AGENDA DOCUMENTS
MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
APRIL 9, 1996
has not yet been approved.
Mr. Aguila recalled that when the Pallo Tropical project first came to the City, they wanted
to install a very large round chicken on the side of the building as part of their logo. He
hopes they are not trying to put up that kind of sign this time. Mr. Haag believes the sign
only contains their name.
With regard to Clear Copy, Mr. Aguila recalled that the color of 1he building was to be more
in harmony with the surrounding buildings; however, the color seems more pink than the
surrounding structures. He questioned whether or not the building color changed, and
wondered why it changed.
Mr. Haag explained that there was a color chip included when the project went before the
City Commission. The Commission requested the color to be more orange. When it went
through the permitting process, staff worked with the applicant on color chips, and he
brought in a color which was more orange. Mr. Aguila does not like the color that is now
on the building.
Vice Chairman Golden inquired as to the construction next to Motorola. Ms. Heyden said
it is another addition which falls under the 5 percent threshold for minor site plan
modifications. It is an FPL substation.
Chairman Dube referred to the Piker Steel project which dates back to January. He
pointed out that this project will disappear from the next report; however, it is still not
approved. Mr. Haag explained that the report only shows the items for the quarter. He
agreed that the board will never see this project in the approved status because it will be
deleted from the report.
Chairman Dube also recalled the chain link fence which was approved to hold wood for
Bono's. He pointed out that Bono's is now gone from the center, and has been replaced
by "Big & Tall". He sees this as a place where the new tenants may begin to pile trash.
Ms. Heyden feels there may be something the City can do if "Big & Tall" submits any
changes.
Mr. Rosenstock expressed concern that in looking through the list, he noted that on minor
site plan modifications, some were approved the same day or within one or two days of
submittal. He asked for a clarification of what constitutes "minor'.
Ms. Heyden explained that there is a list of criteria in the Site Plan Ordinance of the Land
Development Regulations. One of the criteria deals with the 5 percent additional square
footage. If the addition is less than 5 percent of the total existing square footage, the
submittal can be processed as a minor site plan modification.
3
MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
APRIL 9, 1996
Mr. Rosenstock was more concerned about the fact that someone may get an approval for
a building to be built, then comes in for a modification, and then changes the sign. Ms.
Heyden explained that signs do not fall under a major site plan modification. Planning and
Zoning and the Building Department are responsible for approval of those signs. However,
on new projects, signage is a submittal requirement.
Mr. Rosenstock has noticed the color of Clear Copy. and he does not recall the Planning
and Development Board or the City Commission approving the present color. Parameters
are required.
Ms. Heyden advised the members that because a sign is approved at the Planning and
Development Board, it does not mean the applicant cannot submit a modification at a later
date. That submittal would be handled as a minor site plan modification or a site plan
waiver. If there is staff concern about what was approved as compared to what is
submitted, it will be brought back as an administrative appeal.
If he was in Ms. Heyden's position, Mr. Rosenstock would bring a modification back to
either the Planning and Development Board or the City Commission to determine if that
is what they want or approved, particularly as it relates to color of buildings, signage, and
neon tubing.
Ms: Heyden said it is not common to have colors change during permitting; however, if
there is a big change, the project is brought back to the City Commission. She explained
that the minor site plan modification criteria is very loosely worded. She appreciates the
board's comments relative to the quarterly reports because staff takes guidance from the
board to fill in for the looseness of the criteria. If the board has concerns about these color
changes, staff will bring future projects back to the board.
Consensus
--.J
There was a consensus of the board to have future Quarterly Reports split out into pending
projects and carryover projects that were approved in a different quarter.
C. Special Planning and Development Board meeting to be held April 23,
1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers
Ms. Heyden made this announcement and explained that the items on the agenda are all
Tradewinds projects. There is a site plan for Cracker Barrel, a master plan modification
for the PUD to change from multifamily to single family, and a Master Plan Modification for
the PCD. There was going to be one large retail building in the area where Cracker Barrel
is planning to be built on the west side of SW 8th. Cracker Barrel will be using all of that
space. Because of the court order, we are required to process these applications in an
expedited manner, including conducting special Planning and Development Board
4
r:;
C I T Y
o F
BOY N TON
B E A C H
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
AGENDA
DATE:
Monday, April 15, 1996
TIME:
7:00 P.M.
PLACE:
Boynton Beach City Hall
City Commission Chambers
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Acknowledgement of Members and Visitors
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Communications and Announcements
5. Election of Officers
6. Swearing in of Witnesses
7. Old Business
NONE
8. New Petitions:
A. PUBLIC HEARING
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
1. Case #4-001
Location:
660 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Owner:
Bob Feldman
Appellant:
Dr. Mark E. Roberts
Request:
Appeal of the Planning and Zoning
Director's administrative decision
of a minor site plan modification
for site plan changes requested by
the owner of Clear Copy.
9. Other Business
10. Comments by Members
11. Adjournment
NOTICE: Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board
of Zoning Appeals with respect to any matter considered at this
meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose
may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is to be based. (F.S. 286.0105)
Page 2
Board of Zoning Appeals
Agenda, April 15, 1996
The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services
where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal
opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service,
program, or activity conducted by the City. Please contact Joyce
Costello, (407)375-6013 at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to
the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably
accommodate your request.
CASE #4-001
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
CLEAR COPY
MINOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 96-201
TO:
Chairman and Members
Board of Zoning Appeals
FROM:
Tambri J. Heyden ?9At
Planning and Zoning Director
DATE:
April 12, 1996
SUBJECT:
Clear Copy, Inc. - BZAA 96-001
Administrative appeal to minor site plan modification
determination
The Board of Zoning Appeals has the authority to review zoning
related decisions made by the Planning and Zoning Director if an
aggrieved party wishes to appeal such an administrative decision.
Changes to a previously approved site plan for Clear Copy, Inc., a
print shop owned by Robert Feldman and under construction at 660 W.
Boynton Beach Boulevard, were recently submitted by the owner.
These changes were determined by the Planning and Zoning Director
to constitute a minor site plan modification, as opposed to a major
site plan modification. Minor site plan modifications are
permitted to be approved administratively by staff rather than
requiring Planning and Development Board and City Commission
approval.
Dr. Mark Roberts, the property owner adjacent to Clear Copy, has
appealed this minor site plan modification decision, contending
that these changes requested by Clear Copy constitute a major site
plan modification. Pages one through four of the attached Planning
and Zoning Department Memorandum # 96-143 provide a history of the
Clear Copy proj ect, as well as a d,etailed description of the
changes Clear Copy requested, the definition of a minor vs. major
site plan modification and the basis upon which the administrative
determination was made. The Board must review the determination
and act to either uphold the administrative decision or over-rule
the decision declaring the Clear Copy changes as a major site plan
modification.
TJH:dim
xc: Central File
a:BZAACler,mem
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
QO w-a ...,... ..... ....... ..... ~, -.,... ....... I'L ,1.YU . 14M. '36-1100
Marah a5, 199&
NIr. J.... Cb.l:of
eft,., A~~oa:n.v
JQ'~ E. Co...~el.1 Blvd.
Suit.. .300
Ft. La~d.Ed.~.. FL 33301
D..~ K~. Che~of.
The Land Develop1MtD~ l'egulatlona atftt... that. the organization
an4 procedure un40r wh1~h the .card of AdJuatment n~.rat.. must
eonfQ~. to Ch.p~.r 151 of ~h. Plorlda Statu.. and th.~ an appeal
18 to b. filed on the proper fo~ .upplied by tbe City Clerk. I
requ..te4 the Citr Clerk'. Office .upplY an application for Bn
AdaLAi.tr.~1v. Appe.l to the Iftard of Adju.t..nt and a copy of
Chapter 16'. P1Q~Ld. Ita~u~e.. Th- Clerk's Qffi~. informed ..
that the.. doau.ent. either didn't ..tat or they cDuldft't provide
~ eopl.., Ilnee an ap~l to the aoard of Ad,u.t..nt must be
fl1e4 1ft . tl..1y Manner. pl...~ have the City forward th..e
doc~ftt. ~o .. .. eooft .. po..lhl.. f would .ppreelate 1t if
~h.y can be raMed to mo.
~h.nk you 1ft advance CO~ you~ eooper.~jon.
~k E. Robert.. D.g.I.
.R...
EnGlo.u~e (Land o..elop..at Revulation., PagA 2.131 2.91)
~ .Y 'AX (305)"1-.'23 AXn UI NAIL
XCI City Clerk
Re91ftGld S~.~.u9h, ..~l~e
i 00 · ~
HO~. ~
, I.
i i'; j, I
I ' ,
I JilL
R.H.S. CORPORATION 1 PI).:,ItH;,':ili
~ ~~;'~L; ~~.QEfJ ...
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. . Suite #2 · Boynton Beach, FL 33426 .(407) 736-1700"-~-
......
-h l f' '
March 27, 1996
Mr. James Cherof
City Attorney of Boynton Beach
3099 E. Commercial Blvd.
Suite #200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
RE: Clear Copy Projec~
Dear Mr. Cherof:
As you are aware, on March 25, 1996, RHS Corporation filed an
appeal to be heard by the Board of Adjustment for Administrative
Decisions of the Planning and Zoning Department and City's Staff.
Land Development Regulations (LOR), Chapter 2, Section IO.E state
that an appeal to the Board of Adjustment stays all work on the
premises unless a stay will cause imminent peril of life or
property. A stay will not cause imminent peril of life or property
for Clear Copy's property.
The continued development of the Clear Copy Project is clearly
in violation of LOR. Therefore, I request the City immediately
require the stoppage of all work at the Clear Copy Project.
si~ce1WdJ6m~
'"
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
President, RaS Corporation
MER: sm
SENT BY FAX (305)771-4923 AND US MAIL
xc: Reginald Stambaugh, Esquire
Ms. Carrie Parker, City Manager
Ms. Tambri Heyden, Director of Planning and Zoning
..............~1. ~.- ~r-.J ~ ~..... __, _ .......~......." ~ ~.....r i5f" 1..... ........~I,I ..... '....1.,.. p.......,......... .,_. !_~.._. ~., ......................~ r I"'"'-T'~"'""'~r...,..' ......,n ,,.-JI'Tl"P7'1,....,....,,.-- . ......~. "1.. .1'.....' ......... r ',' . .--......... ~p .....
JOSIAS & GOREN, P A.
.T'TOIllNtYS ....T ,.W
!i>VI f~ .eoo
30,;J!;l C"'ST c:O......E..C....... .OVIoC"...."'C
FUIU lAVr'IKD.4LK. FU:>lll[l^, 03:308
5TE"eH I. ..I051A,5
S...."'utl S. GOREN
.,1...."'1;5 ...., CHIEAO'
00",,,...0 .,I, OOOOT
KE.,RV ,", CZAOL
TELIPHO...E ~.lUt" 771- .;00
,.......M .1AC.....o:n Z76 -94<:'0
r...e5'''''''' 1305' 771,.9~3
'.""1.11; ..., TREM'
L.tON"AO G "V.IN
CH""I.&;S C. C:"RTWR'l;;HT
lIeN..I""',I'o L.. ...vu",
11arch 29, 1996
v~~ FA(;~~MlL.E
Reginald stambaugh, Esquire
Miller & WoodS, P.A.
1400 Centrepark Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Floriaa 33401
Re: City of Boynton Beach adv. RKS corporation (950400)
Dear Mr. Stambaugh:
In furtherance of our telephone discussion and in response to
you client's letters of March 25th and March 28th please consider
the following:
1. I have agreed that Dr. Robert'5 letter ot MarCh 25, 1996
is sufficient notice of intent to appeal to satisfy the thirty (30)
day time requirement tor tiling. However, in and ot itself, the
March 25, 1996 letter is not sufficient to invo~e the jurisdiction
of the Board of Zoning Appealtii since it does not specify the nature
of the appeal nor identify the administrative decision that Dr.
Robert's is aggrieved of affected by.
2. I advised Dr. Robert's ot the need tor a supplemental
letter containing the above information but I have not yet received
one.
3. No st9P work order will be issued by the city staff until
the supplemental letter is received and I have determined that the
jurisdiction of the Board of Zoning Appeals has be.n properly
invoked. AdditionallY, if I determine that the Board has
jurisdiotion, the off 10ia1 from whom the appeal is taken will
determine if the i5suance of a stay will cause imminent peril to
life or property. If that deter.minatiQ~ is nade and certified, no
stay will issue except as provided' t7e Ordinance 95-44.
S ~E!.l Y. ,y~u~s I
.];J~. C Of'
JAC/jc
~O~OO\STAM'AVG".lT-
cc: Bill Hukill (via facsimile)
Carrie Parker (via facsimile)
"~'?__""'r
'"}. .......-..""l" ' .'" .. .., ,r' .'- ''''''',"7.,.r'' ""~""'''' ,.~~IIl'ft"M'f"'II~~~";f'lrr-r"'.~"'_""""_""I""",.'I"""","",,,~".'r.1",~""'"'''''''''' "._" ....,."!.......','..,....,...
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
William HUKill, Directcr ot Development
J"mes A. Cherof, City Attorney ~/
March :Z~, 1~~6
Clear Copy, RHS Corp.
TO:
DATE:
RE:
On I~arch 25, 1996 I received the ~ttached letter from Or.
Roberts indicating a desire to appeal to the Board of Adjustment
(Board of Appeals Appeals). I thereafter spoke with Dr. Roberts
and his attorney and advised that the Board has not prescribed a
torm tor appeals. I further advised that the letter of March 25,
1996 would be treated as a timely notice of intent to appeal, but
thot an supplement~l lette~ from D~. Roberts would be necessory to
speoify the administrative decision being appealed. I have not
received that letter. There i5 no way to determine if the Board of
Zoning Appeals will have jurisdiction to consider the appeal until
the supplemental letter is received.
Ordinance 95-44 ~.t~ forth the procedures for the review of
decisions of administrative officials. Section F of the Ordinance
provides the .1 and appeal to the boa~d stays a 11 work on the
premises and the proceedinqs in turtherance ot the action appealed
from..." When Dr. Roberts has perfected his appeal by providing
the supplemental letter (and assuminq it properly invokes the
jurisdiction of the Board) a stop work order should be issued. I
will advise you when I receive that document.
cc: Carrie Parker, City Manager
kl900182\11ulcil
~T'1......~..,.,.. ."f' -,.-. ~ ...,-.mr~,..,..,...J'fIWIP,""""""""''' ,.....
,....,~"""II""""......'"" .!,~I~""~ ~~ ....~T_~ f1"..,"'--....~,...- ~... -...., "":"I....,.,..
,~. ..........,.,................. ,..,.4. ~ , ,...~A_u~w
ATTORNeys ",T ~"w
su"e aoo
illL:~~I~
_.___...__~U II..DING
JOSIAS & GOREN. P. A.
](199 ~"ST C:O""'C"C'AI. .0"1.1:""110
FOIn LAl; UItRDA1.P..FLOIUDA 00000
STtvlN I., ..10.1..
SAMUEL .. GO~C'"
JAMI:S ... CIofCIIO,.
001'4....0 J. DOODY
MCRAY L. [ZIlIOL
TC"C"MOHC 13051,." ,.soa
P"'~M .rACIt '.071 276....00
,. "'CS' MIL C tJO!II 771 ,492.3
April J, 1996
Y......,~E M. 1MHt'
LCON....O G. "UI"N
C....."LtS 1:, CAllIlWI'lIIOtlT
.rNJ......N I., "VE"',
Reginald Staabaugh, Esquire
Killer , Wood., P.A.
1400 Centrepark Boulevard
West Pal. S..ch, Florida 33401
Re: city of Boynton Beach adv. RHS Co~oration C95040Ql
Dear Reg:
I a.. in receipt of your client'. letter dated April 1, 1996.
Notwith.tandinq hi. aischaracterization of our telephone
oonversation of Karch ~S, 1996, his letter does sutficiently set
forth the nature ot his appeal, to wit: the determination by the
Planning and Zoning Director that the Site Plan Modification,
submitted by Clear Copy Development, was a minor (rather than a
.ajar) modification.
By oopy ot th1. letter, I am requesting that statt evaluate the
effect of a stay and determine whether the imposition of a stay
would create eminent peril to person or property. It that
determination 1s made, no stay will issue. If the contrary
determination ie .ade, the stay will be initiated immediately.
The next .chadUled Zoning Board of Appeals .eeting i. April 15,
1996, at 7:00 p... The appeal will be li.ited to a review of the
determination that the Slte Plan Modification, submitted by Clear
copy, wa. . minor lIOdification. No "additional deterainations" (to
use your olient'. phrase) will be submitted to the Board beyond the
soope ot the appeal.
with re.peat to your client-. request (I refer to hi. letter of
4/3/96) for a "copy of Chapter 163 of the Florida statutes which
governs the city'. Board ot Adjustment". I know of no .ection of
the .tatut. responsive to that requ.st. Additionally, since no
certification of the Planning and Zonlnq Director haa been issued
as yet, I cannot provide a copy.
By the way, the City do.. not have a Board ot Adjustment. The
Board ot Adjust.ent vac abolished last year and the Board of zoninCl
Appeal. created.
.. "I
'.. .
! r.... r '.....,..1 ............... ~ . 1 .
~ I .. ..
~
Should you need additional info
contact lie.
J
JAC/aw
eel Carrie Parker, City Manager
Bill Hukill, Direotor of Develop.ent
"0400\ITANINJIIII. us
Ir
he.it.t. t.o
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-143
Agenda Memorandum for
March 19, 1996 City Commission Meeting
TO: Carrie Parker
City Manager
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zoning Director
DATE: March 15, 1996
SUBJECT: Clear Copy, Inc. - MMSP #96-03-003
(Minor site plan modification for parking lot and
building design changes and request for overhang
determination)
Please place under Legal - Other, on the March 19, 1996 City
Commission agenda, discussion of 1) a minor site plan modification
that has been submitted for Clear Copy and 2) Commission
legislative intent for commercial building overhangs as it relates
to the pending RHS Corporation v. City of Boynton Beach case.
INTRODUCTION
On September 19, 1995, the City Commission approved, subject to
comments, the site plan request for Clear Copy; a new print shop to
be located at the southeast corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and
N.W. 7th Street (660 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard) - see attached
Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96-142 - Exhibit A
for location map. RHS Corporation subsequently filed a Notice of
Administrative Appeal to appeal through the circuit court system
the City's decision to approve Clear Copy's site plan. RHS owns
and occupies the abutting property immediately east of Clear Copy's
parcel. There is a medical/dental office building located on this
abutting property. Since the September approval, the applicant has
moved forward with construction permits and the building is
currently under construction and nearing completion.
On February 27, 1996, I received from the city engineer, William
Hukill, a memorandum notifying the department that the applicant
for Clear Copy had submitted, through permitting and in response to
Mr. Hukill's request for a code compliance certification, a site
plan drawing showing several modifications to the permit that had
been previously approved for Clear Copy's site improvements. For
expediency and simplification, all applicants are allowed to submit
modifications directly through the permitting application process
for determination of minor vs. major change or may submit
modifications directly to the Planning and Zoning Department, with
a letter describing the changes (although we have also allowed
modification plans to be evaluated for determination by meeting
with Planning and Zoning Department staff).
Since the development is the subject of pending litigation, city
policy requires staff to notify the legal department of any actions
related to pending litigation. Such notification occurred and on
March 4, 1996, the legal department advised staff of the following:
a) that the City Commission be apprised, expeditiously (at their
next available meeting), of the minor site plan modification
that has been submitted;
b) that the City Commission ratify staff's determination and
c) that the RHS Corporation be notified that the modified site
plan will be presented to the Commission at this meeting.
As previously discussed with you, on March 8, 1996, the legal
department filed a Motion for Extension of Time with the circuit
court regarding the subject case. Reference in the motion was made
TO: Carrie Parker
-2-
March 15, 1996
indicating that the modified site plan would come before the City
Commission at their March 19, 1996 meeting. On or about March 5,
1996, the legal department notified the RHS Corporation that the
minor site plan modification would be discussed at the March 19th
Commission meeting. In addition, copies of this memorandum will be
provided to the RHS Corporation, specifically Dr. Mark E. Roberts,
today, after transmittal of this memorandum to you.
It is the Planning and Zoning Department's responsibility to
determine which departments review minor site plan modifications
and to inform the applicant of the completeness of his submittal.
After receipt of engineering plans to accompany the modified site
plan received, staff distributed the submittal to the Technical
Review Committee (TRC) for comments and placed the request on the
agenda of the next available TRC meeting (Mareh 12, 1996). It is
noted that the standard method for obtaining eomments from
designated TRC members for minor site plan modifications is by
telephone request to review plans held in the Building Division.
However, the TRC meeting forum was used in this case due to the
pending litigation and to more quickly and effectively assemble the
attached materials for the March 19th Commission meeting.
The modifications are described in the attached Planning and Zoning
Department Memorandum #96-142 and are illustrated in the attached
copy of the modified site plan (Planning and Zoning Department
Memorandum #96-142 Exhibit B). After comparison with the
September 1995 approved site plan (copy provided in attached
Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum #96-142 - Exhibit B),
these modifications have been determined to be minor in nature and
can, therefore, be approved administratively through the permit
process. For clearer Commission understanding of the modifications
requested, the original site plan staff report has been attached
and revised to reflect the changes. Also attached in Planning and
Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96-142 - Exhibit C is a list of
all administrative comments that condition this minor site plan
modification approval. For reference purposes, the applicable
sections of the Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations (Part
III of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances) used to determine the
processing of a modification to an approved site plan are provided
below. Following each criterion, staff's conclusion is included
and appears in brackets:
IISection 9. Modification of approved site plan.
c. In making a minor/major modification determination, the
planning and zoning director shall consider the
following:
1. Does the modification increase the buildable square
footage of the development by more than five (5)
percent. II [No change in the size of the building
is requested.]
2. IIDoes the modification reduce the provided number
of parking spaces below the required number of
parking spaces. II [No change in the number of
parking spaces is requested.]
3. IIDoes the modification cause the development to be
below the development standards for the zoning
district in which it is located or other applicable
standards in the Land Development Regulations. II
[The modification does not change, and continues to
meet, the C-3 zoning district development standards
(building and site regulations). In addition,
compliance with the attached staff comments will
ensure that all safety and technical concerns, as
well as code requirements, have been addressed.]
TO: Carrie Parker
-3-
March 15, 1996
4. "Does the modification have an adverse effect on
adjacent or nearby property or reduce required
physical buffers, such as fences, trees, or
hedges." [The modifications include replacement of
the N. W . 1st Avenue ingress only driveway for a
N.W. 7th Street ingress only driveway, a flip-flop
of the location of the row of parking spaces with
the access aisle to the parking spaces, switching
of the handicapped space location, addition of
window sills to the building exterior. The
building exterior modification does not lessen the
appearance of the building. In fact, the change
lends a more finished look to the building, making
it more compatible with the exterior appearance of
adjacent buildings. The driveway change meets code
locational requirements and does not negatively
affect adjacent properties. The parking lot "flip-
flop" and handicapped space change are internal to
the development and have no negative impact
(virtually no impact at all) on adjacent
properties; nor do they diminish the function of
the parking lot.
With regard to reduction of physical buffers, the
modifications do not diminish the degree of
buffering afforded by the September 1995 approved
site plan. No change in the landscaping proposed
as part of the original site plan approval for the
area between the Clear Copy parking lot and Dr.
Roberts' parking lot is requested, consistent with
the September 19, 1995 city determination that this
landscape buffer is acceptable.]
5. "Does the modification adversely affect the
elevation design of the structure below the
standards stated in the community design plan."
[The modification to the elevation design of the
structure meets the community design plan and as
stated in criterion 4 above, the building exterior
modification does not lessen the appearance of the
building. In fact, the change lends a more
finished look to the building, making it even more
compatible with the exterior appearance of adjacent
buildings. ]
6. "Does the modified development meet the concurrency
requirements of the Boynton Beach Comprehensive
Plan. " [The modifications have no impact on the
previously granted concurrency certification.]
7. "Does the modification alter the site layout so
that the modified site plan does not resemble the,
approved site plan." [This criterion grants a
certain degree of staff authority and requires
application of judgement .nd common ..nee to assess
the magnitude of change. Consistent application of
this criterion is apparent through the quarterly
reporting to the Commission of site plan waivers
and minor modifications processed by the
department. When magnitude of change and
similarity, or lack thereof, is ,evaluated between
the approved site plan and the modification, the
following comparisons are noted:
a) no change in building location;
TO: Carrie Parker
-4-
March 15, 1996
b) same building to parking relationship -
building in front, parking in rear;
c) no change in number of driveways or type
of driveways (two-way va. one-way and
ingress va. egress);
d) service areas are in same general
location and method of refuse collection
(curbside pick-up for trash and
recyclables) is unchanged;
e) degree, quality, quantity and location of
landscaping is unchanged;
f) type of parking spaces is unchanged;
g)
location of impervious
lot, sidewalks and
virtually unchanged.
h) building height, style, type and use are
unchanged; and
areas (parking
structures) is
i) utility service modifications are to the
extent that they have no effect on other
site improvements,
Therefore, based on the above evaluation, staff concluded that the
changes requested constitute a minor site plan modification and
meet the following definition of minor modification: II a non-
impacting modification which will have no adverse effect on the
approved site and development plan and no impact upon adjacent and
nearby properties, and no adverse aesthetic impact when viewed from
a public right -of -way as determined by the planning and zoning
director".
In addition to ratification of staff's action on the modified site
plan, the legal department advised that staff seek from the
Commission a determination of their legislative intent when
adopting the following section of the city's zoning code:
Section 4. General Provisions.
J. Other Structures. The following structures shall
be permitted in front, rear or side setbacks as
provided in this ordinance, in any zone, except
where so noted; taking into consideration existing
easements:
3. House eaves shall not overhang or exceed
the setback lines for more than two (2)
feet.
Specifically the question is whether commercial buildings are
allowed to overhang into setbacks, so long as the overhang does not
exceed two feet. The Development Department states that
historically overhangs of commercial buildings have been allowed,
at time of inspection, to exceed the setback lines. These
overhangs, which include building surface treatments, as well as
window sills and cornices, have been reported to range from one
inch to six inches.
This determination is necessary because the tie-in survey submitted
for the Clear Copy building indicates a 10 inch overhang into the
front (north) and east side setbacks. Clear Copy's window sills,
plaster, raised stucco bands and the cornice extend beyond the
TO: Carrie Parker
-5-
March 15, 1996
setback by three inches, 1 1/4 inches and 10 inches respectively.
The window sills were not part of the original approval and the
cornice was extended a greater distance than originally planned in
order to add roof ventilation; a design detail that is not
considered until the construction drawing stage - after time of
site plan approval.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, two actions are requested by the Commission as
follows:
a) ratification of staff's action to process the submitted
modifications as a minor site plan modification and
b) a determination as to whether the Commission's action
when approving the zoning code included various
commercial building features to be treated as house
eaves, thereby permitting such features on commercial
buildings to extend into the setback by no more than two
feet.
tjh
Attachments
xc: Central File
C:ClrCopy
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 96-142
SITE PLAN REVIEW
STAFP' REPORT
FOR
C:ITY COMMISS:ION
March 22, 1996
Project Name:
DESCR:IPT:ION OF PROJECT:
Clear Copy, Inc.
Applicant:
Agent:
Location:
File No.:
Land Use Plan
Designation:
Zoning
Designation:
Type of Use:
Number of
Units:
Square
Pootage:
Surrounding Land
Uses and Zoning
District:
Existing Site
Characteristics:
Proposed
Modification:
Bob Feldman, Owner
George C. Davis
Southeast corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard
and N.W. 7th Street
MMSP 96-03-003
Local Retail Commercial (LRC)
Neighborhood Commercial (C-2)
Print shop
N/A
Site:
9,788 square feet (.225 acres)
Building:
3,780 square feet
Find attached Exhibit "A" - location map.
North -
Boynton Beach Boulevard and farther
north commercial building, zoned C-2
South -
N.W. 1st Avenue and farther south,
single family dwellings, zoned R-1A
East
Commercial building, zoned C-2
N . W . 7th Street and farther west
commercial building, zoned C-2
West
The 3,780 square foot two-story building is
under construction.
The proposed request is to modify the
previously approved parking lot to relocate
one of two driveways and flip-flop a row of
parking spaces with the access aisle location.
Find attached Exhibit "B" - approved site plan
and proposed modified site plan.
The following are changes to the exterior
elevations of the building that have been made
or have been submitted for review since the
September 19, 1995 City Commission approval of
the site plan:
Page 2
Memorandum No. 96-142
Site Plan Review Staff
Clear Copy, Inc.
File No. MMSP 96-03-003
Report
i.
change the color of the walls of the
building from S-W BM 1-3 pink to Benjamin
Moore base-2 OP-58 peach,
ii.
change the shape of the windows by adding
a radius top,
iii. added a horizontal stucco band mid height
to the walls,
iv. change the color of the roof tile from S-
W BM 1-31 red to Adobe Copper Smooth,
v. move the windows on the north elevation
to the east approximately 6 feet,
vi . ch3.nge the swing of the door on the
southeast corner of the building and
vii. add decorative window sills
Items i, 1.1., and iii where changes made as
part of building permit rectification of the
comments from City Commission approval of the
site plan. Items iv, v and vi are changes
that have been approved administratively
through the permit process, as a waiver, and
item vii is currently in permit review pending
Commission determination of their legislative
intent regarding house eaves.
Concurrency:
Traffic - As requested by Palm Beach County
Traffic Division, the applicant
filed a restrictive covenant that
limits the use of the structure to
a print shop, unless further
reviewed for traffic by the County.
Drainage -
Drainage
submitted
Division.
awaiting
applicant
code.
information has been
to the Engineering
The city engineer is
certification from the
that the drainage meets
Driveway..
Two, one -way dri veways to the parking lot
proposed. Both driveways are located on N.W.
Street. The south driveway is ingress only and
north driveway is egress only.
are
7th
the
Parking
Facility:
The proposed parking facility contains the required
thirteen (13) parking spaces, including one (1)
handicapped space. As previously approved, curb
pick-up is the method refuse and recyclable
material will be collected.
Landscaping:
Following compliance with staff comments, the
proposed development will comply with the minimum
landscaping required by code. The applicant has
agreed to dedicate to the city area in the
southwest corner of the site to construct the
required sidewalk in the city right-of-way.
Page 3
Memorandum No. 96-142
Site Plan Review Staff Report
Clear Copy, Inc.
File No. MMSP 96-03-003
Building and
Site
Regulation..
The proposed development meets the requirements of
the building and site regulations. Total site area
is 9,788 square feet, building coverage is thirty-
seven percent (37%) and the building height is
twenty-five (25) feet.
Community
Design Plan:
As a condition of site plan approval the proposed
two-story stucco building will be a peach color
with white trim.
Signage:
A free standing sign is proposed between Boynton
Beach Boulevard and the front of the building. The
free standing sign is under construction.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Department has granted approval of this
site plan modification request, subject to the comments included in
Exhibit "C" - Administrative Conditions. Deficiencies identified
in this exhibit shall be corrected on the set of plans submitted
for building permit. Commission ratification of this action is
recommended.
MEH:dim
xc: Central File
a: STFFRPTMM. CLE
E X H I BIT
.. A II
LOC~\TION MA~ -
CLEAR COpy, INC.
I: ::j II-r I IT J- r-... ~ J.I.U!,L -l~2' ill III ::..
, '..... ~ I. '" _ . I- r"'" . .- ill ,. ...... _ .-- _
: 'I- -: R 1 _~_I-.~I- :I~I ;;~. ;,' r::::-,:.:. -
/ ,\1- I .1- -I-'f=I= I ~'~I';"~ _-
r-- I '1-1 ~11. E ,1_ I- I- ,.- .- ,. -
J I '~ ~ ~ ~ ',' '-' 1-, = , . - ~ -.. ..
. 'Y C. 1- I .1- -.. 1-. -, --,
... '~~' .. ,1- ~I-I- '_I- ~ I=~ -~ == ;:.. 1,_
/ . "~~ 1- 1--1- -I- ~ -f- __ _
....,. ...~~l ::'I..~ __ ~ '~: ~ .~:::; "7
, '\.I' ::::::l __
R 1 A A ..! lli I II I - I " .. ~ -:- :- -
roJ i!:: tllr~':I: ,- >=- -- -- ~
, - liIIrrl "- _ '-r.: _ I' J
': ' - U I '1-1 7' ;:ii 1 r-- ;
i " Il~,IM~ - ,~- .. = D-' .. f-- ~ rc-i
';./' 1.1 'l= ":: ' ' - : ~'
: = , ;' 1- - - l;;; -., -, - , . Ill' f.. 10-
i - r- - I-((:~ 'C ~ I Ii .....' :...: _..-
I I:_tj~' ~-~ r~'~~ r-;1.
-. ,.. , I-- I -1 .: -.' ". __ ,
--= ' ' ~.. -:: ,- ,
R3 r rrn I 'Z--, q ~> , ~ -, ~ _. .: '. .. ~---~
.1.mJJ ~.-:.D ie-IT'': '~-'l/; -;-1 ....~ ~l '..; ~!~ ~ :"L'~' i I I
II i' " 'I.' ,x T ~ n l<' L L,. :;:= ,- 1
---- '~tllr. II ~'Jr.! t~l,' 11'.J~< /0(~~ ~ -;: - -:~ \ I J, '11- RE~
., 11 ry 7 J"~ ~........ V() - - - ,
I tJUll,. J '-. ~/,~' ~""-' ~3" 1-- l! ' r:
- ;. I--;;rtf~ ~~.:) , ""':" ~ _~~ .: ;
TT'. ." Ir!Tl' " ' , ~. ~' I" _~. -
- ~c "1' I "-', ~:." ,.ac,i::ji,EBIM'I'_IU... ~(i ~"f.I~~"
, , ,I" ..' I i. I I I lilJ ~u:::tII \~ i I r Ii Ilrt
BoY, ,TO'" A_AC"'_ ----, ~~ \ D3::!:!!: . TT''I~l.,"q, ::;:r -.;.:... ~ ~ -',
, ~ :~,""'~ ~L ~..,. tit' 'I tie- HI'I ~i; . Ii'.... .~l ,\ I flT 'I m
:I 7"\" ~.,,~ I ' ! ~ ~~ .' ~'i ~ 'r ~ r-j~lJ~e ,~~: f?- ;! ~ ~ \ I \ .m f~B'
1=13 ,,-'-',; i. W~.~~I..F\ 1,::J1J:[ ':~.~ ~~i~~l' ~! \1\)11, ~'rnl'l I
I :r l~"jlt '1'.. : ~r ~r, :"1' II_J- ~.u .rni -rrj~ l' ;;~=] ;;;.L: " ::~~rl~~__
I' ! II. I,";:' I! r: .. rT - 'f-'" 'lL 'A-" . I . "'--S!b I ~ 'lr"TT--
'r{ .... ,~~.....,~, r( 'I - \...w J~;..' <---ll...:~ ~ ' I
I. 0) \ ' -I::IE C ',h \\:.~.:.; L' :: Ii'" i:;"H~lIIU1m rT.D f :;: ' i i
\' '''', . -I'J (~i~~~~' ~:'~'lr~Slt~;Frf.]:,,~I_~1'1~" r~~:::~~lLJ'" ,,:1. - ~l~~
I I ' . . ~ ; II . ,....,. :..... :'1.' R' ;,1\; f -~ - i
f ; " ~ ,... :. -~ ~=, ::: ! JI-4.: ...
. . 1 .. . , .' ~ I~" . .... - - .. -- \~- 'i=r-- _I I T
r,; . .<,~ " or.'. ~", ....;.;1, :' ::: .: -:- _ ""1'" 'imr III . ] :.
R e c s: /' - :iJ ~ ~, .~ - - c- ',-l;& J ~
~ it...' . '9JfrLfM ~t() ~:'x!!lJI~lHtllh. ~ i Jl I,;
';. ... - r /IIe!1 .': Ir~ u I~ Ii !;~ ~~ 11"111
] J ~ f " , \ <.-, ~ ~"_ ',- '-.. .' (.lttr !'. ,f \ P U 0 CIiTIl
I' Ill'. 1,.;.:~. ~<~~.. . ...,<~.: ~ L.UI'S.O 1-- .filliill
..O~ --'.i. " "/ ~ ',' '. ' ,,' ,'. J- I
.,.. . , ,... ~o . ~" .',,. ,. ,t . I
;"'f~ ;~'l'll" mllr/~W;~ ~'?~~~ i, j
. . . ., -Ie::: '. 1- ~ ~'<i '--
.d...r.'g'~: :~~- '. Ij~~ . _1;:- ..J~~lU~~
. 'q~ 1 1 -. R;-' -'~~~~7~-' -. ~ 'J..~I 1111 ~
1.1=-1 J- '/~~ 'T"~' u":''','? ?J~~~'-: :ol'III/1t, MI~ESV ~
~ ~ ,2-<", ' ~' .' !~~. r.] ~ , lLT..-
'I .. if "I'c' ~ I - "'~... A ... I I '0 400 '8
: : ; ,:., ;:!L:U , '-I ,',~ . ?\.p.1':.~'-J' .~: '. 00 FEeT
, ':'il ,rn I, r--tr-~~y,",",7..:~~, \ _ )___..., D'A U'h..... DFi.DT.b-95'
..... ",.. ""'r.'
~ "~;J
_J
"
,
:-
,
,
.
,
In
J. ""'1
~.
. ,r;Trr
~'. :'J::1!crr::
;':II:~~':III~1:
1,1i11lill;I!II!I!
:~
c:m '!!'p. ..,,"
-I
,..ll'~i
. , . 11t1tt'1
.i..JL
J
P
U -,
E X H I BIT
II B II
\ \ "
*
.-.
~l
I
Sl
)>
'"tJ
"
:0
~
m
c
C/)
=i
m
-c
):
z
co
"'"
...L
co
"'"
co
(J1
. ,
t.._.:...._~e~
~
c.
... --- ,....----.
,
LCil__
.
I
'I:: I -.'
~ w.1" ......
~ ..I.
I- ~..
. .
. "
~
-
...
'C.
...
..
r
-
"
. .;.1. '
....-.,.T:' - - .... ...t.._...
f. . , '. ~"f:."':6. J,.tl.~ J ,....J. t wA ~^' ~ .J .I!!fI
a.. , , tv .J..,f'U' -1-_.. .tII. V ,. V --
t tU' · '
. " !
i
~
-$-
. .
,
-l\.!....ec,NmR e:iQ"tH-5:r'd' D
''2.''''0'
. .. SD'.CPO'
~
~
1 ~b
" I
~ I
~~~ I
I ,
!
f
...
.-..-...-.."...,..."" ,,""-_....
..
-I
-0
~
-0
o
m
m
c
~
-
z
o
JJ
en
=i
m
-0
!;
z
3::
o
c
-
'TI
o
~
-
o
z
:a ~
1'4 ~
~
~~
l ~
fq~
;;t ,
o
~
\.
E X H I BIT
II C ..
EXHIBIT "C"
Administrative Conditions
Project name: Clear Copy, Inc.
File number: MMSP 96-03-003
Reference: One (1) sheet, ST-1. 9re~ared bv Georqe C. Davis.
Architect (as revised March S. 1996) and two (2) sheets ~reDared
bv H. Burton Smith. P.E. signed. sealed and dated 3/2/96
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments:
1. As previously approved, Public Works
has no concerns providing curbside
service for the removal of solid waste
and recycling
UTILITIES
Comments:
2 . A mini manhole will be required in
Clear Copy's north entrance placed
over the City sanitary sewer cleanout
near the property line per Utility
Department criteria.
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
.
Comments:
3 . Place bollards along the east edge of
the handicap parking space safety zone
and the north half of the east edge of
the handicap space.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
4. Certification by the applicant's
design professional that the work,
when completed, will conform with all
codes, ordinances, rules, regulations,
and City Commission approvals.
5. Elimination of dimensional variations
between Davis drawings and Smith
drawings.
6. Restriping of NW 7th Street as
directed.
7. Dedication of property occupied by
small portion of sidewalk infringing
on southwest corner of site.
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Provide Building Division with a copy
of the final approved plans to be
incorporated with the construction
plans.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
DEPARTMENTS
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: NONE
INCLUDE REJECT
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
9. Show, dimension and label on the
site/landscape plan the line-of-site
triangles required at the intersection
of N.W. 1st Avenue and N.W. 7th
Street, and both sides of each
ingress/egress driveway located on
N.W. 7th Street. Add a typical note
to the plan that indicates the
landscaping within the line-of-sight
triangles between thirty (30) inches
and six (6) feet in height shall be
maintained to allow an unobstructed
cross visibility. Also, show on the
site/landscape plan the zoning code
visual obstruction safe sight corner.
[LDR, Chapter 7.5, Article II -
Landscape Code, Section 5 Hand
Chapter 2 - Zoning, Section 4 E] .
10. Identify on the site/landscape plan
the location of the raised curb
required to protect the landscaping.
[LDR, Chapter 23 - Parking Lots,
Article II, E].
11. On the site/landscape plan identify
the specie, spacing and height of the
landscaping shown. All landscaping
shall be identified consistent with
the specifications of the landscape
code. Note: One-half of the total
number of trees and hedges shall be
identified as a native specie. [LDR,
Chapter 7.5, Article II - Landscape
Code, Section 5 C, D, E, and
Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.4.6] .
12. Specify on the site/landscape plan
that the grade of the landscape
material is Florida #1 or better, that
the landscape material will be
installed in a sound workmanlike
manner and that the material will be
irrigated with an automatic water
supply system. [LDR, Chapter 7.5,
Article II - Landscape Code, Section 5
A, B, C, and Comprehensive Plan Policy
4.4.6] .
13. Specify on the site/landscape plan the
specie of lawn grass and the method of
installation. [LDR, Chapter 7.5,
Article II - Landscape Code, Section 5
C 6] .
14. Add to the site/landscape plan the
existing lane striping within the N.W.
7th Street right-of-way directly west
of the site.
Page 2 of 3
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
15. To conform to accepted practices,
amend the configuration and horizontal
control dimensions of the landscape
strips and parking lot shown on the
sheet identified Development Plan
(prepared by H. Burton Smith, P .E.) to
matoh sheet ST-l (Site/Landsoape Plan
- prepared by George Davis,
Architeot) .
16. Plaoe a note on site/landsoape plan
that indicates the refuse and
recyclable material generated at the
site will be collected via curb
pickup.
Recommendation(s) :
17. It is recommended that the oversized
parking space looated directly west of
the building be reduced to meet
minimum standards. This change would
allow the slope of the driveway to
have a smoother transition from the
right-of-way into the site.
18. To clarify the request, it is
recommended that a distinguishable
symbol ( cloud) be used to identify the
areas of the site/landscape plan that
are being revised from the original
permit plans #95-4541.
TJH:dim
a:ComDept.Cle
Page 3 of 3