The URL can be used to link to this page

REVIEW COMMENTS ~~ JJ;.11<. ,1 ~, 1 ) J :;, J., ,-,--" PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-180 TO: Jim Cherof City Attorney Tambri J. HeYden'lf?~ Planning and Zoning Director FROM: DATE: April 9, 1996 SUBJECT: Eaves and miscellaneous structure setbacks Attached is a revised copy of my March 28th memorandum (Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96-168) regarding eaves and miscellaneous structure setbacks which has been revised as Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96-181 to reflect the arbor/trellis (#7 of memorandum) comments I made at the April 2, 1996 Commission meeting. Since the Commission agreed to forward with an ordinance, this memorandum can be easily transformed now into an ordinance for first reading April 16, 1996. TJH:dim xc: Central File a:Eaves2.mem PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-181 TO: Jim Cherof City Attorney FROM: Tambri J. Heyden Planning and Zoning Director DATE: April 3, 1996 SUBJECT: Proposed ordinance to clarify overhangs and eaves allowed to encroach setbacks I would like to take advantage of this opportunity when revising the code regarding the above, to also include other miscellaneous structures that the Planning and Zoning Department, as well as the Building Division, has encountered. These structures are either not addressed in our code, or are unclear, and need to be included as they are in other jurisdictions' codes. I have read Mr. Hukill's suggestion to address the house eaves, and although option 3 will suffice, it would assist us all if we took the following approach: Under City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Part III - Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2 - Zoning, Section 4.J. OTHER STRUCTURES, add the new subsections 7 through 26 below - 7. Arbors and trellises, provided that there shall be maintained a minimum three (3) foot setback from property line. In addition there shall be a maximum height of 10 feet. 8. Permanent or retractable awnings, canopies, marquees or covered walkways projecting from a building wall over a required yard setback not more than two and one-half (2~) feet, and having no supports other than provided by the wall or its integral part. 9. Chimneys projecting not more than three (3) feet into the required yard setback. 10. Fire escapes or unenclosed staircases, the riser of which shall be at least fifty (50) percent open, provided that the vertical projection downward onto a required yard setback shall not project more than five (5) feet into, and shall not exceed ten (10) percent of, the area of the required yard setback. 11. Flagpoles having only one structural ground member. 12. Fountains; provided that non-portable fountains shall not exceed nine (9) feet in height, shall be setback three (3) feet from side and rear property lines and shall occupy no more than 100 square feet. 13. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning units (including compressors and condensers) for s~ngle-family or duplex dwellings, provided the exhaust a1.r from such units is directed vertically or away from the adjacent property line. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning units and intake and exhaust fans for non-residential uses shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from property line. 14. Mailboxes. -2- 15. Open terraces, including walkways, unenclosed decks and slabs and natural plant landscaping. 16. Open, uncovered stoops, steps and platforms for the principal building, but not to exceed three (3) feet in height. 17. Recreational equipment (of the type not requiring a permit) in the rear yard setback in residential districts. 18. Sculpture or other similar objects of art, provided they meet the same requirements above for fountains. 19. Signs, subject to the provisions of the sign code. 20. Trees, shrubbery or other objects of natural growth. 21. Wells. 22. Utility, cable and telephone transmission lines and associated structures, such as poles. 23. Basketball goals, provided there is a minimum three (3) feet setback from the rear and side interior property lines and a minimum fifteen (15) feet setback from front and side street property lines. 24. Light poles having only one (1) structural ground member. 25. Barbecue pits not to exceed six (6) feet by six (6) feet and provided they are set back three (3) feet from side and rear property liI1es. 26. Raised planters, provided they are set back three (3) feet from side and rear property lines and shall have a maximum height of six (6) feet. Lastly, add to existing subsection 3 the underlined words and delete the struck through words: 3. HouDe Eaves, cornices. qutters. facia boards. copinqs. soffits. downspouts. belt courses. window sills. widow and/or door trim. applied finish materials. roof and/or eauipment vents. sillcocks. fire hose connections. meters. liqht fixtures. hardware. shutters. bay windows. and ornamental architectural features shall not overhang or exceed the setback lines for more than t..,TO (2) three (3) feet. TJH:dim xc: Central File a:Eaves3.mem PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-159 TO: Robert Eichorst, Public Works Sgt. Marlon Harris, Police Department Clyde "Skip" Milor, Utilities Chief Field Insp. Bill Hukill, Development Department Tambri J. Heyden ~~ Planning and~zonin~~yre?tor Michael E. Haag . ~ Current Planning 0 inator March 27, 1996 THRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Clear Copy - Minor Site Plan Modification (sign-off) - File # MMSP 96-03-003 The amended site plan for Clear Copy has been submitted for final sign-off by the Technical Review Committee. Three (3) sets of plans, each requiring your unconditional signature, are available for review in the Planning and Zoning Department. A copy of the originally reviewed plans, staff comments and City Commission approval of the Minor Site Plan Modification will be available for your use to perform the review. Please review and sign-off each of the three (3) sets of plans, NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M., MARCH 29, 1996. If the plans are not in compliance with your staff comments or City regulations, sign the plans "subj ect to memo". To facilitate the sign-off process, please resubmit written comments addressed to the Planning and Zoning Director, NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M., MARCH 29, 1996. Thank you for your prompt response to this request. MEH:bme cc: Marshall Gage, Police Chief John Guidry, Utilities Director Tambri J. Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director Pete Mazzella, Assistant to Utilities Director Central File a:wlsignof.clc MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEET~G BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA l\fARCH 19, 1996 Based upon what he had to go through, he requested that the lien be reduced to $250.00, which equals the administrative costs. Mayor Taylor asked if the original problem was that the buildings were brought in prior to being permitted on that property. Pastor Sanderson said his plans had been submitted for cursory review. The buildings were brought in because Pratt Whitney could not store them. Motion Mayor Taylor passed the gavel and moved to satisfy the lien with an additional $50.00, for a total of $250.00. Commissioner Tillman second the motion, which carried 5-0. 3. lllnor SIte Pf8n ModIfIcation for Clear Copy City Attorney Cherof stated that in September of 1995, the Commission approved a site plan submitted by Clear Copy. An adjacent property owner, Dr. Mark Roberts, appealed the Commission's approval of the site plan and raised a number of technical issues with respect to compliance with the Code. That matter is still pending. A few weeks ago, Clear Copy indicated that they wished to submit a modified site plan. There is a specific procedure set forth in Chapler 4 of the Land Development Regulations (Section 9) that deals with how the City evaluates a request for modification of a site plan. It either makes a determination that it is a minor modification, which is handled administratively, or it makes a determination that it is a major modification, in which case it is treated as an original site plan. Under the terms of our Code, the determination of whether it is minor or major modification is left to the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Director. In the backup, there is an analysis made by the Planning and Zoning Director, and the conclusion that this is a minor modification of the site plan and it is to proceed administratively. The reason this is before the Commission is because the matter is pending in the Courts on appeal, and the adjacent property owner, through his attorney, made a request that if there was to be a determination of a minor versus major modification, that they have the opportunity to come before the Commission in a public fashion and state their opinion and have the opportunity to express their opinion to the Commission, perhaps to persuade the Commission that staff had made the wrong determination in that regard. Additionally, there was an issue with respect to interpretation of the Code, which is usually not a matter left to the disaetion of the Commission. Rather, the interpretation of the Zoning Code is left to the Planning and Zoning Director. That involves an interpretation of 31 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Chapter 2, Section 4, Subsection J of the Code, which provides with respect to structures that house eaves shaH not overhang or exceed the setback lines for more than two feet. The beginning part of that section indicates that they are talking about structures in all zoning districts, not speciically residential. Therefore, we construe the words "house eaves" to mean structure eaves. In fact, Tambri Heyden or William Hukill will explain that that interpretation has been consistently applied, or at least applied to some degree, by the Building and Zoning Departments from time to time to include all structures, not simply residential or house structures. City Attorney Cherof stated that this matter should be treated as a quasi-judicial proceeding. At the conclusion of the presentation, all that the Commission is asked to do is to acknowledge and ratify or endorse the interpretation by Tambri Heyden, or if the Commission does not agree that the interpretation is correct, to direct her to reconsider it. Additionally, with regard to the interpretation of the section of the Code that City Attomey Cherof described regarding the eaves overhanging the setback lines, if the Commission does not agree with his interpretation, he should be directed to provide an amendment to the Code to clarify that. At this time, all those who intended to testify this evening were s~C?rn by City Attorney Cherot. Ms. Heyden stated that she has been a municipal planner for over ten years. Prior to coming to the City of Boynton Beach in 1987, she was a planner for the City of Williamsburg, Virginia. She reviewed Section 9 of the City Site Plan Review Ordinance. She said there are seven criteria that are spelled out in the Code that are used as guidelines in making that determination. Using the overhead projector, she displayed an overlay of the site plan that was approved in September of 1995. She reviewed each criterion and compared the two site plans to show how she came up with this determination. 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 5 percent? Ms. Heyden displayed the approved site plan and stated that there are two driveways that were proposed (one an ingress only and one an egress only). The egress only was on 7th Street. She pointed out the location of the building. It faces Boynton Beach Boulevard. 32 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 The square footage of the building has not changed. The parking that is provided is exactly what is required by Code. There are no surplus parking spaces. 2. Does the modification reduce the provided number of parking spaces below the required number of parking spaces? Ms. Heyden advised that there are no changes in the number of parking spaces; just the location of the parking spaces. 3. Does 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? Ms. Heyden stated that this modification does not change, and continues to meet, the C-3 zoning regulations (the building and site regulations). She provided the staff comments that have been generated on this request, and she used the Technical Review Committee form to generate these comments, which is unusual. However, in light of the pending litigation, this was the quickest and most effective way of obtaining those comments for the Commission this evening. Once compliance with those staff comments has occurred, this will ensure that all safety and technical concerns, as well as the Code requirements, have been met. 4. Does the modification have an adverse effect on adjacent or nearby property, or reduce required physical buffers such as fences, trees, or hedges? Ms. Heyden stated that the modifications include replacement of the N.W. 1 st Avenue ingress only driveway for a N. W. 7th Street ingress only driveway. Instead of one driveway onto 7th Street and one driveway onto 1 st Street, there is an ingress only driveway onto 7th Street and an egress only driveway onto 7th Street. Therefore, both driveways are now on 7th Street. (There was a change in the driveway locations.) There has also been a flip-flop of the location of the row of parking spaces with the access aisle to the spaces. The access aisle was on the east side, and the parking spaces were on the west side. They have now been reversed. There has also been a switch of the handicap space location, and window sills have been added to the building exterior. Regular parking spaces have been switched as well. 33 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 The driveway change meets the 10cationaJ requirements of the Code, and does not negatively affect adjacent properties. The changes to the parking lot and handicap space are internal to the development and have no affect at all on the adjacent properties. With regard to reduction of physical buffers, this is consistent with the September approval wherein the City Commission determined that the existing landscape buffer between Dr. Roberts' property and the Clear Copy property was acceptable. 5. Does the modification adversely affect the elevation design of the structure below the standards stated in the Community Design Plan? Ms. Heyden advised that the windowsills are consistent with the Community Design Plan. In fact, she felt they enhance the elevation design. 6. Does the modified development meet the concurrency requirements of the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan? Ms. Heyden advised that the modifications have no impact at all 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? Ms. Heyden said this reaJly boils down to assessing magnitude of change, and the Department has consistently applied this criterion, as evidenced through its quarterly reporting to the Commission. Ms. Heyden stated that when you compare the original site plan with the modified site plan, you will notice the following: · There has been no change in the building location. · The same building to parking relationship occurs. (The building is still in the front, and the parking is still in the rear.) · There has been one change in the number of driveways or type of driveways (two-way versus one-way and ingress versus egress). · The service areas are in the same general location and the method of refuse collection has also not changed. We are continuing to allow curbside pickup for the trash as well as the recyclables. 34 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 . The degree. quality, quantity, and location of landscaping has not been changed. . The type of parking spaces (90 degree, angle, parallel) has not been changed. . The location of impervious areas (parking lot, sidewalks, structures) has virtually not changed. . The building height, style, type, and use have not changed. . The utility service modification is to the extent that it has no effect on other site improvements. In addition to ratification of her determination of minor modification, she sought a determination from the Commission regarding the legislative intent when the house eave section of the Zoning Code was adopted. She asked if it was the intent to allow this section to apply to commercial buildings. Historically, overhangs on commercial buildings, if they are detected at the inspection stage, have been allowed and have ranged between one inch and four inches. They have included such things as the stucco on the buildings that adds a little volume or depth to the exterior, windowsills, and cornices. The Clear Copy building's windowsills, cornices, and stucco extend beyond the setback lines on the north, which is the front, and also the side property line on the east. Her report indicated three inches, one and a quarter inches, and ten inches, respectively. However, the applicant has submitted a package to the City Commission this evening. This package shows some photographs and drawings of the overhang. There is a little confusion about what the maximum encroadlment or overhang is, ten inches or six inches. On the permit plans, the section drawing was labeled a ten inch overhang. When we scaled it, it showed six inches. She believes Mr. Feldman is going to tell the Commission tonight that it is approximately four inches. Ms. Heyden requested ratification of the minor modification determination, and a determination of the Commission's legislative intent on the house overhang application. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz asked if there are any other buildings in the area that have a similar overhang. Ms. Heyden advised that the adjacent building has a similar overhang situation for gutters. It seemed to Bob Feldman, the co-owner of Clear Copy, that Dr. Roberts brings up minute things and makes them major. He reiterated that the original agreement showed a ten inch overhang. He measured the overhang, and it is six inches. With regard to the parking lot, 35 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH~ FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 the handicap spot was too much of a slope at that point. For safety purposes, it was flip- flopped back to make it a little more accessible. With regard to the color of the building, Mr. Feldman stated that a tangerine color was approved by the City Commission. However, after the building was painted, it looked a little more pink than tangerine. He is currently trying to get that toned down a little. With regard to the color of the windows, they were painted bronze because the windows on Dr. Roberts' property, Wendy's, etc., were bronze. He later found out that they are supposed to be white. He has a choice to paint them white, which he feels will peel off in six months because the windows are metal. He has bent over backwards since day one to meet City Code. Even though staff determined this to be a minor modification which could be handled administratively. it is before the Commission because of Dr. Roberts. He has been here 21 years. The City has been excellent to him, but because of litigation involving Dr. Roberts, we are going back and forth on every little item. Mr. Feldman said he will do whatever the City wants him to do. He said he originally wanted a flat roof. There would have been no overhang at all. However, the City required an S-tile roof. Therefore, it has to hang over a little. Reginald Stambaugh of Miller and Woods, the attorney representing Dr. Mark Roberts, advised that Dr. Roberts asked him and his mother, Commissioner Carol Roberts, to speak on,his behalf. He said Dr. Roberts could not attend this meeting because he was only notified of this minor modification on Friday and aJready scheduled an appointment out of State. Mr. Stambaugh said practically everything that could be changed was changed, except the building itself. He said this is a major modification. He did not think there was good enough notice for him to be prepared to address everything as it has been presented. He said all we are trying to do is follow the Land Development Regulations. He introduced Commissioner Roberts. Mayor Taylor welcomed County Commissioner Roberts to Boynton Beach. Commissioner Roberts read a letter, dated March 19, 1996, from Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S. to Mayor Taytor and Commissioners. In this letter, Dr. Roberts states that he believes this is a major site plan modification. A copy of this letter is attached to these minutes. Mr. Stambaugh focused on the key points in this letter which he believes would persuade the Commission to ask staff to reconsider its determination of a minor modification. Mr. Stambaugh said proper procedure is not being followed in this case. He said if we are not going to follow the Land Development Regulations, then we should not have them. The purpose of the Land Development Regulations is to deal effectively with future problems which may occur as a result of the use and devek>pment of land. In the instant 36 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 case, we are finding that there are problems being created. We are not following the purpose in this instance. Mr. Stambaugh reread the portion of Dr. Roberts' letter which lists the ways in which the new site plan alters the approved site plan so that it does not resemble the approved site plan. He stated that the new plans show the need for a land dedication to the City. He asked if the City staff, by mere determination of a minor. modification site approval, is approving the City's acceptance of a land dedication. He asked if the City Commission allows this. He said this is a major modification. He stated that two other points have not been remedied with this new modification. They are as follows: 1. The fire truck cannot legally access the property. LOR requires safe and efficient access to be provided for emergency and service vehicles to this property. This standard has been required of all commercial developments in the past. 2. City ordinances governing garbage pickup require containerized garbage pickup. There is a requirement for containerized receptacles for commercial properties. Section 10-25 states as follows: .Containerized refuse service shall be carried out by the city at commercial or multifamily residential establishments in the promotion of improved sanitary conditions...." Mr. Stambaugh said there is no more containerized commercial collection. Mr. Stambaugh stated that there has not been an environmental review. Section 11.3 of the Code states as follows: .... in all cases approval of the environmental review permit shall precede approval ot the site plan." Mr. Stambaugh advised that the new plan has not submitted the required irrigation plan. He was in possession of a report from Gee & Jensen stating that Chapter 481.321 of the Florida Statutes requires that a licensed landscape architect prepare and sign all landscape plans unless for a single-family home. The landscape plan was submitted by an architect and this is contrary to State law. Therefore, the required landscape design is incomplete. In Gee & Jensen's March 14, 1996 letter to Ms. Heyden, it states as follows: · There is no landscape buffer proposed at the east side of the parking lot requiring a variance. · The dimensions of the parking lot are inconsistent between the site plan and the construction drawing. In either case, a variance would be required. 37 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 · These changes are indicative of major plan changes. Mr. Stambaugh read Dr. Roberts' March 19, 1996 letter addressed to Mayor Taylor and the Commissioners regarding determination of the legislative intent of the zoning code. A copy of this letter is attached to these minutes. Mr. Stambaugh advised that Dr. Roberts wants City staff to take a close look at the Code and comply. Mr. Stambaugh focused on the following three criteria when determining if a modification is minor or major: 1 . Does 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? Mr. Stambaugh stated that we already have gone over some of the below standard requirements. It does not meet the Code sections. 2. Does the modification have an adverse effect on adjacent or nearby property or reduce required physical buffers, such as fences, trees, or hedges? Mr. Stambaugh stated that there is no buffer. Therefore, a problem exists. 3. Does the modification alter the site layout so that the modified site plan does not resemble the approved site plan? Mr. Stambaugh referred toile changes in the parking and access, and the land dedication to the City without Commission approval. He requested that the Commission deem this to be a major modification. Ms. Heyden advised that many of the changes that Mr. Stambaugh mentioned this evening were necessary to meet the staff conditions of the original approval. Nine times out of ten, when you approve a site plan, the site plan that gets submitted as part of permitting, approved subject to staff comments, does not look like the approved site plan. That in and of itself does not constitute a minor site plan modification. The site plan was approved subject to staff comments, which included the change in the dumpster to can pickup. Light pole changes oftentimes mange between site plan approval and permit review because the photo cell illumination Jians are not required until time of permitting. Oftentimes that 38 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 requires some adjustment in the light pole locations. The buffer between Dr. Roberts' property and this property continues to be the same buffer design that was approved as part of the original approvaJ. which was knowing that the width of the landscape strip was less than two and a haJf feet. The loading zone was barely shifted in an east/west direction, but is basically in the same location. This is a very insignificant change. The driveway has changed from 15 feet to 12 feet This still meets Code and is a very insignificant change. Cans are considered containerized pickup. An environmental review has been approved, subject to certain conditions. The conditions and the permit are not issued until just prior to an occupational license being issued. Irrigation plans are not required as part of a site plan. They are required as part of the permit review. In conclusion, Ms. Heyden said the Legal Department informed her that they had notified Dr. Roberts' personally via a telephone call on March 5th that this was considered a minor modification and that it would be going before the City Commission on March 19th. Commissioner Bradley inquired about the land dedication and the fire trucks. William Hukill, Director of Development, pointed out the land dedication. Sometime in the.past, because of the vehicular traffic on 7th coming from the fence company on the other side of the tracks, the radius was made larger. As a result, there is a 21" triangular piece of land where the sidewalks come together. This has to either be dedicated to the City to make the sidewalk fit on City property, or an easement or waiver has to be granted. With regard to access, Ms. Heyden said the Fire Department feels they have adequate ability to access this property for fire protection. With regard to accepting a piece of property of any size on behalf of the C'ity Commission and City, Mr. Stambaugh asked Ms. Heyden if she takes this lightly. Ms. Heyden stated that that method of resolving that issue was not reviewed by her department. She felt it would be appropriate to address this question to the Building Department. Mr. Stambaugh asked the same question of Mr. Hukill. Mr. Hukill indicated that he does not take this lightly. Mr. Stambaugh felt the City Commission should make the decision regarding the donation of land, no matter what the size of the property. Mr. Stambaugh asked for the Code Section that deals with trash cans/containers. Ms. Heyden did not have a Code book in front of her. She stated that the City allows can pickup as well as dumpsters for trash collection. Mr. Stambaugh felt you need to take extra care with commercial properties. He said the Code spells out what a container is, and he left it to City Commission to make that determination. Section 10-25 states as follows: "Containerized refuse service shall be carried out by the city at commercial or multifamily 39 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 19% residential establishments...." Mr. Stambaugh said there is a contrast between 10-25 and 10-24 (residential noncontainerized collection), which appears to be regular garbage collection. With regard to the buffer zone, Mr. Stambaugh said just because the Code was not in compliance the first time. does not mean that it should not be in compliance the second time under an application for modification. Mr. Stambaugh requested the Commission to follow the Code and consider this a major modification. Ms. Heyden said the Commission has previously approved. in special cases, under certain circumstances, can pickup for commercial properties. Also, we have followed the Code, and by allowing this minor site plan modification in no way jeopardizes anything in the Land Development Regulations. Over the past five years, we have been very consistent in applying what is a minor modification and what is a major modification. This is nothing more than we have done in the past. Mr. Stambaugh stated that the Land Development Regulations spell out everything. City staff was supplied with Gee & Jenson's reports. If the City Commission does not feel that th~y have done any wrong, we are going to have to let the Courts decide this matter. City Attorney Cherof stated that Mr. Stambaugh has invited the Commission to substitute its opinion for the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Director, and to make a determination that this is a major site plan modification. That would be in violation of the Code. One of the provisions of the Code gives the Planning and Zoning Director the discretion to interpret the Code. There is recourse to Dr. Roberts through the Code as well. There is a provision in the Code that states that if any aggrieved party does not like the interpretation of the Planning and Zoning Director on any issue, that they have recourse to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The aggrieved party may obtain a reversal from the Board of Zoning Appeafs of the interpretation of the Code by the Planning and Zoning Director. The Code does not always address each and every issue specifically on point. That is why the Planning and Zoning Director has the power to make interpretation. The Commission does not have the power to override the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Director in interpreting the Code. The matter is before the Commission to listen to all of this and suggest to the Planning and Zoning Director that she may want to reconsider it, but the Commission cannot require her to do that and cannot override her. With respect to the other issue regarding the interpretation of the overhang issue, City Attorney Cherof said that is an interpretation that staff has made. The same recourse is 40 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 available to Dr. Roberts if he does not agree that that is the proper interpretation of the Code by the paid professional administrators of the Code. Dr. Roberts has recourse to the Board of Zoning Appeals. City Attorney Cherot stated that they are wrong with respect to telling you that their recourse is to the court. There is an administrative remedy available to them. It is built into the Code to specifically avoid putting people in the position where they have to go to court to make their points of interpretation known to the advisory boards then to the Commission. He suggested that if the Commission believes the Planning and Zoning Director has made the proper interpretation, or wishes not to interfere with that interpretation be it correct or incorrect, the Commission needs do nothing. The Commission can simply ratify her interpretation. With respect to the overhang issue, City Attorney Cherof stated that the only reason that is before the Commission is if the Commission does not believe that staff has been properly interpreting that in applying it to commercial properties, the Commission needs to tell him so that he can cJarity that provision of the Code. Commissioner Bradley asked it the ratification is accomplished through silence or through a motion. City Attorney Cheraf said it could be by either. Mr. Stambaugh had a difference of legal opinion on the interpretation of that clause. He believes a ratification constitutes an action by the City Commission which would essentially override any of the actions which the administration or City staff would be making. He said if this process is going to go through as a minor modification, then it should be treated as a minor modification. City Attorney Cherof took it from this comment that Mr. Stambaugh is asking the Commission not to take any action. Mr. Stambaugh said we have had an opportunity to speak on this issue, and we are requesting that the City Commission take the action of deeming this a major modification. City Attorney Cherof advised the City Commission that it does not have the power to do that. George Wasser, a practicing architect for 33 years, State Threshold Inspector, and Licensed General Contractor in the State of Florida, has been a resident here and in operation here for about 23 years. He stated that he was called in some time ago as a consultant for Clear Copy, to review some of the comments, look at the property, and see if there was anything of merit in these complaints. He checked the property and made a few recommendations. Later, he found out that the City had already made those comments. Mr. Wasser found the items that Mr. Stambaugh brought up to be the same kind of rhetoric that he read in Gee & Jenson's report. He said it ignores a lot of things. There is simple, logical reasoning behind all of the City comments and approvals. In his experience as a professional, he totally agreed with the Building Department and the 41 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Planning Department. He also agreed with City Attorney Cherof that there is a discretion involved in everything, and not everything is definable. That is why we have staff to interpret and enforce the intent of the Code. He believes that has been done here. Ciro Gomez, President of Giro Gomez Inc., is a general contractor. He had the opportunity to build Dr. Roberts' building, and found the City to be very cooperative. He said he was sure that if he was to go back and review Dr. Roberts' building and found that one of the setbacks was 15 feet, that he would have to shave off all the stucco because at the time when the surveys were done to determine setback requirements, only cement block is up, not stucco, bands, or any other exterior applications to enhance the building. He also said that an eave to him, as a builder and professional, is a projection from a building that will protect you from sun or rain, or could possibly be enclosed and enlarge the area of the building without getting a building permit. He said what we have here is something that was done within the original scale dimension by City staff and it was reduced by 40 percent and still accommodates a requirement of cross ventilation for this particular building. He has the task of building this building, but needs some direction. The eave was built. His trusses and overhangs were inspected and passed. It was not until an objection was raised in regard to the eaves that he was given a red tag. The projection from the stucco b(\lnd out is only two inches to accommodate this particular screen venting. We are not looking at rain protection. He cannot see them later trying to enclose underneath that eave. With regard to the color of the windows, the intent was to maintain a more traditional, conservative, Mediterranean look. Bronzed window frames would enhance the building much more than white window frames. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz stated that the word "house" in Section 4 seems to be causing a problem. She suggested changing that word to "building- to avoid any misinterpretation in the future. Mayor Taylor said this is about the third time he has been through this matter in detail, and he did not hear much that he had not heard previously. He said he has considered every single one of these comments over and over again. He felt the Commission addressed them adequately. He did not think anybody ever took it trivial. He felt staff were perfectionists. He respected Dr. Roberts' opinion. He felt that staff has addressed many of the items that Dr. Roberts had brought up. He felt a lot has been done to address some of Dr. Roberts' concerns. He said Dr. Roberts' made it clear the very first time he appeared before the Commission that he did not want this building to go up under any circumstances. Mayor Taylor was comfortable with staWs recommendation. He felt we are doing this within our Codes and in many cases, exceeding the Code. 42 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Motion Commissioner Bradley !!l9ved to ratify, lh~ Planning ~f.Q.Dlng Pir.a~ of minor site 1.an. .. tion in thi~ site plan reviey!~.<~Commissioner Tillman seconded .tR&motl1"., iC carried 5-0. . ....,~4..,." -,........- The legis a Ive Intent of the house eaves was addressed next. Mayor Taylor and City Attorney Cherof felt this section of the Code was clear. However, to avoid any misinterpretation or confusion in the future, there was a consensus of the Commission that the verbiage be changed. City Attorney Cherof will rework that section of the Code with staff. XI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. XII. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 1. Finalization of Contract Extension with Edward Garcia re: Marina Property 2. Settlement Agreement re: Meadows 300 Property 3. Executive Session re: Fire Union Contract City Manager Parker hoped to finalize the real estate extension agreement with Mr. Garcia by Friday. Therefore, next week, she will be requesting a brief Special City Commission meeting to ratify that extension as soon as possible. Also, she will be requesting a date for an Executive Session regarding the Firefighter Union negotiations next week. City Attorney Cherof also requested a special meeting on Monday. He advised that progress has been made on the language in the settlement agreement with the 300 Properties (Meadows Drive). He requested permission to bring this back to the City Commission for review in order to expedite the resolution of this matter. At Commissioner Bradley's suggestion, these items will be discussed at the March 25th meeting at 7:00 p.m. The Executive Session was scheduled for 6:30 p.m. 43 ,',....\ .! . \ i tJ\ I ~ --"".- ~ /~l ~.. .~ tvD _ .... /~ !J 'j /~ < t J \~V t'\, "~.il ~'~ j.)l) DEPARTMENTS FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: NONE PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: .' ~y,,"~ 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. [LOR, Chapter 7.5, Article II - Landscape Code, Section 5 Hand Chapter 2 - Zoning, Section 4 E]. Identify on the site/landscape plan the location of the raised curb required to protect the landscaping. [LOR, Chapter 23 - Parking Lots, Article II, E]. 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. [LOR) J Chapter 7.5, Article II - Landscape Code, Section 5 C, 0, E, and Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.4.6]. 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. [LOR, Chapter 7.5, Article II - Landscape Code, Section 5 A, B, C, and Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.4.6] . 10. 11. 12. Specify on the site/landscape plan the specie of lawn grass and the method of installation. [LDR, Chapter 7.5, Ar~icle 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. 13. (:)1\,-' /",,,, ;f. :~,,~~l~'- } '^ ~1'.8. ( f te-,.(',' c:t L:: I... p:; t'-'" ! . 7"~, '...... ,.".ft Page 2 of 3 INCLUDE !.' ~,,. : i. , //!...' f .$"' ,," .. .1.-,.., ,'':', 0,." i., . ? L't.: ,J1 f'i~ ::,t~ "','.' :/7 J : i ;ir I; ""V I REJECT ) /1' ., Ii"" , ~ ,. / .; .... . '.11.-1.... ,;. ><C. r ...~ ,. , f J'..::! '(I i. /' l ' to',.... : ')t f. '..,1. i , } , ~F'.r. 1 Ii.l ',. " ,,''';~ _.~__W"_'_ /v ~~C:- Iv fJ.:!!::_~-" '! {" \ ;; :. ..." . ,-I: , (lr J,,'. <, ~ "t ~~: C!:~ ,,- (' ~ , . 1/ '.' r' ." I .. J!- / _.~r .,;'c t .i~ l I ,t,t. """\-' i ( ,... , ~/) '. I .;;: ,..I. , , . ,t" ~ t ~ 1k: -~,I,.";"",~'" :' '" .,.~./f,' ,. !', ., \. 1/'. "i " ll' ' ' '+ . \ -..; /'. ?~~.- _...~I\~ j):;"" ~ /. . ",.~ ,,' .,.,,' ...; t.y @ \9 \~ / t'/-~ .' IV ,_ 17 \ ---- A-,' 'j .----- // I DEPARTMENTS 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 match sheet ST-1 (Site/Landscape Plan - prepared by George Davis, Architect) . 16. Place a note on site/landscape plan that indicates the refuse and / o--:ii~~~-~~~~t~b:a~~~~:~t~~n~~:t~~r~t the pickup. Recommendation(s) : 17. It is recommended that the oversized parking space located 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. 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. 18. TJH:dim a:ComDept.Cle ;9.i/t: , "\ -,:":' I) -: Co ! AJ" ) -.' 20-- . ;ll ~ . I ,~ ) C.,~../ ,," i1 ~ ( Page 3 of 3 I),. , I, it" , , ! I INCLUDE I REJECT I ,OJ ",)/i. (~" . 1""( ":or, ,l,r:'jf;. }J,~~'l\ f'(lt) Iii!. ... /',J . . r '0 J d- I PLANNING ANP ZqNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-143 I ';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 IS, 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 (March 12, 1996). It is noted that the standard method for obtaining comments 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: "Section 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." [No change in the size of the building is requested.] 2. "Does the modification reduce the provided number of parking spaces below the required number of parking spaces." [No change in the number of parking spaces is requested.] 3. "Does 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." [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 adj acent 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 and common sense 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 vs. one-way and ingress vs. 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. areas (parking structures) is h) building height, style, type and use are unchanged; and 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: "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 IS, 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 STAFF REPORT FOR CITY COMl\!ISSION March 22, 1996 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Project Name: Applicant: Agent: Location: File No.: Land Use Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Type of Use: Number of Units: Square Footage: Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning District: Existing Site Characteristics: Proposed Modification: Clear Copy, Inc. 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 West N. W. 7th Street and farther west commercial building, zoned C-2 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 . change the swing of the door on the southeast corner of the building and vii. add decorative window sills Items i, 11, 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 Driveways: Two, one-way driveways 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 Regulations: 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 Plannin~ and Zoning Department has granted approval of this si te plan modification request, subj ect to the comments included in Exhibit IIC" - 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 II A" LOC.~:rION MAfJ . CLEAR COPY, INC. \' ;,~ II-r I I I I- "~J-lUJJ.-t !~i III LU == =- -..~.t I 'f r" _" .01. I '- H" ... - -, I- I- : r::: ,.:". ~.. - '/~-r::rr I ',- ~:, R ,,-> to- 1-'1__ ,.. __ . _ " .' ~ \ !:= tJ: E ::" - ~I- -' :. 1$ ~.. ': ~ ".. "1"'!!Li:~r, / \ .~~, 1 ~ ~ :: -- i . !rl-- =: ~ ;;;: -: I ,; ~:li::~I: flit:.] .. \~ ~-- . to- -I-' t=i= --I- -. =. =- , ~rr.Jl1lfl'1ill / ' "~\\. I- I- -I- 1:..=1:=-1- f-:7 - - " ~m~wlmm ''.\>~\L~',-~ ,_ =':l-~ ~.~~ - B1 I: ;m!TI'Z R 1 A A \: I I I I I I" . .-: -:- .:- . - IT1l C I ~."F, I, !_\....1 = ~)r-....c ~ ~'- .- lWJ ~I ,...-1 : _ ~ .lJIIIDi '-'... '-It _ :: IT. ~!; .: ;1-. \t IW:::];:JI II : . : . ~ ~ : : II '" -_ _ _ .. r- rr--: '. ....: I 1lflfl . _ .- _ .., .. f-- , L , · : _ . ~';! 't I .S -:;; '.:.: - - ;, f tin j '- .~ . : -, 1-1- :.~ ~- ...'-. i .' . J I-:r- I "'_. .~' . - '-l I ~ .. "-1',. r-" -= .. 1-----4 P ~ i.~:-i;i;-;.9~J~~-'l I'~ ~, " ~~.;-o'~"~"" ~,~ >=[ =~, 'i\U u ", .. J\~~' . h\X~V n"~ ,..-... I I L~ ~ '- .. V j.'~ I ,)' . X'...... ' -I- i I I I' ~ :; . ---- (\ I I I J!:t.--1 i ~-{"" ~ (i'qJW:-:: : I , r-1 . --l J.11\' IiJ': .~ JII .<' A~) ,~cl~ 1 i I ~ 'J . ft J1 / ' ....- ~L1'f fo-_. , . ~!fli~,. I(!ff~~i;: i 'hJ6~i ~ ,lt~;l~ ~ : "IV 'T ~~~~~ <laY m'" "~.Cl<. ---::; 'n~ I n~n~lllfdn)~~ ~\ II ~[I'"'" :I 11 ~1'11.1. ,~;~: .1. . 1=13 ,.'-'.. :it. W~.~~IJ\ \ l~:. 'l;\: ......1.. ~ ~~/~~~.ll ~! \1)J1 ~II { ( ~~. .. I .. 11_. - ;J ;.I.' --- - . ~ or,- ;:;.. ~l ._!.,' '" _ 1 '. ~rn ~ iC.;.,;nu!j~,: ,,~lf' N~ fiJ E~3 . .~~::~ ~ 1 ~ .... I. '.tI,) \ . Fa E C l:h '\';:-' L::d I ,~ Jtir.J EIIllUli!l '11' ~ _1 ~r - I I ~(.:.. ::'. f- . ~ " 1~i ~:LJJrf 41~ 1.I ~ I- . III lllj ,- ,,-. -h 't;~riu~ / ~u tT - U . , 111 ~ m ' ~' .... -.. ,<x. . ,'. ......... ........., (.~ t. I L U l- 6 0 I I I ..' 11 ~ l. . ~ ....~~, ",,'. '. r ""'.' '~'~~,':-' - - r-l - .filliillili . '. lV...~ .,,,.~ " . v ITIJII1TTT1 ,~~ · "' .........' ~, ". "',' (....:.'.. \ ~ · W PI- BRIGHT ~~W~lI ...... ~ 'I r,-r,-' ~!::...""f · "~'~" .... .<(1 Illil'1Ll - '. '.)<.' ~ . ""'lIi\ "" '. ~ '.~ I \1 ::: ~:I":. 7, '. ,>" ~~' ...-<,. r.~. " :" \." \\.. '. \ I ... · ....... . " "\. ~ J. . :."1 .,......, l- .,. ~ ~ C.-.l I~: <;.\ :t-l~~11 >~ EI:U~ Ii'; -lTTw\,~ ll~\. . ~ -! ~ ( - : r _ ~ I. :Til" ~ ~!f~.,\\ I L_j fJ. . t -": l.h:: - T ~.. I' . .~ 1--- I ~~ II ~ .;.w' ,~I ! I' ... . - .''::'' ::1.: I.. ~-q-..l-....-. 1---,: --: ~r""11'1'f"'~rf8 'q;, ~ - R~.' ~.- --'ttn~\~~ -". . 'v /~ \ : ~'.. ;~' ... .! , 0/4 . ~ I ~ ~ I \ i ,~-< .,. '. . ' .' < ' ... J ~ . I..~ I.' .' I I ~ N 1f;,~r I" -~~'~f ~ I. : '0 .400, '800 FE~T I ..:/...:: :;~~~ c \m I' /r '- --<,.. J>-~ '.':. I \~...~. t:JJ A . ....,1': ps.pr" -95 ' : I I I I I, r""1 r-.-. '" . , I .. (. .' . __ . _ _ .. _ --. 111.'" "III~ \ PU E X H I BIT liB" \ \ ~ ~-. tl , .t I ' > -0 -c JJ ~ m c en - -f m -c ~ z co ........ ...L co ....... co ()1 . , t-_.....:.._~9. ' ~ c.. . ---:.... --.. ------- . .'. f" I : . ,. ':1';'1 . - . U,l. I .o, .. .... 11' k .:1. ,- . . '''' , . ~ ~ - I v- i' I } l ~ Jt · .. - - f ~ . J} . i :n t 101, - I... J.f' \) t t ~ :.....: . ~. .--.... 'C. - r - . ':1 .J. I. " .. '. r::-.,~.r:;,~ ~1.-;-~~.~ il./;;';'''-- 10. . . IV ., ...,." 4J-I _.... .~I \(' ~ IV ~ ! lu ., · . I . ! i ~, -$- , \ 4bJ 1'5 ' ~ \ ~..) ~ \ "~ \~i' \ ."f. s. ~\ ~~ (3 '~ ~ _ _ill.L-e>o"fH'm~ e:i:Ant-'P~dp ~ ~ ~ ~ :a' \lI. \~ \ I I' ~; :i d @\ ~ I; l - \_ ~ .$I i ~ \\ ~ <> '-;'. II TO. \10 ~ I \ ,'" ~, ~ ~- ,\ i \ -ct'~ i. \t\\~.. i: i, - I ' I..I.::,~ l- 1Jl \'~ e 1~-rr-n-"'-lf11 '- ' .:lS1',.-:,~Jo1t""""I^"'''' 11 > i ~I::: · n~.. < -,,' l: ~ ~ \~ qJ i'pj ~ ~, . .' . ,,;,,::::;c. - ,~i I~ ~ I ~ tiJ b ~ lt~' NW I~ ""l'"~ i~ ~ L; ~ ~~~\ia .~~ f l~,t \ I ~ l' \'...... .. 1'\ 9 ~ : ::f ,:tJ ~l: 3< 1~~ ti" i~ ~ ~ Ii \ , , , ,_",~",,,,,,,'C,\.,,,,,,,,,.., 1'f"""'- li fI l .~ t 1 -a J] o -a o CJJ m c ~ - Z o J] en - -t m '1J r- ~ ~ o o - ." - (') )>. ~ <5 z ~ ~ t'" ~ ~ ii\ t. ~:t ~ :3 11' ~ CQ..o - 6' ;:;t . o ~~ ~ S ~lY E X H I BIT IICII EXHIBIT "C" Administrative Conditions Project name: Clear Copy, Inc. File number: MMSP 96-03-003 Reference: One (1) sheet. ST-1. prepared by Georae C. Davis. Architect (as revised March 5. 1996) and tWQ (2) sheets preoared b~ H Burton Smith. P E si~ned. 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. I FIRE I I I 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 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 INCLUDE REJECT DEPARTMENTS 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 match sheet ST-1 (Site/Landscape Plan - prepared by George Davis, Architect) . 16. Place a note on site/landscape 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 located 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 INCLUDE RE~I C I T Y TECHNICAL OF BOYNTON REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA B E A C H MEETING DATE: Tuesday, March 12, 1996 TIME: 9:00 A.M. PLACE: Conference Room, 2nd Floor, Mangrove School House 1. Introduction 2. Old Business NONE 3. New Business A. LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDERS (other than site plans) NONE B. REVIEW OF TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED NONE 4. Other Business Minor Site Plan Modification 1. PROJECT: Clear Copy, Inc. (MMSP 96-03-003) APPLICANT: George Davis LOCATION: 660 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard DESCRIPTION: Request for approval approved parking lot driveways and flip-flop aisle location. to modify the previously to relocate one of two row of parking with access NOTE: Written comments and plans/documents are to be returned at this TRC meeting. This modification, submitted through permitting, is being forwarded to the Technical Review Committee and City Commission due to litigation. 5. Comments by members 6. Adjournment 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. MEH:bme a:TRCMTG12.MAR PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-145 TO: Carrie Parker City Manager Tambri J. Heyden .'?:'1~1 Planning and Zoning Director FROM: DATE: March 15, 1996 SUBJECT: Copies of Development Plans of Current Projects Scheduled for Review by the City Commission at the March 19, 1996 City Commission Meeting Please find attached five (5) sets of plans for the following current development projects: Minor Site Plan Modification Clear Copy MMSP 96-03-003 Note: Please return the plans/documents to the Planning and Zoning Department following the meeting. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me. TJH:bme Attachments a:transmtl.clr/P&D 'l'l{J\~KI:'>JLj ':""J'\.;i - .':>1'J'I:; PLAN lU:V.ll~W :JUUMI'J"l'Al. PIWJl::C'l' 'l'l'l'LE: CLEAR COPY, IN" liE tiCRI 1"1' ION: TVPE: NEW SITE PLAN UATE REC'O: AMOUNT: FILl:: NU.: MMSP 96-03-003 MAJOR SITE PLAN MOOIFICA'l'ION RECEIP'r NO. : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TWELVE (12) SETS SUBMITTED: COLORED ELEVATIONS REC'D: (Plans shall be pre-assembled. The Planning & Zoning Dept. will number each sheet of their set. The Planning Dept. set will be used to check the remaining sets to ensure the number and type of sheets match.) * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICATION & SUBMITTAL: DATE: ACCEPTED --aENIED DATE: DATE OF LET'rER TO APPLICANT IDENTIFYING SUBMISSION DEFICIENCIES: 2nd SUBMIT'l'AL ACCEPTED DENIED DATE: DATE: DATE OF SUBMITTAL ACCEPTANCE LETTER: REVIEWER'S NAME: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (Label TRC Departments on each set of plans) DATE AND MEMO NUMBER OF MEMO SENT TO TRC TO PERFORM INITIAL REVIEW. DATE SENT: RETURN DATE: MEMO NUMBER: 1st REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED Util. P.W. Parks Fire Police PLANS MEMO" I DATE / "C" ''-/ ~-oqD I ].\1-~(.,1 (J I!J!- 0 / 3-/3 9<" / O~ 'I --I - 1~'3-\,,\.q( / C "I .,,-2. / 1-2- # I ., / ...::r- PLANS Planhinrr Building Engineer Engineer Forester y MEMO .. / DATE / -t{f2i~ ~.~_ '-J CUrr \ ~ ')... / "CII 1- I~ I C,/ / I- I s-N-Cl~ I~_ . TYPE OF VARIANCE(S) DATE OF MEETING: DATE OF LETTER SENT TO APPLICANT IDENTIFYING TRC REVIEW COMMENTS: (Aesthetic Review APP" dates of board mtgs. & checklist sent out w/ comments NINETY DAY CALENDAR DATE WHEN APPLICATION BECOMES NULL AND VOID: DATE 12 COMPLETE SETS OF AMENDED PLANS SUBMITTED FOR 2nd REVIEW: (Must be assembled. Reviewer shall accept amended plans & support documents) COLORED ELEVATIONS REC I D: MEMO SENT TO TRC TO PERFORM 2nd REVIEW. DATE SENT: MEMO #: RETURN DATE: 2nd REVIEW RECOMMENDATION/DENIAL PLANS MEMO .. / DATE /"R/D" PLANS MEMO .. / DATE /"R/O" Utile / / Planning I I P.W. I / Building i / Park. / / Engineer I / Fire / / Engineer / /_-- Police / / Forester I / LETTER TO APPLICANT REGARDING TRC APPROVAL/DENIAL AND LAND DEVELOPMENT SIGNS PLACED AT 'llHE PROPERTY DATE SENT/SIGNS INS'l'ALLED: SCHEDULE OF BOARD MEETINGS: PAD CC/CRA CJA'l'E APPROVAL LE'l'TER SENT: A:'J'RACKING.tiP iI~J 'UU LS ~., T ~""""L_.~'., . ~:PR - 3 1996 , I VI .. 1LJ DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 96-1 9 PlANNING AND ZONING DEPT. TO: Tambri J. Heyden Planning & Zoning Director /Vi.;ldL:ukill, P .E. (ftmt~~eer FROM: DATE: April 2, 1996 RE: CLEAR COpy - SITE PLAN Based on recent approval ofthe site plan and all other outstanding conditions on the project by the City Commission, the Engineering Division has no additional comments or conditions. WVH/ck xc: Ken Hall, Plans Check Inspector/Technician Robert Feldman, Clear Copy C:CLCOPYSP ~ -_.. -------~--.- IW l~c - 3 :2;; Ii U i i ~~'.J 'L:J DEP ARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 96-1 9 PLANNING AND ZONiNG DEPI TO: Tambri J. Heyden Planning & Zoning Director /Vi.ilr/L.Tukill, P.E. (ft~gi:eer FROM: DATE: April 2, 1996 RE: CLEAR COpy - SITE PLAN Based on recent approval of the site plan and all other outstanding conditions on the project by the City Commission, the Engineering Division has no additional comments or conditions. WVHIck xc: Ken Hall, Plans Check Inspectorlfechnician Robert Feldman, Clear Copy C:CLCOPYSP PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-141 TO: FROM: DATE: March 14, SUBJECT: Site Plan Review - 1st Review - Minor Site Plan Modification Project: Clear Copy Location: 660 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard Applicant: George Davis File No: MMSP 96-03-003 The following is a list of comments regarding the first review of the above-referenced project. It should be noted that the comments are divided into two (2) categories. The first category is a list of comments that identify deficiencies from the City's Land Development Regulations (L.D.R.) that are required to be corrected and shown in compliance on the plans and/or documents submitted for permit. The second set of comment(s) lists recommendations that the Planning and Zoning Department staff believe will enhance the proposed development and facilitate the permit review. All comments and recommendations can be rectified on the plans at time of permitting if the site plan request is approved. The applicant must understand that additional comments may be generated upon review of the documents and working drawings submitted to the Building Division for permits for the proposed project. I. SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS: 1. 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] . 2. 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]. 3. 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] 4. 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 I I - Landscape Code, Section 5 A, B, C, and Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.4.6]. Page 2 Clear Copy 1st Review Comments Minor Site Plan Modification (MMSP 96-03-003) Planning and Zoning Memorandum No. 96-141 5. 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] 6. Add to the site/landscape plan the existing lane striping within the N.W. 7th Street right-of-way directly west of the site. 7. 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 match sheet ST-l (Site/Landscape Plan - prepared by George Davis, Architect). 8. Place a note on site/landscape plan that indicates the refuse and recyclable material generated at the site will be collected via curb pickup. II. RECOMMENDATION(S): 9. It is recommended that the oversized parking space located 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. 10. 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. NOTE: If recommendations are approved, the working drawings required project. incorporate them into for permits for the MEH:bme xc: Central File a:clearcop.min /-~---_/----- ----------~~-~_/----:~-----~- ------- ---- , _ illc_ex>1"""" """"" "'~ - - -- ------- ,f' ",,' \ -Q- ~.~' \ \ -' ~ \ \ \\\ ~\ ~ - \ \ " ,: Jt . 7-- ~'" \) l~ " \ 'e. \ ~ ~ f; -0 ~ -0 0 VI1 0 ~ 5 jJ (j) -::\ rn -0 r- ~ ; g =n a ~ ..... 0 Z "!' 'i:I_ ..0 ~ ... t4 l'I;) t'\ " "' ~ ~ -\ 3 ts ~ C I . . ::::::::----- . ;p.C'<:::> I "1-"\.~o' . ~ \ ..--~ tp:?oO . z. . ~ \ ~ ~ '~. f \ ~ -:s:; v \ o:l ~ t &. \ l- f \ \, , )5' \i /-\~ - - - - ;----- i'" _ _ +. .;;;z: c /)- , \~\\:~ - \ - . ="'~^'" \~\~.. \~~ ~-il~lf\\" 'l-:--~'~\ -~~: _ \ _ rt}" ~ r,'~ 1~ >4' ~~JC7', ---- \ 7 ~,,~ .. - ~ ~" -.- ~ 1) '. ""." .' ..t " . ~ \ 0 \~~\h~ 1 ,,~, "w' \" .''fu''~ \\l1 \~ ~ \ - t~'l '!t ~~, t~~ \~, \" \; ~ 9. <<}" ,o,l \~ '....- 'r ~ t~. ~':. ~ ~1~ . ,Ollf' \~.~ ~ t~. 'it ~. ,,~. 'i: l' \\\~) " \~ ID) ~ @ ~ ~.w ~ i~ ,lJOr MAR 1 4 1996 I~ PLANNlt~G AND _.m_._ZONI~EPT. RECREATION AND PARKS MEMO #96-132 To: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director From: Kevin 1. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist k (~ Re: Clear Copy Date: March 14, 1996 We have reviewed the plan for Clear Copy and have no comments at this time. The plan may continue though the normal review process. To: From: RE: RECREATION AND PARKS MEMO # 96-133 Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director John Wildner, Parks Superintendent f1 Clear Copy Date: March 14, 1996 ill rn@~GW~ MAR I 4 1996 PLANNING AND ZONING~DEPI The Recreation and Park Department has reviewed The plan for Clear Copy. There are no outstanding recreation issues on this project. We recommend that the plan continue through the normal review process. JW ----~~----_.. .-_.__._.,,--,~-------_.. ~~-,----~-~~-----'---- ",""" C\l ! n \l ,11\' i: I.! ! l' J; : cJ! I ,] MEMORANDUM Utilities # 96-090 i~1 ~ @rnWl ~lrn~ \~..1~.11 HjR 141996 1 \ I ,', ,I ' ~,," 1 .--J l~,..",....~'_< . f)~~,\i',:.~r:\3,t';~e~ TO: Tambri J. Heyden Planning & Zo ng FROM: John A. Guidry, Director of Utilities Date: March 13, 1996 SUBJECT: Clear Copy, Minor Site Plan Modification Staff has reviewed the above referenced project and offer the following comments: 1. A mini manhole will be required in your north entrance placed over the City sanitary sewer cleanout near the property line per Utility Department Criteria. It is our recommendation that the plan proceed through the review process. If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact Skip Milor at 375-6407 or Peter Mazzella at 375-6404. sm/clear3 xc: Clyde "Skip" Milor Peter Mazzella if- File m@rnnWlR F~.l U \!l 15 1f1. I [. ~ i! ! 1 I j MARIA,. : 00 PL,uJ!Ni~!G A.ND ;'C'?:i DEPl -".'"..,....'."'.....__..'~-".h"'^.,"-~.......~,"'.. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM #96-049 TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director THRU: Robert Eichorst, Public Works Director ~ FROM: Larry Quinn, Sanitation Superintendent SUBJ: Clear Copy INS - MMSP 96-03-003 DATE: March 13, 1996 As previously approved, Public Works has no concerns providing curbside service for the removal of solid waste and recycling for Clear Copy Inc. ~ arry Quinn Sanitation Superintendent LQ/cr BUILDING DIVISION r" ~':""u ~ (ill ~'il-f,~-r:~-----'I~"~ I n It;l!9.stJt'[s nl 1 i "'''1 r"---"^M~'$"<"'''~CI; II 11 ;!~"I MAR 13199) qu I U U I 1'" j PLANNING A"JD ' ;__ ZONING DEPT. .. j MEMORANDUM NO. 96-091 March 13, 1996 To: Tambri Heyden Planning & Zoning Director From: Al Newbold Deputy Development Director Re: Clear Copy - Revised Site Plan Review The Building Division has reviewed the plans for the above project and have no comment other than our request to provide the Building Division with a copy of the final approved plans to be incorporated with the construction plans. 1!%~ Al New old AN:mh cc: William V. Hukill, P.E., Development Director C:\ WPWIN60\ WPDOCS\MISCMH\CLRCOPY.WPD ill.. l\1 @.. ~ n w rn ~ Dir l ~ I ~ .v_ , ~~~A,~;~.r!l~ ~~D , FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 96-227 TO: Tambri Heyden, Director Planning & Zoning FROM: William D. Cavanaugh, FPO I Fire Department DATE: March 12, 1996 RE: M:MSP 96-03-003 Clear Copy Inc. 700 W. Boynton Beach Blvd. We have no objections to this proposal. cc: Chief Jordan FPO II Campbell File P/& BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC UNIT ill m@~DW~r~" i ' / i 3 1996 f L TO: FROM: DATE: REF: KE~ W\. \ ~G ~t\-\ A. G,. r ;'oPc. RIGGLE March 12, 1996 CLEAR COPY (MMSP 96-03-003) MEMO trc0212 NG After speaking directly with Mr. Robe~:L~~~:;:~~~~.y:~..his commitment to barricade the &~;:::~~::~;;;:~:;~:::::~;<,,)::. t...j' .l:' i~;;~~> safety zone and part of the han9jtap;"z6p:d:(hl the Southea.Sl:$1de' of tA~ parking lot, I have no other II ..;.N:....... '.' ../....\~~~. '" ~ <:{:'.',.:::'..::.'::.....:.:,..:..::::..:....'..'..::~..::'::,.~~.~.::.:.:.,::..:~:.'.:j:::..:..:..:... See attached diagram. r;'!:::::; '.;, " concerns to voice. r'f~~:~:::~::;;): :~ r.............:.;.-.:~:~\ ~ t:.:.;.;.:-:.:.:-:;~::~~.../ ::.t,:',~.:. .~::.:.:.;.;.;.:.:..-.:'.......-=-... '-~-~ :~.;.;.;.;.;...;.;...;....~.....;.. ~~: f.:.:>:.:.:>;....~:~~..\ ~ ::.................:~::>_}. ~;: r..............:.:.~~{,\ ~~i ~L.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.....} )~' ., .. . .. ::~(-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:......;.:.... I':::,......~:.i.:::~::::::::~:::;~~)! __.: tJ Do c::::;::~(;:) ;',", ~1 t::::;::::::~~) (~:::::~~~~~, \:~:~:~:~::::,::) :~l'J~:::~~~~:~...< ..... :{l l::i:':;~~~:7;~~ . '':'.~' @j ~:~::>~.~,. .{:~:.~~~~~.~~..~;~;:~J:, ...... ". .......:.,.:..:..~.~~::~.'. ~,:~,..:;:~:~:;~~::/' :~:::~;[~ . .. - . BCYV -; l - !y I .. (;\; -I i I ! -t 1 1 I ~ \ I ~ ~. t=t ...... , SJt . \S .; ~l ~ ~4-.. : 1 _: > ~ ~ '3"' ; _ _ ._ . 'I " i , I ~t;- h. ~l j t::r! ~I '" -.Jd "21 ~" ; I , { : I ~ I I . . . i I ' I ~< I I :l ~ :.! t ". I ,~ ( '1. ') . ~ , , I 1 (; t t " ; i \ , I 'I I ) . t./ t f I "" I j : ~ t '.' ; I I. . I; , : : (.. I ,., ';. . '; ~ I ,. . -:-f.- .. ,1' .'V ~ f ) .~ I i ~ - ~ ~ ~ '-> ts- -~ r ; , . ; . : ~ . ~ c:;;o '~-:5 ~ '- ~:' : ~." ~ j~' :~. i 1 I :"' ~ , . ~, : ~ ; I ~ , -- 1--- i'W1D ~ , I 'U MAR I ......-'..-.,.,,,,,. ~'-~.~-"--'-- -I. ~ ~ n w ~ I~~~ll., --, 'II, I I " i! 'I! 3~ 1o!1: ~ H" , ~,'t..".,..:" DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 96-088." PLANNING A'lJO ZONING DEPT. j DATE: Tambri J. Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director ~ Hukill, P.E., City Engineer March 12, 1996 TO: FROM: RE: CLEAR COpy - MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW We have reviewed the February 16, 1996 site plan for subject location as shown on sheet ST-l (as revised March 5, 1996) and feel that it is in substantial conformance with any reasonable interpretation of the City's Land Development Regulations. We understand that the plan is to go before the Commission next week and we recommend that the City Commission approve the project as submitted and authorize execution ofthe site work including, but not limited to, remaining deviations from the Land Development Regulations, if any, and satisfaction of the following comments: 1. Certification by the applicant's Design Professional that the work, when completed, will conform with all codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and City Commission approvals. 2. Elimination of dimensional variations between Davis drawings and Smith drawings. 3. Restriping ofNW 7th Street as directed. 4. Dedication of property occupied by small portion of sidewalk infringing on southwest comer of site. WVH/ck xc: Carrie Parker, City Manager James Cherof, City Attorney Al Newbold, Deputy Director of Development C:CLRCPYRE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPl\'IENT ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 96-065 TO: Tambri Heyden. Planning & Zoning Director ~ukill. P.E., City Engineer February 26, 1996 FROM: DATE: RE: CI.EAR COpy - SITE PLAN REVIEW Applicant Feldman has submitted a slightly modified site plan in response to a request for compliance certification from this office. We have no objections to the suggested minor modifications and recommend that you waive formal review-as allowed under LDR Chapter 4, Section 2C with the following two conditions: I. The submission by the applicant of certification from a Florida registered Architect or Engineer that the work complies with all laws. ordinances. rules, regulations, etc. and will be constructed in conformance therewith. 2. Submission of a permanent easement or other property transfer document acceptable to the City Attorney for the piece of sidewalk at the SW property corner containing sidewalk pavement. With respect to the Haag comments regarding failure of the adjacent property owner to comply with buffer requirements wherein his (the neighbor's) buffer is a few inches less than the required width, please refer to the opinion of the City Attorney (presented orally to the City Commission in public session) that this applicant is not responsible to correct his neighbor's error, and therefore need not provide the missing narrow strip. Please also recall that the site plan was approved by the City Commission subsequent to th.lt rendering of opinion, but without a buffer condition. We will not allow sitework to proceed until our two conditions are met. WVHJck xc: Carrie Parker, City Manager James Cherof, City Attorney Al Newbold, Deputy Director of Development C:CLCPYREV '81 tf1~ 0 .~ ..s - o-b? ~ ct ~~ ~ - E ~ \\! '::II ~ ~ .. tf) 0.- Z 0 -- ti. g \:!: 8 ~ 3 0- W '.:: en ~ z -- ~ to en 0 ~ 0- ~\ \\ ' ~ ~~- \ -; \ \ ~ '" ~ 'Ii; ('''''''' ) , $.\ l --- ; II~"~ -' i\1 h ,,~ ,i;; , , \\~ \ \U\l ~~\~; 1 ~ ~ ~ -f1 iCi,~ ~ ~\ Y,"~' _' , 11, ~ . l~ g,. · >>, c' "oc:rl ~ll"r~t~ ~ iP'!jt ~ ~\,,! ~?"lJ.'Jf t- \~ ~ ~, <3 ~ \"'~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~i Ij, ~ _' ,.,YJ? J.~t'K;:t, _ Qr :\' a~ ~a~. ~. \,~ ~\ ~,' ~' ~k""~~' ",I."J "~:=~ 'I ~f~};~~\ ' .-:- ' " "-, ~' '\:/, \ , ",' - '\ -~O.O \~ \~ '"j/'- 'u 1 ; 'X ~, 1 ~ ! ,9\ .~z. ~ Cl \ ~' 7- ... ~ ~ ~ -Q- ~ \ \ ~ 'Sol ,~ ~ " 3 :z ~ ~ ~. ~---- i -~ ~ <:: \ ,00'6 . _ _ ,01;'I.;t. - ------------= -- - -----= ----- ~/_V.E.-<::a '\iOJ,w-oQ-1'{'{\ - / -----=== ,~-------~ -----------.- , . \. . ~ "_. tl ! ~ .~ )> 1J "tJ :0 ~ m c C/) =i m "tJ ~ Z <0 ........ ....,\ <0 ........ <0 (J1 ~ t.. . . t---..:..AP I ..---- t ....,.....- .- -. ....__..:.. --.-..- .. -- .... .... ... .--- ---.......... --- -----. . . . I 'C. - j' I I ,I ~' .'" . ,.' Ii. - ....-..-- .&.1. f " .. '. r..'~ ~.::,~"7.j.~..';: i. 1;';..- :.. . . fV;~..nt .J-I...... .'" Y ,:;-/v V ... : lu ~. ; : ~ A ~r , .,.... " ,,~.,r.,:l\j--- .....___'____.,. .~__.. .._.._-__. ......__..,~./O ~. ..::1.' ,1c. (.,.......:...J't_ "r~ ~1-:: -n ~- 1""6 bEt)., ~ l?,G 9 \1DU-. \'U>ffi 1.'& ........._- /.....0,...,........_.... ....-.--.-.-.....-.--... .. . ~\ \1- _ ~~ ~\z '('^'~C7 ?W~A.~' 0(.,'. ..... ._...._... _-__ _...._.....___._ h _____.......__..... . ~~~-~-~ra.u:..:....'tzP~ I. .<<1/ r,/" ..p\~ . . f~tp ~ "J" IJ-.Q-\ , O~..,. u!7' I~ -II . ~ \V (p\ t:J' . 'P' {V Aq\ i ~ (~.fJI. "ll ~ \S . V \0' ~ ,\ ' ill'> ~t.-'" . r, \ ~lJ I- \9 ~~ j:1L\ ~ ,'< QV {t {~''v'; ~ \ ~QJi \ J\~ 7JLf>> I\~~ J s~ J ~J \~.~ !IFf ~ n.\ OV, Ur \" \ j f.#J yf i I t- '.. . ",-- ~. . i---) .. nzo~~@ 2A'O't.:~ '(2t??"Ge.tJT Pt1.,. L- -- ....-=- r' -=-. ~e~~~ ~~l,vU\ D?.~.... ,.'------.. .. I l ( ---.: (4?~/.1(,VrzF ~ 1t2rJ\1 . N_~~!?~~..~~~.~~ ,.tJ& ..~~.'OG ..... ........... _..___...... ...._... ~. . w ._. no o' J ~ TIO~..) - . ~AHJ.' rz. ~:....4. ;.1.' .;... .' .. . , Dt?U M.. ()z,O~'fUJ . \ . .' ~.:. O' : .... l . 0\' '. --_. -------- . ,-----....-.. ....'..--- ,rJC. : . . I :f.J"T J ' , : l. ~ t-fA1-wz,atz...~. :. ......eu0r,:...._... ~f.'-~12I- .1JT~~_~~~!_w{__ .-...--------------- , ~ tZe;oHGAO'&' . '(!J 'Z4 ~ O~ '! 7' l-,~' ',.:.-- '-/ ' . I 0:~--:--=-----.- - M...-~A\~-L~. :.' .. \. ''-- . ..... , '''--~''l.'-1 I ~lA'\J6U~tf. 'V\~ \~ ~..4 -. I D d" t ..I f~ ,. -.1 :~t~.JV.~...~ _L....'12~ 1 . k_%l~.~...~~Mz:- I . ~~~~.H.~..~ ~ I h\t,,'~L1t,-~. l~ .W---,~H'()~ . ~~ :~J\2. eJ. IUfo 1" v,.. I +~ , D. . et~~~ ~.J?Z--!~..~~~~ I I J~Q\z.. ~~ . ~ - i