Loading...
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link fence which was approved to hold wood for Bono's. He pointed out that Bono's is now gone from the center, and has been replaced by "Big & Tall".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