comment and then we will list these as he has done from, let's say, engineer complex %7, and complex second one of November 3, that's O.K.; then we go to Planning #4 Plat A, Plans 1 and 4; preliminary of November 5: 7, 8A and B. Does that take care of it, Carmen? The Clark memo of 11/4, %7; the Flushing memo of 10/31, %2; the Guidry memo of 11/6, %4 on Plats, %1 & 4 on Plans; the Annunziato memo of 11/5, %7, 8A & BB. I'd like you to include 8C also just to modify it to say escrow funds. Okay, add 8C, then. What happened to the, under Plans %1 of your memo above the on site, off site business? That's #1 under Plans. The Guidry memo of 11/6, Plans %1. Oh, O.K. We have the motion. I second that motion. I need the second. It has been moved and seconded that we' approve the plans for Quantum Park, Boynton Beach, for - 12 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Huckle: Trauger: De Long: Trauger: De Long: Annunziato: Trauger: De Long: ?? Annunziato: De Long: Trauger: Annunziato: the preliminary construction plan and nine pre- liminary plats that provide for the construction of infrastructure includes to serve a 540 acre light industrial park in connection with a pre- viously approved, Planned Unit Development with the. exception that the numbered be negotiated between the City staff and Quantum Park devel- opers prior to the City Council meeting. You said Planned Unit Development; you meant Planned Industrial Development. Planned Industrial Development. I'd like to see those items enumerated, just so there's no misunderstanding. That's what there supposed to be, enumerated. Carmen enumerated them. We're talking about item 8 on a memorandum dated November 4 to Jim Golden from Tom Clark. Number 7. Seven. The sidewalks we're talking about. We're talking about item $1 on a memorandum dated October 31 to Tom Clark from Bill Flushing. I thought it was item $2. It really refers to both items 1 & 2. And we're referring to item $1 on a memorandum dated November 3 to Mr. Jim Golden from Tom Clark. And we're referring to item $4 in the memorandum to Carmen Annunziato from TRB review, and then under the Plans portion (TAPE CHANGE) .members of the Planning and Zoning Board from Carmen Annunziato talking about item $7 and item $8 A, B, & C inclusive. That's right. I have one question on the Flushing memo of October 31. I have it as $2. Trauger: What? - 13 - EXCERPT- PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Annunziato: De Long: Annunziato: De Long: Trauger: Annunziato: Trauger: Zimmerman: Trauger: Zimmerman: Ryder: De Long: I had that as #2. On the Flushing memo of 10/31, I had that as ~2. Number 2? It was really 92 & 3 both from our lift station. It's the same question. I'm sorry, I said 1 & 2. Yes, I'm sorry. I said 91 . . . You want to include 3 with this? 2 & 3. 2 & 3, Mr. Zimmerman? Yes. (Inaudible). Are there any questions on the motion? Mr. Zimmerman? Yes, there's one question about the motion that leaves things a little up in the air, is that as we get to Council on those items, I think there was a sense of agreement with a good number of you on a number of these items, and there may be a sense of disagreement on others. That sense will not be passed on at all by the process in which you're going through. I won- dered if you could also separate these items in some form or fashion by a motion that says that if we do not come to--one of the problems, the basic problem I think is the problem of bonding. If we do not iron that out, you know, what recommendation would you make to the Council on the bonding issue. I'd like to at least have that heard and voted upon somehow here, because we're going into negotiation with totally dif- ferent points of view and I don't, quite frankly, . . . I would think that perhaps Council would turn to the City Attorney and see what . . . I think what Mr. Zimmerman is getting at is that he wants a sense of how this Board feels about that particular issue, which I think it was obvious tonight is one of the issues that he - 14 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Trauger: Annunziato: Trauger: Annunziato: De Long: Annunziato: Ryder: ?? Annunziato: Zimmerman: Huckle: feels most strongly about and one that Mr. Annunziato has indicated may not be as compro- misable as everything else we've discussed. So I think Mr. Zimmerman's point is well taken. Mr. Chairman, I for one would have no objection to taking a sense of the Board in so far as how we feel about the bonding. Or you can do another process on that. You can either amend or withdraw the motion because we're still within the same time frame of the maker, and leave this one, this 4A, this 8A&B out of the main motion for negotiation and settle this one, if you wish. I think there's a potential problem here. I'm wondering if the Board wants to get themselves in a position Where they're determining what is a bondable item and what is not. Well, we're going to be sUbject to the recom- mendation of the City Attorney's office. I'm not sure that that is an area the Board should be involved in, because that's strict interpretation of the subdivision regulation. What are you suggesting then, legal counsel? If there's question whether or not the staff has the right to oppose something as a bonded improvement, then I think it's a legal question and not a question for the Board to . . . I agree. Would they have to have that authorization there? They would have the Attorney there to advise them. I don't think our argument is based on the fact of whether or not you have a legal right to do it. Our argument is that we just really don't think you ought to do it to us. I don't think we have the expertise to make the decision, and that's what we have a TRB Board for, for recommendations and a lawyer to interpret it. I, myself, would not want to make an opinion on it. - 15 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Ryder: Trauger: Annunziato: Ryder: Trauger: Huckle: Ryder: Trauger: Voices: Trauger: De Long: Huckle: Annunziato: Ryder: Zimmerman: I think we ought to go with the way we started out. Well, the motion is all right, but the enforce- ment of this motion that if they do not, as I understand it, do not conclude these negotiations before the City Council meets on this particular time, then it doesn't apply. Or it goes to the Council with the recommendations. I think we ought to proceed in that direction. Is the Board agreeable that the motion has (INAUDIBLE) and let it stand as such. I would go with the motion, myself. know how the rest of you feel. I think we have a motion. I don't We do have a motion and a second. Ail in favor of the motion signify by saying "Aye." Aye. Contrary, "Nay." The motion's approved 7-0. I'd only make the additional comment that our Councilmen read the minutes normally of the meetings, so, and most of them are in attendance. Three of them are here. I think these issues will be primarily clarified before the Council. The only one we probably would have trouble (INAUDIBLE) would be the littoral and upland vegetation. These other things I think will (INAUDIBLE). I see where Publix has asked for postponement. I understand they're building in Deerfield. Is the one here going to be a larger distribution center? No, initially it's scheduled to be smaller than the one in Deerfield, the difference being Deerfield is refrigerated storage, dairy pro- - 16 - EXCERPT - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Annunziato: Trauger: ducts, those kinds of things, where this one here is totally dry storage, dry goods. The Deerfield facility exceeds 600,000 square feet, I believe. I don't know how I let it slip by and didn't get Mr. Rossi (INAUDIBLE) off site drainage (INAUDIBLE). Let's go on with the next one . . Respectfully submitted, Linda Warlick, Transcriber - 17 - EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL "0-1" A certain parcel of real property in Section 29, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County,~ Florida, more particularly described as fol- lows: From the Northwest corner of Section 29, Township 45.South, Range 43 Eas~, Palm Beach County, Florida run North 87°43'48'' East along the North line of said Section 29 a distance of 784.38 feet to the Point of Beginning and the Northwest corner of the 'herein described parcel continue thence along the North line of Section 29 North 87o43'48" East a distance of 1156.02 feet to the center!ina of Lake Worth Drainage Dis- ~rict Canal E'4 thence South 2 ~5'54" East along the cen~er- line of said--Cane! E-4 a distance of 274.82 feet, more or lass, to the-centerline of State Road 8-804 as same is recorded in Road Plat Book 2, .Vases 217 through 220,_Public Records of Palm Beach CounTy, Florida thence $6uth 87054'06'' West along the center!ina of said State Road $-804 a distance of 1156.02 feet, thence North 2 ~5'54" West a distance of 271.35 feet, more or tess to the Poin~ of Beginning. LESS the East 75 feet thereof for R/W of L.W.D.D. Canal E-4, ALSO LESS the North 60 feet thereof for R/W of L.W.D.D. Canal L-24, AND ALSO LESS the Sou~h 5-3 feet thereof for R/W of S~ate Road S-804 as shown in Road Pla~ Book 2-al page 220. P~blic Records of Palm Beach Counuy, Florida. Containing 3.~1 =~=, - · ADDENDUM A MEMORANDUM 5 December 1986 TO: FROM: RE: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning BOard Carmen S. Annunziato, Planning DirectOr Cross Creek Centre - Amendment to Pre~ious Rezoning Approva] Kevin McGinley, agent for Steven Rhodes, applicant and trustee, is requesting an amendment to a previously approved land use amendment/rezoning application to allow for the addition of a 30 foot wide by 1~082 foot wide (.74 acre) parcel adjacent to the Lake Worth Drainage District L-24 Canal. The proposed use of this property, if rezoned, would be to sod and landscape it and use a portion of it (approximately 25 feet) as part of the 30 foot wide greenbelt reqUired by the PCD zoning district regulations. The~trees would be placed in the remaining five-foot wide strip adjacent~to the rear of the office building and parking lot, as the Lake Worth Draininage District possesses an easement which prohibits the planting of any trees or shrubs in the 30 foot wide addition (see master plan in Exhibit A). On December 16, 1986, the City Council is scheduled to adopt on second reading, ordinances for Cross Creek Centre which amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from "High Density Residential" to "Local Retail Commercial" and rezone the subject parcel from R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development). Also scheduled for the 16th is the adoption of an ordinance approving the Evaluation and Appraisal Report as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Included in the adoption of the E and A report is language which amends the future use of land from "High Density Residential" to "Local Retail Commercial" for the additional .74 acre parcel adjacent to the Lake Worth Drainage District L-24 canal, as outlined in the attached Memorandum from the Planning Director to the City Manager (see Exhibit B). Given the resolution of the land use issue, the remaining procedure to be undertaken is to amend the original PCD zoning request to incorporate the .74 acre addition, increasing the overall area of the Planned Commercial Development from 3.971 acres to 4.715 acres. This will require public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council and Council adoption of the ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development District). ADDENDUM B The Planning Department recommends that the request to increase the area of the Cross Creek Centre Planned Commercial zoning district from 3.971 to 4.715 acres for the purpose of providing additional landscaping and open space be approved subject to previous staff comments and commitments on the part of the developer. _~ /bks , CARMEN S. ANN~fZIATO ? j . ECItEDULE A ~e ~3 ~t, Pa~ ~ ~unty, Flort~, ~ld T~et bet~ ~ parti~rly ~. ---~esertbed ~ follow: C~nei~ at the ~uth~est ~rner of ~aid Section ~ ~hen~ ~orth 1~. 1~' 39" ~t, ~o~ the ~t line of Section 17, m dts~n~ 1318.10 feet ~ a ~int in the intersection WI~ the ~n~rli~ of N.W. 2~ lvenJe~ ~ ~rded In Orriefa~ ~e~rd ~k 1738, Pa~ 16B6~ oF the ~blic ~e~ of Pa~ B~ County~ Florlda~ then~'~Ith a b~rl~ or ~or~ 8~~ East, alort$ the eenterline of N.W. 22~d Avenue, a distance of 778.37 feet to the ~e ~u ~y line of L.W.D.D. ~teml ~1'; then~ No.th 89~ O~~ ~9" ~t ' alo~ the Soo~ r~t of ~y li~ of L.~.D.D. Later~ 21, ~e~.rd e ~bl,ie ~e~r~ of Pa~ ~ CounEy, Flort~ a ~l, ~e~d ~k 1732, ~age 612 of ~he ~blte the eenterll~ of the a~ve described East: ~ central anf;le .Of of : the E~, with a Aven:~e; a d~tanee of ,enee; tlorLh ?", and an are length .E-q Canal, with a to a , of curve; 3° ~'tth l/ne of: a 18 feet; ., ];orth ri~t thence 9° 27' ; thence l~orth a .- and an arc Zength of a 'Sist~ of 935.72'feet; th~O~ North 89~ 12' 37" a ~s~ of S~o~, ~ ~zstline 7O ~.lor~ L'est ri~-~t of ~%y 11~- of the to a point on the een%erline of N.Y. ~2nd the een~rli~ of N.g. ~nd Avenue~ ~3'53" a d!s~n~ of 1305.69 s~n~ of a ~Int on the ne Rail~ad; ~'ith a b~rl~ of ~t of ~y the ~il~ds a dis~n~ s dls~ of 26.69 feet; then~ ' 9 ~th 85~ 50' ~" ~est, a.b~' rl~ O~ '~9' ~l~ West~ a . :- - (eontin-Jed) ADDENDUM C ~CHEDULE ~istance ir 200.130 feet; thence )lorLh 8,8° 50i [P4" ~est, a ~st~ of 21B.0 feet; ~en~ ~uth 0~ ~9" 21" ~t~ p dis~nee or 200,~ ~eet;'thehed~Or~h-~B~* Oq" --' ~est. ~ d~s~n~ oF.qO.~ feet; then~ ~outh ~ qg' ~1" ~t, 556.~ feet, ~)en~ NorLh 8B~ 50' Oq" West, ~'dts~noe of 3617.26 feet to a ~nt on the een~rll~ of the a~ve described ~nterlt~ of ~he E-q ~I; then~ ~th ~e ~ the' ~t ~VI~ a ~ or N)O.w zeet, a een~r~ ~e ~q,, ~ an a~ leah of 122.62 feet; ~henoe North 10a 'lB of 9~.60 feet ~ a ~fn: of ~e;:then~ ~ttb a c~e ~ the 1e~ haVt~ofa ~dius'of ~50.00 feet, a cent~ a~e of 18° ~ OD" ~ ~ are leah lq3.99 feet; :hen~ ~i~ a b~rt~, of,~or:h 8a 01~ ~" ~est, a - ~255.1q feet ~-a ~lnt on the cen~erline of N.~. P~d Ave~e; ~en~ ~t~h a b~rl~ of South 89° 0q~ ~" gest~ alo~ the center,ne oF N.~. ~nd-lve~e, a dis~nce of 817.85 feet ~re oF .less to the .Poi:hr-of ~gin~. Subject to ~/k/a Boron Beach Park Of Co~erc~[ Congress~ Boy,on Beach,. Florida . ? MEMORANDUM December 4, 1986 TO: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director RE: Quantum Park at Boynton Beach - Master Lighting Plan George Zimmerm~n, Vice President of~Development for Deutsch-Iretand Properties, is requesting approval of the maSter lighting plan for the public and private rights-of-way within the Quantum Park at Boynton Beach. This request has been placed under the Preliminary Plat heading on the agenda, as street lighting is approved as a part of the platting process. In this particular case, the street lighting plan has been submitted separately for consideration as it raises issues concerning. Comprehensive Plan policies with respect to the type of lighting proposed. Included as a part of this approval is a request to substitute metal halide lighting for the standard high pressure sodium'lighting within 'both the private and the~pUblic rights-of-way. The public rights-of-way within the Quantum Park include N.W. 22nd Avenue and the portion of High Ridge Road north of N.W. 22nd Avenue. Page 225 of the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report contains the following provisions which are relevant to this request: .... 82-18 3.9.3.2.13. "Recommend the conversion of street, recreational and security lighting to the more energy-efficient sodi~um vapor lamps. Also recommend the incorporation of high and low pressure sodium fixtures, where appropriate, in new developments -- to be included in the site plan review procedures." ADDENDUM D P'age Two. Energy-efficient lighting is now required by the City's Parking Lot Regulations, for all new projects and for expansion of existing projects. Florida Power and Light Company will complete the conversion of street lighting and other outdoor lighting to sodium vapor lamps by the end of 1986. ~ On Tuesday December 2nd, 1986 the Technical Review Board met to review the plans and documents submitted and to formulate a recommendation with regard to the request for approval of the master lighting plan and substitution of the metal halide lighting for the standard high pressure sodium lighting. After review and discussion, the TRB recommendedthat the master lighting plan be approved, but that the request to substitute metal halide light!~ng be denied. The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: Ne Metal halide lighting is not as efficient as high pressure .sodium lighting. Therefore, this request would not be consistent with stated policy in the Comprehensive Plan Energy Element. Since the acreage of the Quantum Park represents approximately 21% Of the total undeveloped acreage in the City, approval of the metal halide lighting would represent a substantial deviation from Comprehensive Plan policy, and would indicate that the City Council should re-evaluate this particular policy as it may no longer be feasible. CARMEN S. ANNUNZ~ATO /lat -* ,~VtL~T~,.~c~i ~ L'OCAT! ON MAP By: D.C. DESCRIPTION A portion of CONGRESS LAKES - PLAT NO. 1 (P.U.D.), and p~rtions of the North half of the Northeast quarter of Section 19, Township 45 South,i Range 43 East, and of the South half of the~ Southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 45 South, Range 43· East, Palm Beach-CoUnty, Florida. Being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the/Northeast corner of said Section 19~ the.nee South 88°56' 29" West, along the North line of said Section 19, a distance of 60.07 feet to a point, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING on the West Right-of-Way line of Congress Avenue as recorded in Offprint Record Book 3560, page~ 1115 through 1120, ~ Palm Beach Coun~,"~lorida,v thence South 00 1~' 52" East, along/ the above mentioned West Right-of-Way l'ine of Congress Avenue ~ distance of 285.12 feet; thence South 44°47' 08" West, a-distance of 35.36 feet; thence South 89°47' 08" West a distance of 289.53 feet; thence South 01°44' 21" West a distance of 275~92 feet; thence North 88° 15'39" ~ West a distance of 144.80 feet; thence North 03°44' 57" West a distance of 25.63 feet; thence North 88° 15' 39" West a distance of 70.00 feet; thence North. 01° 44' 21" East a distance of 130.00 feet;.'thence North 53° 30' 00" West a distance of 49.16 feet; thence North 01° 44' 21" East a distance of 954.24 feet; thence South 88015' 39" East a distance of 254.01 feet; thence North 08°54' 22" East radially a distance of 65.21 feet to an intersection with a non-tangent curve concave to the North, having'a radius of 600.00 feet and a central angle of 07~ 10' 02"; thence Easterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 75.05 feet; thence South 88°15' 39" East a distance of 199.34 fee~; thence North 46°44' 21" East a distnace of 35.36 feet; thence South ~O1° 44' 21" West along said Wes.t Right-of-Way line of Congress-Avenue a distance of 626.20 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said land situate,~ lying, and being in the City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida; and contains 12.96 .acres, more or less. Subject to all easements, restrictions, reservations and rights- of-way of record. ' .~/A=7'10 2 i ~~-/ R=6O0' ,,VAI TO: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM Mr. Jim Golden Planning.Department Tom Clark City Engineer Catalina Centre, Plat No. 2 December 2, 1986 Comments: Drainage west of and south of the buildings should be clarified. Sheet flow from a parking lot into the lake is not acceptable. Cross-sections are required east of the south leg of the south building. 2. Dimensoions to edge of pavement from property lines should be shown so that scaling on the drawings in the field will not be required for layout. Other dimenSions necessary for layout should be shown on the drawings. 3. Radii at the edge of pavement should be shown. m Additional traffic control markings are required at entrance road and single lane roadway. Detail for f~ush header is required. Se e For main entrance road a type "D" D.O.T. curb or other comparable raised curb is required. A 6 inch stabilized shoulder is required for entrance road (50 p.s.i.F.B.V, or LBR-40). A memo from Bill Flushing dated November 26, 1986 with additional comments is included. TAC:ck ADDENDUM F Tom Clark TO: Tom Clark FROH: Bill Fiushing RE: Catalina Centre - The following discrepancies 1. m la. 2a. 4a. Plat No. 2 preliminary should be ~noted: pi at Two addition PRMs are required in boundary line, and one additional PRM in the north boundary line. The :treets in Tract "A" should be named. PCPs should be shown in the Tract "A" street. The ~idth of the Street right--of--way should sho~n. the south is required The easement dedication should addre=s all required easements, including power, telephone, cable TV mnd drainage ....... The statement, "This instrument prepared by etc." is missing. The note, r esponsi bi e only" should "The Ci .fy of., Boynton Beach ;~ill be to maintain 8" or larger se.~er main be. removed~ PAVING AND DRAINAGE The drainage inlet structure relocated to an isIand swale. The 6" Extruded Curb detail is not All curbing should be shown with a Drainage on west side of clearly. Is there a curb? If (CB ~12} to be acceptable double line. building not addressed so, how many breaks in I CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH ADDENDUM G Engineering Department the curb? Is there .sheet flow into the lake? The south end of the fire lane (front of building) is not clear as to what the ~-~idth of the p .... is, and part of it appea~s to ~be off-sight. _v .... ant 6a. Type of in]et to be added to invert table or plan. 7a. HeadwaI1 detail for out--fall is not satisfactory. 8a. Detail required for islands not containing drminage structure. a On the plan it is not clear which curb det-=-ii is to be used. Bill Flushing 2. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH MEMORANDU~ 5 December'1986 TO: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Carmen S. Annunziato Plannihg Director Catalina Centre - Shared Parking Allocation Section ll-H(13) of the Zoning Code contains the following provision for shared parking: ' 13. .Parkin~ spaces required in this Ordinance for one use or structure may be allocated in part dr in whole for the required parking spaces of another use or structure if quantitative evidence is provided showing that parking demand for the different uses or structures would occur on different days of the week or at different hours. Quantitative evidence shall include but not be limited to the following: (a) Field studies and traffic counts prepared by a traffic consultant experienced in parking studies. (b) Adjustments for seasonal variations. (c) Estimates for peak parking demand based on statistical data furnished by the Urban Land Institute or some other recognized land planning and design organization. All data furnished must be statistically valid. In addition, a minimum buffer of 10% shall be provided to ensure that a sufficient number of parking spaces are available at times of peak hour use. Said buffer is to be calculated based on the following formula: Buffer = surplus shared ~arking1 on-site + shared parking provided2 X 100% IShared parking spaces not required by the City of Boynton Beach zoning regulations for the proposed use. 2parking spaces required for the proposed use as per the City of Boynton Beach zoning regulations. 1 ADDENDUM H EVidence for joint allocation of required space shall be submitted to the Technical Review Board, and approval of joint allocation of required parking spaces shall be made by the Council, after review and recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Board. With respect to the above, Shermeta and Associates, agent for Walboyn, Inc, are requesting approval of a shared parking allocation in connection with a request for site plan approval for the Catalina Centre Plat No..2 retail development. The shared parking allocation is to include the proposed Plat No. 2 retail development, the previously approved hotel and the future 75,000 square foot office buil.ding. Excluded from this request is the platted outparcel in Plat No. 1. The Catalina Centre Development is located on the west side of Congress Avenue across from the Motorola Planned Industrial Development. The proposed site plan for the Plat No. 2 retail development provides for 136,825 square feet of retail floor space plus an additional 9,500 square feet of leased outparcel floor space (to be built at a future date) for a grand total of 146,325 square feet of retail floor space. The parking requirement for the Plat No. 2 development is 146,325 + 200 = 732 parking spaces. The proposed site plan would provide for 692 parkin~ spaces. The remaining 40 parking spaces required by code would be parking spaces shared from the hotel site located in Plat No. 1. Also included as a part of the shared parking allocation is the future proposed.75,000 square foot office building to be located in the western portion of Plat No. 1. The office building is not included as a part of the current site plan request and will require future site plan approval. The parking requirement for the office building would be 75,000 ~ 300 = 250 parking spaces. of the 25.0 parking spaces required by code, 140 arc'to be provided on-site with the remaining 110 parking-spaces to be shared from the hotel site. _ According to the sha~ed parking analysis Prepare~' by Kimiey-Horn for Ocean Properties Limited, the peak hour parking demand for all three uses combined (office, retail, and hotel) would occur weekdays at 1:00 p.m., as the office building would generate minimal parking demand on weekends. On an individual basis, the office building would peak between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., the retail at 1:00 p.m. and the hotel at 9:00 p.m. These projections of peak parking demand are based on data furnished by the Urban Land Institue (ULI) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). At the peak hour of parking demand for the combined uses (1:00 p.m.), assuming the worst case scenario (peak season) and utilizing conservative estimates, the hotel will only require 222 of the 44.5 parking spaces provided, leaving ~ statistical surplus of 223 spaces to be shared by the office and retail developments. The retail development ~equires 40 of the hotel's surplus spaces 2 tO meet code while the office building requires 110 of the hotel's surplus spaces to meet code, leaving the remaining 73 surplus spaces to be allocated toward the calculation of the required 10% buffer as follows: RETAIL 73 692 + 40 X 100% = 10.0% OFFICE 73 140 + 110 X 100% = 29.2% Therefore, given the worst case scenario of total parking accumulation (weekdays at 1:00 p.m.), the shared parking allocation for the Catalina Centre would still allow for a statistical surplus of at least 73 parking spaces. On Tuesday, December 2, 1986 the Technical Review Board met at which time they recommended approval of the shared parking allocation as submitted. It was the consensus of the TRB that the proposed shared parking allocation was prepared and documented in accordance with code requirements and that sufficient opportunity exists for shared parking to occur on-site given the mix of uses in the Catalina Centre dege!opment. /lat cc: City Manager Central File CARMEN S. ANNU~ZIATO 3 STAFF COMMENTS CATALINA CENTRE PLAT NO. 2 Building Department: Fire Departmen~:. - Utilities Department: Police Depar~rtent: Planning Department: SITE PLAN See attached memo. Show customer 'pick-up area(s). Relocate water main on north side away from buffer wall. See attached memo. (1) See attached memo concerning shared parking allocation. (2) It is recommended that a sidewalk be provided along the northern access road to serve future residents in the Congress Lakes PUD. ADDENDUM I MEMORANDUM TO Carmen Annunziato Planning Director Don Jaeger Chief Plans Inspector December 3, 1986 Site Plan Review - Catalina Centre Plat No. 2 As a condition of site plan approval,' the following comments should be incorporated into the related documents: 1. South Florida Water Management District approval is required for the project. 2. Column details should be indicated on the plans for the buffer wall. 3. Plat should be recorded with the county clerk's office. 4. Indicate on the plans What type of construction will be used, accurately locate all firewalls, and show which buildings will have a second story. Buildings must comply with Table 400 and Table 600 of the Standard Building Code. 5. One additional handicapped parking stall is required. 6. The extreme north and south areas of the sidewalk adjacent to the stores require handicapped ramps to accommodate the handicapped parking stalls. 7. Curbing is required around all landscaped areas adjacent_to _ parking stalls. 8. Turn-out permit from the County Highway Department is required. In order to facilitate the building permit review process, the following information should be provided at the time of submittal: 1. Soil tests 2. Fire sprinkler ai~rm x~ , . System should be connected to £he City Fire Department. 3. Details for the fountain and other amenities should be provided. 4. Energy calculations ~o comply with the State Energy Code. The applicant's prompt compliance with the preceding comments will insure a timely permitting process. rDJ:bh uon Jaegew2 ADDENDUM J MEMORANDUM Planning Dept. Attention: J. Golden Lt. Thrasher 04 December 1986 Catalina Center As per the discussion of TRB meeting on 02 December 1986 the following are recommendations: 1. Stop sign-South exit from Parking Lot. 2. Stop sign-rear of.building, Southwest corner for the Thruway. 3. Proper road markings in the Parking Lot. t. D. Thrasher Police Dept. ADDENDU~ K STAFF COMMENTS MEADgWS 300 TRACT K (LAKESHORE) PRIVATE RECREATION AREA Building Departm-ent: Engineering ~epartment: SITE PLAN See attached memo. See attached memo. Utilities Department: Police Department: City water is not to be used for landscape irrigation. .See attached memo. Planning Department: Forester/Horticulturist: See attached memo. See attached memo. ADDENDUM L MEMORANDUM Carmen'Annunziato Planning Director Don Jaeger Chief Plans Inspector December 3, 1986 Site Plan - Meadows 300 Tract K Private Recreation Area As a condition of site plan approval,-the following comments should be incorporated into the related documents: 1. Accurately locate all buildings and amenities on the site. 2. Show site lighting for pool and "tot lot" areas. 3. Indicate curbing around all landscaped areas adjacent to parking stalls.~ 4. South Florida Water Management District approval. 5. Handicapped parking stall should have a free-standing sign meeting D.O.T. standards. 6. Bath house and pool should be accessible to the handicapped. 7. City parking lot code requires a 27 foot back up distance between parking stalls with minimum stall dimension of 9' x 18'. In order to facilitate the building permit review process, the following information should be provided at the time of submittal: 1. The plat should be-recorded with the County Clerk. 2. Health Department approval is required for the pool and bath house. 3. Water and sewer flow rates by a registered engineer. 4. Signed and sealed prints for the pool by a registered engineer. 5. Soil tests. 6. Handicapped elevation~ for Bath areas. ~ 7. The fence around the pool should have a self-cfosin~ gate~ The applicant's prompt .compliance with the preceding comments will insure a timely permitting process. Don J~er J- ' DJ:bh ADDEND~JM M ME MO RAN D UM~ December 3, 1986 TO: FROM: Mr. Jim Golden Planning Department Tom Clark City Engineer Tract K, Meadows 300, Private Recreation Area, Site Plan Comments: i. Name of streets should be shown. 2. Raised curbs shall be shown and detailed on plans. Refer to Parking Lot Ordinance for where curbs are required. 3. Set-back dimensions from property lines shall be shown for stake-out of structures. e intend to specify '1½ inches of Type I.~AC p~,lus 1½ inches -of Type II AC? ; Tom Clark TAC/ck Paving-requirements should be shown on paving and drainage plan. The asphalt paving detail shown on sheet 3 should agree with details to be provided on the paving and drainage plans. Does the Design Engineer ADDENDUM N MEMORANDUM Plannin~ Dept. Attention: J. Golden Thrasher 04 December 1986 Lakeshore at Meadows As per the discussion of TRB meeting on 02 December 1986 the following are recommendation: 1. Photo activated pole mounted high sodium vapor lamp, North end of "TOT Lot". Lt. D. Thrasher Police Dept. ADDENDUM 0 MEMORANDUM December 3, 1986 TO: FROM: RE: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director Meadows 300 Tract K (Lakeshore) Private Recreation Area - Staff Comments Please be advised of the Planning Department's comments in connection with the above-referenced request for site plan approval: The Parking Lot Regulations require a 27 foot wide access aisle for 90° parking. Section 5-141(k) of the Parking Lot Regulations requires that parking spaces shall be double-striped. Lighting details to be provided. Separate site plan approval will be required~fbr any entrance signage or other signage as.~the details .have .not been provided with the ,site plan submission.. CARMEN S .~ ANNUNZIA~O /lat ADDENDUM P ~iEMORANDUM December 3, 1986 TO: FROM: PJE: Carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director Kevin J. Hallahan Forester/Horticulturist Lakeshore at the Meadows Private Recreation Area - Staff Comments Please be advised of the followin~ comments in connection with the above-referenced request: Hedge material in parking areas adjacent to road right-of-way must be at least 36" in height at time of planting. Plans should describe the type of automatic irrioation system to be installed. ' /lat -~ALLAHAN ADDENDD/~ Q MEMORANDUM December 3, 1986 TO: FROM: Mr. Jim Golden Planning Department Tom Clark City Engineer Main Street Car Wash Site Plan Comments: Driveway identified as "existing" is not-paved and does not meet minimum paving requirements, ie., 6 inches of rock and 1 inch asphaltic concrete or 6 inches of Portland cement concrete. Dimensions should be added to locate the existing turnout. A six-inch thick sidewalk shall extend thru the turnout. A memo from Bill flushing dated November 26, 1986 with additional comments is included herewith. TAC/ck Attach. Tom~ clark ADDENDUM R TO: FRO[~: RE: The 1. 2. Tom C1 ark Bill Flushing Nain Street Car following discrepancies should be noted: Turn-out radius to be shown Elevations are required to determine flow is not going toward street. Header detail is required. that storm Bill Flushing 1 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH ADDENDUM S Grayarc - ..o. ~ox~9~ REPLY MESSAGE Hartford. CT 06104 CALL TOLL FREE:l-800-243-5250 Fold At ( ~ } TO Fit Grayarc Window Envelope # EW10P REORDER ITEM # F269 ................................................ ._ .... ........................... I-- TO JAMES GOLDEN PLAHNING DEPT. FROM ROBERT EICHORST ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIR. S~SUBJECT: MAIN STREET CAR WASH DATE:12-03-86 FO~.D ,~ - A PROPER LOCATION FOR DUMPSTER MUST BE BUILT AT THIS LOCATION. PLEASE REPLY TO = SIGNED %.~DATE: Item # F269 © Wheeler Group Inc. 1979 SIGNED ' THIS COPY FOR PERSON ADDRESSED ADDENDUM T MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M. PRESENT Walter "Marty" Trauger, Chairman Garry Winter, Vice Chairman George De Long Marilyn Huckle John Pagliarulo Simon Ryder Robert Wandelt Leonard Mann, Alternate William Schultz, Alternate Carmen Annunziato, Director of Planning Tim Cannon, Senior City Planner Jim Golden, Assistant City Planner Chairman Trauger called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. He introduced the members of the Board, Mr. Annunziato, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Golden, and the Recording Secretary. He recog- nized the presence in the audience of: Vice Mayor Carl zimmerman; Councilman Ezell Hester; Councilwoman Dee Zibelli; Rebecca Theim of the Sun-Sentinel; and Owen Anderson, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 1986 Mr. De Long moved to approve the minutes as presented, and the motion was seconded by Mrs. Huckle. The motion carried 7-0. COMMUNICATIONS None. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Annunziato reported that as a result of the funding for the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Boynton Beach would be receiving approximately $35,000. His staff has recommended to the City Council that the money be spent to commence the preparation of the housing element for the new Comprehensive Plan. He noted that a lot of financial analysis would have to be done, and his staff recommended that it be done by an outside consultant. If funds remain beyond that, the staff recommended that the money be used for the conservation and coastal zone elements. - 1 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Mrs. Huckle asked if this would be leading toward the complete Plan that is to be implemented in 1989. Mr. Annunziato repeated that these two elements would require some consultant assistance. However, it is his staff's intention that staff remain involved in every element, even those requiring the aid of a consultant. Seven of the nine elements would be prepared in-house. Mr. De Long commented that a fairly comprehensive report had already been done on the present housing situation. He asked Mr. Annunziato why there was a need to pay a consultant when the money could be used to implement the findings of that study. Mr. Annunziato replied that the requirements of the act and rule were much more substantial than the evaluation of the current Comprehensive Plan. The needed analyses exceed the expertise of the staff. Mr. De Long agreed that sometimes consultants are needed, but felt that sometimes an inordinate amount of money is spent on studies that could be better used. Mr. De Long inquired about the use of any remaining funds, and Mr. Annunziato elaborated about how the funds would be used for the conservation and coastal zone elements, two elements of the Comprehensive Plan. These elements require biological and environmental studies that require an expertise his staff does not possess; a consultant would again be needed. Mr. De Long asked if funds allocated for one element, housing, were being transferred to another element for which they were not originally allocated. Mr. Annunziato explained that there was a listing of different items by priority given to Council. The first priority is housing; if there are remaining funds, there are other areas of analysis that must be conducted which would use the funds. Mr. De Long asked if the additional funds could be used in another area besides conservation or coastal, and Mr. Annunziato answered affirmatively, as long as they are spent in connection with the development of the Comprehensive Plan. NEW BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS ABANDONMENT Project Name: Meadows 300 Tract B - Baytree Agent: Tim Lynch Owner: Boynton West Corporation Legal Description: That part of the' 6 foot utility easement - 2 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Location: Description: lying on Lot 64, Block "B", THE MEADOWS 300 PLAT NO. 1 P.U.D., according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 43, Pages 58-62, inclusive, public records, Palm Beach County, Florida, that runs parallel with and is contiguous with the Westerly line of said Lot 64, LESS, HOWEVER, the North 6 feet thereof. West side of Congress Avenue, south of Hypoluxo Road Request for the abandonment of a 6' utility easement on Lot No. 64 Mr. Golden stated that Baytree is a zero lot-line, detached single family home project. He said that the applicant was requesting abandonment of the utility easement on lot 64 as the placement of this easement would prevent the construc- tion of a zero lot-line home. He reported that the abutting easement on lot 65 could serve the subject lot. Mr. Golden added that the City Engineer recommended approval of this request based upon the comments from the Utility Companies. Chairman Trauger asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor of this request. Mr. Tim Lynch, Project Manager fOr Boynton West Corporation, 840 U.S. Highway 1, Suite 400, North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 came forward in favor of the proposal. There was no one who wished to speak in opposition to the request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Wandelt moved to approve the request for abandonment of the 6' utility easement for lot no. 64. There were no staff comments on this request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo and carried 7-0. PARKING LOT VARIANCE Project Name: Hunters Run Golf and Racquet Club James Stewart Summit Associates, Limited Agent: Owner: Legal Description: Location: Description: Ail of Summit Plat No. 1, ~according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 36, pages 48-51, inclusive, Public Records, Palm Beach County, Florida Containing: 865.41 acres, more or less. Tracts P, Fl, F2, G, I, J, H and Q at the Hunters Run PUD Request for relief from Sections 5-141(b) - 3 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 "Traffic Control:, 5-141(d) "Curbs and Car Stops", and 5-141(k) "Parking Lot Striping" of the Parking Lot Regulations Mr. Golden reported that the development was located on the west side of Congress Avenue between the Lake Worth L-28 and L-30 canals. Included were developed tracts P (Eastgate), F1 (Villas of Brentwood), and F2 (Northwoods II) and undeveloped tracts G, I, J, H and Q. Mr. Golden felt that in order to understand the purposes of these variances, a discussion of the history of Hunters Run and the City's parking lot regulation was necessary. He commented that the earlier tracts in Hunters Run were developed prior to the implementation of the City's parking lot regulations which were adopted on March 16, 1982. Prior to the adoption of the parking lot regulations, the parking lots were constructed in a certain manner including single striping, landscaped areas without raised curbs, and no interior parking lots signage or pavement markings. After the adoption of the parking lot regulations, a number of the parking lots were constructed along these same design guide- lines which did not conform to current standards. These plans were not submitted for permits prior to the construction of these parking lots. Recently, a new inspector discovered these prob- lems and a code enforcement action was undertaken. This appli- cation was submitted in response to the code enforcement action. Mr. Golden read from a memorandum dated November 5 citing the variances being requested. He stated the applicant's justifi- cation for the variance request included: maintaining continuity of design throughout the development, lack of a need for pro- tection of landscaped areas with raised curbing (the applicant bears financial responsibility), and non-endangerment of public safety and welfare with regard to traffic control. Mr. Golden stated that the TRB recommendation was that all three variance requests be denied. He read the reasons for their recommendations from page 2 of the November 5 memorandum from Mr. Annunziato to the Planning and Zoning Board. Chairman Trauger reported that he had visited Hunters Run and surveyed the area. He felt that since it was a controlled entrance area of a private club, since the previously con- structed lots looked in very good shape, and since the property was one-half to three-quarters developed already, the variances should be allowed. He added that Hunters Run carries an insurance policy for their own damages. Mr. Ryder expressed his opposing view, commenting that they would be setting a precedent for other property, specifically - 4 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 large shopping districts. Mr. Ryder felt that since the tracts were so far apart, visually it would not make any difference in the continuity of design. Mr. Golden inter- jected that in all three cases, the votes of the TRB were split regarding the variances. Mrs. Huckle pointed out, in reference to setting a precedent, that a shopping center parking lot and a private enclosed guarded community were two different situations. She thoug.ht that consideration of the high standards of Hunters Run should be taken. Mrs° Huckle inquired to what extent Hunters Run was in viola- tion of code enforcement beyond the "grandfathering" aspect of what existed previously. Mr. Golden was not sure of the magnitude of the problem. He knew violations included the design requirements and the permit issuance problem. The violations would include any parking lots constructed after March 16, 1982. Mr. De Long asked Mr. Golden to clarify his use of the number "three" earlier in his comments. Mr. Golden explained that there are three different tracts with more than one parking lot in each of those tracts. Mr. De Long inquired as to the frequency of liability claims, but Mr. Golden could not quote any figures; liability claims were the concern of several TRB members, however. There was more discussion concerning the City's involvement in liability claims. Mr. Pagliarulo questioned how the site plan could have been approved or inspected and no mention of violations be made. Mr. Annunziato answered that the TRB had discussed that question, but were unable to determine the answer. Mr. De Long felt it was more important to enforce the violations now that they had been discovered. James Stewart, Construction Manager for Hunters Run, 3500 Clubhouse Lane, Boynton Beach, Florida 33436, stated that Hunters Run has constructed approximately 75% of their project. At no point in the past have they ever been requested by the City of Boynton Beach Building Department to permit the parking lots for the building separately or individually. They have obtained their building permits inclusive for whatever they are building. When the new building official pointed out their error, Hunters Run obtained permits requesting that the lots be constructed in accordance with what has already been done since 1979. Mr. Stewart does not feel that the requests are unreasonable or would endanger the health or welfare of the citizens of Boynton Beach. There had never been a problem of land- - 5 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 scaping being destroyed by motorists at Hunters Run. Mr. Stewart feels that the ordinance was designed for com- mercial parking areas, but the ordinance does not specify this. He also pointed out that there has never been a parking lot accident at Hunters Run. In response to Mr. De Long's inquiry, Mr. Stewart stated that his main concern was aesthetics. Chairman Trauger asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor or in opposition to the proposal. As there was no response, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Ryder moved that the request of Hunters Run for the variances be denied. The motion was seconded by Mr. De Long. The motion failed 5-2 with only Mr. Ryder and Mr. De Long voting in favor of the motion. Mrs. Huckle moved that the request of Hunters Run for relief from Sections 5-141(b) "Traffic Control", 5-141(d) "Curbs and Car Stops", and 5-141(k) "Parking Lot Striping" be approved. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Winter. Chairman Trauger asked Mr. Annunziato to comment on the statement that "the City may incur additional liability if these variances are approved." Mr. Annunziato elaborated that the TRB felt if the requirements were diminished for Hunters Run, at some point in the future the decision could come back to haunt them. The motion carried 5-2 with Mr. Ryder and Mr. De Long voting against the motion. B. SUBDIVISIONS PRELIMINARY PLATS Agent: Owner: Legal Description: Project Name: Quantum Park at Boynton Beach Rick Rossi, P.E. Deutsch-Ireland Properties Location: Description: See "Addendum A" attached to the original copy of these Minutes West side of Interstate 95, between the Boynton Canal and Miner Road Ext. Request for the approval of the con- struction plans and nine preliminary plats which provide for the construction of infrastructure improvements to serve a 540 acre light industrial park in connection with a previously approved Planned Industrial Development - 6 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that this set of plats had been reviewed by the City staff in late August and in final form in late October. The applicant is submitting plats for the entire 540 acre parcel including a plat that will be swapped for property at Miner Road and the E-4 canal. Mr. Annunziato noted that there was not an overlay for each plat, but there were comments on the Master Plan. Mr. Annunziato stated that all sewer, water, pavement and drainage plans for the entire parcel have been reviewed by the staff. In addition, the staff went to the Development Order to determine whether or not there were items in the Order which Should be included, and they are listed also. The TRB recommended approval of the plats subject to the comments of the staff. In answer to Mr. Ryder's inquiry, Mr. Annunziato informed him that the realignment of High Ridge Road north of 22nd Avenue does not upset any existing developments and that the realignment is only through Quantum property. The existing High Ridge Road south of 22nd Avenue is proposed to be aban- doned and replaced by another road. This will affect the Gould and Joa properties. They would have to have an ease- ment agreement with Quantum to allow them to utilize the private roads in Quantum Park. The roads which will replace the current High Ridge Road are four-lane divided with a landscaped median. In response to Chairman Trauger's inquiry, Mr. Annunziato stated that north of High Ridge Road it tran- sitions back to two-lane. Mr. Wandelt asked what the two large blank areas were on the Master Site Development Plan. Mr. Annunziato informed him that the area in the center of the southerly part was Publix. The area to the north, some incorporated and some unincor- porated, was not part of this project. A tract of land to the west of the Sand Pine Preserve is being negotiated for in exchange for another tract of land which is east of High Ridge Road and immediately south of 22nd Avenue. This land would serve as a City park site, and the swap would make the park site closer to residential centers. George zimmerman, Vice President of Development for Quantum Associates, addressed the Board. He wished to comment on some of the staff remarks. Mr. Zimmerman agreed with the comment made by the Fire Department that some of the streets needed to be renamed. He next remarked on comment ~7 of the November 4 memorandum from Tom Clark stating that sidewalks should be shown on plan and profile sheets in addition to typical road cross-sections. Mr. Zimmerman explained that High Ridge Road and N.W. 22nd Avenue are the two public right- - 7 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 of-ways and that on the remaining private roadways an 8-foot asphalt bike path is planned on one side; they do not intend to provide sidewalks on the other roadways. High Ridge Road and N.W. 22nd Avenue will have a bike path on one side and a sidewalk on the other side of the road. He asked that comment %7 be excluded for that reason. Mr. Zimmerman agreed to comply with the remainder of the comments on that memorandum. Mr. Zimmerman next remarked that the memorandum from Bill Flushing had a number of comments regarding the lift stations. Quantum has shown on the plats easements for the lift stations. They would like to go through the platting process showing easements with the understanding that a fee simple title will be given to the City upon acceptance of the improvements. The reason for this would be for consistency and lay out; the size of the lift stations may have to be varied or other modifications made, and this would assure that the land given in title is exactly what is needed and accepted. Mr. Zimmerman also agreed to comply with the remainder of this memorandum. Mr. Zimmerman discussed a second memorandum from Tom Clark dated November 3, 1986 regarding the bridges. Mr. Zimmerman had no objection to any of those comments and agreed to comply. Mr. Ryder inquired about comment ~1. Mr. zimmerman explained Quantum is showing 18-inch pre-stressed piles, and Mr. Clark wondered if those were D.O.T. standards. Mr. Zimmerman agreed to follow D.O.T. standards if that is what Mr. Clark wanted. On the memorandum from John Guidry, Mr. Zimmerman stated that on the comment under "Plats ~4" saying the easement should be 30 feet wide as shown on the plans, he did not know where this was shown on the plans. In the Master Planning of this area, QuantUm had requested consideration of 10 or 12 foot easements with an additional setback requirement of 15 feet from the easements. At Master Plan time, that was approved. Quantum would like to stay consistent with that Master Plan. With a 30 foot easement, many of the trees would have to be eliminated. Mr. Annunziato felt that this could be resolved. Under "Plans ~1" of the same memorandum from Mr. Guidry, Mr. zimmerman did not understand the reason for the request that all sanitary services, off- and on-site, be the maintenance responsibility of Quantum. As the completed sanitary sewers would become the City's sewer system, Mr. zimmerman did not understand why maintenance would be left with Quantum; besides that, it should be the property owners association rather than Quantum. Rick Rossi, Rossi and Malavasi Engineers, Inc., who is the engineer for the project, thought the question to - 8 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 be resolved was whether "on-site" meant any sewers extended from that shown on the Master Plan. Mr. Annunziato thought the parties involved should meet before the next City Council meeting to resolve these issues. Mr. Rossi advised discussing what was meant by the term "limits". Mr. Annunziato thought that where the responsibility of the City terminates and the responsibility of the property owners start should be resolved. Under "Plans 94" of Mr. Guidry's memorandum, Mr. Zimmerman said that his same comment regarding lift stations on Mr. Flushing's memorandum applies to this remark also. On the memorandum from Mr. Annunziato on item 97, Mr. zimmerman stated that Mr. Charles Frederick felt that the entrance to the park as shown would be preferable at this time. Mr. Annunziato stated that this involves access to the future city park. Mr. Annunziato said he made that comment at the TRB meeting regarding where the median cut should be, and John Wildner, with Recreation and Parks, commented that he thought the entrance was acceptable as shown, but he wanted to check with Mr. Frederick. Mr. Frederick responded back that he thought it would be better at the center of the park, which is why the comment is still in the memorandum. Mr. zimmerman hoped to not have to move the location back and forth. On item 98 (a) and (b) of the same memorandum, which addressed bonding of improvements for the final plat, Mr. zimmerman noted that bonding was requested for two items of the DRI which were not shown in the construction plans; it really is not part of the public improvements, but is part of what has to be done to complete DRI requirements. Mr. zimmerman requested that Quantum not be asked to bond these improvements. Quantum agrees to the request on item 98 (c), because they view it (signalization and turn lanes) as something that is required. However, since signalization is in the future, they would request using of escrow funds rather than bonding for these improvements. Mr. Annunziato commented that the Development Order had incor- porated in it requirements that were imposed by the Regional Planning Council. Mr. Annunziato's staff found the require- ments of the Development Order which did not have a timing mechanism and would be a problem to continually enforce. The three items under ~8 fell in this category. One way to enforce these three items (vegetated littoral zone, buffer zone of native upland vegetation around wetland and deep water habitats, signalization and turn lanes) would be through bonding. Bonding builds in a guarantee and a specific time. Mr. Annunziato added that he is open to suggestions of other ways to handle the issue, as long as guarantee and timing are satisfied by the applicant. - 9 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZO'NING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Mr. Zimmerman felt that requesting bonding was a change in the Development Order asking them to bond something not pre- viously required to be bonded. Mr. Annunziato believed the request was technically within the limits of the subdivision regulations. Mr. Zimmerman continued to disagree that bonding was necessary, and Mr. Annunziato continued to stress the need for a guarantee and for timing. *Mr. De Long pointed out that the insurance climate in Florida at present makes it very easy to get bonded. He questioned how far beyond the clear cut parameters the City should be able to go to impose restrictions. 12/9/86 In response to Mrs. Huckle's inquiry, Mr. Zimmerman answered Minutes. that it would be difficult to deitermine the timing of the project. He also stated that the Development Order imposes enough restrictions as written Without imposing the additional restrictions. More discussion flollowed concerning bonding and alternatives to bonding. Mr,. Zimmerman was also concerned with the precedent that would be. set. *Statement corrected. See Mr. Zimmerman suggested that the motion would approve the requests of Quantum Park with the items specified by him to be discussed and decided upon at City Council. Mr. Annunziato recommended that these items be included in the motion and that before the Council meeting, the applicant and staff members meet; the staff would then make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Zimmerman asked for a consensus of the Board concerning the bonding issue; however, it was decided that this was a legal issue which the Board should not decide. Mr. Annunziato advised that if the applicant and staff did not conclude negotiations before the Council meets, the recommendation goes to the Council as it is. Mr. Ryder moved to approve Quantum Park's preliminary construction plans and nine preliminary plats which provide for the construction of infrastructure improvements to serve a 540-acre light industrial park in connection with a pre- viously approved Planned Industrial Development. The motion also provided that the following staff comments be negotiated between City staff and Quantum Park developers prior to the City Council meeting: #7 of memorandum from Tom Clark to Jim Golden dated 11/4/86; %2 & %3 of memorandum from Bill Flushing to Tom Clark dated 10/31/86; %1 of. memorandum from Tom Clark to Jim Golden dated 11/3/86; %4 under "Plats" and %1 & %4 under "Plans" of memorandum from Jolhn Guidry to Carmen Annunziato dated 11/6/86; and %7 & %~8 (A)(B)(C) of memorandum from Carmen Annunziato to the Planning and Zoning Board dated 11/5/86. The motion was secondied by Mr. De Long and carried 7-0. - 10- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNT©N BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Agent: Owner- Legal Description: Project Name: Meadows 300 Tract D - Vizcaya David Flinchum The BabCock Company Location: Description: Situate in Section 7, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, being a replat of a portion of The Meadows 300 - Plat No. 1, (Plat Book 43, Pages 58 through 62) West side of Congress Avenue, south of Hypoluxo Road Request for a replat of a portion of tract D to eliminate seven single- family lots in order to allow for the construction of a private recreation facility Mr. Golden reminded the Board that they had approved the Master Plan application for this request in October to allow for the replat of Tract D. The portion of Tract D being replatted is the interior portion, and seven single-family lots are being eliminated to provide for private recreation facilities. The infrastructure for this project has been constructed previously under the original plat approval. Included in the replat is the abandonment of Dogwood Circle. This public right-of-way would become a private road with a guardhouse, and the easements would be dedicated for the utilities. Mr. Golden added that TRB recommends approval subject to staff comments. The agent, Mr. FlinChum, was not present at the meeting. Mr. Ryder moved to approve the request for replat subject to staff cOmments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo and carried 7-0. C. SITE PLANS Agent: Owner: Legal Description: Project Name: MeadoWs 300 Tract D - Vizcaya Private Recreation Facility David Flinchum The Babcock Company Location: Description: The Meadows "300" P.U.D. Plat No. 1 - Block D as recorded in Plat Book 43, Page 62 West side of Congress Avenue, south of Hypoluxo Road Request for site plan approval to construct a private recreation facility and landscaping at Tract D of the Meadows Planned Unit Development - 11 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Mr. Golden stated that this property was located adjacent to and northwest of the Cloverbend development. He noted that request for site plan approval for the private recreation area was again being submitted with a request for replat of a portion of Tract D. The amenities for the recreation facility include a pool, a poolhouse, two tennis courts, a suntan area, a croquet green, a putting green, and a fitness cluster. The plan is essentially the same shown before the Master Plan modification. The TRB recommended approval of the request subject to staff comments. Mr. Pagliarulo moved to approve the request of Meadows 300 Tract D - Vizcaya subject to staff comment. Mrs. Huckle wondered if the request could be approved without the appli- cant being present to accept their decision. Other members informed her that neither Mr. Flinchum's presence nor appro- val were necessary. Mr. Ryder seconded the motion which carried 7-0. Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Project Name: Publix Distribution Center Kieran J. Kilday Publix Supermarkets, Inc. South of N.W. 22nd Avenue, within the Quantum Park PID Request for site plan approval to construct a 420,000 square foot auto- mated distribution center on a 55 acre parcel at the Quantum Park Planned Industrial Development A letter had been sent to the Board from Kilday & Associates requesting postponement to the December site plan agenda. Mr. De Long moved to approve the request for postponement. Mr. Wandelt seconded the motion which carried 7-0. Agent: Owner: Legal Description: Location: Description: Project Name: Bethesda Memorial Hospital Medical Office Building Autumn H. Blakeley/Kirk Dunlap Universal Medical Buildings, Inc. O. Alan Jared et. al. Walter Metz See "Addendum B" attached to the original copy of these Minutes South Seacrest Boulevard at S.W. 26th Avenue, northwest corner Request for site plan approval to construct a 54,567 square foot medical office building on 3.38 acres - 12 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 Mr. Golden reported that since rezoning and abandonment approvals, the applicant has reached an agreement with the outstanding property owner, a single-family home northeast of the apartment complex owned by Mr. Walter Metz. That property will be purchased and incorporated into the site plan. The site plan reflects incorporation of both the Metz property and the abandonment of 26th Avenue, as well as the change in zoning. The applicant is proposing to construct a 54,567 square foot medical office building consisting of two stories and a basement below grade. The exterior of the building consists of wall panels and glass panels with gray glass and aluminum frames. The color scheme for the wall panels is light gray, peach and charcoal. Additional parking will be provided for the medical office building in the overall hospital site. Access to the building will be provided at three points: a driveway onto Seacrest Boulevard on the northeast corner of the property, a driveway onto 26th Avenue, and a driveway onto S.W. 2nd Street. On-site utility extensions will be constructed for existing water and sewer lines on Seacrest Boulevard and 26th Avenue. TRB recommended approval of the request subject to staff comments. Mr. De Long pointed out that there must be an error on ~19 of the application. The estimated construction cost on pro- posed improvements shown on the site plan was listed as $417,000. Mr. Annunziato advised that perhaps the applicant could clear up the discrepancy. Autumn Blakeley, Vice President for Architecture, Universal Medical Buildings, Inc., 839 N. Jefferson Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 came forward to address the Board. She also advised that Mr. Schiller from Bethesda Memorial Hospital and Mr. Kirk Dunlap from Universal Medical Buildings, Inc. were also present. In reference to Mr. De Long's question, Ms. Blakeley explained that the figure is clearly a misreading of what was requested. The figure listed covered the estimate for site improvements, not including the building estimate. Mr. De Long asked if she knew what the current cost of the building would be; Ms. Blakeley answered that she would have to check with the estimator. In response to Chairman Trauger's inquiry, Ms. Blakeley stated that they will comply with all staff comments. Mr. De Long moved to approve the request of the applicant subject to staff comments, seconded by Mrs. Huckle. The motion carried 7-0. - 13 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 12, 1986 SITE PLAN MODIFICATION Project Name: Mega-Mini Self Storage Doug Long Doug Long Agent: Owner: Legal Description: Location: Description: See "Addendum C" attached to the original copy of these Minutes East of Congress Avenue, north of S.W. 30th Avenue Request for approval of an amended site plan to allow for a 19,000 square foot storage addition between buildings D and E Mr. Golden stated that the exterior design construction would be similar to the existing buildings. He added that the utilities for this project are existing, and no changes are required for the addition. Mr. Golden advised that TRB recommends approval subject to staff comments. In response to Chairman Trauger's inquiry, Mr. Golden explained that the two-story addition would be between and would connect with the buildings D and E. David Zelk, Architect, N.E. 4th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, came forward to address the Board. He advised that agent and owner Doug Long was present also. In response to Mrs. Ruckle's question, Mr. Zelk advised that the entire building would be used for specialized dead storage. The remainder of the buildings are one-story. Mr. De Long moved that the application be approved subject to staff comments, seconded by Mrs. Huckle. The motion carried 7-0. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, Mrs. Huckle moved that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded by Mr. De Long, and the meeting properly adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Linda Warlick Recording Secretary (Two Tapes) - 14 - ~CHEDULE A I Tr~et of land lying partiaily in Sections 16, 17, 20 and ~1, T~p t5 ~, ~e q3 ~t, Pa~ ~ ~unt?, Florl&, ~id T~ct bel~ ~ parti~hrly ---~e~crlbed ~ ~o21o~: C~ncl~ at the ~uth~est ~rner of ~aid Section 17; . ~hen~ ~orLh 1~ -1~' 39" ~t, ~o~ the ~t ~ine of Section 17, ~ dis~n~ of 1318.10 feet ~ a ~lnt in the intersection vl~ the ~n~rlt~ of ~.W. 2~ ~ve.Je, ~ ~rded tn Off/e/a/ ~e~.vd ~k 1738, Pa~ 1686, oF the ~blic ~e~ of Pa~ B~ County, Florida; then~'vl~h ~ b~rl~ of ~or~ 89~ 0~' ~" ; the center.ne of E.W. ~d Avenue, ~ dis~nce of 77~.3~ feet ~ the ~e ~uth ri~t of ~y line of L.~.D.D. ~e~] 21; then~ ~orLh Bgo OB' ~9" ~t alo~ th~ Sou~: r~t of ~y lI~ of L.~.D.D. Later~ 21, ~ ~rded ~'bfficial ~e~rd ~k 17~, Page 61~ of the ~blie ~e~r~ of Pa~ ~ County, F]orl~, a dis~n~ [ feet ~ the ~nterlim of the L.~.D.D. ~~zi~ ~vml ~q ~1, ~ in Official ~e~d ~k 173~, Page 61~ of the ~blie ~e~ of Pa~ B~ Co~ty, F~ori~; the eenterlt~ of the a~ve described E~st, a r~dtus of of 53,29 feet; thence bearing of North 12V th a curve 31" E ~ the left the centerline o; angle of 1t~ 0.4' 17", and an arc length centerltne of theE-i{ Carol, ~ith a point of ~e; 00, a central a~e of 9° 06' ~" ~st, 17; thence with of Section 17~ a of 2625.18 feet; on ~e 1738, South Z~d Avenue; ~enee ~ zg' ag" ~st, a .- ' KS" ~d ~st,~- a2s:t~ of 15.72'feet; North 89~ 12' 3?" , a ~s~ of · rxu,~ of way lina of thc: S~=~o=. ~ Coastline thenea So~ 0~ 28' 21" East, alor~ th~ West ' ~' r~g,~ of ~y li~_ of the dis~n~ ~ feet to a point on the centerline of " alo~ the een~rli~ of N.W. ~nd Avenue, B 3 of 1306.69 of ~3 ~ ~ ~in%' on the l~ad, %hen~ %'ith a b~rl.~ of of ~y of the: ~ dis~n~ s dis~ of 69 feet; then~ : Of 57 feet; then~ 8B~ 50' ~" West, 187, with a.b~ri~ of ~or~ 9' 21" (continued) ADDENDUM A ~CHEDUL£ A (pag~ 2) ~stanee or 200.00 feet; thence ~orth BBe 50' 0~" ge~t, ~ ~st~ or 218.0 ~eet; ~en~ ~u~b 0a ~9' 21" ~t, p dis~nee or 200;~ ~eet;'the.hee'~Or~-~~ ~est. a d~s~n~ o~ ~O.~ feet; then~ ~outh 0~ ~, 21" ~t, a d~stan~ o~ 556.~ feet, ~en~ North 88~ 50' 0~" West~ a d~s~nee o~ 36i7.26 feet to a on the een~rl~ o~ the above described ~nter)t~ of the E-~ ~1; ~en~ with a~rt~f ~orSh-~ 187 l~e~t, ~ ~t~~5~.~~~~ ~e ~ the' ~t ~v~ a ~ o~ ~50.~ ~eet, a' eentr~ ~le of 15~ radius , a cent~ an~le of 18° 20' 00", and an are length of 1q3.99 ~.of:Nor~h 8° 01' 30" 1~est, a distmfice of 1255.1 ine of ~.W'. ~2nd Avenue; thence with a 32" the center, ne of N.W. ~2nd .~venue. a distance of' more oF. to the -?el:hr. of t~eginning. Subject to easeaents and rlghts-o£-~y of record. ~{/k/a Boyton Beach park Of Coramercd, ,Congress Jkvenue, Boyton Beach,. Florida WFqT RIGIIT OF WAY l,I'f~ OF SE~Ct~Er~ST BOLII,EVA~D, OF TIlE i)I.;SCRIBED PARCEL OF I,~Ni) IN SECTION 3~ TOWh.~llP 45 43 E~ST~ l)~LM BEhCIt COUNTY~ FIJJRIDht TO-WIT: BEGINNING hT TilE INTERSECTION OF Tile ~WESTERBY R1GIIT OF WAY LINB OF SECRE~ST BOUBEVARD W1Ttt TIt~ NORTII BINB OF TRACT 14 OF TII~ SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 33, hS RECORDED IN PI,~T BOOK 1, PAGE PUBIJC RECORDS OF Phl,~ BEhCIt COUNTY, FI~ORiDA; TIIENCB. ALONG SAID RIGItjr OF W'AY LINE, A D~'gTANCE OF 272.39 FEET; TItENCE NORTBWESTERLY., AT RIGHT AIIGLES TO TIlE pRI~CEDING COURSE, A DISTANCE THE SAiD NORTIt LIRE OF OF 419.69 fEET, ~IIENCE EASTERLY, ALONG TRACT ~4, A DISTANCE OF 500.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. L~SS AND NOT INCLUDING, TIlE 'NORTH 20 FEET OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCR I BED : LOTS-8 AND '9, PINE CREST RIDGE, BOYNTON BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT TItEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK-24, AT PAGE ~53 OF TIlE PUBLI~ RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND T~ETlt~ WITH~ x ' LOTS 5,6, 'AND 7,PINE CREST Ri~E, BOYNTON RECORDEDBEACH~ PALMiN BEACH PLAT 'C~UNTY, FLORIDA,' ACCORDING TO THE PLAT TttEREOF ~K 24, AT PAGE ~53 OF TIlE PUBLIC RECORDS' OF PaLM BEACH COUNTY, nor I DA% - - . T~E WESTERLY - . - '-~,~ ~ PORTION OF' LOT' ~4 LYING ' WEST OF SECR~S~ BOUleVARD A~D NO_ 'ID-P~T BEING RECQRDED IN ~ .ALSO TOGETIIER WITH: THAT P;~RT OF SECTION 33, TOWNS'HIP 45 SO~TH, RANGE 43 EAST., ALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS- -- % BEGIN AT T~'IE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 'LOT 5, PINE CREST RIDGE,. ACCORDING TO ~FHE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN-PLAT BOOK 24 AT PAGE' 153 OF TiltE PUBLIC' RECORDS OF PALM ]~]~AC[t COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH (ASSUMED), 'ALONG THE'WEST' LINE OF SAID LOT 5,' 63.56 FEET TO 'A POINT'OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY ~WITH A RADIUS oF_~-25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56°04'00-; 'THENCE'SOUTHERLY, ALONG THE~ SOUT~IWESTERLY. LINE OF ' LOTS ~ 6,7,8, AND 9 OF. SAID PLAT 432.65 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF /{ - WITH':A RADIUS. OF 25.00 'FEET AND A CEN~R;~L 00.'00"I-~THENCE EASTERLY~ ALONG T!t~: ARC 'OF SAI.D CURVE RIGHT OF WAY..' LINE. OF SEACREST BOULEVARD; SAID WESTERLY .RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 100.00 CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY WITH A RADIUS OF 25.00 OF~ 90°00'O0'', AND BEARING Nil °04'00"W, THE ARC OF SAID 39.27 FEET: TIlENCE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF l ,2,3, AN~.._4_ OF 412.32 FEET TO TIlE WEST LINE'.OF CONTAIN! ~. . .'-'432'8 SQUARE FEET, 50~ 00 F~-ET ~EST AND 5; . Ti~ENCE I~ERSECTION ,~ 50,01 TO ADDENDUM B ADDENDUM,~C ,3' C2' ~' ~AST, RL~ ~E ~AST ~IN~ ~ TH~ ~%T ~ HALF ~TH OF ANO PARALLEL TO T~ SAID NORTH Ll~ OF %ECT~ CONTA~[~ ~ ACRE~ MORE O~ LE5~ / *ARCTM P.O. BOX 2944. HARTFORD, CT. 06104 ; t-800-.243-5250 IN CONN. 1-~00-822-5260 · ? TO Jim Golden, Assistant City Planner REPLY MESSAGE -*-. ' '" · -- "" '~.~ .... ¢-", - -*~: '-~..;- --: ', ' '-- -' - - ..' ~ REORDER ITEM ~ F~-, ...... Fire' Department FROM --..,Wm. Cavanaugh, DATE: SUBJECT:. Quantum Park --- Submit street--names for approval before final plat. FOLD ,~, -.,~ 11/4/86 PLEASE REPLY TO SIGNED DATE: ITEM · F269 e WHEELER GROUP INC. SIGNED THIS COPY FOR PERSON ADDRESSFD TO: FROM: RE: M'E M O R A N,D U M November 4, 1986 Mr. Jim Golden Planning Department Tom Clark City Engineer ~ Quantum Park,, Preliminary Plats and Development Plans including N.W. 22nd Avenue ~ -C-0mments:- e Drainage calculations are required and Water Management District apProvals for all plats. Tangent distances an~ degree of curve should be included with the curve data on the development plans. e Plan and Profile sheets should be so identified on each sheet. e A sidewalk ~hould be s~own on the plans for N.W. 22nd Ave. A full section for High Ridge Road should be shown. 6. The east R.O.Wo line on sheet 48 should be shown. e Sidewalks should be shown on plan and profile sheets in addition to typical road cross-sections. ° Additional comments are included with a memo from Bill Flushing dated October 31, 1986 attached hereto. TAC/ck Attach. Tom Clark TO: Tom Clar~. h FROM: Bill Flushing RE: Quan-t um Park, The following discr'epa'nc, ies 9 PI ats~ still remain M October 31, 1986 (Friday) in the Plats: 1. PI at No. ~ The error 'of closure was .058 feet, changes have been made in two delta angles, two distances, and one bear.lng, however the error of closure is. now .021 The e.asement between LOTS 45 and 44 was changed from 12 ft. to 10 ft. This still conflictS' :-~ith the same easement as shown on the construction plans. Sheet 23 -- 15 ft. and sheet 57 -- 12 ft. P1 at No. 5 The plat still shows the lift station site as part of LOT 55, It is dedicated to the City and should not be ~ shown as an easement. As sho~n ib increases the calculated area of LOT 55. The drainage easements that existed before the plating should not be shown on this plat as they are no longer in effect. The Railroad easement (LOT 57) should be addressed in the dedication. Plat No. As in Plat No. 5, the lift station easement, the old drainage easements, and the railroad easement comments apply. No. 7 Railroad easement comment. I CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH TO: FROM: M E M O R A N D U M Mr. Jim Golden Planning Department Tom Clark City Engineer Quantum Blv. d. Bridge November 3, 1986 Comments:- 1. Are 18 inch pre-stressed piles D.O.T. standard or "alternate", specific designation is required. 2. Expansion joints are incorrectly noted on sheet G of 15. e R.O.W. width should be shown on sheet 2. A detail should be provided for the seal at the bearing pile and the sheet piles. The profile of the bridge should show the spacing between behts and should show which end of each span is fixed. Secondary concrete pours should conform with curve. Tom Clark TAC/ck To: Dar e: tubj act: MEMORANDUM Carmen flnnunziato, ?]arming Director t NOvember 6, ~98S~ TRB RevJeu - Quantum Park Construction Dra~inDs and Plats Ue would like to make the Following comments on the subject plans and pla~s. PLRT~ '- 1. Plat 3 - The lift station site is shown, as an easement. It should be Fee simple. Blso, an easement needs to be added between parcels 3S, 37 and 38. P/at 5 - The lift station site is shown as an easement on]y; its Final cogFigur~tion and dimensions are subject to the approval oF shop drawings, so the site size is also subject to said approva] Tract C (High Ridg~ Road) Must include a utilities easement dedication. - 3. Plat S - Tracts B, C, D and E must include utility easement dedications to the City. The lift station site is once again shown as an easement, instead oF Fee simple. 4. P)at 8 - The easement shown between parce]s 83, 84 and 8S, 87 should, be 30' wide, as shown on the plans. S. Provide a copy o~ the Uater Management District permit to construct and maintain the ~ater easement, main within the C-IS Canal hdd an easemen~ through PaPcel 58, adequately sized and located to '~aintalr!neacest building.a 25 Foot minimum distance From the [Jater line to the PLRNS Rdd a note that all sanitary services, both oF¢-siie and on-site. are to be the maintenance responsibility oF Quantum Rssociates. This note should also be included on each plat. Ouantum Park Page g November 4. g- Sheet B4 oF G8 - General , City's appropriate : note !B should be cha denszty test (T~I°~ proc:or)- ~ged to reflect the 3. Sheet SS oF S8 -,ModiFy the air reIeaser vaive detail to the City's Standard.,- ~]so, the general notes disagree regarding uhich density tes~ to use. 4. To reiterate our pre~ious POsition. all pumping station detai]s are subject to revision during the shop drauing revieu Phase. ..........endTh~SalliS accessories.intended to ~nclude the emergency generator at Station S. The site ?or LiFt Station No. 3 ~s to be relocated aPpropr2ate ingress and egress easements. , 6. a minimum 3/4 ton electric~ho. . ave to be provided ~- zst deszgned For tr ..... hoist must have ~ *-, " con~unct~on ~i~h th~ ]~ ~oun:ing ~ ~zescoping boom ana-J_~ ; ~'~ stations. The to Shop draaing approval. ~ ~vei base, and is subjec~ ?- The diesel generator set at Li?t Station No. 3 includes an underground Fu~] storage tank, ~n c°ntradictzon to the draft Tenant Hazardous Materiais Response Plan. The contradiction must be resolved by revision o~ either the Plan or the tank design, b~hich may, in turn require enlargement o~ the lift site, ' 8. Provide Calculations shou~n~ expected load on Uater lines under the railroad ~pur al6ng Hi and seuer MEMORANDUM November 5, 1986 TO: FROM: RE: Chairman and M~mhers Planning an~, Zoning Board Carmen S~ Annunziato Planning Director · _uantum Park Preliminar-_lPat~ Staff Comments Please be advised of 'the Planning Department,s comments in connection with the above-referenced request for Preliminary Plat approval: 1. Notes on plans which read "centerline of entr'ance,, at median cuts do not predetermine driveway locations. 2. Cross section f~r N.W. 22nd Avenue must show the required bike path (sheet no. 49 of 68). 3. Developer to submit a copy of the property owner's documents to the City for review and comment. 4. Developer to dedicate an access easement to the public to provide access to the proposed public park. 5. Developer to document concurrence by Gould and Joa for the abandonment of High Ridge Road. 6. On Plat no. 4 clarify the use of tract G. 7. Construcu a median cut/turn lane for the future City Park at the center point of frontage. 8. It is recommended that the developer post a bond for the -following improvements required in the Development Order: a) Establishment of a vegetated littoral zone (item $ 9). Page Two. c) Establishment of a buffer zone of native upland edge vegetation around '~tland and deep water habitats which are Preserved or Constructed on-site'(item ~ 10). Developer to Provide signalization and turn lanes at-, the intersection of Congress Avenue and the project aCcess road (Savannah Square~ and at all project entrances on Northwest 22nd Avenue as necessary to maintain s~rvi~e., level "C" (item ~ 291. /lat STAFF COMMENTS MEADOWS 300 TRACT D - VIZCAYA PRELIMINARY PLAT Engineering Departmeht: Planning Department: See attached memo. The applicant is to submit documentation tying the dedication of the recreation area to owner- ship of the single-family homes in Tract D. MEMORANDUM November 6, 1986 TO: Mr. Jim Goldeh Planning Department FROM: RE: Tom Clark City Engineer Preliminary Plat} Vizcaya Comments- Sheet flow of storm water across sidewalks should be minimized by providing low grassy areas and showing them on the plans. Construction plans will be required for recreation faCili- ties and unless accompanied by a plan with dimension ties, said dimensions should be added to the site plans so that no scaling on the prints will be required for field location. 3. Raised curbs are required next to parking spaces adjacent to landscaped areas an~ should show on the plans. 4. Handidapped parking spaces should be shown on plans. 5. Double striping details should be shown. Details for specialty pavement are required along with all dimensions and radii required for construction. 7. Wheel stops are required at parking spaces. 8. Relative elevations should be shown on sections. 9. _.Memo from Bill flushing dated October 31, 1986 with additional comments is included herewith. TAC/ck Attach. Tom Clark 0ct0~r ~1, I~8~ TO: TOm Clark FROM: Bill- Flushing -- a P.U.D preiimlnary pi at The following discre, pancies should be noted: 1. The bearing (N 6FSd 55' 05" E)~ should be added ~ ~h~ ~adial line coming ~rom the East c~rne~ ~{ LOT 24. The required Date is missing on the plat. The County Engineer Seal should be the City Engi neet. The City Clerk should only "Attest" Note 5 on the plat is not correct in all cases, (Center Iine of Street and Meadows ~lvd. ) 6. There are no ~RM's on plat. 7. contiguous proper{y is not unplatted as shown. 8. The north-south 12 ft. utility easement going the tennis court as shown on the construction is not shown on the plat. under plans Bill FIush./n g I CITY DF BOYNTON BEACH MEMORANDUM Carmen Annunziato Planning Director Don Jaeger Chief Plans Review Inspector' November 5, 1986 SiCe Plan - Meadows 300 Tract D "Vizcaya" (Private Recreation Area) As a condition of site plan appro.val, the following comments Should be incorporated into the related documents: ~ 1. Buildings and improveme,nts should be accurately dimensioned and located on the site. ' 2. The wall along Meadows Blvd. should have 'an 18" setback from the public right-of-way and details of the wall construction should be submitted. 3. An e-l-evation of the proposed wall sign should be submitted for C.A.B. approval. 4. The site plan should indicate all proposed fences and site lighting for the pool area and tennis courts. 5. The handicapped stall for the recreation area parking should have a handicapped sign and ramp to allow accessibility to the pool house and other amenities. 6. The parking lot details should indicate t~e required curbing around landscaped areas and should show double striping. 7. The memorandum of September 25, 1986 on the required building setbacks for the individual lots should be incorporated into the site plan in order to, receive mas'ter plan modification approval. In order to facilitate the building permit review process, the follOwing information should be provided at the time of submittal: 1. Health Department approval for the bathhouse, pool, and spa. 2. Water and sewer flow rates for the bathhouse and amenities by a registered engineer. 3. Engineering on the pool and spa. 4. South Florida Water Management approval for the site 5. Soil tests for the site. ' 6. Sealed copies of plans for all buildings and improvements, including sidewalks and tennis courts. 7. Engineering on the awnings to show they meet the required wind load. 8. Elevations of handicapped accessible bathrooms and drinking fountain 9. Const'ruction details on the entry fountain. ' ' 10. The final plat must be recorded prior to permitting. The applicant's prompt compliance with the preceding comments will insure a timely permi~tting process. .MEMORANDUM To: Carmen flnnunz~ato, Plannxn~ ~ireci~r Oate: November S, l~SG SUb~ec~: TRB Revxeu - Vizcaxa Recreation Rrna Si~e Plan We can aPProve this projecf., subjec~ to the ?ollouing changes: PLANNING DEPT. ATTN: J. Golden Lt. D. Thrasher MEMORANDUM 5 November 86 V~ZCAYA-Recreation Area Meadows As per the discussion at the TRB Meeting on 'Nov.4, 1986, recommended. the following is Stop sign ~xit. onto Meadows Blvd. Stop sign exit heading southbound. Detail on outside lighting for recreation Lt. D. Thrasher Police Dept. TO: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM ,?'November 5, 1986 Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Carmen S. Annunziato Planning DirectOr. vlzca.a - Staff Comments Pleased be advised of the Planning Department,s comments in connection with the above-referenced request for site Plan approval: 1. As noted by the 'Building'Department in their memo dated September 29, 1986 concerning the Master Plan Modification, copies of a revised Master Plan document are to be submitted which delineate the minimum lot dimensions and minimum building setback lines. This information-may be shown in text or a small detailed drawing on the original Master Plan and must be submitted prior to permitting of the single-family h~mes. Parking spaces requ£re curb stops and double-striping. Details on any proposed exterior lighting for the recreation area are to be provided. /lat Carmen Annunziato Planning Director MEMORANDUM -- D^,, November 5, 1986 Kevin J. Hallahan Forester/Horticulturist Meadows 300 Tract D "VIZCAYA" (private recreation area) - Site Plan There should be additio~i landscaping placed adjacent to the visitor parking lot to provide a visual barrier of the auto- mobiles from residents using the facilities. KJH: ad TO: MEMORANDUM Mr. Jim Golden Planning Department November 6, 1986 FROM: Tom Clark City Engineer , Bethesda Medica~ Office_Building Comments:- 1. Dimensions, radii, elevations for paving and landscaping and construction details are required. 2. Exfiltration test results are required and necessary for the exfiltration trench calculations which are also required. 3. Roadway cross-sections are required. 4. Exfiltration trenches.should have a structure at each end and ak changes in alignment. 5. Radii at edge of pavement should be indicated. 6. Stake-out for construction should be possible without scaling from plans. e Construction and all plans must comply with Code require- ments prior to' permit for paving and drainage. TAC/ck Tom Clark M£MORANDUM To: Carmen flnnunziato, PIannJng Director Date: November G, 1988 ' ~ Subject: 'rRB Revieu- 8ethes~a Medica~ O~{ice Building We can approve the sub)act plan with the following conditions: 1. Shoa all existing water and seaer mains along S. W. ZBth Rvenue. The water main in S. W. ZBth Rvenue may have to be relocated away {rom the ne~ building, subject to the extent oF the proposed excavation and the exact location o{ the main relative to the building's edge. 3. O{{-site and on-site utility easements must be provided. 4. The on-si.re B-inch seuer line must be labeled as e private line due to its close proximity to the building. We recommend this line be. constructed oF ductile iron pipe to minimize {u~ure problems, even though ~he {inal decision and liability rest aith the design engineer and ~he owner. In any even~, the upstream manhole must be relocated away {rom the low point in the drainage Fire lines upstream oF the post indicator valve should be ductile iron. R gate valve is to be added at the tee to the new hydrant. The ~a%er service shouid have a reduced pressure back{Iow preventer downstream o{ the meter but in a visible serviceable location. ' · MEMORANDUM PLANNING DEPT. ATTN: J. Golden LT. D. THRASHER D^TE 5 November 86 MEDICAL OFFICE COMPLEX- BETHESDA HOSPITAL As per the discussion at the _~RB Meeting on~ Nov. 4, 1986, the following is recommended. 1. Stop s~gn on Exit/Ent~ance-Seacrest Blvd. 2. Stop sign~on Exit/Entranct ~ S W 26 Avenue. 3. Stop sign on Exit only lane - S W 26 Avenue. 4. Proper traffic direction in the parking lot. 5. 'Detail d~agr~m of 4'0" free'standing sign due to possible traffic hazard. Lt. D. Thrasher Police Dept. MEMORANDUM Carmen Annunziato Planning Director Don Jaeger Chief Plans Review Inspecto~ November 6, 1986 Site Plan Approval - Bethesda Hospital Medical Office Building As a condition of 'Jite plan approval, the following comments should be incorporated into the related' documents:~ 1. When landscaping is used lmlieu of a bUffer.wall in a C-1 zoning district, it must be maintafned at a height of six feet. 2. Dimensions and details for the remote parking area should be included in the plans. 3. A six foot wall is required around the dumpster. Please submit construction details. 4. Seven handicapped parking gtalls are required for the 278 spaces. These should be placed as close as possible to the building. 5. The sidewalks around the buildings should be accessible to the handicapped. In order to facilitate the building permit review process, the following information should be provided at the time of submittal: 1. Health Department approval. 2. Turn out permit-for Seacrest Blvd. 3. Soil test. 4. Energy calculations.' 5. Water and sewer flow rates by a registered professional engineer. The applicant's prompt compliance with the preceding comments will insure a timely permitting process. DJ:bh Do~-Jeer ~ MEMORANDUM November 5, 1986 TO: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director RE: Bethesda Medical Office Buildinq- Staff Comments Please be advised of the Planning Department's comments in connec- tion_with the above-referenced request for site plan approval: New access driveway to S.W. 24th Avenue to be removed from sheet no. 5 as traffic from the hospital site will not be allowed in the adjacent residential neighborhood. As an alternate, the proposed access drive may be routed into the new parking lot addition. This will contain the hospital traffic within the hospital site. ~ There is a conflict between the parking space detail on the paving and drainage plans and the site plan. The site plan shows a 16' long parking stall with a 6" raised continuous concrete curb While the typical parking space detail on the paving and drainage plans shows an 18' long parking stall with curb stops. e The lighting provided along the northern property boundary is to be directed away from the abutting single-family homes as per the condition of the rezoning approval. e An on-site traffic flow plan is required, including pavement markings and signage. Se The dumpster must be placed on a 10' x 10' concrete pad with a 6'-high concrete block wall. Dimensions to be provided for the parking lot addition adjacent to the north driveway. e The addition of the 2 landscape islands on the landscape plan must be reflected on all plans prior to permitting. /lat CARMEN S. ANNUNZ~ATO MEMORANDUM Carmen Annunziato Planning Director Kevin J. Hallahan Forester/Horticulturist November 5, 1986 Bethesda Hospital Medical Office Building Site Plan This memorandum is in referenc'e to the existing trees on the above project site. The tree survey designates the location, size and type of trees located throughout the property. The applicant should also delineate the following information in letter form to the Planning Department to3be placed in t~e file: The total number of existing trees, specifying the type of each and sizes. The total number of trees preserved in place on the site. The total number of trees transplanted on the site° The total number of trees removed from the site, and reason why. The total number of newly planted trees-which are not presently on the site. The total number ~f tr~es eventually on the site should be the same as or greater than the number presently existing. The proper pro- tective devices and root pruning should be provided around such trees prior to any land clearing. I have met with the applicant and walked the site to review the information contained in this memorandum. Kevin J. ~allahan ~.C_ KJH:ad MEMORANDUM Carmen Annunziato Planning Director Don Jaeger Chief Plans Review Inspector~ DATE November 6, 1986 Site Plan Modification Mega-Mini Self Storage Facilit, ! As a condition of site plan approval, the following comments should be incorporated into the related documents: 1. Dimensions are required for the parking layout with directional signage. 2. Building must be handicapped accessible. 3. Site lighting should be indicated on the site plan. In order to facilitate the building permit review process, the following information should be provided at the time of submittal: 1. Non fire rated partitions may,be used to separate tenants providing no area between 1 hr. rated partitions, for like occupancies, exceeds 3000 square feet. Ail corridors'must have adequate fire ratings. 2. Soil tests should be provided. 3o Two sets of signed and sealed construction plans. The applicant's prompt c~mpliance with the preceding comments will insure a timely permitting process. DJ:bh Don