CORRESPONDENCE
Mar 22 01 01:35p
Clt~ Attorne~'~ OFFice
561-742-6054
p.2
""
City of Boynton Beacb
Memorandnm
TO:
Mike Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning
Don Johnson, Building Official
Ed Yates, Permit
~.
FROM:
Mary Ramsey, Legal Secretary
DATE;
March 22, 2001
RE:
RHS vs. City Boynton Beach, Clear Copy
Attached are two discovery requests propounded to the City in the above referenced
matter for yeur review. Plaimiffs Third Request to Produce and Plaintiffs First Set of
Inteno gatari es.
I will be contacting you to set a meeting regarding these requests. Should you have any
questions, please feel free to give me a cal1.
:mr
Attachments as noted
Mar 22 01 01: 35p
CIt~ Attorne~'5 OFFice
561-742-6054
p.3
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PAL~ BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
RHS CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: CL 9910891-AN
VS.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
vs.
DefendantJCounterPlainti!I
and Third-Party Plaintiff,
CLEAR COPY,
Third ~ Defendant.
...
I
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF SERVING FIRST SET
OF INTERROGATQRIES TO DEFENDANT. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
TO: Michael D. Cirullo. Jr., Esq., 3099 E. Commercial Blvd., Ste. 200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
33308
The Plaintiff, RHS CORPORATION, hereby give notice that pursuant to Rule 1.340
of the :Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, its set of Interrogatories directed to Defendant, CITY OF
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA have been served on March 8,2001.
I HEREBY CERTIFY t.~at a true copy of the foregoing has been sent by U.S. Maii this
~ day of March, 2001 to the following: Michael D. Cirullo, Jr.) Esq., 3099 E. Commercial
Blvd., Ste. 200, Ft,Lauderdale, FL 33308 and Jeffrey Tomberg, Esq., J.D., P.A., 626 SE 4lh Place.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425.
Clyatt & Richardson. P.A.
1.551 Forum Place, Suite #300-F
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attorney for Plaintiff
(56 I) 471 ~9600
(S61J47::,imue --.
By: ~
Kevin F. Richardson
Fla. BarNo: 329185
(
<to
~"
.----~-~-----_._~--_.-.-
Mar 22 01 01:35p
Clt~ Attorne~'5 OFFice
561-742-6054
p.4
,....'J
INTRODUCTION and DEFINITIONS
1 . These Interrogatories shall be deemed to seek answers as of the date hereof, but shall
be deemed to be continuing so that any additional information relating in any way to these
Interrogatories which Defendant acq uires or which becomes known to Defendant up to and including
-
the time of Trial shall be furnished to Plain1iffimmediately after such information is acquired or
becomes known.
2. As used herein, the term "document" is employed to obtain discovery in its
customary board sense as described in Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Florida
Rules of Court.
,.
...
3. As used herein, "person" shall mean both natural persons and corporate, municipal,
or other business entities, whether or not in the employment of Defendant.
4. As used herein, "identify" or to give "identity of" means, in general to give the fullest
description:
a. For a natural "person", to state:
(1) Name;
(2) Last known address;
(3) Employer or business affiliation;
(4) Occupation and business position held and length of time in that position.
b. For a "document", to state:
(1) "Identity of' the person(s) who prepared it;
(2) Title or a description of the general nature of its subject matter;
(3) Date of preparation;
(4) Location of each copy and "identity ot" present custodian;
(5) If privilege is claimed, the specific basis therefor.
5. Under Rule 1.340, an officer or employee ofthe City of Boynton Beach who answers
interrogatories must furnish such information as is available to the party on whose behalf the
answers. An officer, employee or agent of the City ofBoymon Beach, Florida, who has not
sufficient familiarity with the facts to answer the interrogatories either as knowledge or on
information, is required to make such inquiry as will enable him to supply the answers, when the
information is accessible to the City of Boynton Beach, Florida.
Mar 22 01 01:35p
Clt~ Attorne~'s OFFice
561-742-6054
p.5
1. With regard to the October 10, 1997 - Development Order issued by Defendant to Clear
Copy, Inc. (Clear Copy) for the improvements and property at 660 West Boynton Beach Blvd.,
....7
({,-J...... Boynton Beach, Florida, (Property) for the August 20, 1997 Site Plan Review Application and
f y
)t-t/ cf'':f October 7, 1997 City Commission Site Plan Approval:
(?,l
"".c.. ....-----
0'1'/
J~'<' .
.>> G> -r.t,Q . f?~ 2
(-,)\ ..t--':> .
{~t (.,)<-
(''''' \'
a.
Identify all documents known to Defendant that include the following and identify each
person who took part in or were responsible for:
(1). Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) andlartemporary C.O. for the Property issued after
October 10, 1997. 1fno, C.O. or temporar}' C.O. was isslled after October 10,1997,
indicate such to that effect;
(2). All inst?ections and inspection reports far the Property subsequent to October 10,
1997. Ii no inspections and inspection reports were issued subsequent to October 10,
1997, indicate such to that effect; .
(3).
All building and/or development permits issued to Clear Copy or the Property
subsequent to the October 10, 1997. lfno building and/or development permits were
issued subsequent to October 10, 1997, indicate such to that effect;
r
(4).
Variance applied for and/or issued for the approved Clear Copy site plans, or for the
Property.
e"'>'
'_ .."'C
~~"l<:Y .
With regard to issuance ofthe August 20,1999 Occupational License issued by Defendant
to Clear Copy:
a Identity each person who took part in or were responsible for the administrative decision that
Clear Copy met the requirements set forth in Chapter l1._CQde Ordinances for issuance of an
o .1/ - occupational license, and identify and produce all documents knO"Wll to Defendant regarding the facts
for the above administrative decision;
Identify each person who took part in or were responsible for the administrative d~e.cis~ ?
Clear Copy met the requirements set forth in Chapter 7.5. Art.icle II. Se;;. 1 O.cLand Development
b.
\:v Regulations (LDR) for issuance of a "certificate of occupancy and use" or occupational license, and
identify all documents kno\oVn to Defendant regarding the facts for the above administrative decision.
Mar 22 01 01:3610
C~t~ Attorne~'s OFFice
561-742-6054
3. With regard to Chapter 7.5, Article II. Sec. lOA., Land Development Regulations (LDR)
enacted by you:
( a.
~
"- b.
Define:
(1). "Certificate of Occupancy";
(2). "Certificate of Occupancy and use";
-
Provide the distinction between "certificate of occupancy and use" and "certitlcate of
occupancy";
'"
c.
Provide the distinction between 11 certificate of occupancy and use" and occupational license ";
\
d.
Identify all documents regarding any court decision to grant Clear Copy a "certificate of
occupancy and use" o~ "occupational license" or "certificate of occupancy."
'7 e.
~
Identity each" document" which embodies, describes, refers or relates in any way whatsoever
to each facts set forth in yo'Jr Answers to Parts a. through c. above.
4. With regard to the approved Clear Copy Site Plan. approved Oil October 7, 1997:
a. Identify all documents, site plans, and surveys which describe, refer or relate in any way
whatsoever to the mandated requirement written on the approved site plans; "The City Landscape
Inspector will field verify the existing hedge identified by asterisk to landscaping legend meets
minimum use area screening requirements," and identify each person who took part in or were
r~ponsible for verification or enforcement of the above requirement;
b. Identify all documents which describe, refer or relate in any way whatsoever to the approved
requirement written on the approved site pluns; "If existing material does Dot meet minilp.um
standards, pIans & site will be re"ised to show proper vehicular use screening in compliance
with the City standards" and identify each person who took part in or were responsible for the
verification or enforcement of the above requirement:
c. Identify all documents for variaaces issued to Clear Copy varying or modifying the
requirements set forth in Chapter 7.5, Article II, Sec. 5E., Land Development Regulations (LDR)
that "Such landscape barrier shall be located between the common lot line and the off-street parking
F.6
"J' ~(I.'"
~~l:l (~
Mar 22 01 Ol:3?p
CIt~ Attorne~'5 Office
561 -742 -6054 -
p.?
" .
~~
~ ~' ~ .. ,: ~~./}:~;.~~:~,.
area or other vehicular use area in a planning strip of not less than two and one-half (2 Y2 ) feet
width." If no such document exist, indicate such to that effect;
d. Identify each document which embodies, describes, refers or relates in any way to each fact
set forth in your Answers to Parts a., b., and c. above.
-
5.a. Identify all handicap codes or regulations that were in force and effect on October 7,1997
for commercial development in t'1e Clty of Boynton Beach, Florida; enacted pursuant the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, as required under the Florida State
Handicap Code requirements, Standard Building Code, and countyv,ide amendments thereto in
force.
d
...
b. Identify all documents for regulations pertaining to the speCific handicap codes and
requirements that were in force on October 7, 1997 for commercial development in the City for:
(1). Parking lots;
(2). Minimum clear width requireme!lts between handrails of stairways in multistory
buildings.
c. 'Identify each person who tJok part in or were responsible for enforcement of the Handicap
Codes for Clear Copy's October 10, 1997- Development O!"der.
6. With regard to the alleged "Specific Violations of Clear Copy" attached as Exhibit 9 to the
2nd Amended Complaint:
a. Identify each person between October 7, 1997 and currently who took part in or were
responsible for detennining complia..rlce and enforcement of the alleged spt:cific code violations
listed in Plaintiff's Exhibit 9~
b. Provide an explanation for eac;h specific violation listed by Plaintiff in Exhibit 9 where the
Defendant's position is that there is no violation, and identify all documents which embody,
describe, support, refer, or relate in any way whatsoever to your position.
Mar 22 01 01: 3Bp
C!t~ Attorne~'s OFFlce
561-742-6054
p.B
...t~.,...,c
'. ". ....,'.
. ~ "".'~:.-!-- .-: '.':' ,
: ~';:: .'~~r;,:-;;;.
.
"
.. ......',
. .
,,:;,;,:,:"-.'.~,~;' -';")"';1
".- ;.: .
c. Identify each "document" which embodies, describes, refers orrelates in any way whatsoever
to each facts set furth in your answer to Parts a. & b. above,
7.a, Identify aU documents for the requirements and standards used by the City's Occupational
License Department ~or issuance of occupational license;
b. State whether a "C.O." or "temporary C.O." is required in order for a business to obtain
an "occupational license I' for a specific business location in the City of Boynton Beach, Florida. If
not, provide instances that would allow issuance of an occupationallicen..<;e at a specific business
location without a "e.O." or "temporary C.O."
c. List each busiJltss or property instance in the last three years where an "occupational license"
...
was issued by the City to a business for a specific loctl.tion where the premises of the business did
not have a "e.O." or "temporary e.O."
8. Identify an persons who participate in any way in the preparation of the Answers or
Responses to these Interrogatories and state specifically, with reference to Interrogatory Numbers,
the area of participation of each such person and whether or not the Answers provided by each such
persons were based on personal knowledge or on information and belief.
Mar 22 01 01: 39p
C!t~ Attorne~'5 OFFice
561-742-6054
p.9
''''.';1'.:.
IN TIlE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
RHS CORPORATION,
Plaintift~
Case No.: CL 9910891-AN
VS.
CITY OF BOYNTON J3EACH, FLORlDA,
vs.
DefendantlCounterP laintitT
and Third-Party Plaintiff,
CLEAR COPY.
Third P~rty Defendant.
i
PLAINTIFF'S THIRD REOUEST TO PRODUCE TO
DEFENDANT. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
.\'
TO: James A Cherof, Esq., and Michael D. Cirullo, Jr.. Est"' . 3099 E. Commercial Blvd., Ste.
200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
.YOU ARE REQUESTED to produce the following items for inspection aJ'A ~'Jpying by the
undersigned at 1551 Fomm Place, Suite #300-F, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33401, within thirty five
(35) days from the date hereon at ten o'clock (10:00) a.m., in accordance with Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.350:
1. Produce all documents identified in your answers to Interrogatory number l.b. of the
Interrogatories dated March 8.2001.
2. Produce all documents identified in your answers to Interrogatory number 2.c.. of the
Interrogatories dated March 8, 200 I.
3. Produce all documents identified in your answers to Interrogatory number 3.d. of the
Interrogatories dated March 8, 200 t .
4. Produce all documents identified in your answers to Interrogatory number 4a., b., c., and d.
of the Interrogatories dated March 8, 2001.
Mar 22 01 01:3Sp
CIt~ Attorne~'s OFFice 561-742-6054
-;:'~..":"r;","'''; .
p. 10
5. Produce all documents identified in your answers to Interrogatory number 5 a., and b. of the
Interrogatories dated March 8, 200 1.
6. Produce all documents identified in your a11swers to Interrogatory number 6.c. of the
Interrogatories dated March 8, 2001.
7. Produce all documents identified in yom answers to Interrogatory number 7.a. of the
Interrogatories dated March 8, 2001.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent by U.S. Mail this
. ~ay of March, 2001 to the named-above.
.=
""
Clyatt & Riehard'KIn, F.A.
155] Forum Place, Suite #300-F
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attorney for Plaintiff
(561) 471-9600
(561) 471-2 5 - Facsimile
By:
Kevin F. Richardson
Fla. Bar No: 329185
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 01-063
TO: Michael D. Cirullo, Jr., Assistant City Attorney
FROM: Timothy K. Large, Building Code Administr~
DATE: April 6, 2001
SUBJECT: Boynton Beach vs. RHS Corporation
File No. 990437
Please refer to the following responses to items 1-6 of Exhibit 9 of the plaintiff s alleged
violations of Clear Copy's site to the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction and
items 5( a) and 5(b) of plaintiff s first set of interrogatories.
1) The required accessible parking space on Clear Copy's site provides the closest and most
safe access for disability use. Due to size requirements mandated by the Florida
Accessibility Code for Building Construction, the existing location of the parking space is
best suited for this application. The parking space complies with Sec. 4.6.2 of the Florida
Accessibility Code for Building Construction, 1994 Edition.
J
2) The location of the accessible space on Clear Copy's site does not compel the user to wheel
behind parked vehicles. The space complies with the Florida Accessibility Code Sec.'s
4.6.1,4.6.2, and 4.6.3, 1994 Edition.
3) Clear Copy's site provides an accessible route from the parking space to the building and
complies with Florida Accessibility Code Sec. 's 4.3, and 4.5. A walkway is not required per
Florida Accessibility Code, 1994 Edition.
4) Curbs are not provided and there are no changes in grade elevation from the parking space
to the building, therefore curb ramps are not required and the accessible space complies with
the Florida Accessibility Code Sec. 4.7.1, 1994 Edition.
5) The Clear Copy's site interior stairs do not discharge into an area of rescue assistance,
therefore do not require 48" between handrails. The stairs comply with the Florida
Accessibility Code Sec. 's 4.3 and 11.3, 1994 Edition.
6) No curb ramps are provided on this site, therefore no diagonal curb ramps are required per
Florida Accessibility Code, 1994 Edition.
/1.:'
Memo to Michael D. Cirullo, Jr.
April 6, 2001
RE: Boynton Beach vs. RHS Corporation, File No. 990437
Page 2 of 2 Pages
Responses to interrogatories items 5(a) and 5(b).
5(a) The accessibility code in effect on October 7, 1997 was the Florida Accessibility Code
for Building Construction, effective October 1, 1997.
5(b)
1) The Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction, effective October 1, 1997
regulates requirements for parking lots constructed after October 1, 1997.
2) The Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction, effective October 1, 1997
regulates requirements for handrails of stainvays constructed after October 1, 1997.
If you require addition information I can be reached at (561) 742-6352.
TKUrs
r
xc:
Don Johnson
S:\Development\Building-6870\Documents\Memos in Word\Boynton Beach vs RHS Corporation.doc
CD
7<- S K 'R c S~a--( c....~ G -f C (Q. '; l"\S 0 $'11 C- \..It ~{~~~.s
;;::- ~ ~ ~-.
~~o'(f -(- . v', 0-';1
P+ ~ 77~3;1-? ~v-<-
Cc- /0 /7/7 ? /"~---
!B;t-
/02,b ~"".Q5~<1'/'7 ;YJ5p~7'1'~ ~y -
C--=e. -r &C'~ n ~c.!;;u2r->.r-
[,-npk/""r
h~k
t!C~f~/'-
2>. LC!.j do- ( C<:;AJ<2,; nO' ? k
// . f 0- I. / I'>'? +- ,?.::, II' c;" ~J r-J--~~.t-
. '~IS"'-~ ~ 0/t~ 7'" / " J../
(~ /) . v :;:> '" j f" W / 7 ~J /J ?
",/ ~6 ". , I<-eori", <t"~~,",<~ 'fff 1"'~.Q /it ~l'/;~^e~ ~ Co""",
v'-.'(:_0/)G Vt:t.-rI<>t.Y.':'cS re.~ U;r~\ ,
If.d c ~ rI~ ~fdlieO ph... ./.- :> (-{rCF,... "",(y<;;;,:s.
6':'0.- -r:
,/ ~ "."
h. 7i,'Vl
r\
C.) .-- ?
7/ i"?
/
<_./
U> ct... p.:: ,S~'-5 ( 5 L C _ --r~-' /...,._0
'- /! e ~ f r:..-,{;... ~ . .
~ r &"'G~' =;'\. I<:.- ~........ (-S<.c:.. .-r~-f~~()
C, ~_.c;.c...->-1e.~ is ~~. e-<- C'l-,I~ {~
chv"(
fY\ '1 ~ /'~ <_rr-') C
!J1<:r~ (T Z.~ u(r<::.,-(~
- .- --.....-.. - ,--_.._-.._"'-_.._...~...-.__..__.-
_ 01 Ol:27p
~~ Attorne~15 OFFice
5 -742-6054
p.5
-... :
...-....
1. With regard to the October 10, 1997 - Development Order issued by Defendant to Clear
Copy, Inc. (Clear Copy) for the improvements and property at 660 West Boynton Beach Blvd.,
Boynton Beach, Florida, (Property) for the August 20, 1997 Site Plan Review Application and
October 7, 1997 City Commission Site Plan Approval:
a. Identify all documents known to Dcfendant that include the following and identify each
person who took part in or were responsible for:
~
(1). Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) and/or temporary C.O. for the Property issued after
.7 October 10, 1997. lfno, e.O. or temporary e.O. was issued after October 10,1997,
indicate such to that effect; }JOflJ-e- 1-??uED. - {jJ('U"""L"~ J~ eM- O^~ ~t
.M.f..,-~ cI S//&/c--t> u f.
(2). All ins~ections anti inspection reports for the Property subsequent to October 10,
.' i 997. Ifno inspections and inspectionreports.were issued subsequent to October 10,
1997, indicate such to that effect; ~ ~
(3). All building and/or development pennits issued to Clear Copy or the Property
I subsequent to the October 10,1997. lfno building andlordevelopmentpermitswere 14~
. issued subsequent to October 10, 1997, indicate such to that effect; _ ~
J' -/ ~ .
~JP i ~ if Variance applied for and/or issued for the approved Clear Copy site plans, or for the
Property. ~~
2. With regard to issuance of the A~ust 20,1999 Occupational License issued by Defendant
to Clear Copy:
a. Identify each person who took part in or were responsible for the administrative decision that
Clear Copy met the requirements set forth in Chapter 13. Code Ordinances for issuance of an
occupational license, and identify and produce all documents known to Defendant regarding the facts
for the above administrative decision; - /It:ffj ~ / a 'f,.w
b. Identify each person who took part in or were responsible for the administrative decision that
Clear Copy met the requirements set forth in Chapter 7.5. Article II. Sec. lOA.. Land Development
Rel!ulations (LDR) for issuance of a "certificate of occupancy and use" or occupational license, and
identify all documents knOVvTI to Defendant regarding the facts for the above administrative decision.
~ {~ - B.D. oJ ~ ~ ~t;1t";lL
~~-~-~ 1A- ~
~.S- ~ ~ ~
--
ul 01:2710
t~ Attorne~'5 Office
. -742-605"
10.6
I :::""'.', .:."..~ ......:'.~ ::1'::....
{
. . (-. ,,~ z,... ~
3. WIth regard \ Chapter 7.5, ArticleTI, Sec. lO.;}and Development Regulations (LDR)
:nacted::~::: ~ ~:?i~ ~1 rpt ~ ~'
(1). "Certificate of Occupancy"; , 1M ~
(2). "Certificate of Occupancy and use"; - rJ~. ~ ~ 0 '
-
b. Provide the distinction between "certificate of occupancy and use" and "certificate of
occupancy"; ~~. hp. 'I.
c. Provide the distinction between "certificate of occupancy and use" and occupational license";
/.
1;:)/
1crv"'u
: 11:
~
d. Identify all documents regarding any court decision to grant Clear Copy a "certificate of '2
occupancy and use" or. "occupational license" or "certificate of occupancy.,,?~'" tJfzJ1-- ·
...
e. Identify each "document" which embodies, describes, refers 0'[ relates in any way whatsoever
to each facts set forth in your Answers to Parts a. through c. above. -
?; Be:..
f
ICfC{ I e::D
-.Jb
-r- 4.
:With regard to the approved Clear Copy Site Plan, approved on October 7, 1997:
*- ..., J.
1...--(. : I.
I i~ ' -
a. Identify all documents, site plans, and surveys which describe, refer or relate in any way
whatsoever to the mandated requirement written on the approved site plans; "The City Landscape
~ . '. ../'
Inspector will field verify the existing hedge identified by asterisk to landscaping legend meets
minimum use area screening requirements," and identify each person who took part in or were
. / I _'
responsible for verification or enforcement of the above requirement; ~,t'-- / .,'" .1.... /
i ~ Identify all documents which describe, refer or relate in any way whatsoever to the approved
~1/ requirement written on the approved site plans; "If existing material does not meet minimum
standards, plans & site will be revised to show proper vehicular use screening in compliance
a//)
"/ 1/
> f1:::(-. v<)
with the City standards" and identify each person who took part in or were responsible for the
verification or enforcement of the above requirement:
~IV
c. Identify all documents for variances issued to Clear Copy varying or modifying the
requirements set forth in Chapter 7.5, Article II, Sec. 5E., Land Development Regulations (LDR)
that "Such landscape barrier shall be located between the common lot line and the off-street parking
~p
r-~t~ Attorne~'s Office
56.1-742-605.1'
p.7
~'
..~.' :'~. ~<>~'~:~;::~~~~f."~;~7:~' . .
area or other vehicular use area in a planning strip of not less than two and one-half (2 Y2 ) feet
width. I! If no such document exist, indicate such to that effect;
~
d. Identify each document which embodies, describes, refers or relates in any way to each fact
set forth in your Answers to Parts a., b., and c. above.
,. 5.n.
t! ~~-; for commercial development in the City of Boynton Beach, Florida; enacted pursuant the City's
NO ' ;, D
p-tN \ ~ tJJComprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, as required under the Florida State
,,~rv Handicap Code requirements, Standard Building Code, and countywide amendments thereto in
V r.(o').I
\'-\-\,' force. ._
~ q \ (D. b, i Identify all do~uments for regulations pertaining to the speCific handicap codes and
Identify all handicap codes or regulations that were in force and effect on October 7, 1997
requirements that were in force on October 7, 1997 for commercial development in the City for:
II Pdlllf ~ ~(l). Parking lots;
<~ :rv .
1/1 , ,U/ . (2).
tt' r vwr''''
q 4 (JV c.
~ Codes for Clear Copy's October 10, 1997- Development Order.
Minimum clear width requirements between handrails of stairways in multistory
buildings.
'Identify each person who took part in or were responsible for enforcement of the Handicap
6. With regard to the alleged "Specific Violations of Clear Copy" attached as Exhibit 9 to the
i
2nd Amended Complaint:
a. Identify each person between October 7, 1997 and currently who took part in or were
IIJ responsible for detennining compliance and enforcement of the all~ged specific code violations
I~ '" (c...L- listed in PIlIintaps Exhibit 9; '?
b. Provide an explanation for each specific violation listed by Plaintiff in Exhibit 9 where the
Defendant's position is that there is no violation, and identify all documents which embody, . J
describe, support, refer, or relate in any way whatsoever to your position. - /Ylo ~ [)
_._._._"--_.._-----------_._-~---_._._-_._._--~--_.__..------
~:
//
~~27P
:" ....~.. ~~~~~~~~..~; .:' .'..
t~ Attorne~'s OTTice
~ . -742-605-,
p.8
. l.,'.:'"
:.~ :.: ;/..::!.~'.;.'."
;:~~:~...:'.~ ..... -, ':\. .:...... ,. .\t~.~~';~~\~:.:'. .'-
. . . .
... .' ',. .
<.:.;.:';:..~:~~~ :./t:.~
-...,'. .....,...,..."
...... ..."....-
,0,0.,8, (' [LWe.-
i c. Identify each" documentll which embodies, describes, refers or relates in any way whatsoever
to each facts set forth in your answer to Parts a. & b. above.
~1l./ 7.a. Identify all documents for the requirements and standards used by the City's Occupational
License Department ~or issuance of occupational license;
b. State whether a "C.O." or "temporary C.O." is required in order for a business to obtain
IU
6/ L, JU
~
an "occupational license" for a specific business location in the City of Boynton Beach, Florida. If
not, provide instances that would allow issuance of an occupational license at a specific business
location without a "C.O." or "temporary C.O."
&/ {,,t-~. c.
I ;~
List each busi~ss or property instance in the last three years where an "occupational license"
....
was issued by the City to a business for a specific location where the premises of the business did
not have a "C.O." or "temporary C.O."
8." (dentify all persons who participate fn any way in the preparation of the Answers or
~ Responses to these Interrogatories and state specifically, with reference to Interrogatory Numbers,
~he area of participation of each such person and whether Dr not the Answers provided by each such
persons were based on personal knowledge or on information and belief.
I
MICHAEL A. TEELE, P .E.
Consulting Engineer
2116 Corporate Drive
Boynton Beach, Fl. 33426
(407) 738-4747
July 9, 1996
City of Boynton Beach
Planning, Zoning and Building Department
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, Florida
Attn: William Hukill
Dircetor of the Department of Development
Ref: CLEARCOPY
660 W. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, Florida
Permit 95-4541
Dear Mr. Hukill,
This is to confirm that the parking lot lighting system as presently installed at the above
referenced site meets the intent of my design and of the Boynton Beach Ordinance
095-02.
Please call if any further information is required.
;:~~
Michael A. Teele, P.E., C.\.P.E.
F IMSDATA\MTIBOYNTON.DOC
luly9.1996
" \~-\ (;- \:"")
. \
\ . . \ (
\
l (, L
,
t.,
\ ,), (. (,
\ 'r" i':<,
- /
" I
/ -- ' ;' - / t-
,
p~
..
.~/~Yo /
, ,(1,''1''\
1'c) 0 -
--r:
.../'/ ,~c.
.5pe.. r- _
I
j;t)o/~ i 5-5 u'e
5-;J;G.-6-/L/A
/ s ~ J r Cf'-'''-5 (<7~ /?7'S-
d-? & ..5;- 7"" c- / ~ .7 11 __~ <..J 6/7'> ;r:/ ~
.;
,,4 6> ~ / r .:5 .P .<~,;;.. ~ ,;-y~ ( 6- > fYl"r ~ 5.1;')
i
/ 0 ~.{
r;;.'c rs , <'~)A ~~-4(,c{:) . - Oc:.1i 7'7
((('yon ~rr~'~ ~ I)rf-(- of CC'\{~
J/PJ1?C fe-.u
~;-;;cf) -tS
r~( -
cJr:-i ,,/ &- .rr7-~. / ;r ~_/ - <)- ~Arlj (f
~
Lr; '^. f1~
-($fl V) ,,0(
/i.Y' S (0' (~,;)~
r ." _ ~ .....
/ t~.f c,OJ: ~;.~~
I'?"A p',.
C I :',:,- f.,o ; I C.., I.K-f
{' 0 <-'Y -r- JJ<U'\; e~'
(~1~-r /..fjJ;:rm,d2 ':-~7!/e~
):1- n.- ~7..sl / //
i/
re--f-~ rr~ - q L... /~s~ Cc~....^ T ~
c~. p~",,-
- s;.,~ / tCJ'-- ~J J<o... ~7 rb--S
Il fie( 1- c.{.C G€..- It> ~ .,,-.._~ d f ~ r
T""f ~~sc-.'- 4-2
- ~? jk-c_( ;55 <.Je, of iJ, C-.
~$(-jek' O,?_ ;)1. CUV\ ,,-,\C""-. -fi0\.'l. ~
C (.; "'''\j-ue~c~J s
''''7
fjv~~ -i>
~ \ .f"
\' ~\~
.t '(
.j"
V
() (',: -f 6 { lh <c~,J2'G:jv\. '-' .>
~UM,~os~as and Goren
lO,954?~14923
PACE
2/4
-.../
"\
SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF CLEAR COPY'S SITE
CJe3rCoPY. Inc:s property is at 660 West Boynton Be:Jch Blvd., and u violating the City's Land
Development Regubtions 3S fonows:
- "
1. Cle:lr Copy's site f:lils to provide the closest Zld most s.:lfe p;uking space for
diSOlbility use. This violates federal ADA (Americ:m Disabiliry Act) laws, Florid:l disabiliry
requirements (Section 4.6.2); Palm Beach Count)' countywide amendmentS (or disabilicy
requirementS and Chapter 23, Attiele II. K. of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDR).
Tne City cannot grant a variancefor chis violation unltss th~federal, slate and county governments
all consent to {he variance request. - t:.Nb ( N ~ AJG. I "7{J!:.-t/ cr~
.... ~#"--.
..4 ....~'
- ,
',' : ~!~
1 t.\- (, r ';'-
, /J~'
.~..;/ l .~,
- . '\~~:\ ...\
("CO,
2. Cle3!' Copy's site fails to provide handicap parking so users of the design<lted
',,_ "" handiCOlpped parking spaces will not be compelted to wh=l behind parked vehicles. .Currently, ;i
:' J" \>, dis~br~d person would have to wheel behind pnrked vehicles in the loading zone. This violates state
\ 'i\~ ',-:1 ,/ . l:lw Ch:lp(~r 316.1955 and 316.1956. Palm 8C:.:lcn County countywide amendments for h:lndic::1p
.i', ,;,' ;." requirements and Ch:lpter 23. Article II, 1(, of the City's LOR.. TM City cannot grant a variance
. for this violation unless state and county governments cons~n( /0 the variance requesL
3. CIe:1t 'CopyPs site fails to provide handicap parking so users of the dcsipated
..~...' baodic:apped parking space ~ reach the building from the ba.odicap pMq!pq .btmeans of a..
l'A! ~. walkway ,to the building. This violates Florida disability. requirements, Palm Beach County
r 1\ {,; f? ~ ..' .... countywi~e. amendments for disability requirements and Chapter 23. A.tticIe II, K.. The Cily cannot
,I, ~ ' i I '.J gran! a VC/'IaJ'lCe for this unless state and county governments consenl to tM wrrlance nquest..
I f.'. \
,,' "1-~ ,'1,
{..11 ,..r
4.'1lt ..~
4. . Clear Copy's site (ails to provide a curb ramp with detectable warning complying'
with 4.29.2 of the Florida Acc:.essibility Code [or Building Co~cil1. This ~olate$ Florida
Accessibility Code for Building construction se<:tion 4.7.1. The Cil)' cannot graJ'lt a varfance/pr !his "
unless state and county goverrunents COffSenr to the variance request. - 1& ~ .4 ." ,'2. l ; }; ;~1. ....,. .
S. CJearCopy's building fails to provide its stairway with a mioimwn clear width of48 II
inc~ between handrails. This violates Section 4.3.11.3. Stairway Width. of the Florid:.
Accessibility Code for Building CODStruction: The City can11Dt grant a variance for this unI.ess Slalf!
and counry governments consent fo lhe variance requeJL - } 5 1 t.i ':: / IJ A f) . j!.;}2:.F i. 'f
Ilr":.:,: ~ 'r.'" J ," ,," '\ ..~ c.... r ):~:;. t'::- A ",-r ":1 .'_" l1..~ .~,-
K't' .LVt:....... r I' '-". . '.....Vi'l4 .-! \ill
6. Clear Copy's site <iils to provide a diagonal curb ramp having at least 24 inch long
s~gments of str<lighr curb located on each side of the curb ramp \\.ithin the marked crossing. This
violates Florid<l Accessibility Code for Building Construction 4.7.10. The City caMOI grCJl'lI a
'\lar~ancefor chis unleSSslate.anej county governments consen/ (0 the variance request. _ ,F_ft:.'.t Vi r;'f D I
^' f' 0 I . I " ~. ..t I ~ " i::: 0 4 7 I;"") .
'/ .t\.~. LC!"'h.'r....-r U...J~ rp~I:}I.oo' /j 1:(.;-
1. Clear Copy's site fails to provide safe and proper access to the site for emergency
i ~ vehicles. creating an unsafe condition for Clear Copy's 'propcny. the adjoining property, and
7 surrounding neighborhood violating surrounding neighborhood violating Chapter 4. Section 8.C.5.
The r~ truck cannot by means of a lawful ingress/egress navigate the site without traversing through
designated parking spaces or over the planting areas to approach the proposed building.
EXHIBIT "9"' ~
JM,J051AS and Geren
10,9547714923
PAGE
3/4
-,
I. Cle3t Copy's site WIs to provide safe and proper aa:css to the site for scrv1C=
1;( vehicles ~use.it has insufficient ~ea in the parking lot foc ingress and egress without encroaching
f,' ! i../ the bandi~p porking space. The g:lrbage trUck cannot reach the dwupstet' without encroaching the
h:indic:p parking space and require e~cessive m<1neuvering to get to me dumpster. . This is a
....iol~tion ofCb:1prer 4, Section 8.C.S.
9. CIe.1r Copy's site fails to provide adequate m.:meuvering space to the off-street
loading zone. Consequently. the service tnlcks for Cl~ Copy pack <:idler on the sideWC1!k and road
"/fJ,,'-' or in the access aisle of the pa.rking lot. In addition the fire trucks must park on the road to service
; this site. Th.:s prevents the free movement of vehicles and pcdestr14l11S over a street or sidewalk.
This vio!:1c~s ChOlprer 2.. S~ction 11, Jt I and 2.a.
I 10. Clear Copy's site fails to provide sufficient maneuvering and access are:xs ia the
(i,Jl:-:-. p:lrk~ng lotto permit. 'Ve~ic!es to. enter and e:<i.t the parkin~ lot .and parking stalls in a safe and
,~- effiCIent manner. ThlS \'lolates Chapter 23, Article II (ReqUIred Improvements). 1.2. '
/ '\;
1-' "..~..d
\i)
11. CIe:1t Copy's site fails to provide an easily accessible glU'bage pickup area designed
for g;:u-b::lge pickup to be accomplished without excessive m311cuvering. This violates Chapter 2,
Section 11. J. 2.b.
~}lt .
12. Clear Copy's site fails to provide a two and ooc-balt' feet widlh pcr.imetcr laDoc;caped
barrier strip aloag the east boundary o(the parXing lot adjoining interior property lices. This creates
an inadeq~tc buffer zone, violating Chapter 7.5. Article n. Section S.E. The site plans submitted
by Cl~ Copy state::
The City Landscape Inspector will field verify the existing hedge. identified. by
asterisk - in landscape lezend mceU minimum vehicle l1SC area sc:reening
requirements. If existing material does not meet minimum standards. plans and site
will be revised to show proper vehicle use screening in compliance with City
standards. -
13. Clear Copy's site fails to provide the required five feet wide perimeter landscape .
, .'. /' . buffer on the western property border next to NW 7'* Street. This is a 'fiolation of Chapter 7.5.
\ '.~'.' : Article U, S~tion 5.0. See certified survey submitted in Development Agreement Application.
14. Cle.Jr Copy' 5 site fails to provide the required five feet perimeter landscape buffer
rf i/ along thesouthem boundary ofilS property next to NW I" Avenue. This is a violation ofChaptc:r
7.5. Article II, Section S.D. See certified survey submitted in Development Agreement Applicnt.ion.
1 S. Clear Copy's site fails to provide the req uired fifteen (15) foot setback on the east side
oftbe building, and is violating Chapter 2, Section 6, B.3. The violation creates a continuous and
indefinite encroachment to the easement adjacent to RHS's property on Clear copy., eastern
property line. This Code state that no building or portion thereof shaIl be built without a minimum
15 feel side y:u-d setback. 0~ft:. -It ~ ,) tJ ~U~~ - -1{~ l S I
----,-~'~- ,..
~:
10.9547714923
PACE
4/4
.... .....
..,,0. Gore"
o_i-__ _ r
.....~ ..
(
-'
16. cte3t Copy's site f'a.iIs to provide the mandatory tcmiuAl islands on the north ~d or
the: parking lot requimi wben four, but Dot more than twelve: spaces are interconnected designed [0
bre.:1k up and divide the: expense of paving.
17. Cle~ Copy's site fails to provide an adequ01te lighting design required to m~=t
Chapter 23, Article: II. S~tion ~ l.a. The engineering fum of Gee :1!1d Jenson m~d~ this
determin:1uon which W;1S submined to the Cil)' in 01 certified report..
(qCE: nL-€. CopY)
(
-=-
-.
. JL." (
r"fa-c-
...~S- ~~ f
/-t; rJ ~ /g'1'(
')b( lV'~-~
..::."e: r...ft fS;c-r-1"'~ ~ <.l CC u pc-- -1. C:.. r- fT- n..e.. c.J ~-~ .
iil-frr-rJ~J~ .:--6 ~ u/..fl
?~- S-7 yl-;ZC-
-7
!J&~ 6c'l2 A
,-if' r; ('
IS- 90
,?
fck ~ .y~) $ L/.c
J d= t:::. (,., J Ke-v;""
c.. 0- -I- ~ j..
FUfcJ<e t'-s l'C'lAS.c::.s. ~.j; ~"c..k:. r",/l /Kr c. 6,>" ~ r,"(' / %~
*7
~ ~ /9;; 7 6-..s b 4/;- rr fJ ~~ - -r~c: 'rt:t:~~;e(,.) CfC.LS 6-;../< ("r
_'.:ep f: i?
CC, Jf (Pva( "f Mt'jc{" ~r.l1ccO, ()~ -f; ~ ~/Cfr?
f,;.,
i
'-
,"
\
~
<~
. \ ,--
/,(/ .--., .
~ ~lC't' ~ ':!
! ,..,'l" ~c:::::::::;-..
. t.7 'V'v '
i /,(1/\ \
'"
\
\
\
., )t.'\ .1 (J(
,t', ~),\ ~
."......' } \
....'. ...... \..;
'\
L
~ \ '
I .~ ^)
v
. '\' ~, \\
, ~. r
'\', . CJ
Y' ./
\
",,~"
"
)'<
,)}
\.-.,i
J,"< .
\
.~~ ,;
",f
" Qt.! '-
'..,V ') '\'''' ,0>/-'<'
<.., {'>.:,~, ,.; p~
_i~ (i' ~
..(.r ',~, ,'77U t,.
't' ., ". ",D 'V.\ ,fl.1'"
! I ,'l" ""...'\.: ,,' ~ ,\'.,.\ - ,')
;JJ ". ,'r tI ) 'Ii' \J""
"'\ 'it ~,< t \'; , ,.,f/ " f)' .\
.. 0 ,<,; · ~ Ll'
J.! .., ,)1:)"" J ,;, ,-:: ,'Y.I' ,(
Y \J", :.' . ,J', ;~ k1'
, \ ~.." i:SV'- , ~~\<, S'C
\ .\f;." "V 4(," 1
f' " -,i) 1"" i
]> <,l "", '1 J~v!'
,L. '('
\~~;~"~
'\,
~
&.
\'"'"
~
-j
....
----
~')> ~l)\l..
~~ ,;,
,v.::" \ ,~, ~
IV ~" r"
\.~ ....J
( ),\':f'
'? ric,/
l' ~
?r
\
\
t
\
" ~
\
\
....,tA,.,.
'" f' ~{ \)
~'\..1"" t \'J J...,.
:y 'I Id ,,-----.
~ \( ".,ti 1~"- . ----- - \'
,\" ~ ~"
,u"'. tS''' ..\.i L', ",;-\ .
'r...:~ ~ 1")
....,<,' l;':'4t ..>~
~ ... V" ,,'(..,I
, \ai".>t .?
/~ '\'
~----
...
...-- --' - .~' ".~ ,-"'~_.-
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-272
TO:
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning & zoning Director
I~m ~ukill, P.E.
~\~nglneer
August 2, 1995
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ROBERT'S MEDICAL BUILDING - LANDSCAPE BUFFER
Mr. Newbold has completed the investigation you requested (Planning
Memo 95-383) and the results are summarized in his attached Memo 95-
267 to me. It is self explanatory.
WVH/ck
C:ROBERTS
xc: Carrie Parker, City Manager
Al Newbold, Deputy Bldg. Official
Mike Haag, zoning/Site Administrator
/ 1
~ub,
rur/
-~ _ Jf <l( -~-
'(~
i 7 ../) I \ _ )
~t:i:)
flt:fiA- /~ .~
~.~~!?
I __6'
/)J~~ eo
~o
1"
(frY
-;~
~
1(
Al Newbold A-v 7 ~ ~ ~
Deputy Building Official L.ft 51' '. ~ ~~
DR. ROBERTS'S MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING - . A ^ jJ1.,(, i7 I "
LANDSCAPING DISCREPANCY ~Lr'...~ I :~:
~~ /thv/ A-
In order to assist you in your response to Tambri Heyden'S ( ~I~
memorandum 95-383, I researched the files and offer the following ?~
facts and comments: ~~
The Technical Review Board (TRB) plans were signed off by Don ~~
Jaeger during his tenure as the department's representative. The
building plans were reviewed by Michael Haag and ultimately ~~
signed off by Warren DeLoach in Mr. Haag's absence in 1989. My ~
review shows the building plans match the TRB plans and those l~U).Z4
that were reviewed by the Community Appearance ~oard. All plans ~~,h~
show a 2~' setback for the extreme western sect10n of the "'-JJt!:I>,.Jy P::~fUi: 7/
property adjacent to the parking lot. (;V~w~~::J ;JA~C'~~N ;.JJ6~"
~J1IC &:: &116. ~'I #A~ r1oJ6 <
During this e:a, Mr: Jaeger then ~ecame ~uildi~g Official and Mr.~:~;;~1
Haag was appo1nted 1n charge of s1te reV1ew wh1ch was handled by R~J~r(.I)
this department during that time. Site plan approval permit 88-pJl.,'mc-l. ,-
0873 was generated to track the site plan process for all siteJ~~5~
improvements and administered by the Site Development Division of N}~11Lt
the Building Department under Mr. Haag's supervision. The ,('-{,JI '"
project has been completed and all paperwork is on microfilm. ~ >
Therefore, all original documents are no longer available. ,"j
(Attached are copies of the site plan and the tie-in survey alo7g
with a print-out of the inspection history. From my observatio
of the tie-in survey, the paving appears to be 1.58' from the "
'.,!est property line and not 2~' as shown on the building plans..! I
would assume that the survey is correct in that it has a "
certification date showing August 23, 1989 and I found that tije
paving was approved August 18, 1989 by Roger Kuver, former i
Engineering Inspector who is now with the Utilities Departme~.
From that same survey, it appears that the building is in th~
correct location and it would be fair to assume that the on~~
problem is with the size of the paved area. I found no /
documentation in the file giving any explanation, etc. as ,to any "'f'
resolution. from the narrow", ,I, "a, ndscape._~~_:r;.!P__o,_~.~~ether", i,':_' ever d." '...~.1 ,
became an ~ssue. /~. Sh-R h ~ ;;;;:;rJ}' .:~ ;;;;;1..:;r,
~!.sri!> C_' ~ 'f- ~g~e i.) f ',L I
. ^.J~'" I~ {? ~c:..1Df2.' --t~t2 ( r. -e:j
f1' IN SJI......, F at) 1f'J~f B :..L..." - , -
A It;.' fl#C(lIPL-L ~~vl-s.J~,,.Js'"vJt\' 1$ lr 1Jlr,. , ~'.1 .!.' ,'-{' ^-i..fU.
4- S-r fO 111.... 7'--' D"',vfI po, (, ~ Ot/"'D ()
B" ~IO~ 0 "pI..OifJl.. .L." ~ .::. r'" 1" ,~S_. . ~, j..,W " I+- 5-' J, j <'';,
,)"1'" 1Y~ P p",AU-- J L.t ~ ,.;.. , 'I \ " ,,' tkt'-rt- , ~
(II ~ (.61.... 'f'1Ji:'" ,..,. itl-.,Pf.Y-,.. r-";.r.J1S JJ fJ; I
_.,-~._-,-~_.. ,.----..----.... - -- ....---.--.---.- .---...,,"----.---- ..--...
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-267
July 31, 1995
TO:
William V. Hukill, P.E.
Department of Development Director
FROM:
RE:
~bt
~
~110L-' '
J:ft
1l.e.uL
r"
;
Building Division Mem<;> 95-267.to Wi~li<;im v. Hukill, P.E. ,~,
RE: Dr. Roberts' Med~cal Off~ce Bu~ld~ng ,}'" \, ('
July 31, 1995 ~.K, j.,rl). ,1- ~
Page Two l' &,.e,tt; 1Ji~, .~. B&" -.I ~~j t: (,b {t4t~ .J.o~t . '
~ 0.0 tJl;7 ~1I~WA'r ~ f"'.o-" 1" ~ ~ fl~' ,I'.~ 1\ v- ~A ~ \
.~ 0-- y~_ DAW';'c.:",~r-j <<:B~"<~ :'~~'~i>- ~~:~:~~~... ~ ~ ~
.1 ;:1... OUr records do show that the CAB inspection was made by Med srt{; "1
~ i Kopczynski who was the former Deputy Building Official and $1:0 ';~l vI ~
~ ~ appointed to handle CAB inspections by Mr. Jaeger when he becam '~~, ~
~ l \ uilding Official. That inspection was approved August 25, 1989.~, ~-~ J
~I\ I can only assume that the proper position to take would have ~ \ ~ ~
A- been to cuttO~f t~~Itadditldionh-al P~~~,~g,-~~-~~~;r,-~-~E:J:1t-- t~e 3_Qt'~_ v.; ~ ~ ~
e_~~p!-/ cou ave J.Jeen as sumeu I".ual". ~ was no' ._ ~ II
~' '\ necessary sirice we did then, and do now, allow bumper stops to -t: \I, ~ ~
) \..... \ set back on paved areas less than the code requires so that the ~~: ~ ~
I .:) (\, bumpe:1:s overhang the landscape strip. . I see no reason why this ,I. ~ i
~ ~,would be an issue, especially as it relates to the adjacent." ~ ~
~ ~ property since our code also exempts landscaping on property thatr tt~~
-~ ~ ~ already has existing landscaping. My interpretation of the code ~ 1 \
~.; ~ is that the landscaping strip itself has a dimension requirement " \
\~ t ~ and the code specifies what must be located within that strip but /i
-<,j <l.j ot necessarily that the plantings must be as wide as the ;/;.t~' ',. ()1)
~ ~ 3 ,----'- .. t>t?e~'p~._~^!T~~~17J~~:,/t>$",I, J ~j/~ ~~~~
~ ~ ~ It should be our pos~t~on that the ne~ghborJ..ng-;r-epert~er,-J~,~'_-
~ v ~ should not be penalized for the paving on Dr. Roberts' property
~. ~ ~ eing closer to his property line than what was permitted.
t '.., f
~ r~ ~
, I:l' ,)
"
J
If any controversy arose during the construction of Dr. Roberts'
permits, Mr. Haag could shed some light on it since he was
involved in the site plan process and the final site approval was
signed by him on November 19, 1991.
~
I
!
i
\
;
~I" :: 'Gf..J-} If- wI', r:A.;~p .c" .;;,{}-t.-L f€'fi""l.'/-r
/\ p.. " ~,/) fr--11 4- ~p'()T::'/. {Jr.'".,,;
t;<> =- IN b ,-1 tV '" L-fJ-V' '-- "0 '
f C'.) /tJor R,~.".'lcf. /"'!~_~~ I1--ftV;" f(>AJIJ/ ~t11; WI17J L~t-'/f1i(.'o/':
-';I{>..'f~ ~r; ()~> {2c-"'1t:;...,18.<+?, ! f'1';uf.t.f:;~ lV.IV llJ...'" ~ (("w..,
$:. (1/1.;.
- (") " .~ y-~
,[- i r N4~ !;t:J:'\ Pl~-~""'^") If/AT ti-J:.- I/r.s:~('>'l"- t;t'"'f<f;,r/ c../......'{ 1<1-. ..J":' _.-;}
d__ ". ,',,':1.- I#,~-
4f~'P')/t.'I/)if:' /;( I~ <( r I "\ "#-'
r c.. " A -,...' .t:'p.~ ., r (.J If' l..r; U ~/, II h'. i[ /..1/19 I' /5 //'1 j) f' I ,v. .:>",J T7/6
sue JE.cr P~f'~ATY c.;<<j /.nT v'~~ fJ-l~ l..4I'.d'Jc or'';: J'1!2..t{'. -;; ~1!-71tly 771-=-.'?
/~/V/)"'A('-(' ~~'(J)f\/rt. '7,11. p1'-1"!"_PI,/J-:'-/f'"IoI'I.
1l0BIIJtTS- --I - I . - " '.' - =. ('} /~~
}yyL ~ ~~b' fhl't:
~ ~? l='Arr.m~ ,,,..M4. c"~,,,-"jJ. M/
.......... <<).21 505IiS-l
---~-:r:=-~~~_~_42'L'\J'D {~~-L.~
~.. . ., ..., . .......
~lIt ""lIe. ~ ... .- ". . '.' .', .'. . . .. ...4.
. ... (;:- .
I
~ t7~ ~~ '4.1""1'~4.._, _. .
'. ~
~1q-~~V1.l1~: ~ I ~.~~ 2.5.
A~~ ..I ~.lSC~~-': 1r~-f ~ . -;~.FT
-4." , ~--iOi!~L.aJ.~.. P'~ ~F'T. .' .
~~'~I?~ ~ ~~'h,.zecp: la
tal ~~~-~""~/~~..-rs~'~-- -
,
90
...
~
,
~
(s1~
...
D
-
...
\1\'
--
-
&: "'''ZJ~ '
.,
U\
~
...
!
. {} ~
..
I
.. ta :-W~-..~ttfitJLII!t
,.~
.
I
.~~ -- ~
~\
~.L
.@- -- ~
- @~ -l
-@l- .)
@.u.t
- -@-~j
rr.i '
~ -~
@-.L
- ~'-.J
.~I4~~~L~1i:'~ - H~~'jf~
~.~ tJF"~r~.~~ u_~ QG!.'9W~~; ,~-r..l...lT~-m-K.-~}1.
JIQJJIJI2..~~~~me-::--:~~.1lC-~
~~ Ft~'v.~ f~...~~-:-t)1~.L.~~.~LL-' ~
.~~A~__~'-~.-~ .~ ""'-n.t W-rofolA"tt&_~~
1-. ·
-~&-rff ~".=
~ ..
-"'QoAJ ~ .... I -t/J,.- -
~JI~~- ~r~- -lo\-~ .b. ~T ~:'.lO' ~
~~~o::~"~-~:-
0Ia.~=~~=~-~ ~ ~~~._.
~UPI,,-xr~D~b:~ --- --.
~
.,
":.~. ~~~-
.' .'~' ~.I .
'. .
~I"'f ~.~~.
I
~ . I
!
i
t
I f6 ..
l
)~ "~".Y. :~,..-=\,.o. ~:;..n..!\""
,-~ot' ". :-t-::~ ~A. ~::~.r~~",.. '';~
_..t :oy,~,;..
:': :t)VI~~~" ~f '" .tl~~<f:>O~"
~ _ ti";,..\O
~'f~E",,~!1t 1.:>. \"ee> A\ 2 ~o Y. ~.
.
F'~ Yz .
,., F'''
",'" Ci... i:... '1.4 r:. h - -."":. .;::::
__,,,chi€' ~ j// /-~j~..r(.. /~'l.:.' d'
_. -;- t ,';'-A.-,o' /V"," ~ ~-;;:...
l'f'lG
;l.. ~ v,:':. .. C :
~1..;:,71#l""I.."'~ .:.>." 17>-2
,j,
,',
'~f }.."
.<.
-..
..,
~';''''''~
..
,,~.~ -
:.V'.
. ~:r~ _~i~ ". f
"" .
:!;J ~'J-"'. -'
24
_------.- __ ~:-=Zo:~ -'-~-;
_ __--.--l-----,--
r ..- ... ....:'1' ..-
," .; Iro -..
oJ
. ~ ~~ . t:' ~ - ~
..~ ",,' \.1 --- -
..
.~ ..
,-_..!..~~C- ------ .
.
c.J
-'
~S
f"i
, :7iP':' L ~ I
..;
,
.... .....
"2 ,
.oJ
4..D
~ C.
.J
~
.. ...;
!~ to- I!
--<
ILl ~
.... t- ~
2- ,
..:::!
I~
\
~ii
-~
......... -1--
.....
~-04:
;5.
\n t.n
-.-
~2
~
..
-
(3
~
.
o
~LJII.
, ....Ae' ~-
:::....,
":%
..
9t.M:f \
~~,-9.=1l~~.:;-~~'-- --=:=-T-~'
. I 6E~ ,..,1
; i<. 7tf~ -11" f1 ·
.~ oJ~-~' ,
~ ~ I .. l!~ h
~M; ~t' ~ f \ \~
.rd~ '.~ 'Il /)f~
_\ ?y." ~ d;:~ '~r {9~
Lg ~ ~ ;. ' \ \:-~.- \
tt ~ 1"-
Ii 1 !. ,J,' ~.~
.. I : t?J1::~
tv I ~ !?A ~~
I ~ ~ ,t..'
...
\P
-
-
:1,
\ .I'~~~
'. ,-~ lJ
. .
-
0
..
-
..c')
.
-
0
..
-
~ .~~ "
i ' - ...
).;1-.( \ ~ l
'So _ t~'
Tv.:
i <:-
I .......' j
e..;.,
\
\\~\ .
~
i Z~.~~
\
I
~
,');
-"~~ ~i\~
:' ,.. '. '-=.
31.5'0-.. ' _ __~o:~ --
-._ '""~ .. ok."': ee-ll'~. ,~. .
__..s. ._" _.___ - -:. . II.
,,-- -
'" ...-< \00 ,..:. <<-
,
,
...
..
:..
~.
1,,;
I"'~
~ l
.....
r
t:1' -".,:ad
~\-
-/
\~
~..,~~
!..tS'\.. ~
t\.lt
-_...-.----- ------.--------
~~ -/ ~.
~' i /~ft
'7 ~ ~ ~;'1~
-{VI.- ( ,,--
/';;...".,/312.11
",~ Sl'~ 4'f.!/Dl:tv~1..1< -
, A 1$
1'f$ltJ~W4&.~ t5.X.lffj"..... WJnJ
"1').1, s" ~O/~ 61f.) Q,I~ JV6.$T
It.ln".. .
S/&JC.. S;Ot!!:tv~ 11M ~~.
"d.t!,,rf- J(t!...ud-~
, s: 'S~ Ci, IJTiJ.lb ~L:- -
~ CA.f-ml" /.5' A-tl r
S;.hrw IV DI() T* SiV'E- P6fN.
W-t: .R-6nc.",v Si~ P~.s..
W~~~'*'~
----------....-
MARK E. ROBERTS, D.D.S.
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. - Suite #2 - Boynton Beach, FL 33426 -(407) 736-1700
July 20,1995
fD) ~@~OW~fn1
lJI) JUt. 2 I 1995 ~
Hon. Carrie Parker
City Manager
City of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach City Hall
Boynton Beach, FL
PLANNING AND \ ..
ZONING DEPT. ~,.....,
L
RE: Site Plan Application
Clear Copy, Inc. - NWSP #95-004
Dear Ms. Parker:
I am writing this letter in response to Mr. Gene Moore's
letter to you dated July 19,1995. As a businessman and owner of
the adjacent property to the project under consideration, I have
serious concern that the project as it now stands is an
inappropriate use of the site.
On July 18, the application for site plan approval was
denied. Several neighbors and myself attended the public hearing
to voice concerns about the proposed parking, position and size
of the building, and style of architecture (or lack of it). I
believe that the commission has worked diligently the past few
years to improve the appearance of the buildings within the city.
The city commissioners also denied the application because
the site plan does not comply with Land Development Regulations.
When the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of this
project they were not aware that there was noncompliance of the
required building codes. I believe that the denial ()f the
application was rightly based on this additional information.
The petitioner
However, I believe
variances in order
Development Codes:
believes that all ordinances have been met.
that there are five issues that require
for this project to comply with the Land
1. Article 7.5-16E. This article states that where parking
and vehicular use abuts an existing hedge on an adjacent property
that meets requirements of the 2 1/2 feet hedge buffer, the
second property is said to also meet this requirement. It also
states that if the site abuts a property with a non-conforming
hedge buffer, the proposed site will have to make up the
difference and still meet the minimum combined 2 1/2 feet
requirement. This proposed site abuts a non-conforming hedge
buffer and should be required to add an additional 10 inches to the
existing non- complying buffer hedge as required by code to become
conforming. By providing this ten inches, this decreases the
required 27 feet of backup space to 26 feet 2 inches for 12 parking
spaces. Since this is not allowed by code because of a possible
safety hazard, a variance should be required of the applicant to
proceed with the project. Sealed surveys were presented to all
city commissioners verifying this fact.
2. Article 4-10T. This states that sidewalks shall be 5 feet
wide. At the southwest corner of the project, the site plan
indicates a sidewalk that narrows down to almost 2 feet at the
intersecting points of NW 7th Street and NW 1st Ave. If the
sidewalk remains a continuous 5 feet wide as required by code, then
not enough distance exists to allow for the closest parking space
and/or 5 feet hedge buffer zone. Eliminating this parking space
will leave this project with one too few parking spaces.
3. Article 9-11J. This states that buildings along Boynton
Beach Blvd., due to their high degree of visibility, shall not have
overhead doors on a building facade that faces a public or private
street. This proposed building does have an overhead door that
faces NW 1st Ave. and could easily be seen from NW 7th Street.
This does not meet the required Land Development Regulations thus
requiring a variance to build as submitted per requested plans.
4. Chapter 23 Article 2H3 states that parking lot driveways
shall be constructed at least 180 feet from the intersection of the
right of way lines along streets of higher classification. Since
the proposed driveway is only approximately 65 feet from the
intersection to Boynton Beach Blvd., to proceed would require a
variance. The Engineering opinion from memo #95-156, dated May
15,1995 to the Planing and Zoning director, clearly states their
position is that this property requires a variance.
5. The lighting design submitted for site plan approval will
not permit the required backup space for one parking space. The
light fixture pole locations are indicated on the engineering
drawing, but are inadvertently left off the master site plan.
Placing the poles at the indicated locations on the engineering
drawing encroaches on the required 27 feet of unobstructed backup
space for a parking space. Placing this light pole at the
indicated position would require a variance because it eliminates
the required backup space needed.
Mr. Moore stated in his letter that his client was denied the
opportunity to speak at the public hearing. This is just not
accurate. I did not see his client at the public hearing. If he
had attended the meeting, he could have taken the opportunity to
address these issues as everyone else did.
2
For the petitioner to threaten to file a law suit against the
city for injunctive relief and compensatory damages without
conforming to the required Land Development Regulations is
nonproductive. He should revise his site plan proposal and/or file
variances where required.
I would like Staff to review the aforementioned items that I
feel are in non-compliance with the Building Regulations. If the
city knowingly approves this project without requiring variances
then the city may be leaving themselves open for a possible
conflict.
Si~4M~
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
MER/sm
cc: Mayor Taylor
City Commissioners
James Cherof, City Attorney
Tambri Heyden, P & Z Dir. ~
3
''--'v~ 4;'
I .. ~~!_.<:..,.,
...."/' I ~;..
/
.", ,
~ '..(
). ).
r!: '
: . , ",( dr7:Jr.",:i LA,~'"
i,A ," ,l :,1,1','''; · ':I,l
t." ,.. \ "".A.r,;l<" '
I"';' ,# /J l ."" ... J I . ,- ...:,:
"..,.... ~"'.-'.~t C ;.. ~.. )
, 1
/.
/1
....:,..,, C::"i'
II d"
'l....(....,~: (
.C ..~ t
~
{ ~
,.
l f'
" ~ f
II ?J::' rj ,/, ~';'
,/' j~ ,",..,,,-,, ~<
~
""
~/",
t',L)~<.,
.1
'f'
....... W-rr-
lJ.
! r :; 1
,
~'
11,f~ I If J!l, ,: /1 ·
, ,.. ..... ~. ~",-I" -/
./ ' '~1/ tl.lt. ~A-J-
"'~'-""~""'-
M.I t;,~~R ;ti'C J t
'-
.,1.
.,-1>,1 ?I /~
.....':..;. > ~.,
,.
tL .' ~, .1 ! j /
/}.tIj
,J..,"#,\(/1',; -fl~~.
.f
,.
: ;
v
..
'.-
,..,., "_ I
""!
C7'
i .
:; t.' ",{.k:
,
{' ."1 ~ I ~
!
it.:i1,{ ,f'
'I
'I
)
,
./
'. 'flJ of'" -rJIj' QUf!..41)pA> IS f!i,q. me 6,(/(.. O,V'""
f. 111"'" .?, ':.",";6 7fI<! Rf-/J.w pr/,)" I/RbA AI"~~""e.;U4t"'''M
f"1- 7 fl~ ..' _...f " (,( A, i..,J .: '
y:- .]1'~.I" ,,~,., 'J
, r3 O:,;/11./U>1,,,,{ Now'~ S,tJ)pA(j2 /HICy t3t 11f.I.;'(I>L.i6fl
.l' 7 64"~:- TAK',,;rrP/!<I<IIP?/tr.#:'f4""'lt 0!jt!"")
x, J 'II f { 1. 1":' I" ",I l {~V ,#' I ,,:U,"/ .
. .( ," /p...' ..... -:,..< "
/ ~,;u- ~ 6.' 17JtR. j),!:,P/(,tJflf:- LA,,,!:> )b 1J.I.: C,'h. OIl. -r/Jr...t dIU 1J;!:
. v vI...7,v,...J< "., /'
.,.;4.M'''t'l'/ ;"'j;J,;)lk,J;;' yt~l'";;{:';l",j~t~v )"
1 p!/'. fk-,u.,. . / .e .~.
[ ,,'
, /, i .
; .})- t:
',I.
l' "
<"~ ~
.J
'. , i!', 1(" ,,' . I( r 1 ( ,: ' " -..
) , . /1., ,." ,\.., c.... 't.i I' . r
.. ' \.. ") . .. .
:;{:- ..r F "./.~ s,o~vJ~d ,~ 6../;"6'" If/MDt" jJJ'!(Scry 7M.ytj1Jt ,...."
""~/""f'A~ w.vltJ ^.I"<" ft/1f<lb< HZA~"r"(""IP~.t {".' ,
tEOVlC (.,4 frnM' p~ft'-'::; ;> f- TJ.1t / (f'v1"f.,L' · ({..JI./Ds' (,-IIfJi!:
.~ r'- ,I' rli4r ,11""7 JA." i< .,).W' .~ ~R"''''' '!ffL f"!.~...,...e..-
___~__ Jl"'- .
_, -t t.:
,).,
'!1; }
(-f...~_
J;~,'r'~ t ,. L >,.....r "
,/,,0'(,' "., .. \ Co, ,(,.
/"l
~
",,/"
;
../
it
~' *'
'.
",...,0<"
r .
//{, t 4. ~ ' J
#'J
l ~ 'l~ l
~ " i
f
....l
./
,,I
....
-/'
t 1 '-.
. .
"7/
...
\'~y
IF /'
t.
~ .;
>[ ''- i ti
~, .I
J l'. /. ':
!
,.
t ,
/.!
.'
,f
..
/"'
"
I. '.
i,
. ).../
...
(",,/
/ f 'fIi(;
l:'
''ft'A
Ii)'. J <,..,j.' ~
Ct"f,'
~. :"" t,
,. .
Ii'
b<k'c'
If
~f
A _,J"'.....
? ;1'''
A" I.
(
,.1
~.
.
<. .
i
,
!
,.
",.
! "'"
!
t
!
d
J
I
/
..
/Jo
,.~
,/
J
<I'" :t
( 1/~ /1, /'1
..
/
i
~f
~ '~
."")
r
II /'
{ ,( </ /1..><
-'(jJL'1 S r-I'tllD ·
~"'.J '7
J..(:~f:..j
1/
?
.
r
"
~
1"'1
/
.\
. I
)
,/
,.
fA Y''''' SR.I
J
I~
IT
Tie I.I!:.
"fl! k-r'
. ,-.,,; I
.-'" ",~.A L' ,'"
i.....- ~ N ~: :".('1 \.
rv~t:.U-S ;4 /l4,'-"'Ml.lC6:.
~R-
.,.., ie' I.. / I ,/! II" '7 f1J.- S" ..,.." L"'T ,~'>,,'I' '.! {J --rJ,l.c:-
/~,_ tJA)!iS-i--JJ3/ '-~V-6':> O-"J /f/, W' _t.......~ v IV L I f .~
?M /
f, :), ..
,_.. .IA,' 1 t
". It.,..,......;.
I j. j -
,-')///Q~
.
/"'-'\ ~; ,.~~,- J
~~(d t; UN"
;tt ,,~ II
~r:'~ / " " .. \- ~~-, ,.:
'_~ . , ... j" . .l-t." t 14;, ;..
/lIIU Cll.f-;iJ-V !,;.. '~:.s "1'i)iUr6.D l.u A( J J~ ro
" I~/;;- 5~' btJl;\. ,
tvc Ct~ ~:.r:.~A() iPdt. rl.l(~/1ftTM!.. VeT.:!
t1 )f/ 6 1/..; t. 6/'- t,(fiJ.!" 611) 12 ~ r
~,Acr
;J~rJ' I~ M'1'" IIV~P!t(.:) wltlJ f;ti6 Lt6$( ;JlJ4,,~) rLt
;Ji/c}{.Je I./Uk.JN6 /5 {/lJrl' {21t, C7 c,~/t1J(S I:>f,,).
/
I
~v! { ~.-t;!r .
. I I
/ ,"'" -
J u:/,I,
{l)li~C:JC_"'S ~.)JtJ/ Cu....u'- ~fY ~.;G 1t~""1 :
/. t,IJOiNO ~^d,
d u..:):.! IJO/I!/url-et.. ,.,('( 2:.SS. t!,~'::J 66lt.5.s: t ,1.t)V11 S,ti:.
s,ty~':' -, to,-.!. ("..oj; i<C. w.d&.> 10 ..Uu..) jJ"-A
.~ (j- .9fJ~ ,li.,J,;'i;1S Lt. .... .' t'J.s sr: tl.JI';>/~j!.U~, .1,J",t.E.
\<f- ~ ~~~6 ,:J,; )
~~~.~~1~~~
? 0 ,;' f.d. S'1.t Ir 1'),<1"c"'1 e> ~' f>-)~ /I,'f.''.tSr0 (,...;r;! TIJt.;. /(I::'-t/ljrt>
/~
C;:;. GI2c >;. s
k.f'ti,)::-./c..1l
(p. j -1{' c-ft./)
/:> . / _.L.,
i . tt- TU
~
-77ie City of
'Boyn.t:t:7Tf,. !Be.. i
O .&OO'E.~_~...u.___
.' :p.o. ~~.zo
_ _. ...."..._ ~ ~ """4~S'CU.zO
alg ~ ('otIIO'?,) 37's-6000
fTA.%z ('<107) 37'$-40610
~@GJ) ~~ FRI.
tfm ~ r.r.i ~ ~
.--...-- ~ ~ ~
. WACS THa WAX '
DATa.
9-/.!9~ 9~"
&f~ --r~~
"}) ~ YYl OA.k",- ~-/~
O~ J..EC J: P r.{l.HT
( J.....n... ~
Fila"'
TO.
FAX MO.
Illt,
TOTAL . o~ PAGaS 4
ZNC~UDZHa cova. SHItST' ~
~:. ti-...., - e_ t;;;~....-
I
TRANSMISSION REPORT
J
THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE)
WAS SENT
** COUNT **
# 2
*** SEND ***
NO REMOTE STATION 1. D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT
1 9-18-95 4:28PM l' 44" 2
I
TOTAL 0:01'44" 2
XEROX TELECOPIER 7020
TO: Carrie Parker
-2-
september 1, 1995
documentation noting whether this ever became an issue
during inspections. Therefore, the city either knowingly,
or unknowingly, accepted this tlproblemtl as is.
Based on the above information, the city attorney states
that the city shall not require Dr. Roberts to remedy this
problem on his property and that Clear copy, on their
property, is not required to make up the difference in width
of the landscape strip.
2. Article IV, section 10.T of Chapter 6 regarcting sidewalk
width -
Pursuant to the above section, the width of the sidewalk
clear copy is to provide is four feet wide (Dr. Roberts
indicates five feet wide) since the sidewalks Clear Copy is
to install are on local streets. The site plan submitted
shows the sidewalk diminishing to a width of two feet at the
intersection of N.W. 7th street and N.W. 1st Avenue.
According to the Engineering Division, there is no city
standard detail for how sidewalks are to be designed at an
intersection. In fact you will find existing sidewalks at
intersections designed in a couple of different ways. The
existing sidewalk on the west side of the street is also
designed with a diminished width at the intersection. The
Engineering Division has indicated verbally that due to the
way the eastbound turn lane on N.W. 7th street is
constructed, the applicant shall complete the sidewalk by
taking up eXisting conditions and constructing it to the
attached sketch that has been prepared by George Davis.
This design would not reduce any area of the parking lot or
the minimum five foot wide landscape strip required adjacent
to rights-of-way.
3. Chapter 9, section 11.J regarding overhead doors -
The above section states " Due to the high degree of
visibility of buildings located on Hypoluxo Road, Miner
Road, congress Avenue, Lawrence Road, Gateway Boulevard,
Quantum Lakes Drive, Old Boynton Road, Knuth Road,
Woolbright Road, Boynton Beach Boulevard, winchester
Boulevard, High R~dge Road, Seacrest Boulevard, Golf Road,
Ocean Avenue, Federal Highway, Old Dixie Highway, N.E. 10th
Avenue and S.E. 36th Avenue, most of which are considered
entrances to the city, the following additional exterior
design requirements apply:
1. Overhead doors shall not be located on a bUilding
facade(s) that faces a public or private street."
The intent of this section was - overhead doors shall not be
located on a bUilding facade(s) that faces one of the above
publiC or private streets. To require that overhead doors
not be located on a building facade that faces ~ publiC or
private street would render many puildings nonconforming
(partioularly in industril'" ~r,:,~.-" .1i' -,....~:'~ ~~.-," :'.l~oN
con~truction, without an appeal, of an industrial building
hav1ng overhead doors on a small lot because lot size
constraints would not enable flexibility to reorient a
bUilding and parking on a lot. However, the city attorney
states that this amendment should be made to the community
design plan and that Clear Copy's overhead door which would
face N.~. 1st Avenue must be removed, even though N.W. 1st
Avenue 1S not one of the streets listed above.
As stated in George Davis' August 3rd letter, the applicant
agrees to replace the overhead doors with a pair of side-
hinged SWinging doors.
12IUG-16-1995 13: 57
Board of CO~ (:iJmmissionerb
Ken L Foster, Chairman
Burt Aaronson. Vice Chainnan
Karen T. Marcus
Carol A. Roberts
Warren H. Newell
Ma.ry McCarty
Maude Ford b~1l!
22222222222222222
4a? 478 577B P.02/02
~y Adminl'trtltor
Robert Weisman
Dcpa~entolEnglneertng
and Public Works
August 16, 1995
Ms. Tambri Heyden, Director
Boynton Beach Planning and Zoning Department
100 E. Boynton Beach Bou1evard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
RE: CLEAR COPY
Dear Ms. Heyden;
1he Palm Beach County Traffic DiviSion has reviawQd the traffic ;mpact study for
the project entitled Cleaf Conv, pursuant to the Tr~ffic PQrformance Standards
in Article 7.9 of the Palm Beach County Land Development Code. The proposed
project will consist of a 3,780 square foot print shop. Thg traffic study
assumes a trip generation rate of 30.8 trips p~r l~OOO squarg fGot, based on a
trip generation study of three print ShOpi.
It appears that of can meet t he r~qu i remilnts of the Tl"aff; C Performance Standal"ds
of Palm Beach County. Beforg making a final determination, we will need the data
from the trip generation study to verify the rate and the assumed build-out date
for the project. It my understanding that the propel"ty is zoned for ret~il uses.
If the traffic is to be assessed basad on a print shop, there will need to be a
restrictsd covenant p1acQd on th8 property.
I will ~ontact you whQn H. Burton Smith provides the required information. In
the meantime, if you have any questions regarding this determination, pleaSe!
contact me at 6B4-4030.
Sinc8rely,
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER
~$b::~
Senior Registered Civil Engineer
ce. William Hukill, P.E., Director
Boynton Beach Department of Development
H. Burton Smith
File: IPS - Mun. . Traffic Study Review
g:\user\dwe1sber\wp50\tps\boyn49
"An Eqt.HII OpPOrlU/'Iity - Affirmiltivt' ActIon EmpJoy~r"
@ Pf/f1/sd on rRCyr>I~(j ~r
Box 2]229 W~st Palm HQ,-u:h, FlDrida 33416-1229 (407) 684-400()
TOTFlL P.12l2
lJJie~ City of
tJ3oynton tJ3eacli
100 T.. 'Boynton 'Beadi '13ou1evartl
P.O. 'Bo~310
'Boynton 'Beadi, :.rforitia. 33425-0310
City 1fa[[: (407) 375-6000
:.rYlX: (407) 375-6090
June 23, 1995
Mr. Dan Weisberg, Senior Engineer
Palm Beach County Traffic Division
Department of Engineering and Public Works
P.o. Box 21229
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-21229
Re: Traffic Statement: Clear Copy
SE corner Boynton Beach Blvd; NW 7th St.
Boynton Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Weisberg:
We are forwarding one (1) copy of the Traffic Impact Study for
the above-referenced project for review by Palm Beach county.
Please review the attached Traffic Statement dated June 1995
prepared by H. Burton Smith, P.E., 825 Whippoorwill Trail, West
Palm Beach, FL and received by the Planning and Zoning Department
on June 20, 1995 for conformity with the county's Traffic
Performance standard Ordinance.
Please return comments regarding the traffic study to:
Tambri J. Heyden
planning and Zoning Director
Planning and Zoning Department
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
please provide a copy of the comments to:
Bill Hukill, Director
Department of Development
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
5hnema's (jateway to tlie (juifstream
%e City of
$oynton $eacli
100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beam. 'Boufevara
P.O. 'Bo~310
'Boynton 'Buun, ~foritia 33425-0310
City 1fafl: (407) 375-6000
~J{X: (407) 375-6090
Page 2
Traffic Statement
clear Copy
Thank you for your prompt response.
Sincerely,
0- ~
;:--.....,,!l l' ~.
.:.- vi/v: ~'.~ 2:. / iYd
tft,ael E. Haag
~ning and Site Development Administrator
_/
MEH: jms
cc: Bill Hukill
wi attachment
Central File
5lmericas (jateway to tfie (julfstream
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
for
CLEAR COpy
BOB FELDMAN, OWNER
Prepared by:
H. BURTON SMITH, P.E.
825 WHIPPOORWILL TRAIL
WEST PALM BEACH, FL. 33411
(407)798-5058, FAX( 407)798-9773
JJ
~ lq!i5
INTRODUCTION
Presently the Clear Copy printing business exists in an office building located at
211 South Federal Highway in Boynton Beach. The owner, Bob Feldman, is
desirous of purchasing a permanent home for his business at the southeast comer
of Boynton Beach Boulevard and N. W. 7th Street. The proposed site is a vacant
site containing 0.317 acres.
The site plan, prepared by George Davis Architect, contains 3,780 sq. ft. of
building and 13 parking spaces. The entrance to the site will be from N. W. 1st
Avenue on the south side and the exit will be to N. W. 7th Street on the west side
of the property.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The major roadway serving the subject property is Boynton Beach Boulevard.
There exists a raised median in Boynton Beach Boulevard that prohibits any left
turn movements, east approach, on to N. W. 7th Street. This traffic movement
must either make a V-turn at the N. W. 8th Street intersection or make a left turn at
this intersection and proceed to N. W. 1 Street to then go east to the subject
property. The N. W. 8th Street intersection with Boynton Beach Boulevard is fully
signalized and has a left turn lane east approach to accommodate this movement.
At present Boynton Beach Boulevard is a six lane divided roadway having a 1994
AADT of 40,494.
TRIP GENERATION
The generation rate for a private, non franchise, printing shop was discussed with
Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering staff. There presently exists no generation
rate for this type of facility. The general retail rate was discussed and determined
to be far in excess of the number of trips that this type of facility realistically
generates.
010\ '\ ~ t ~y--.:.--.:.. - _.J'-;;''' F,. \.,\'
~~tid'O .'tll~i)il.i!ll:~~l ~'Y S.~ g}~1 ...,\ __.. k~f'!~\~,W. ~~!,ry t\ .
~ - - c.../ "-(jt ."'_ _... /' '11 --..._, .,
~1.q~I...1 1t.ldk.l~lI,~Jotl CI;..~c.;.....o. ~.... ""R'lY\Il'C\('/'." ~~ ' 1;:"/.. ;..iolJ i" I
1111111,lr ll' Cil.lli"!'?'" t.....-?\':O' ", t ."~ IrCI' ')l n '~f: II ~,I~ 1:-"\
New (l1l0' I'~W)~ r.1 1 ~}(.~.~ r i ,-Y- -\ 7. './-,~~'f
ft~" ~-:I'..H"l'J'111 jCcdah elf I :O_aytr,:e)::". gl~~ \~..yld~~~J ."
elf r., ~ ell. c: l ~
.-~-, -=-~..J ,
-, -. " ..O'~;~.Of1 i f
, \)~ I i~'.4."'" I~ 'TJ~'
~ ~",.- ~\.~.... oJ ut
..I'~~ ~ (\~\{)'., 'i,\~; "O( ~l
..JIILlS. ...' \..-\(;! '3 elc .-I.....
,,'ll\\~"1C' J . ~ r- EL.. ./
.CIIlU > ,:'~~';r:" t\ 0,1 /
, :~\~jl 1"8 't\ co \ //
,awrc cc.--]l.f,9ANO VI AND SEA
~ unlol'_l,!t,:;'\VIILl AGE !v11-lf'
LlLi' unlhcP'c;J-1 1_ ..:. _ '. _ _ 'IX-
.~: I ~Iln ~~I.y_J CtJ _2i. ~_'!. _ ' '~
~~ V":G'Q.w~! 51" ?f>J A~_j I 'it>
';,_r. oii .c::(t~un.~.I"~ Cl l'-'!0~cv> I ~'~
~ ::"n ,..",,), ~ ;>no~"l p, ~ ~'f I -c
cl<r 1'"I~, -~-<5unb,"d In 2J '" ~ I ....../
u~II~'R~-' &' \ ~,~ ~\l-r.Wy;:' I 10
~ L' t~l~ ',~-' - '220tj~~y~- :-
~?' ~ ~ {,. !!fIO/OP, } J...tjl V r-
iJ~ -r.;) J' ~ -I~<- I ~
, JOt' ~ \ AY';:r I ~
- -- -!c - - t6 [Wy_ 1 ~ I
. _-/oJ d'n.__._____ '/Sl.w I O~
- Av -,,_~.Jt:JICk~~.~IVd .:;;U51;V~tillr---~) I
---- - I /U'bJq;1 "'I
- __ -- I\'!__j_" ---- ~ M"iN.'" I ~ ::',
_ "V. 1_____ "'''Il,\YlV. Ic,Q(\Cjles - "" I
. Av, . ____ - [14 Av I ,,'lj/
I -- --- <>"
Genevra Pl.v J ~{!
-_-,'J [ll fH.JI'OW AvI nnO' -rr::/
~l 1~.i,ihocJi~ r I"W -J e;;.k.,
I:. """'iK'feIYAv"/
.hT ~U~l[o!!i'l,'l._fvIPINf= BE
-.~t !~I ~INoreenAvIRIDGE
"'I ~~t~c;Dn.A~11 9
! ~~':a,lldQ~aAvl BOYNTON BC....e
"~klO.-I-- A\' v I .
[0',-' -,;, BOYNTON
lCO L ba-Lnlr~Af<\^).OOD
ace nCLn:2 LAK\ES.
, I'" .\)1-- I I
5111,1 r _L.u.:r.J.~-.
I~ ~l
804 n .
--I
I
I
J ~.%
L:) ,t)'c..1
1 a:: ~.....\~
, (,-4 .... \L
':' ~' ,CS "'<.i;: ~ ..
d S;~~ C5
V~" 8
\' ~
~ .IOGC '; t1
')I.f 'OI1RSf-.;f(
~ \.
-'G 1 >-M
~ ~~
,~ u.gl
\0.. 'J.,~/f':I
~~)~
l
.olhll hI RiI
..P!
\ I..-WOOLqRIGHT PL
--4'", ~ ~j I .1>\lAKES
,- , ~ I ~t OF
~:e\(> I ~\TARA
t BIJrk Oak 0 k
fi~.;-;-"\ i 'l'-> '.:I3JaJ;~ a
OV~I J i <;.Wv( "
I'f,r;'- 311 ~ \..f,~~>nc(
,;...- ~ \ 0
I I ell Dr _J, _ ,
_ i I !C;;~b;ook 0 \
9"'~ ~Id.!?~--o
'( v-
I ~ 11pd9!;. \;t.
_ PIS --
Rd
,,'" ..
[1' ~ i" ''''''''1.'
f~'~}J
~/'J\ f1tlsils;
~-,~a?,~~;~l r-~
.o,t 1.1< ,~;~/o i~~U""NTU%
'!'I d, florrJ<i: f:; BtJ51NE55
( .'!!'~ '" 7
~\.. .;;'CJ ~ 1 PARK
~52~.J:.~~OS .rr-;.,,~Q?I~'
",<::i
~:"2
AV
,
I
MOTOROL.... I
~QX~TON_:
sw
U)_
Therefore, a trip generation study was undertaken at three different locations to
determine a more representative generation rate for a free standing non-franchise
print shop. The existing Clear Copy location was used as one of the test sites. The
other two sites were Bodel Printing in Boynton Beach on Federal Highway and
The Printing Pad, also on Federal Highway in Boynton Beach.
These generation studies were reviewed and averaged on a 1,000 square foot basis.
The average generation rate for these three sites was determined to be 30.8 trips
per 1,000 square feet.
PROJECT TRAFFIC
The proposed Clear Print shop will contain 3,780 square feet of building space.
Using the generation rate determined for this type of facility of 30.8
trips/day/l,OOO sq. ft. results in a total of 116 trips per day that could realistically
be generated by the new Clear Copy building.
CONCLUSION
Per the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards, Article 7.9(1) G(C)(2),
no traffic impact study is required for non-residential projects when the total gross
trips are less than 200 ADT. Therefore, this proposed 3,780 square foot project is
determined to meet the intent of the traffic performance standards and should be
approved
The resulting impact fee for this proposed project will be $6,380.00.
i~t~R ~ ~ :ffi1ID
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. - Suite #2 - Boynton Beach, FL 33426 -(407) 736-17~' PtNiNING AND
ZONING OEPT.
R.H.S. CORPORATION
TO: Planning and Zoning Department
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
DATE: April 17, 1996
REQUESTED MATERIAL: The modified site plan\engineering blueprint
for construction (1 page) submitted for the Clear Copy project
designed by the engineer, Mr. Burton Smith, that indicate the
backup space for the parking lot is 27.0 feet. Mr. Haag
testified at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting April 15, 1996
this blueprint was used by Ms. Heyden, Director of the Planning
and Zoning Department, to determine compliance with Land
Development Regulations (see note below).
NOTE: I DO NOT WANT A COPY OF THE MODIFIED BLUEPRINT SEALED BY MR.
SMITH ON MARCH 2, 1996, INDICATING A BACKUP SPACE OF 26.5 FEET
ALREADY PRESENTED AT THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING ON APRIL
15, 1996.
R.H.S. CORPORATION
m
~@~~w~
APR I 7 lalI)
rn
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. - Suite #2 - Boynton Beach, FL 33426 -(407) 736-1701
PLANNING AND
ZONING OEPI
TO: Planning and Zoning Department
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
DATE: April 17, 1996
REQUESTED MATERIAL: Certified documentation, such as the
approved minutes or transcribed word for word excepts, indicatinq
September 19, 1995 City Commission approval for curbside
recyclable waste pickup at the Clear Copy proiect that both Ms.
Heyden and Mr. Haag testified was given with the conditional site
plan approval.
Ilk
R.H.S. CORPORATION
Ifo) ~ @ in WI m rn
W. APR I 7 I!Q ~
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. - Suite #2 - Boynton Beach, FL 33426 -(407) 7361 170u
PLANNING AND -
ZONING DEPI
TO: Planning and Zoning Department
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
DATE: April 17, 1996
REQUESTED MATERIAL:
1) Copy of the original Clear Copy site plan/landscaping design
approved by the City Commission that does not state the following
(see attached photocopy):
"THE CITY ~ANDSCAPE INSPECTOR WILL VERIFY THE EXIST
HEDGE IDENTIFIED BY ASTERISK IN LANDSCAPE LEGEND MEETS
MINIMUM VEHICLE USE AREA SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. IF
EXIST MATERIAL DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS, PLANS AND
SITE WILL BE REVISED TO SHOW PROPER VEHICLE USE SCREENING
IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. CONTRACTOR SHALL
PROTECT EXIST HEDGE DURING CONSTRUCTION"
2) Copy of the granted variance the City Commission approved
allowing Clear Copy to eliminate the required buffer zone. [Ms.
Heyden and Mr. Haag indicated the City Commission approved the
Clear Copy project without a proper buffer zone. Since approval-",
is contrary to Land Development Regulations, I assume he meant it ~.)
was approved thru a variance, and therefore would like a copy of
the approved variance.]
(
)fA:
A.H.S. CORPORATION
r&
rrDJ~ @ ~ n W if
IJ/1 APR I 7i9S6 ~
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. · Suite #2 · Boynton Beach, FL 33426 .(407) 73~ 1700 PLANNING ANO _
ZONING DEPT.
TO: Planning and Zoning Department
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
DATE: April 17, 1996
REQUESTED MATERIAL:
1) Copy of the original Clear Copy site plan/landscaping design
approved by the City Commission that does not state the following
(see attached photocopy):
"THE CITY tJUIDSCAPE INSPECTOR WILL VERIFY THE EXIST
HEDGE IDENTIFIED BY ASTERISK IN LANDSCAPE LEGEND MEETS
MINIMUM VEHICLE USE AREA SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. IF
EXIST MATERIAL DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS, PLANS AND
SITE WILL BE REVISED TO SHOW PROPER VEHICLE USE SCREENING
IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. CONTRACTOR SHALL
PROTECT EXIST HEDGE DURING CONSTRUCTION"
~~,';
\ ~ ~~~
\
It
~o w.~ Boy"too B.~ ~W~: :~~:~:~~:.:~: 33~6 '(~7) ~l ~:::~I:G = ~ \ ~
ZONING OEPT.
TO: Planning and Zoning Department
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
DATE: April 17, 1996
REQUESTED MATERIAL: The modified site plan\engineering blueprint
for construction (1 page) submitted for the Clear Copy project
designed by the engineer, Mr. Burton Smith, that indicate the
backup space for the parking lot is 27.0 feet. Mr. Haag
testified at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting April 15, 199
this blueprint was used by Ms. Heyden, Director of the Planning
and Zoning Department, to determine compliance with Land
Development Regulations (see note below).
NOTE: I DO NOT WANT A COpy OF THE MODIFIED BLUEPRINT SEALED BY MR.
SMITH ON MARCH 2, 1996, INDICATING A BACKUP SPACE OF 26.5 FEET
ALREADY PRESENTED AT THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING ON APRIL
15, 1996.
/
.r.r
'1r ~(
1 " ~ta 0, · .
t ! ~ LP~'l ~t ,I~k
~ )rf
,; 1 tJ!Y ~i\}.A'.;vJ .
/" V \,f\J.J l' ;:!
-' 1:Jr11I18rL' I ~ ( \
/ ' ~ -riJ-IJ /..t m" j)~ /') I I-/- / \
~ - n "I t=)lLL IW.,Ji:,lL .f)/() ~AfiI :5d6/lJ-Of/r
.:f vV' L(. 0l.,nr,:o, -n, 0 , I. / -v ~v
' JV.J(.; 1l?ur( fdV'--t.le:: ve:ol..., r 1J:.htV1' 117(:;'/
{)./tErJr''jJl. IV ~.'- ~ loP! 6Ak{/~rL -r;JIJ {#C6K..
11{
,
MAR-19-'96 TUE 14:A6 ID:MILLER & IJOODS. P.A. TEL NO:407-8B7-8103
**~. P02
Law Offices
MILLER & WOODS, P.A.
1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 860
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Telephon~: 407-687-8100
Facsimile; 407-687-8103
JAMES F. MILlER
STEVEN R. WOODS
['A '{)L M. ADAlvJS
REGINALD G. STAMBAUGH
O/c.."""r
EOGlNE E. SHUEY, P.A.
Boord c..rtifillll R..I Estoto AtIOlD<Y
March 19, 1996
Leonard Rubin, Esquire
3099 East Commercial Blvd.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
Via Facsimile
Re: City of Boynton Beu:h Commission Meetinf:
Clear Copy Site Plan Modification
Our File; 2826-96
Dear Mr. Rubin:
Ple~se be 2dvised that I will be representing Dr. M:ark Roberts at the City Conunission
Meeting, scheduled for this evening beginning at 6:30 p.m. Please allow sufficient time at the
meeting fOf my discussion of the Miner Site Plan Modification for Clear Copy, which is listed
as item X, D .3. on the agenda.
Thank you for your ""ttention to this matter. If you should have any questions please do not
hesita.te to contact me.
R ill G. STAMBAUGH
RGS:npv
c:c:: Dr. Max-k Robc:rn
Ms. Tambri Heyden, Director of Planning &: Zoning
VIA FACSIMILE
1': \FILES\1826\JlU8IN2.L TR
~-'- ,
c~ 11A~
3 -19 - '1>>
R.H.S. Corporatior(J,(c-;cG-atJ~rf)
------ ..-'"
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd., Suite #1., BoyntoD Beach, FL 33416 . (407) 736-1700
March 19, 1996
Mayor Gerald Taylor and Commissioners
City of Boy~ton Beach
P .b. Box' 3 H).
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Commissioners:
I, Mark Roberts, President of RaS Corporation, am unable to
attend this meeting tonight. Carol Roberts, has come to present
this letter on my behalf. Since there are many issues involved
with this application for the modified site plan, I will attempt to
cover the most relevant issues before your voting on this issue.
The Planning and Zoning Department decided this site plan
change is a minor change. Gee and Jenson, a well-respected
engineering firm, after evaluating the new site plan states this is
a major site plan modification. I also believe this is a major
site plan modification, and therefore should be treated as such.
The Land Development Regulations (LOR) specify the proper
procedure for major site plan modifications. Should the City
Commission decide tonight to vary from this lawful procedure, RaS
Corporation will unequivocally, and without hesitation file
additional litigation requiring the City to comply and enforce
their own codes. As you are aware, unnecessary litigation for the
Ci ty is very costly. .
The LOR, Chapter 4, Section 9.C state criterion to be used to
determine whether a determination is minor or major. The following
criteria establish the new plans are a major modification.
a) This new site plan causes the Clear Copy development to
not meet all applicable standards and regulations of the LOR,
needing many variances to comply with the LDR, and therefore needs
further review as required in a major site plan modification.
b) This new site plan eliminates the required physical buffer
to RSS Corporation's property, thereby adversely effecting RRS
Corporation's property. The elimination of required buffers is
indicative of a major site plan modification. The current approved
site plans for which permits are issued indicate that Clear Copy
will meet minimum landscape screening standards, which will be
verified by a city inspector, and if the site doesn't meet minimum
standards, the plans will be revised.
c) The new site plan alters the approved site plan so it does
not resemble the approved site plan. It does so in the following
ways:
1) The ingress has changed from N.W. 1st. Ave to N.W. 7th
Street.
2) Every parking space has been moved to a new location.
3) The required dumpster area has been eliminated.
4 ) The required garbage truck access to dumpster has been
eliminated.
5) All new drainage engineering has been submitted.
6) The locations of the approved lights have been changed.
7) The required landscape buffer on the east side of the
property has been eliminated.
8) All new traffic flow patterns are changed.
9) The new plans show the need for a land dedication to the
City.
10) The loading zone has been modified.
11) The driveways have been narrowed from 15 feet to 12 feet
which will prevent access to the property by some vehicles.
Any of those changes by itself should classify the new site
plan as a major modification, but collectively they definitely are.
One of the few site characteristics not changed with the new site
plan is the location of the building. However, the unfinished
building was built into the required setbacks in violation of the
LOR, thereby requiring a variance.
I believe it is apparent these new plans involve a major
modification. The City's Staff's has recommended to classify this
new site plan as a minor modification. Regardless of the
classification, this site plan should be rejected for the following
reasons:
1) The fire truck cannot legally access this property. LDR
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) The recyclable garbage truck cannot legally access this
property. For this site plan, the City Commission previously
approved curbside pickup of general garbage and onsite pickup of
recyclable garbage. Ci ty ordinances governing garbage pickup
require containerized garbage pickup. The City's garbage truck's
cannot provide this service for this modified site plan. A
variance is required for administrative regulations contrary to
provisions of the City Codes.
3 ) The required dumpster area for the containerized dumpster,
as required per City ordinances has been eliminated. This requires
a variance.
4) The aC,cess to the dumpster area has been eliminated. This
requires a var1ance. It should be remembered that one purpose of
the LDR is to prevent and deal effectively with future problems of
this development. If and when Clear Copy no longer operates at
this site, it is unreasonable to believe that that other businesses
ocupying a building this large will generate small enough
quantities of garbage not requiring dumpster pickup.
5) The Clear Copy property needs to be 53 feet wide to have
all the LOR required site improvements. The survey shows the
property is 50 feet wide. The LOR required improvements relating
to this property are a 5-feet perimeter buffer, a 6 inch raised
curb, 27 feet backup space, 18 feet parking space, and a 2 feet six
inch interior buffer, equalling 53 feet. This site plan requires
a variance to meet the minimum standards.
6) The survey and plans show the property to be 50 feet wide.
Improvements shown on the plans total 50 feet 6 inches. They are
the s-feet buffer, a 6 inch raised curb, 27 feet backup space, and
18 feet of parking space. This clearly equals 50 feet 6 inches,
and not the 50 feet available. Therefore, the site plan CANNOT be
built if approved.
7) Most trucks will be unable to use the required loading
zone without illegal encroachment into the required handicap
parking space.
8) Al though the positions of the parking lot lights have been
moved, the required engineering has not been submitted. I believe
the lighting will not meet the City's ~equired lighting design
criteria. The previously submitted lighting engineering, approved
by the engineering department, but never shown to the City
Commission, used offsite lighting going onto Clear Copy's property
for its lighting calculations of illumination. It did not take
into consideration that light cannot go thru a six foot high
concrete wall, and therefore not meeting minimum lighting standards
either.
9) The narrowing of the driveways in addition with the
conditions of no swale area and only a five feet wide sidewalk will
prevent many service vehicles and delivery trucks safe and
efficient access to this property.
10) The new plan has not submitted the required irrigation
plan.
11) The elimination of the required buffer zone next to RHS
Corporation's property will cause irreparable damage to RHS
Corporation's property. Gee and Jenson determined that reducing
the existing nonconforming buffer to 19 inches will kill the
existing hedge, thereby eliminating the buffer. They believe it is
doubtful that a hedge of the required 4 to 6 feet could ever be
grown. The required procedure to eliminate parking lot buffers
defined in LDR Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.E and required by
LDR Chapter 23, Article II, section C. is thru variance, assuming
the applicant meets the application criteria.
12) The required landscaping design is incomplete.
13) The dimensions of the parking lot are inconsistent
between the site plan and the construction drawings. In either
case variances are required.
The above enumeration of changes and items of concern may not
be all inclusive. However, they are indicative of major site plan
changes which require a more indepth review than is normally
required under minor site plan changes.
The basis for the current law suit RHS Corporation filed
against the City alleges that the City did not follow proper
procedure as required by law. Restating RHS Corporation's current
position, should you approve this modified site plan tonight, RHS
Corporation will unequivocally and without hesitation pursue and
file a new law suit to appeal the action of the commission.
c: \MPDOCS lCITrCOMK
n
GEE & JENSON
Englneers-Archltects.Planners. Inc
March 14, 1996
One Harvard Clrc;e
West Palm 8eacn. FL 33':09
Te1epnone (~07) 683.3301
Fax(4071666-i~J6
Ms. Tambri Heyden, Director Planning & Zoning
City of Boynton Beach
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach. FI33425-0310
Re: Clean Copy, Inc., Site & Construction Plans
Boynton Beach, FI
Dear Ms. Heyden:
The site plan and construction drawings for Clear Copy, Inc. located at West Boynton Beach
Boulevard and N.W. tt' Street submitted to your office on March 6,1996 and March 8, 1996
respectively. are substantially different from previously submitted plans. Among the changes
made are the following:
1. Ingress driveway to the property has been changed from N.W. 1-. Ave. to N.W. tt' Sl
2. The parking configuration has completely changed.
3. The parking lot grading has changed altering drainage patterns and driveway slopes.
4. The site plan indicates deletion of a dumpster, however the construction drawing indicates
inclusion of a dumpster.
In addition to the above noted changes, the following are items of concern, particularly where
variances are required:
1. There is no landscape buffer proposed at the east side of the parking lot requiring a
variance.
2. The dimensions of the parking lot are inconsistent between the site plan and the
construction drawing. In either case, a variance would be required.
3. No data was submitted indicating compliance with lighting requirements.
4. Access for emergency and service vehicles should be reviewed.
':V1tb~.doc
n
City of Boynton Beach
Attn: Ms. Tambri Heyden
March 14, 1996 - Page 2
The above enumeration of changes and items of concern is not all inclusive, but is indicative of
major plan changes which require a more in depth review than would normally be required
under minor site plan change review procedures.
Very truly yours,
cN~cr:~t'.
Harold T. Benoit, Jr., PE
96-105
cc: Mark Roberts, D.D.S.
Reginald Stambaugh, Esq.
. 4arvard Circle. West Palm Beach. Flonda 33409' (407) 683-3301 . Fax (407) 686.7.146
" ._~----------------_._- -
R.H.S. Corporation
650 West Boynton Beacb Blvd., Suite #1, Boynton Beach, FL 33416 · (407) 736-1700
March 19, 1996
Mayor Gerald Taylor and Commissioners
City of Boynton Beach
P.o. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
REF: Determination of legislative intent of zoning code
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Commissioners:
I, Mark Roberts, am unable to attend this Commission meeting.
.Since Staff is requesting from the commission a determination of
their legislative intent on zoning code of Land Development
Regulations (LDR), Chapter 2, Section 4.J.3., I researched the
codes. I found the LDR addresses this issue. The code reads as
follows:
LDR, Chapter 2, 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.
The LDR specifically addresses Staff's concerns as to whether
commercial buildings are allowed to overhang into setbacks. The
ordinance states that house eaves shall be allowed EXCEPT WHERE SO
NOTED. Even if house eaves were the same as commercial building
eaves, which they are not, the exception is clearly outlined in the
LDR, Chapter, Section 6.B.3. It states that in a C-2 Neighborhood
Commercial District that no building or portion thereof shall be
erected, constructed, converted, established, altered, enlarged or
used unless the premises and building comply with the required
setback regulations of 30 feet for front yards and 15 feet for side
yards.
The code clearly establishes the exception for house eave
overhangs in C-2 Neighborhood Commercial Districts. OVerhangs
which include building surface treatments, window sills and
cornices, and roofs are clearly not allowed to be built into the
setbacks.
The Development Department states that in the past they have
willfully overlooked enforcing the City's ordinances at
inspections. I believe this is a bad precedent and the appropriate
inspectors should be reprimanded for this unlawful conduct. As an
official of the City, they have a fiduciary responsibility to obey
and enforce all lawful ordinances of the City.
In conclusion, Clear Copy project should be built to the
required codes in force at the time of application for site plan
approval. House eaves have nothing to do with commercial building
eaves. The overhangs into the setbacks on the Clear Copy project
are clearly in violation of the LOR. The City has the
responsibility to enforce their codes and ordinances. Should the
City choose not to enforce their codes and ordinances, RHS
Corporation will unequivocally and without hesitation pursue and
file legal action for compliance of all applicable zoning codes on
the Clear Copy project.
Respectfully,
'4/Jt(~(
Ma E. Roberts, D.D.S.
President, RHS Corporation
Cs\WPDOCS\crrrcORZ
Art. If 55
having the general responsibility for the conduct of a
comprehensive planning program and the preparation, supervision
and amendment of the comprehensive plan or elements or portions
thereof applicable to the areas under the jurisdiction of the
city as provided in said act.
Section 6. Review of board decisions.
All decisions of the planning and development board shall be
advisory to the City Commission. Disposition. of an application
or request made through the planning and development board shall
not be deemed final until acted on by the City Conmission. Once
final, a decision may be reviewed by the filing of a Petition for
Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial
Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, and in accordance
with the procedure and within the time provided by court rule and
such time shall commence to run from the date of the decision
sought to be reviewed.
. Section 7. COllllp~han.ive plan adopted; authority, pu.rpoM,
pre : rytian.
A. Authority. Ordinance No. 89-38 i8 adopted in compliance
with, and pursuant to, the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. Section
163.3184, et.8eq., Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Anm;ni8trative Code.
B . Purpose and intent.
1 . declared that the 8e of such
o DaDce 8 to preserve ennance e ex1st1ng
~al~ of life; encouraqe the most appropriate use
o 1 f vater and re8ource8 cOl18istent with the
public interest; addres8 current probl_ which have
occurred because of the use and development of land;
and deal effectivelI with future =1_ which may
occur a. a reaul t 0 the use aDC1 J.opment Of land.
Through the implementation Of the 1989 COIIIpre!1eDS1Ve
Plan and thos. elements adopted herein by Ordinance
NO. 89-38, it is the intent of the City Commission of
the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, to preserve,
promote, protect and improve the public health,
safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience,
lav enforcement and fire prevention, and general
welfare; to prevent the overcrowding of land and to
avoid undue concentration of populations; to minimize
urban sprawl; to encourage the development and
redevelopment of the coastal cONMlnity; to ensure
that the existing rights of property owners be
preserved in accord with the Constitutions of the
State of Florida and of the United States; to plan
for and guide growth and development within the city
by providing greater specificity and certainty in the
A40.&.4 A.~ll t. 1"'. O~.l
.."1....
'.~.oa
1.5-4
S8
compliance with levels of service as stated in the
Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan is required.
Section 9. Modification of approved site plan.
A. Minor: 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.
B. Major: A modification which presents a significant
change in intensity of use which. in turn, may have a
significant impact upon facilities, concurrency; upon
nearby and adjacent properties, or upon findings made at
the time of approval of the site and development plan as
determined by the planning and zoning director.
C. In making a-.minor/major modification determination, the
planning director shall consider the following:
1. Does the modification increase the
buildable square footage of the development by more
than five (s) percent-
2. Does the modification reduce the provided number of
parking space below the required number of 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.
4. Does the modification have an adverse effect on
adjacent or nearby property or reduce required
physical buffers, such as fences, trees, or hedges.
s. Does the moclification adversely affect the elevation
design of the structure or reduce the overall design
of the structure below the standards stated in the
community design plan.
6. Does the modified development meet the concurrency
. requirements of the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan.
7. Does the modification alter the site layout so that
the modified site plan does not resemble the approved
site plan.
D. When any determination of major/minor modification made
by the planning and zoning director is challenged or
'contested by the applicant, the modification shall be
processed as a new site plan in accordance with this
chapter.
E. Procedure: A site plan modification shall be processed
as follows, pursuant to its categorization:
"\1 . . -..'O..C. 0"-02
4-9
~::I
1. Minor: Administrative review and action by the
appropriate city departments.
2. Major: Processing is the same as for the original
site plan.
F. Required information: The following information must be
presented with a request for a site plan modification:
1. Minor: A letter which sets forth the requested
changes along with an exhibit showing that portion of
the site plan which is to be changed in its present
condition and an exhibit depicting the requested
change.
2. Major: A major modif;~ation shall contain the same
information as required for a new site plan
submittal.
G. Upon approval of a major site plan modification by the
City Commission, the applicant shall have one (1) year to
secure a building permit from the development department.
If an applicant fails to secure a building permit in that
time, all previous approvals shall become null and void
and the applicant will be required to resubmit the plan
for site plan review. At its discretion, the City
Commission may extend the approval of a major site plan
modification for a one-year period. Minor modifications
shall not extend the time limits of an approved site
plan.
H. The planning director shall file a quarterly report on
minor site plan modifications with the City Commission.
Section 10. Review of site plans in the CBDceDtral business
district, zoning district or the C--lfti ty
redevel ~ ftt agency area.
For areas zoned CBD central business district or within the
community redevelopment agency area of. jurisdiction, all the
sections of this chapter shall apply except that the functions of
the planning and development board shall be performed by the
community redevelopment advisory board (CRAB) and the functions
of the City Commission shall be performed by the community
redevelopMl1t agency (CRA).
Section 11. ICaint~2ftce.
Upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy an improved
site must be maintained in compliance with the approved site
plan.
'~r'l .... ordla.ace ols.ea
4-10
511.3
6. Environmental review permits and other use or
development permits. No building permit or
occupational license shall be 1sSUed, and no s1te
plan as set forth in Chapter " shall be approved,o_r
~y other use or development_-permit or approval shall
be granted, for a use requiring an environmental
revi.ew-perm.1.t-:-Unt.1.~ an envfronmeneir review permit
has been granted. S.1.te plan reV.1.ew may proceed
s1mu~taneously w1th reV1ew ot an env1ronmental review
pe~t appl.1.Cat1on, an-a-Plans and documents submitted
for review of an environmental review permit may also
DtJe used tor site lan reV1eWi rov1dec1, however, tnat 7
in all cases approva 0 t e enV1ronmenta reV1ew -
. er:mit shall precede approval ot the 81te plan. .
-
7. Environmental review permits and state pollution
control regulations and permits. In the event that
state regulations or permits would apply to emission
of pollutants from a use, such regulations and
permits shall govern in all cases provided that an
environmental review permit is granted for the use.
Where the level of pollution discharge which would be
lawful under state regulations and permits would not
meet the standards set forth in Section 11.3.0., such
use shall. not be granted an environmental review
permit. In no case shall the issuance of an
environmental review permit be construed to relieve
the applicant from complying with or obtaining
appliCable federal, state, or county regulations or
permits of any type.
8. Review procedure. In the review of applications for
environmental review permits, members of
environmental review committee shall make written
comments as to the desirability of the use described
in the application locating on the site proposed, and
modifications that are recommended to the proposed
use and development of the property in order to meet
the standards set forth in Section 11.3.0. No
application shall be considered to be approved until
all members of the environmental review committee
have approved the application. The environmental
review committee may impose any conditions and
safeguards necessary to ensure compliance with the
standards set forth in Section 11.3.0. and shall not
approve any application for an environmental review
permit that does not comply with such standards. The
environmental review committee may disapprove any
application in whole or in part, or any
characteristic of the use described therein, which
does not comply with such standards. The committee
shall designate a secretary who shall be responsible
for recording the findings of the committee with
respect to the conformance of the application with
A40pced Apr11 4. l"'. Ordloeoce 0".02
.ev1.e4
2-133
ti ~ ~;
\~~ -z~: ,
~~tl . ~
" ~ \- : -:>
~! ill; ,-; ~
\, ~~c:..'
4.; ~ ~
..J 0 -=>>. -==.
..s-'.3: 52
~.. ': -.:::r
.~~ :::r
~'ci:..
art \:i. 0 _ ·
il ~ ~ ~
lIt ~\-~\~~ tii'i
~ -< ~ ~ ;.~, ..:3: ~ j'
.1 .~, I~ c! €-:~ ~:-:; .,
I - 41 ~~ Jt- ~, : :'.. .4.. : _, ':Z
.J I ~~:' ~- ~ '. pl! ~. I. ~ Sl ' ~! _~
~ ... ._- . ~ I . . " ~~. ~. '--: :5' ~ . \-. ~ bi
.:.~- --" . ~ :. '.~\."~' ,.I.r-::- J:.~:"l r;: ~ Ii
,-:-.:!". .. '" '~': ~~-1i ~. Q:t .' 1 . I ~ ~ . 0\' ~
. -.~ - rf . -:> ~ "2 c:. ,. \-
. . I '..\., ~:. I - H, . 0
I~ ~ . ~ - -. ..... ,I ~ -!:S , .-::z
. -. - 1. .,. . J, a
~'~ I\~,t ~ - .~:. ~' >-. -;,1)" . ,. ~41 +
~~. ~ ~ ' 1100. '; .'" 0 : 0
~ ~ ~.\, \ . .', : ~ ~ .J j , ;
~. .' ~ ~- ;.: .5'& .' . .... e; '. i ~ 0 1
. ..' · ." -'. D '2; .
. ~. ,
. & ..., .::.F.:i,. ~ ..~i ~ ~~ '.. ( \ i.,
~ ~.. '&. - - ': ~!!.t~'" .. . .~. , .~~I
· ~f \~;:: '. :l:t~~I~i~O "a'~~;!: lt~
UL ~ ~ ~ 3' . ~ . ,i\ -! ~.; ,---- ~ : -a; 2
.. -~E~' ~ ~:'Z.
' ~"'~~l~~ ~ :- ~.~; ~i~!!
~;~'~1~3S .~ ~ 1j~~ ~~ -:~
- .6 <1 '- ~~ (-"'; . 0-' . _ '<::' . ~
e,\U'- - - ~_._~, ~
:~d~.d .;:.- :~~lr~: ~~'i::ut\
~'r-~E~;r~ ~,- :: 2' .:~
i-~~~ji~ t: ~ ~:.c-; ~,ili
. ~~~~-~ r-.\1\~. ~_:_... ....:'~:~\
At~~;Ja~ :~.r- g; ~4: :J .,
z~.~ ~ _ _ ~I
.:;. a. ~ ;:t \\\ ~ ': .. .- i ":2 . 0;.: To.; t-"'I'
~ - :;) ~.d.) j y. :\. ~ 4 ::" ~
i ~ ~~..J~w.~: . ~ ~:~:~I
~~~~~~b ~.. :. .~: a;~:~\
~~~~~~ . ~:~:~! ~:~!~
~';i ~~~~i ~; ~ ~; ~: +~l~
. '~~im~' ~ ~&~\' a\ :1~:\!l\~\ __..
~, i. .01 . ~ ~ ~1. ~\:""'"' "r
I ~ ~.; : 1--
~., ...1 !
$ \..
- si
~ ,f."': ~ 0 ~ ~. ~~
,. ~ ~:. Q.) "'I vv
; 0- ~ .....;;....l
0. oq- .
; ~ c .
... -
, ,~
I I ~
I
i
.,
]\;
\~ .
~~"2
I ~
~
O-v
,
-
~~55a:. JY. /'rl1V~r;; , (11
"
~
al
~
-:2 .
a
'c
~
~'Yi .
~~
~. I,
o-=-
- h
t::!. ..
~.. -
'r- ,-
~i .-
") I
~.
~
Q,...
)-.
-:Sa
~3
<(
Ul .I.J
.- 0
> Q)
dP
.
U
Q)
Ol
C-
o
m
i\~\
at.
OlN
a: .
o
. c
~
fili\\ ~
~
<
o
i:
o
...I
...
. I
I
.
..
~
~
~
S:,
::II
:z\
~\
". ;
-,
':J~
~l
~I
Art. II, S5
right-of-way, excluding dedicated alleys to the rear of
building, there shall be provided landscaping between
such area and such right-of-way as follows:
1. A strip of land at least five (5) teet in width
located between the abutting right-of-way and the
off-street parking area or other vehicular use area
which is exposed to an abutting right-Of-way shall be
landscaped, such landscaping is to include a minimum
of one tree for each forty (40) lineal feet or
fraction thereof. Such trees shall be located
between the abutting right-ot-way and oft-street
parking area or other vehicular use area and shall be
planted i~ ~ planting area of at least twenty-five
(25) square feet with a dimension of at least five
(5) feet. In addition, a hedge, wall, or other
durable landscape barrier of at least three (3) feet
in height shall be placed along only the interior
perimeter of such landscaped strip. If such durable
barrier is ot Donli ving materi.al, for each ten (10)
feet thereof, one shrub or viDe .shall be planted
abutting such barrier along the street side of such
barrier. The remainder of the required landscaped
areas ahall be landscaped with grass ground cover or
other landscape treatment.
B . Perimeter landscaping relating to abutting properties.
On the site of a building or structure or open lot use
providing an off-street parking axea or other vehicular
use area, such are"~l'.. _ provided with a landscaped
barrier, preferably a hedge not 1... than four (4) feet
nor greater than six (6) feet in beight to form a
continuous screen between the off-street parking area or
other vehicular use area and such abutting property.
Such landscape barrier shall be located. between the
~Ommon lot line and the off-street oarkinQ area or other
vehicular use area in a lantiD stri of not less than
two and one- (2 1 2 eet n . rov Sloons
of this subs.ction shall not be a the
following situations:
1. 1Ih8I1 a property line abuts a dedicated alley.
2 . Where a proposed parking area or other vehicular use
area abuts an existing hedge, said existing hedge may
be used to satisfy the landscape requirements of this
subsection provided that said existing hedge meets
all applicable standards of this article.
F. Accessways. The maximum width of an accessway (whether
one- or two-way traffic) through tbe required perimeter
landscape strip to an off-street parking or other
vehicular use area shall be thirty-five (35) feet. The
balance of such street frontage not involved with
'dOIC.. AI~'l .. 1"'. O~d'..... 0"-02
..y,...
7.5-16
54
property on which the use is located; or to
contaminate any public waters or any groundwater.
6. Fire and explosion hazards. No use shall be carried
out in any zoning district so as to create a fire or
explosion hazard to adjacent or nearby property or
rights-af-way, or any persons or property thereon.
Furthermore, the storage, use or production of
flammable or explosive materials shall be in
conformance with the provisions of Chapter 9 of the
City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances.
7. Heat, humidity, or glare. No use shall be carried
out in any zoning district so as to produce heat,
humidity or glare which is readily perceptible at any
point at or beyond the property line of the property
on which the use is located. Artificial lighting
which is used to illuminate any property or use shall
be directed away from any residential use which is a
conforming use according to these zoning regulations,
so as not to create a nuisance to such residential
uses.
8. Liquid waste. No use shall be carried out in any
zoning district so as to dispose of liquid waste of
any type, quantity or manner which is not in
conformance with the provisions of Chapter 26 of the
City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, or any
applicable federal, state or county laws or permits.
9 . Solid waste. No use shall be carried out in any
zo~nq d1str1ct so as to allow the accumulation or
disposal of solid waste which i8 not in conformance
w1tn cnapter 10 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of
Ordinance, or which would cause solid waste to be
transferred in any manner to adjacent or nearby
property or rights-of-way.
10. Hlectraugnetic interference. No use shall be
carried out in any zoning district so as to create
electromagnetic radiation which causes abnormal
degradation of performance of any electromagnetic
receptor of quality and proper design as defined by
the principles and standards adopted by the Institute
of Hlectrical and Hlectronics Bngineers, or che
Hlectronic Industries Association. Furthermore, no
use shall be carried out in any zoning district so as
to cause electromagnetic radiation which does not
comply with the Pederal Communications Commission
regulations, or which causes objectionable
electromagnetic interference with normal radio or
television reception in any zoning district.
"dope.d Aprll ..
1 ",. Ordlllaac. D'S - Q 1
..V\..d
2-13
~
Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances
ARTICLE II. REFUSE, GARBAGE AND TRASH*
*Editor's note-Ord. No. 82-29, ~ 1, enacted Sept. 21, 1982, repealed former Art. II. 9~
10-22-10-39. relative to refuse, garbage and trash, and enacted in lieu thereof a new Art. II,
pertaining to the same subject matter. Former An. II was derived from Code 1958, 99
13-2-13-6, 13-9, 13-11, 13-13, 13-33-13-41, and Ord. No. 80-20, ~ 1, adopted June 3, 1980.
Sec. 10-22. City to collect and dispose of garbage; supervisioD; regulatory authority.
All garbage and some trash and horticultural refuse accumulated in the city shall be
collected, conveyed and disposed of by the city under the supervision of the public works
director. The ublic works director shall have authori to make administrative regulations
concerning. e ys 0 co cetlOn, type an ocatlon 0 waste containers an suc 0 er matters
pertaining to the collection, conv.eyance and disposal not otherwise set by the city commission or
the city manager as he shall fmd necessary, and to change and modify the same after notice as
required by law, rovided that such re ulations are not contrarv to the rovisions hereof.
(Ord. No. 82-29. 1, - 1- 2) H____
Sec. 10-23. Definitions.
For the purpose of this article, the following words and terms are defmed as follows:
Additional piclcup means a collection of garbage, combustible tras~ noncombustible trash
or yard trash required due to the inappropriate container. lack of containerization and/or size or
type of material placed out for pickup.
Commercial means places of business including, but not limited to hotels, motels,
restaurants, offices, industries, stores and other locations which hold themselves out to the public
as places of business or accommodations.
Containers or receptacles:
(1) "Noncontainerized" means the use of a standard thirty- three (33) gallon or less
garbage can constructed of light gauge steel, galvanized metal or plastic with a
tight-fitting lid; such receptacle to have two (2) handles upon the sides thereof or a
suitable bale by which it may be readily lifted for the purpose of easily emptying
into a sanitation vehicle. -
(2) "Containerized" means a detachable metal container provided by the city designe..Q,_
and intended to be mechaniCall~ dumped into a packer-w sanitation vehicle and
v~ing il!..si_~ from two (2) cu ic yards to eight (8) cu l~ards ~j)table to city
eQUIoment. .
(3) "Containerized with wheels" are containers supplied by the occupants who choose
to use them inside buildings and roll them to the designated outside location for
pickup.
CODvriQht (c) 1995. American Leaal PublishinQ CorDoration
:f
I
Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances
J
"Specialized refuse bag" means an approved waterproof paper or plastic bag
designed to receive the equivalent of thirty-three (33) gallons of refuse.
Dispose means to deliver to approved landfill or transfer station or other approved
disposal method.
(4)
Refuse shall mean any or all of the following: garbage, combustible trash,
noncombustible trash, and yard trash. Such items are hereby further defined as follows:
(1) "Garbage:" Every accumulation of animal, fruit. or vegetable matter that attends
the preparation, use, cooking and dealing in or storage of meats, fish, fowl, fruit or
vegetables, and any other matter, of any nature which is subject to decay,
putrefaction and generation of noxious or offensive gases or odors, or which,
during or after decay may serve as a breeding or feeding material for flies or other
germ carrying insects; and any bottles, cans or other containers, except recyclable
containers, which aue to their ability to retain water, may serve as a breeding
place for mosquitoes or other insects. Garbage shall not include human solid
waste.
(2) "Combustible trash:" Accumulations of paper, rags or wooden or paper boxes,
sweepings, and other accumulations of a nature other than garbage which are
usual to housekeeping and the operation of stores, offices, and other business
places.
(3) "Noncombustible trash:" Materials that are not burnable at ordinary incineration
temperatures, such as metals, mineral matter, metal furniture and auto bodies and
parts.
(4) "Yard trash:" Shall mean vegetative matter resulting from landscaping
maintenance and land-clearing operations including accumulation of lawn, grass,
shrubbery cuttings, dry leaf rakings, palm fronds, small tree branches not to
exceed four (4) inches in diameter or four (4) feet in length. Yard trash shall be
collected on scheduled pickup days.
Residential means any structure or shelter or any part thereof used or constructed as a
residence for one or more families.
Sanitation supervisor means the director of public works and his duly authorized agents.
Special pickup is a collection resulting from a call from residents to the public works
department to arrange a "special pickup" for items not collected weekly. Such pickups include
the following items: Washers, dryers, furniture (including mattress and springs), rugs and other
household items. Horticultural refuse larger than one cubic yard will also have to be arranged by
the resident with the public works department. Special pickups will be coordinated with the
resident and the sanitation supervisor as to time, place, date and items to be picked up. Items to
be picked up will not be deposited at curbside prior to approval of the sanitation supervisor.
Waste material means and includes sand, wood, stone, brick, cement, concrete,
construction blocks, roofing and other refuse building materials usually left over from a
construction or remodeling project also trees, tree stwnps, tree limbs larger than four (4) inches
CODyriaht tcl 1995. American Leaal PUblishina Corporation
Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances
in diameter and longer than four (4) feet in length. except palm fronds.
(Ord. No. 82-29, ~ 1,9-21-82; Ord. No. 92-12, ~ 1,6-2-92; Old. No. 94-28, 9 1,9-9-94)
~
'V'
Sec. 10-24. Residential Doncontainerized collection.
(a) The occupant of each household in the city is hereby required to provide refuse
containers of sufficient capacity to hold four (4) days' accumulation of garbage and loose trash
from each household.
(b) The city will collect noncontainerized residential refuse under the following
conditions:
( 1) Garbage and combustible trash will be collected twice per week at curbside from
residential units, in standard thirty-two-gallon garbage cans or sealed bags placed
within five (5) feet of curbside. Maximum total weight per full container shall not
exceed thirty-five (35) pounds. All containers shall be aboveground and shall be
located a minimum of five (5) feet from any obstruction that may interfere with
routine collection. Underground containers may be used for storage of garbage,
but must be placed above ground on collection days. Yard trash will not be
collected with household- garbage, but will be picked up once per week on a
scheduled trash pickup day. Yard trash capable of being containerized should be
placed in a standard garbage can or disposable container. Yard trash must not be
commingled with household garbage. Collection of yard trash should be piled
separately from all other trash at curbside. Placing of yard trash in the paved area
of the street or on vacant lots is prohibited. Construction debris, auto, truck or
motorcycle parts and hazardous waste material will not be picked up by the city
and owners must make arrangements for proper disposal.
(2) All garbage cans shall be subject to inspection and approval by the public works
director or his designate at all times. A container not approved by the public
works director and which is set out for collection will have a notice placed upon
the container, handed to the owner or occupant, or left at his residence and the
occupant shall no longer use the container for collection.
It shall be unlawful for any person to place, in such unapproved container, any
garbage or other material and the owner or occupant of said premises shall
provide a new container to take the place of the unapproved can.
(3) All yard trash shall be placed in approved containers or bundled for pickup. No
loose' material, such as leaves, - grass clippings, hedge clippings, and yard
sweepings shall be set out for collection.
(4) Special waterproof disposable refuse bags or any other containers may be used.
When such bags or any other containers are used, the responsibility for protection
of either the bag or the container and the contents shall rest with the property
0ccupants. Rupture of or damage to the bag or container from any cause resulting
in the scattering of refuse prior to the arrival of collection personnel will obligate
the user to reassemble all of the refuse and provide an undamaged bag or
container prior to pickup by the city.
CODvriaht (c) 1995. American Leaa' Publishina CorDoration
-._--_._-_._-----~--
Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances
(5) Yard trash too large for containers and consisting of tree branches, palm fronds,
brush, trimmings, etc, shall be cut in lengths not exceeding four (4) feet and not
more than four (4) inches in diameter. (Length limitation does not apply to palm
fronds.) Accumulations shall be stacked in compact piles at curbside within the
confmes of residents' or owners' side property lines. Deposits of refuse shall not
obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The city will not collect yard trash
produced from commercial tree trimming operations, landscape and lawn
maintenance operators. No refuse shall be placed on property owned or occupied
by others without permission.
(6) Accumulation of waste material of any type shaD not be permitted to remain in
street right-of-way in excess offour (4) days.
(7) All wet garbage matter shall either be wrapped in paper before being placed in
refuse containers or bundled so that leakage from container is prevented. All
garbage, after having been so cared for shall be daily deposited in the containers
herein required. Tin cans, bottles and other contaiDers shall first be drained of all
liquid. All refuse containers shall be kept tightly co~ered at all times, except when
it becomes necessary to lift the cover for the purpose of depositing refuse in the
container or for the purpose of emptying such container into a disposal vehicle.
(8) No refuse container shall be kept or maintained upon or adjacent to any street,
sidew~ parkway, front yard, side yard or other place within the view of persons
using the city's streets or sidewalks, except that not earlier than 6:00 p.m. on the
day preceding that upon which refuse collection are customarily made from such
premises, such containers shall be placed within tlx required distance of the street
for the purpose of permitting the collection of refuse therefrom, and which
containers shall be permitted to remain in such places only for and during the
period of the day upon which such collection is made. Protection of the containers
placed for collection is the responsibility of the resident.
(9) Special pickup shall be coordinated with the resident and the sanitation supervisor
as to time, place, date and items to be picked up. Itans to be picked up will not be
deposited at curbside prior to approval of the saniwion supervisor.
(Ord. No. 82-29, S 1,9-21-82; Ord. No. 92-12, SS 2-4, 6-2-92; Ord. No. 94-28, S 2, 9-9-94)
'vi .
Sec. 10-25. Containerized commercial and residential colledion.
(a) Regula/ions governing containerized service:
(1)
(2) Free dumping access to containers at all times shall be provided by the user. All
CODvriaht (c~ 1995. American Leaal Publishina Corooration
Boynton Beach, Florida'tode of Ordinances
containers shall be located so that the collection vehicle driver can dump
containers without leaving the vehicle.
- ,
....-'"
(3) Customers using garbage chutes or interior storage shall provide containers on
rollers which will be the responsibility of the owner or occupant for maintenance.
The owner shall be responsible for placing (rolling) them to the proper position
for emptying and in time for emptying.
(4) The size or number of containers shall be detennined by the volume of refuse to
be deposited and will be in direct relationship to the manner in which the user
elects to utilize the space provided in said container or containers. Charges shall
be assessed on the basis of cubic yards of refuse removed from premises whether
manually compacted or loose.
(Ord. No. 82-29, S 1,9-21-82)
Sec. 10-26. General regulatiol!~.
. (a) Predetermination of refuse storage sites required. Prior to the issuance of a
building permit by the city building department for the renovati~ modification or erection of a
new structure other than single-family dwellings, provisions must be made for the storage and
handling of refuse. Such arrangements shall provide free access to containers by mechanized
equipment at all times. Acting jointly, the public works department and the city building
department and the builder-owner-occupant as applicable shall mutually arrive at a satisfactory
arrangement to meet collection requirements.
(b) [When refuse collected) Refuse from commercial establishments will be collected
daily or as necessary to meet sanitation standards. Refuse from containerized residential units
will be collected twice a week.
(c) Duty to record and bill users of city system. The sanitation supervisor shall cause
to be kept. an accurate record of all persons using the services and facilities of the said municipal
refuse collection and disposal system and make charges in accordance with the rates and charges
herein established.
(d) [Burying refuse prohibited) It shall be unlawful for any person to bury in the
ground any refuse. .
(e) [Unlawful deposits.) It shall be unlawful for any person to deposit refuse upon any
vacant or unoccupied premises in the city or upon any occupied property without the permission
of the owner or upon any stree~ alley, park, parkway, or in any canal, waterway, rock pit and
sand pit, pool or lake within the city.
Cross references-Depositing litter in bodies of water, S 15-30; polluting park waters, S
16-26.
(f) Mulch or compost piles permitted Horticultural trash and refuse containing no
combustible matter, or which will not, during decay, give off offensive odors, may be
accumulated by the owner as a mulch or compost pile in the rear of the premises upon which
accumulated.
CODvriaht Ic) 1995. American Leaal Publishina COrDoration
1.2:~'T/9!
COMMERC\/U. DUMPstERS
-
-
s'taIID
-
,'fA ......,
.'fA"'''
. 'fA ... ...
t'fA'" ..
. .'''''''''
..,..-~
.......
,. .
\
I
I
\
It -: ~.
II 'l
I' \
~~
)..,..
'- ID I X Id pAD
~ooz
c________------
58
4. Off-street parking ~reas shall be provided which
adequately accommodate maximum vehicle storage
demands for the proposed development and are located
and designed in such a manner so as to serve the uses
in the proposed development and not create
incompatible visual relationships.
5. Safe and efficient access to all areas of the
proposed develo~ment shall be provided for emerqency
and service veh~cles.
6. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by the city
regulations.
7. Conformance with the city and county throughfare
plans is required.
8. Compli~ce with the Palm Beach Traffic Performance
Ordinance is required.
O. Communi ty services: All proposed developments shall be
designed and located in such a manner as to ensure the
adequate provision of the followinq cCllllllW1i.ty services:
1. Pire protection;
2. Police protection.
s. Buildings and other structures: All buildings and
structures proposed to be located within a development
shall be oriented and designed in such a manner as to
enhance, rather than detract from, the overall quality of
the site and its inmediate enviromaent. The following
guidelines shall be followed in tbe review and evaluation
of all buildings and structures:
1 . Proposed buildings and structures shall be related
harmoniously to the terrain, other buildings and the
surrounding neighborhood, and shall not create
through their location, style, color or texture
incompatible physical or visual relationships.
2 . All builc11ngs and. structures aball be designed and
oriented in a manner ensuring maxilDLDll privacy of
residential uses and related activities both on the
site being developed and adjacent property. .
3. All perm-"ent outdoor identification features which
are intended to call attention to a proposed
development and/or structures shall be designed and
located in such a manner as to be an integral part of
the development.
4. All buildings and structures shall comply with the
community design plan.
F. Concurrency and level of service standards: por the
purpose of the issuance of developaent orders and
permits, the City of Boynton Beacb has adopted level of
service standards for public facilities and services
which include roads, sanitary sewer, solid waste,
drainage, potable water, and parks and recreation.
Ad.".d Ap~'l .0 1"'. O~dl...C. ot.-oa
.."l..d
4-8
S6
goods that are brought to the premises by retail
customers.
d. Any use listed under 6.8.1 or 6.S.LA, which uses,
handles, stores, or displays hazardous materials,
or which generates hazardous waste as defined by
40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261.
2. Prohibited uses. Within any C-2 neighborhood
commercial zoning district, no building, structure,
land or water, or any part thereof, shall be erected,
altered, or used, in whole or in part, for any of the
following uses:
a.
Any use not specifically allowed in accordance
with the list ot uses under 1., LA., and lB.,
above.
Any use which is either specifically allowed or
prohibited in another zoning district, which is
not specifically allowed in accordance with the
list of uses under 1., lA., and lB., above.
Outdoor storage or display of any type.
Sale ot firearms or ammunition.
Sale ot fireworks.
Temporary employment centers, operated on a
walk-in basis.
Any wholesale establisbmeDts, storage as a
principal use, or off-premises storage, or
distribution.
Sale of alcoholic beverages, other than beer or
wine.
Serving of alcoholic beverages, except for
consumption on premises within a duly liceksed
restaurant and in conjUDctio~ with the serving of
regular meals.
Lumber yards or building materials stores.
Sale. bazaars, farmer's markets, flea or thieves'
markets, swap shops and trading posts.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j .
k.
3.
ortion
50 feet
100 feet
5, 000 square
40 percent
30 feet
Minimum lot frontage
Minimum lot depth
Minimum lot area
Maximum lot coverage
Minimum front yard
Minimum side yard (interior
lots) 15 feet*
Minimum side yard (corner.
lots) ----.- 20 feet .on
- -.-----~---.street
feet
side
Adope.d April.. 1"'. Ordt..... 0"-03
.."l..d
2-31
511
g. Miscellaneous uses:
(1) Taxi offices and bus stations: One (1)
parking space per one hundred (100) square
feet of gross floor area.
(2) Communications facilities, including
broadcasting facilities and telephone
exchanges: One (1) parking space per one
thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of
gross floor area, plus required parking
spaces for any floor area occupied by
offices.
(3) Greenhouses: One (1) parking space per two
thousand (2,000) square feet of gross floor
area, plus required parking spaces for any
retail floor area.
I. LOCATION OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES.
1. Required parking spaces for all dwellings shall be
located on the same lot as the dwelling to be served.
2. Required parking spaces for all other uses shall be
owned by the owner ot the building or lot to be
served, and shall be located on the same lot, or not
more than three hundred (300) teet distant, as
measured along the nearest pedestrian walkway.
3. Parking space requirements ot two (2) or more uses of
the same or different types may be satisfied by the
allocation of the required number ot spaces for each
use in a common parking facility. Joint allocation
among several uses of a lesser number of parking
spaces may be permitted in accordance with ~aragraph
13 of this subsection.
J. OFP-STRBBT LOADING:
. ~ -;:.... ~
1.
For the puf2Ise ot this ordinance, the term
"off-street oading or unloading ~ace" shall mean a _
vehicular loading space constr:.": of a hard. surface
and shall consist at a space w dimens10ns not less
than twelve (12) feet in widtr. ~irty-five (35) feet
in lenqeb and fourteen (14) fe ~n hiIgnt, exclusive
of access aisles, maneuvering ._,ace or alley
right-of-way.
The following spaces shall be oravided for the uses
indicated: ~
2.
a.
Bvery hospital, institution, hotel, commercial ~r
industrial building, or similar use, requiring
'the receipt or c11stribution by vehicle of
materials or merchandise, shall have sufficient
","opee" Aprl1 .. 1"'. Or"laaac:. ;"-02
.evl..d
2-110
511
permanently maintained off-street loadiuq space
so- as not to h1nder the free movement of vehicles
and edestr1an.. over a. street or sidewalk.
b. All structures- requ1r1D"" ... C 0 a e
quant1t1eS 0 gar age or tras shall provide an
e~~ily acceSS1 le area for the picku~ aDd
-delivery of a dumpster or other trash receptacle;
all such areas shall be so desi~ed that garbage
~d trash pickup can be accompl~shed without
excessive maneuvering such as-. turning around and
backing up.
K. PERMANENT RESERVATION OF SPACES. Area reserved for
off-street parking or loading, in accordance with the
requirements of this section, shall not be reduced in
area or changed to any other use unless equivalen~
off-street parking or loading is provided in accordance
with this section.
L. COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ENGAGED IN TIm RETAIL SALE OF
GASOLINE OR GASOLINE PRODUCTS.
1. Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to
establish development standards for commercial
establishments which engage in the sale of gasoline,
or other motor fuels. These regulations are intended
to cover businesses of any type, including
convenience stores and automotive service stations.
The development standards established by this section
would overlay the development criteria stated in the
zoning district in which these uses are allowed.
Businesses, which engage in the sale of gasoline or
other motor fuels, shall require conditional use
approval.
2. Definitions. Por the purpose of this ordinance, the
following definitions shall _apply:
Automotive service station. The use of a building or
other structure, on a lot or parcel of land which
includes any retail sale of gasoline or other motor
fuels.
Convenience store. Any place of business that is
engaged in the retail sale of groceries, including
the sale of prepared foods, and gasoline and
3services. The term "convenience store" does not
include a store which is solely or primarily a
restaurant.
Gasoline dispensing eseablishments. Any commercial
enterprise, including automotive service stations and
convenience stores, which engage in"the sale of
gasoline or other motor fuels to the public.
AeSop,." ApC'll .. l"'. OC'lIlaoaco 0"'03
a......ll
2-111
March 14, 1996
~ rn @ rn ~ w ~ f=\.
D l.
~ \ II
, MAR I 5 1993 \I~
~____~.~EE JENSON
PLANNI!ltG,AAID,rs-Architect Planners, Inc.
ZOfil~~~~:'f)l~ __r ~~'-'-~'--'.
d___- One Harvard Circle
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Telephone (407) 683-3301
Fax (407) 686-7446
n
Ms. Tambri Heyden, Director Planning & Zoning
City of Boynton Beach
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FI33425-0310
Re: Clean Copy, Inc., Site & Construction Plans
Boynton Beach, FI
Dear Ms. Heyden:
The site plan and construction drawings for Clear Copy, Inc. located at West Boynton Beach
Boulevard and N.W. -,'h Street submitted to your office on March 6,1996 and March 8,1996
respectively, are substantially different from previously submitted plans. Among the changes
made are the following:
1. Ingress driveway to the property has been changed from N.W. 1st. Ave. to N.W. 7th St.
2. The parking configuration has completely changed.
3. The parking lot grading has changed altering drainage patterns and driveway slopes.
4. The site plan indicates deletion of a dumpster, however the construction drawing indicates
inclusion of a dumpster.
In addition to the above noted changes, the following are items of concern, particularly where
variances are required:
1. There is no landscape buffer proposed at the east side of the parking lot requiring a
variance.
2. The dimensions of the parking lot are inconsistent between the site plan and the
construction drawing. In either case, a variance would be required.
3. No data was submitted indicating compliance with lighting requirements.
4. Access for emergency and service vehicles should be reviewed.
r:'Hb'heyclen.doc
n
City of Boynton Beach
AUn: Ms. Tambri Heyden
March 14, 1996 - Page 2
The above enumeration of changes and items of concern is not all inclusive, but is indicative of
major plan changes which require a mor In dept . than would normally be required
under minor site plan change review proce ures.
Very truly yours,
cJ:.I~JL cr: ~t'.
Harold T. Benoit, Jr., PE
96-105
cc: Mark Roberts, D.D.S.
Reginald Stambaugh, Esq.
J
/
~ C/~ J/.-I-L . (
~~
. ~.
yr
GEE & JENSON Engineers-Architects-Planners, Inc. . 1 Harvard Circle, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409. (407) 683-3301 · Fax (407) 686-7446
MARK E. ROBERTS, D.D.S.
fu ? (;;~ . ~--~\~rr
) I', ", U
U LS ,::'. ~_..;.:...- ""...--" '. f,
~.. -/
, l
, I
: \
FEB ,6 1996 j L:
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. - Suite #2 - Boynton Beach, FL 33426 -(407) 73 -17
PLANNING AND
ONING DEPT.
February 26, 1996
J:~
Mr. William Huckill
Director of Development
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Re: cCl-~r~;~Froject, 660 West Boynton Beach Blvd., Boynton
"Be-aeh, Florida 33426
Dear Mr. Huckill:
I previously informed you of many code violations occurring at
the Clear Copy Project. Additional violations of Land Development
Regulations (LOR) have occurred with the ongoing construction of
the building at this project.
In LOR Chapter 2, Section 6, Article B3, it says that no
building or portion thereof shall be erected or constructed with
less than 15 feet side yard setback. The approved site plan shows
the east side of the building to be 15 feet from the property
border, thereby meeting LOR requirements. The constructed roof of
this building encroaches the required 15 feet setback by
approximately half a foot. This violates the approved site plan
and LOR requirements.
The LOR requires an environmental review permit before issuing
a building permit (LOR, Chapter 2, Section 11.3, Article 6). As of
now, a permit has not been issued, thus violating LOR requirements.
The permit is required because of potentially flammable, explosive,
toxic, noxious, or otherwise hazardous materials to be used or
stored on the site. It has come to my attention that the attic
ventilation in the Clear Copy building is inadequate.
Once again, I request your department to cite the Clear Copy
Project for all code violations of City Ordinances. I also request
that immediate action be initiated to require the Clear Copy
Project to conform with the LOR.
Sinc~~ly,. . ~
JNi4(~'D'S'
MER/sm
Hand Delivered
Copy: Reginald G. Stambaugh, Esq.
Ms. Carrie Parker, City Manager
Ms. Tambri Heyden, Director of Planning and Zoning
Mr. Scott Blasie, Director of Code Enforcement
c: \WP!XX:S\aDEllI05
hil
1
- lQ../
.. \~C @ ~ 0 W ~ ~1
MARK E. ROBERTS, 0.0.8.':[\'\\ FF~2219961~
: "'''1 .-J
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. - Suite #2 - Boynton Beach, FL 33426 -(407) 736-170~iJiNNiNGAND
ZONING OEPT.
,.,~,...-".....,--
February 21, 1996
James A. Cherof, Esq.
City Attorney of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
Re: Clear Copy Project
Dear Mr. Cherof:
In your February 13, 1996 letter to my attorney, Reginald A.
Stambaugh, Esq., you said that any inquires regarding the Clear
Copy Project should be directed to you, and not to the City
employees. You also said that you instructed the City's staff not
to respond to my letters requesting the City to enforce the City's
building codes and ordinances.
As you are aware, RHS Corporation has pending litigation
regarding the granting of the site plan approval of Clear Copy by
the City Commission. The correspondence to the appropriate City
officials by Mr. Stambaugh and myself regarded issues of current
violations of Land Development Regulations that are unrelated to
the site plan approval appeal. As the City Attorney, I understand
your instructing the City officials not to respond to issues
related to this appeal, however this is not the case.
Non-compliance with the Land Development Regulations is
currently occurring at the Clear Copy Project. The City officials
that I requested official actions of are required to obey the law,
perform their job duties, and to enforce the required City I S
ordinances. These employees will be held accountable where they
willfully chose not perform their duties to enforce City
regulations and ordinances. You are doing them a disservice by
advising them not to act on relevant issues where warranted.
Your legal advice may become personally necessary to those
officials not performing their required duties. Further legal
action will follow should these issues continue to be ignored.
__ Si~~1'e~ .
( .lt4fll"llt)
~rk E. Roberts, D.D.S.
MER/sm
copy: Reginald G. Stambaugh, Esq.
Ms. Carrie Parker, City Manager
Mr. William Huckill, Director of Development
Ms. Tambri Hayden, Director of Planning and Zoning
Mr. Scott Blacie, Director of Code Enforcement
February 14, 1996
Ms. Tambri Heyden
Director of Planning and Zoning
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
PLANNING A:-JD
ZONING DEPI
Re: Clear Copy Project
660 West Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, Florida 33426
Dear Ms. Heyden:
On or about March 8, 1996, Leonard G. Rubin, Esquire, filed a
Motion for Extension of Time, Case * AP 9-8266AY, Circuit Court of
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County. In this motion,
he states that the modified site plan will come before the City
Commission meeting on March 19, 1996. The Land Development
Regulations (LOR) requires a determination be made for processing
modifications to determine whether modifications are classified as
major or minor.
The LOR, Chapter 4, Section 9 states that the appropriate
procedure shall be processed pursuant to its classification. Minor
site plan modifications require administrative review and action by
appropriate city departments. Major modifications are to be
processed the same as original site approval which are heard by the
City Commission. Since this site plan modification will be heard
by the City Commission, it appears the City has determined this to
be a major modification. AfO
I talked with Mr. Haag, of Planning and Zoning, and he
indicated the City plans to process this as a minor site plan
modification. This appears to be in conflict with what the City
Attorney has filed in court according to proper procedure as
written in the LOR.
I first requested to get a copy of the required determination
2 days ago. Doris of your office has told me that these documents
will not be made available to me until after 5 PM Friday.
Realistically, this means that I can not examine them until Monday,
since the City's offices close at 5 PM. The City Commission
meeting is on Tuesday leaving me with inadequate time to review
documents prior to the commission meeting.
I have requested to see these public records giving proper
notice, under reasonable conditions, and during regular working
hours. The Florida Statutes, Chapter 119, Public Records, 119.07,
Inspection, Examination and Duplication of Records, require the
City, as custodian to this public record, to allow me to examine
this material. If I am not provided the opportunity to review and
copy the administrative determination as I have requested, proper
legal action will immediately follow.
SJinc'~~lY~'f/tp"
; / I . . s
it'!; 'I. /,
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
MER/sm
copy: Reginald G. Stambaugh, Esquire
C:\WPDOCS\PUBRECRE
MARK E. ROBERTS, D.D.S.
1....[. 'n)'\~
i . !
; It \'
,u.
\ L
...----'!
!rJ ~ U r os r~"
P'~I~IW~U~O &
.,...._,..._~
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. - Suite #2 - Boynton Beach, FL 33426 -(407) 736-1700
January 4,1996
~. ( {' {/,,\
CCc/(~A (!~1~
Mr. Bill Huckill
Director of Development Department
City of Boynton Beach Building Department
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
RE: Building Permit #954541
Clear Copy Project,
660 West Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33426
Dear Mr. Huckill:
This letter is in response to the building permit issued on
December 14, 1995. On September 19, 1995 the City Commission
conditionally approved the site plan for "Clear Copy Project"
subjected to certain staff requirements. Before issuing this
building permit, it was mandatory for these requirements to be met.
A condition the City Commission mandated was to have a
satisfactory drainage plan. On October 11, 1995 Mr. Jim Duvall
of engineering met with me and we discussed errors relating to the
submi tted drainage plan. He subsequently signed the required
engineering approval for the building permit. He knew these errors
existed upon giving approval and that the site could never be
completed according to the provisions of the building codes and
conditions set by the City Commission.
I met with Mr. Al Newbold, Deputy Director of Development, on
January 3, 1996 to further discuss this issue. At our meeting he
informed me that he felt the building department had no
responsibility to assure that the conditions set by the Commission
were met. He would not discuss the issue, saying that the building
department doesn't have time to talk to neighbors about building
permit requirements and problems associated with them.
I believe the errors that exist in the drainage plan
contradict the conditions and intent upon which the building permit
was issued. It is the purpose of this letter to request that you
review the problems associated with the drainage plan. I feel that
you find the documentation submitted for the building permit was
indeed in error and the site will be unable to be constructed as
permitted. If so, then I would hope that you will make an
Administrative Determination to temporarily suspend the building
permit until correction of the errors. Construction began only two
days ago and I would like to see the city minimize its liability.
I look forward to hearing your decision as soon as possible.
SinC~~el0Y" .
/.'1 jt7 ,
//~itf/lt if /)p/s;.
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
MER/sm
Enclosure - pg 7.5-21 Land Developement Regulations, City of
Boynton Bea~h
Hand Delivered
cc: Mayor Taylor
City Commissioners
Carrie Parker, City Manager
Tambri Heyden, P & Z Dir.~
l"
l
U )
p
Art II, ~ 1 0
G b
1. ThtJ un:.l~""ful cons ~~ct ion, er-ec t:. ~n. recons t :"'..lC. :...cn,
alOer,:~on, rehab~lltatlon. expanslon. malntenance or
us'~ of. any building, struct.ure or parklng area, or
2. Th~ oclcupancy and/or use of such building, st.nv':.ure
or ~*king area, or
3. The illegal act, conduct, business of use of, 1;; or
about such premises.
D. Other administrative remedies; :Jul':'dlng tJer-TIlltS'i[;"
certificates of occupancy and use.
1. Issuance. No building permit or certificate of
occupancy and use shall be issued by the development
department for any purpose except in compliance W1C~
the provisions of this code and other applicabli
ordinances and laws, a decision of the planning and
development board or court decision.
2.'.~'h...!Re:Y;Q~.~_~Q~'P1e ..development: deparcment"may';revoke a
Q~A.,1..Q.in9"1permit. .or. cercificate of occupancy in ,those
cq.~jUi;J!!!/IiW.llf:tJ;~.administrative determination has been
d.ul}'fl&lad&ii,that...,false'.,~,~at.ement.s or mi Sl;ep,x:eaentat. ions.
exi.at.ed~r/aa-eo;)"mat.erial."fact (s) in the application or
pl'ans~pon~which ,;the';,permi t or.. approval., was based..
3 . Suspension.. "iI.P.C:u~~~ta.l.oprnent. department "may 'suspend ~a
buiW.d..U).g....pe.mj.."'",.QJ;,..,ce~tificate of . occupancy .. and,;, use..
'!~.f~~. '.!t~~~f~JiJY~. determinationAaEi4Q~eIl..,_g.uly
maae.. a.t.~..a.n.....erroro; or'''omission on either ..th.e part.. of
the,,,,permit..-a.ppl icant .or government 'agency-'existed in
tQ~...,),;jU~uafl:9"fi.qof the pennit or certificate approval.
A valid permit or certificate shall be issued in
place of the incorrect permit or certificate after
correction of the error or omission.
4. Notice and appeal. All development department
decisions concerning the issuance, revocation or
suspension of building permits and certificates of
occupancy shall be stated in official written notice
to the permit applicant. Any decision of an
administrative official may be appealed to planning
and development board within thirty (30) days c ,- the
action that the aggrieved party wishes to appea_.
Section 11. Appeals.
Appeals to the planning and development board may be taken by
any person aggrieved or by any officer or bureau of the governing
body of the city affected by a decision of the administrati'/e
official within thirty (30) days of such decision. There shall
be an application fee as adopted by resolution of the City
Commission for appeals.
Section 12. Certiorari review to circuit court.
Any party aggrieved by a decision of the planning and
development board concerning this article may seek review of said
.o.doptod .o.prl1 .. 1"5. Ordlnallce 0".0.
7.5-21
..Vl'.~
tJ~~?1( ~
Board of County Commissioners
Ken L. Foster, Chairman
Burt Aaronson, Vice Chairman
Karen T. Marcus
Carol A. Roberts
Warren H. Newell
Mary McCarty
Maude Ford Lee
County" -<iministrator
RobE::.. vVeisman
Department of Planning, Zoning & Buildin
City of Boynton Beach
City Hall:
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd,
Boynton Beach, FI 33435
Mr. Al Newbold
December 13, 1995
j) S "T3?'-~ I~i
GE:~ebf:: ~{ ,...
/A~(f1"IljV 3' i- :>9cJO
Gob f<---
Dear Mr. Newbold: (1 J.e ~? 1"l~f'J
.:>~
This letter is in reference to Clear Copy Inc. Clear Copy Inc.
was assessed impact fees based upon the fee schedule, however
they submitted a traffic study and filed a restrictive covenant
that restricts the use of that structure to be only a print shop.
Therefore, Clear Copy Inc. should be assessed road impact fees of
$4,180.00. plus the remaining aggregate impact fees. If you have
any questions please contact me.
Sincerely,
. / , tJ2 /7',/ /
Q:~IL ~ . V-l~M
Financial Analyst
Keith W. Hurbs
cc: Willie M. Swoope, Impact Fee Coordinator
'1 ~
\\JJ
\,i ,?:\ 6
Co~J~ / 'd \9
/\~o
.ry-. t ..~~
'~>G
\Z\ \1\C(c}
~O/~
/1-f.
~
"An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer"
@ printed on recycled pape'
100 Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 (407) 233-5000
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM # 95-410
FROM:
Jim cherof
City Attorney
Tambri J. Heyden ~tL
Planning and Zoning Director
TO:
DATE:
August 8, 1995
SUBJECT: CLEAR COPY - NWSP # 95-004
Effect of Substandard Perimeter Landscape Strip on
Adjacent Property
upon the Commission's July 18th, 1995 denial of the above-
referenced site plan, the applicant's request for reconsideration
and the City Manager's receipt of the attached letter from the
adjacent property owner, Dr. Roberts, the City Manager has asked
that I respond in writing to each of the points in Dr. Roberts'
letter.
With respect to Item 1 of Dr. Roberts' letter, I have obtained from
Al Newbold (see attached Building Division Memo # 95-267)
information regarding the circumstances behind the City having
finaled an inspection for a landscape strip that is I! feet wide,
rather than the required 2! feet wide, on Dr. Roberts' property and
adjacent to the Clear Copy site. I believe that although the tie-
in survey showed that the pavement was too close to the property
line to provide the required 2! feet wide landscape strip, it was
probably not thought to be of any consequence by the pavement
inspector, since the same person that does landscape inspections
does not check tie-in surveys. So, I don't believe the City caught
the error and only now has it been brought to light (although it
was Dr. Roberts himsel f that l:lrought it to my attention). It,
therefore, seems that the City cannot now expect Dr. Roberts to
remedy the error. However, must Clear Copy make up the difference
in width on the Clear Copy property? page 7.5-16 of the City of
Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations (Chapter 7.5, Article
II, Section 5.E.2 - attached) says that an applicant does not have
to comply with Section 5.E. (the requirement to install a 4-6 foot
tall hedge in a 2! foot wide strip along a common lot line), if a
hedge that meets Section 5. E. exists on the adj acent property.
Since the City is "accepting" Dr. Roberts' hedge as meeting Code,
it would seem that the City should not have Clear Copy make up the
difference in width.
As I will be on vacation the last two weeks of August, I only have
until August 17th to provide to Carrie a response on all Dr.
Roberts' issues. Therefore, please call me as soon as possible to
discuss this.
TJH:arw
Attachment
c:melJ.o410.tjh
~
MARK E. ROBERTS, D.D.S.
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. . Suite #2 . Boynton Beach. FL 33426 .(407) 736-1700
July 20,1995
fD) rn@rnowrnfnl
un -RJL 2 I 1995 ~
Hon. Carrie Parker
City Manager
City of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach City Ball
Boynton Beach, FL
PlANNING AND
ZONING DEPT. ~'-,
RE: Site Plan Application
Clear Copy, Inc. - NWSP #95-004
Dear Ms. Parker:
I am writing this letter in response to Mr. Gene Moore's
letter to you dated July 19,1995. As a businessman and owner of
the adjacent property to the project under consideration, I have
serious concern that the project as it now stands is an
inappropriate use of the site.
On July 18, the application for site plan approval was
denied. Several neighbors and myself attended the public hearing
to voice concerns about the proposed parking, position and size
of the building, and style of architecture (or lack of it). I
believe that the commission has worked diligently the past few
years to improve the appearance of the buildings within the city.
The city commissioners also denied the application because
the site plan does not comply with Land Development Regulations.
When the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of this
project they were not aware that there was noncompliance of the
required building codes. I believe that the denial qf the
application was rightly based on this additional information.
The pet! t!oner
However, I believe
variances in order
Development CQdes:
~ Article 1.S-16E. This article states that where parking
and~icular use abuts an existing hedge on an adjacent property
that meets requirements of the 2 1/2 feet hedge buffer, the
second property is said to also meet this requirement. It also
states that if the site abuts a property with a non-conforming
hedge buffer, the proposed site will have to make up the
believes that all ordinances have been met.
that there are five issues that require
for this project to comply with the Land
-' ._---_._-_...._"----,--_._~_.-.._----
difference and still meet the minimum combined 2 1/2 feet
requirement. This proposed site abuts a non-conforming hedge
buffer and should be required to add an additional 10 inches to the
existing non- complying buffer hedge as required by code to become
conforming. By providing this ten inches, this decreases the
required 27 feet of backup space to 26 feet 2 inches for 12 parking
spaces. Since this is not allowed by code because of a possible
safety hazard, a variance should be required of the applicant to
proceed with the project. Sealed surveys were presented to all
city commissioners verifying this fact.
2. Article 4-10T. This states that sidewalks shall be 5 feet
wide. At the southwest corner of the project, the site plan
indicates a sidewalk that narrows down to almost 2 feet at the
intersecting points of NW 7th Street and NW 1st Ave. If the
sidewalk remains a continuous 5 feet wide as required by code, then
not enough distance exists to allow for the closest parking space
and/or 5 feet hedge buffer zone. Eliminating this parking space
will leave this project with one too few parking spaces.
3. Article 9-11J. This states that buildings along Boynton
Beach Blvd., due to their high degree of visibility, shall not have
overhead doors on a building facade that faces a public or private
street. This proposed building does have an overhead door that
faces NW 1st Ave. and could easily be seen from NW 7th Street.
This does not meet the required Land Development Regulations thus
requiring a variance to build as submitted per requested plans.
4. Chapter 23 Article 2H3 states that parking lot driveways
shall be constructed at least 180 feet from the intersection of the
right of way lines along streets of higher classification. Since
the proposed driveway is only approximately 65 feet from the
intersection to Boynton Beach Blvd., to proceed would require a
variance. The Engineering opinion from memo #95-156, dated May
15,1995 to the Planing and Zoning director, clearly states their
position is that this property requires a variance.
5. The lighting design submitted for site plan approval will
not permit the required backup space for one parking space. The
light fixture pole locations are indicat.ed on the engineering
drawing, but are inadvertently left off the master site plan.
Placing the poles at the indicated locations on the engineering
drawing encroaches on the required 27 feet of unobstructed backup
space for a parking space. Placing this light pole at the
indicated position would require a variance because it eliminates
the required backup space needed.
Mr. Moore stated in his letter that his client was denied the
opportuni ty to speak at the public hearing. This is just not
accurate. I did not see his client at the public hearing. If he
had attended the meeting, he could have taken the opportunity to
address these issues as everyone else did.
2
...~~-_.._,,---_._.- ~ --~---~--_.-
For the petitioner to threaten to file a law suit against the
city for injunctive relief and compensatory damages without
conforming to the required Land Development Regulations is
nonproductive. Be should revise his site plan proposal and/or file
variances where required.
I would like Staff to review the aforementioned items that I
feel are in non-compliance with the Building Regulations. If the
city knowingly approves this project without requiring variances
then the city may be leaving themselves open for a possible
conflict.
Si~JIM~
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
MER/sm
cc: Mayor Taylor
City Commissioners
James Cherof, City Attorney
Tambri Heyden, P & z Dir. ~
3
----------- --_.-,----,------------"----_.--- ~..-
.'
.
.
.
Art. II, 55
right-of~way, excluding dedicated alleys to the rear of
building, there shall be provided landscaping between
such area and such right-of-way as follows:
1. A strip of land at least five (5) feet in width
located between the abutting right-of-way and the
off-street parking area or other vehicular use area
which is exposed to an abutting right-of-way shall be
landscaped, such landscaping is to include a minimum
of one tree for each forty (40) lineal feet or
fraction thereof. Such trees shall be located
between the abutting right-of-way and off-street
parking area or other vehicular use area and shall be
planted i~ a planting area of at least twenty-five
(25) square feet with a dimension of at least five
(5) feet. In addition, a hedge, wall, or other
durable landscape barrier of at least three (3) feet
in height shall be placed along only the interior
perimeter of such landscaped strip. If such durable
barrier is of nonliving material, for each ten (10)
feet thereof, one shrub or vine shall be planted
abutting such barrier along the street side of such
barrier. The remainder of the required landscaped
areas shall be landscaped with grass ground cover or
other landscape treatment.
.,- E. Perimeter landscaping relating to abutting properties.
On the site of a building or structure or open lot use
providing an off-street parking area o~ other vehicular
use area, such area shall be provided with a landscaped
barrier, preferably a hedge not less than four (4) feet
nor great.er than six (6) feet in height to form a
continuous screen between the off-street parking area or
other vehicular use area and such abutting property.
Such landscape barrier shall be located between the
common lot line and the off-street parking area or other
vehieular use area in a planting strip of not less than
two and one-half (2 1/2) feet in width. The provisions
of this subsection shall not be applicable in the
following situations:
1. When a property line abuts a dedicated alley.
2 . Where a proposed parking area or other vehicular use
area abuts an existing hedge, said existing hedge may
be used to satisfy the landscape requirements of this
subsection provided that said existing hedge meets
all applicable standards of this article.
-
F. Accessways. The maximum width of an accessway (whether
one- or two-way traffic) through the required perimeter
landscape 8trip to an off-8treet parking or other
vehicular use area shall be thirty-five (35) feet. The
balance of such street frontage not involved with
Adopted April 4, 1"', OrdiDeDce 0"-02
.evi.ed
7.5-16
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-267
July 31, 1995
TO:
William V. Hukill, P.E.
Department of Development Director
FROM:
Al Newbold
Deputy Building Official
DR. ROBERTS' S MEDICAL OPP'ICB BUILDING -
LANDSCAPING DISCREPANCY
RE:
In order to assist you in your response to Tambri Heyden's
memorandum 95-383, I researched the files and offer the following
facts and comments:
The Technical Review Board (TRB) plans were signed off by Don
Jaeger during his tenure as the department's representative. The
building plans were reviewed by Michael Haag and ultimately
signed off by Warren DeLoach in Mr. Haag's absence in 1989. My
review shows the building plans match the TRB plans and those
that were reviewed by the Community Appearance Board. All plans
show a 2*' setback for the extreme western section of the
property adjacent to the parking lot.
During this era, Mr. Jaeger then became Building Official and Mr.
Haag was appointed in charge of site review which was handled by
this department during that time. Site plan approval permit 88-
0873 was generated to track the site plan process for all site
improvements and administered by the Site Development Division of
the Building Department under Mr. Haag's supervision. The
project has been completed and all paperwork is on microfilm.
Therefore, all original documents are no longer available.
Attached are copies of the site plan and the tie-in survey along
with a print-out of the inspection history. From my observation
of the tie-in survey, the paving appears to be 1.58' from the
west property line and not 2*' as shown on the building plans. I
would assume that the survey is correct in that it has a
certification date showing August 23, 1989 and I found that the
paving was approved August 18, 1989 by Roger Kuver, former
Engineering Inspector who is now with the Utilities Department.
From that same survey, it appears that the building is in the
correct location and it would be fair to assume that the only
problem is with the size of the paved area. I found no
documentation in the file giving any explanation, etc. as to any
resolution from the narrow landscape strip or whether it ever
became an issue.
Building Division Memo 95-267 to William V. Hukill, P.E.
RE: Dr. Roberts' Medical Office Building
July 31, 1995
Page Two
Our records do show that the CAB inspection was made by Med
Kopczynski who was the former Deputy Building Official and
appointed to handle CAB inspections by Mr. Jaeger when he became
Building Official. That inspection was approved August 25, 1989.
I can only assume that the proper position to take would have
been to cut off the additional paving to comply with the 30n
landscape strip. It could have been assumed that it was not
necessary since we did then, and do now, allow bumper stops to
set back on paved areas less than the code requires so that the
bumpers overhang the landscape strip. I see no reason why this
would be an issue, especially as it relates to the adjacent
property since our code also exempts landscaping on property that
already has existing landscaping. My interpretation of the code
is that the landscaping strip itself has a dimension requirement
and the code specifies what must be located within that strip but
not necessarily that the plantings must be as wide as the strip.
It should be our position that the neighboring property owner
should not be penalized for the paving OD Dr. Roberts' property
being closer to his property line than what was permitted.
If any controversy arose during the construction of Dr. Roberts'
permits, Mr. Haag could shed some light on it since he was
involved in the site plan process and the final site approval was
signed by him on November 19, 1991.
AN: bh
Attachments
lIo.saTS
G E 0 R G E C. D A V I S
.5l{,c/u:tect
Member of
The American Institut.
of ArchiteCts
1100 SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33435
P. O. BOX 1000. Phone 732.6154
oom
rn 0 \Vi rn
00
U - 4 19!1)
August 3, 1995
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
t-
Bob Feldman
Clear Copy, Inc.
211 South Federal Highway
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
Dear Bob,
Responding to your telephone call yesterday, here are my comments regarding
Mark Roberts' letter to Carrie Parker:
Item 1: The hedge buffer is nonconforming because it falls 10" short of the code
specified width. The intent of the ordinance is to require an acceptable degree of density
in a hedge between two parking lots.
Item 2: The sidewalk can be constructed to the required width without reducing
the parking area. See attached sketch.
Item 3: The overhead doors may be replaced by a pair of side-hinged swinging
doors.
Item 4: The parking area, now with two driveways, was changed as recommend
by the engineering department, from the original having only one entry/exit on N.W. 7th
Street. In their comments to the planning and zoning board, engineering asks for
clarification of the 180' dimension policy.
Item 5: The light pole in question will be relocated to the green area at the south-
west comer of the property and will not interfere with car parking. The engineered plan
that we submitted was made using the original parking lot layout with one entry/exit on
N.W. 7th Street.
As far as general appearances go, I believe the site is zoned C-2 where there is a
twenty-five foot building height limit. The mofis shown as high as it is legal to build.
Louvered shutters can be added on the south side. Arched windows may help a little, but
because of the height restriction, they will still be of conventional ~ 'oppftions.
I .
I
Si erely,
/
Ge~
GCD/bad
------------~--~--------~-~..._----------_.,------ ._._~._._..,--------,--
MA1LING ADD1lESS
P.O. BOX 910
BOYNTON BEAOl. FLORIDA 3~
GENE MOORE
LAWYER
':JURIS DOC1Oa"
VIII. DEVELOPMENT PLANS
C
cc: Planning
Development
09
~
TELEPHONE: 407-734-241"
IELECOPlER: 407-734-24_
EXECUI1VE STAFF
ARLENE V. MARSH
BARBAllA A. RANTA
DEBORAH M. AIIHOUSE
ANDREA CASTILID
July 21, 1995
Hon. Carrie Parker
City Manager
City of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach City Hall
Re: Site Plan Application
Clear Copy, Inc. - NWSP #95-004
Dear Ms. Parker:
Commissioner Bradley has indicated that, as a member of the prevailing side
ot the above captioned matter, he will request from your office to place this
matter on an early agenda for reconsideration. I will no eturnf~omlreland
until August 16th, so I presuma that the earliest ssion meeting will' be
on September 5th. Please confirm.
GM/ac
i 'I~ 'lS (0 ..
~ ~ !irl <
'~[7~C-~;~_
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
cc: Steve Feldman
RECEIVED
JUL 21 \995
CITY MANAGER'S OFfICE
-
........,. -
MARK E. ROBERTS, D.D.S.
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. . Suite #2 . Boynton Bea:h, FL 33426 .(407) 736-1700
RE: Site Plan Application
Clear Copy, Inc. - NWSP #95-004
July 20,1995
Hon. Carrie Parker
City Manager
City of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach City Hall
Boynton Beach, FL
Dear Ms. Parker:
I am writing this letter in response to Mr. Gene Moore's
letter .to you dated July 19,1995. As a businessman and owner of
the adjacent property to the project under consideration, I have
serious concern that the project as it now stands is an
inappropriate use of the site.
On July 18, the application for site plan approval was
denied. Several neighbors and myself attended the public hearing
to voice concerns about the proposed parking, position and size
of the building, and style of architecture (or lack of it). I
believe that the commission has worked diligently the past few
years to improve the appearance of the buildings within the city.
The city conmdssioners also denied the application because
the site plan does not comply with Land Development Regulations.
When the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of this
project they were not aware that there was noncompliance of the
required building codes. I believe that the denial qf the
application was rightly based on this additional information.
The petitioner
However, I believe
variances in order
Development Codes:
1. Article 7.5-16E. This article states that where parking
and vehicular use abuts an existing hedge on an adjacent property
that meets requirements of the 2 1/2 feet hedge buffer, the
second property is said to also meet this requirement. It also
states that if the site abuts a property with a non-conforming
hedge buffer, the proposed site will have to make up the
believes that all ordinances have been met.
that there are five issues that require
for this project to comply with the Land
difference and still meet the minimum combined 2 1/2 feet
requirement. This proposed site abuts a non-conforming hedge
buffer and should be required to add an additional 10 inches to the
existing non- complying buffer hedge as required by code to become
conforming. By providing this ten inches, this decreases the
required 27 feet of backup space to 26 feet 2 inches for 12 parking
spaces. Since this is not allowed by code because of a possible
safety hazard, a variance should be required of the applicant to
proceed with the project. Sealed surveys were presented to all
city commissioners verifying this fact.
2. Article 4-10T. This states that sidewalks shall be 5 feet
wide. At the southwest corner of the project, the site plan
indicates a sidewalk that narrows down to almost 2 feet at the
intersecting points of NW 7th Street and NW 1st Ave. If the
sidewalk remains a continuous 5 feet wide as required by code, then
not enough distance exists to allow for the closest parking space
and/or 5 feet hedge buffer zone. Eliminating this parking space
will leave this project with one too few parking spaces.
3. Article 9-11J. This states that buildings along Boynton
Beach Blvd., due to their high degree of visibility, shall not have
overhead doors on a building facade that faces a public or private
street. This proposed building does have an overhead door that
faces NW 1st Ave. and could easily be seen from NW 7th Street.
This does not meet the required Land Development Regulations thus
requiring a variance to build as submitted per requested plans.
4. Chapter 23 Article 2H3 states that parking lot driveways
shall be constructed at least 180 feet from the intersection of the
right of way lines along streets of higher classification. Since
the proposed driveway is only approximately 65 feet from the
intersection to Boynton Beach Blvd., to proceed would require a
variance. The Engineering opinion from memo #95-156, dated May
15,1995 to the Planing and Zoning director, clearly states their
position is that this property requires a variance.
5. The lighting design submitted for site plan approval will
not permit the required backup space for one parking space. The
light fixture pole locations are indicated on the engineering
drawing, but are inadvertently left off the master site plan.
Placing the poles at the indicated locations on the engineering
drawing encroaches on the required 27 feet of unobstructed backup
space for a parking space. Placing this light pole at the
indicated position would require a variance because it eliminates
the required backup space needed.
Mr. Moore stated in his letter that his client was denied the
opportuni ty to speak at the public hearing. This is just not
accurate. I did not see his client at the public hearing. If he
had attended the meeting, he could have taken the opportunity to
address these issues as everyone else did.
2
~..
For the petitioner to threaten to file a law suit against the
city for injunctive relief and compensatory damages without
conforming to the required Land Development Regulations is
nonproductive. He should revise his site plan proposal and/or file
variances where required.
I would like Staff to review the aforementioned items that I
feel are in non-compliance with the Building Regulations. If the
city knowingly approves this project without requiring variances
then the city may be leaving themselves open for a possible
conflict.
Si~4M~
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
MER/sm
cc: Mayor Taylor
City Commissioners
James Cherof, City Attorney
Tambri Heyden, P & Z Dir. Y"".
3
--
/ Ir"'" t3/'Z..! ,
//~.., 5/'J.EdfrllJt-4.J~/../~-
ct-; A S
If ::liP~f,V4t.~; &X.IJ"'"u" lP;rlJ
1")J/: ~lVod'-:~ btU 1JJ6.t.vC.,sJ
J..o- .
SIP&.. Sit)~W~;J12S ed.
~~/~S K~.N~~
5,-re- r.::" b ;./r; J./b f?r;i..f' -
~<:~
I..- .
t..a C,4';-'.;t., / S htJ ~
::;.~....uv ~.u j1Je S-,1't:- P6fN.
U/1: k'/l6,v Si~ ,tJt.-s,
w ~ ;"l't/ ss s:;;r:
--'-
~ \'> ~ \1\' "'- ~ .
~~ ~~_~,,' l t ~~ 0; t-
~4- ~ ~ · t-:;" ~.... "-
~ I' ....... \;' ::- '\. ......:: ~L ~ ?: ~)
- , ?,l
~ ~ '\ '" ~ . ~, ~
~ ~ ~ 1 ~, ~ ,,-' ,,~- \ 't.. ~ ~,,~ ~
_~ ~\ ">' <.....f )~ '~'l-:':' t ,.,l. · \.;; ~ ..~ ?:J
.... ,- ,,~ ~ \ \ \ ~ \ - . j ~
. ,~' . v, ~ . ~. ·
. ~__ " ", '.... ~ '3.~ &: \-\. ~'
;1~ t ~ ~t~~:, F~~* ~ ~ ~ ~ 'e'
~ \ .~r:::cJ~ ~t,~ ~.~ ' 3- " :_--,
, ' " ~ ._______.-.----------''0-"
"\' "- *r ,'.. ,~< ...'::; ~o ~'; -. V) ~ r- -K 1 ~
~ ~i ~ .~. ."".' < ~~ -n ~ t ~ <. ~
.... . "'" ~ 't- ~~ '" ~ 0 ";0 ,.," ~ ' ,
~ ~~~~.' ~\l .: -~l~,~ ~. ~ ~ ~. ~'~ \
~ ~ .. ~' '" " ~~t>. ~ ~ . ~ 't-;: (:.
~_~.. ,~,,,,,,~, .". ~. c~ .." .~
f'~ , ';t ~ 0" 'j' f. ~:, 0 ':!. -I -'- ~ ~."<""',
_ ..' 0 . '" 0 ~ ~ ....... r-. --...:""
N .s.> " ' c " ..' '" ':;. ,""....' ,., .... '..:
\~~ . , ~ f ~"!,', .~'t .:t r-.., ~ i
,t : t .' 1t~ . ~~. .~~ ~ ~ ..to.
1 ~ " '. , ...",of t... . ,l\. . 1> - . '\1\\\ (' 'if
t'i .. t:..}i? ~ ~.~ \ ,,~ ·
1,. \~k ~f ~ 'f.. ~ ~ \ il'-' ~ t I'~-~--,,"
~ .,. ------
~- ...--...-----..--------
t
.. .' ',---..i \ \
r \, ~
""'-- ~- ,\ \
.
".'
._~
".-
-",.:f;,...
~~ -":;.:_~-
~ ~.
'\ .....::: .
"'t,
~ , . ,:..).., .' '.. ;,.._1.>~"r.;:....-.
-
---.
" \. ..
.. '"-'
~!\
'- I
,
t<~_\
MARK E. ROBERTS, D.D.S.
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. - Suite #2 - Boynton Beach. FL 33426 -(407) 736-1700
July 20,1995
Hon. Carrie Parker
City Manager
City of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach City Hall
Boynton Beach, FL
RE: Site Plan Application
Clear Copy, Inc. - NWSP #95-004
Dear Ms. Parker:
I am writing this letter in response to Mr. Gene Moore's
letter to you dated July 19,1995. As a businessman and owner of
the adjacent property to the project under consideration, I have
serious concern that the project as it now stands is an
inappropriate use of the site.
On July 18, the application for site plan approval was
denied. Several neighbors and myself attended the public hearing
to voice concerns about the proposed parking, position and size
of the building, and style of architecture (or lack of it). I
believe that the commission has worked diligently the past few
years to improve the appearance of the buildings within the city.
The city commissioners also denied the application because
the site plan does not comply with Land Development Regulations.
When the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of this
project they were not aware that there was noncompliance of the
required building codes. I believe that the denial of the
application was rightly based on this additional information.
The petitioner
However, I believe
variances in order
Development Codes:
believes that all ordinances have been met.
that there are five issues that require
for this project to comply with the Land
1. Article 7.5-16E. This article states that where parking
and vehicular use abuts an existing hedge on an adjacent property
that meets requirements of the 2 1/2 feet hedge buffer, the
second property is said to also meet this requirement. It also
states that if the site abuts a property with a non-conforming
hedge buffer, the proposed site will have to make up the
RECEIVED
JUl 21 \995
erN MANAGER'S OFfICE
difference and still meet the minimum combined 2 1/2 feet
requirement. This proposed site abuts a non-conforming hedge
buffer and should be required to add an additional 10 inches to the
existing non- complying buffer hedge as required by code to become
conforming. By providing this ten inches, this decreases the
required 27 feet of backup space to 26 feet 2 inches for 12 parking
spaces. Since this is not allowed by code because of a possible
safety hazard, a variance should be required of the applicant to
proceed with the project. Sealed surveys were presented to all
city commissioners verifying this fact.
2. Article 4-10T. This states that sidewalks shall be 5 feet
wide. At the southwest corner of the project, the site plan
indicates a sidewalk that narrows down to almost 2 feet at the
intersecting points of NW 7th Street and NW 1st Ave. If the
sidewalk remains a continuous 5 feet wide as required by code, then
not enough distance exists to allow for the closest parking space
and/or 5 feet hedge buffer zone. Eliminating this parking space
will leave this project with one too few parking spaces.
3. Article 9-11J. This states that buildings along Boynton
Beach Blvd., due to their high degree of visibility, shall not have
overhead doors on a building facade that faces a public or private
street. This proposed building does have an overhead door that
faces NW 1st Ave. and could easily be seen from NW 7th Street.
This does not meet the required Land Development Regulations thus
requiring a variance to build as submitted per requested plans.
4. Chapter 23 Article 2H3 states that parking lot driveways
shall be constructed at least 180 feet from the intersection of the
right of way lines along streets of higher classification. Since
the proposed driveway is only approximately 65 feet from the
intersection to Boynton Beach Blvd., to proceed would require a
variance. The Engineering opinion from memo #95-156, dated May
15,1995 to the Planing and Zoning director, clearly states their
position is that this property requires a variance.
5. The lighting design submitted for site plan approval will
not permit the required backup space for one parking space. The
light fixture pole locations are indicated on the engineering
drawing, but are inadvertently left off the master site plan.
Placing the poles at the indicated locations on the engineering.
drawing encroaches on the required 27 feet of unobstructed backup
space for a parking space. Placing this light pole at the
indicated position would require a variance because it eliminates
the required backup space needed.
Mr. Moore stated in his letter that his client was denied the
opportunity to speak at the public hearing. This is just not
accurate. I did not see his client at the public hearing. If he
had attended the meeting, he could have taken the opportunity to
address these issues as every one else did.
2
For the petitioner to threaten to file a law suit against the
city for injunctive relief and compensatory damages without
conforming to the required Land Development Regulations is
nonproductive. He should revise his site plan proposal and/or file
variances where required.
I would like Staff to review the aforementioned items that I
feel are in non-compliance with the Building Regulations. If the
city knowingly approves this project without requiring variances
then the ci ty may be leaving themsel ves open for a possible
conflict.
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
MER/ sm
cc: Mayor Taylor
City Commissioners
James Cherof, City Attorney
Tambri Heyden, P & Z Dir.
3
lJ :~~, ~'. ' l
MAIUNG ADDRESS
P.O. BOX 910
BOYNIDN BEACH, FLORIDA 334n-910
GENE MOORE
LAWYER
"JURIS DOC1OR"
OFFICE LOCATION
FIRST FINANCIAL PLAZA, SUITE 409
639 EAST OCEAN AVENUE
BOYN1ON BEACH, FLORIDA 3343'
TELEPHONE: 407-734-2424
TELECOPIER: 407-734-2497
EXECUTIVE STAFF
ARLENE V. MARSH
BARBARA A. RANTA
DEBORAH M. AInlOUSE
ANDREA CASTIllO
July 19, 1995
oorn
~nw~rn,1
.u. 20!!Hi W
~, '.,,~~-
Hon. Carrie Parker
City Manager
City of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach City Hall
Boynton Beach, FL
~_- Re:
Site Plan Application
Clear Copy, Inc. - NWSP #95-004
~s. Parker:
My office represents Clear Copy, Inc., in connection with their above appli-
cation for site plan approval.
It is my understanding that Staff, and the Planning and Zoning Board, recom-
mended approval of this request, subject to Staff comments, all of which
were agreed to by my client. It is my further understanding that at last
night's City Commission meeting, the application was denied by a 3 - 2 vote,
basically upon the ground that the majority of the Commission did not like
the looks of the building, and that its location on the applicant's lot
might block the view of the existing building on the adjacent property to
the east, owned by Dr. Roberts (the son of County Commissioner Roberts).
Kindly govern yourself accordingly.
This letter will serve as formal notice that unless this matter is re-
considered at the next Commission meeting, and favorable approval granted,
that suit for injunctive relief and compensatory damages will be filed
against the City. It is my further understanding that my client was denied
the opportunity of speaking at the public hearing. ~
:-;:?
~~
GM/avm
C-----'
Gene Moore
cc: George Davis
Steve Feldman
Tambri Heyden
Mayor Taylor
City Commissioners
/
te, Gr
!
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-357
TO: Carrie Parker
City Manager
FROM: Tambri Heyden'- jlt:~#
Planning and Zoning Director
DATE: July 13, 1995
SUBJECT: Copies of Development Plan of Current Projects
Scheduled for Review by the City Commission at the July
18, 1995 City Commission Meeting
Please find attached five (5) sets of plans for the following
current development projects:
(
New Site Plan ~ clear Copy )
....... ...,/
Major Site Plan Modification - Papa John's
Conditional Use Approval - Taco Bell
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: jms
Attachments
c:trsmtcc.351
G E 0 R G E C. 0 A V I S
fD) rn@rnowmfij)
G~ JUN - 9 19m ~
j
! PLANNING AND
L-_ ZONING DEPT. ~
June 9, 1995
Tambri 1. Heyden
Planning and Zoning
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
re: File NWSP 95-004
Dear Ms, Heyden,
..7{rckitect
Member of
TM American. 111.Stitute
of Architecu
1100 SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY. BOYNTON BEACH. FLORIDA 33435
P. O. BOX 1000. Phone 732-6154
Reference the amended plans, above file number, this letter is to advise you that although
the parking lot has been re-arranged, there is little or no adjustment to be made to numbers
submitted on original application.
GCD/bad
Smc ~~~
George C. Davis
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
~-
JUNE 8, 1995
TO MICHAEL HAAG
PLANNING AND ZONING
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FL
DEAR MR. HAAG
ONCE A DAY USUALLY AT NOON WE SEND OUR DELIVERY BOY OUT IN OUR VAN TO
MAKE THE DELIVERIES. WE RECEIVE PAPER THREE TO FOUR TIMES A WEEK FOR
OUR COMPANY. UPS TRUCK STOPS EVERY DAY, OTHER THAN THAT OUR TRAFFIC
IS RETAIL.
MOST OF OUR CUSTOMERS ARE COUNTRY CLUBS, SO WE PICK UP AND DELIVER TO
THEM.
SINCERELY,
yt~;:J
BOB FELDMAN
211 South Federal Hlahway / Bo~nton Beach.. Florida 33435/407-369-3900/ Fax 407-369-3907
fJJie City of
r.Boynton r.Beacfi
100 'E. t.Boynton t.Buu/i t.Boukvara
P.o. t.BO;l(310
t.Boynton t.Buu/i, 7'Corida 33425-0310
City 1IaU: (407) 375-6000
7'JU: (407) 375-6090
May 3D, 1995
George C. Davis
1100 S. Federal Highway, Suite 3
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
RE: Initial Review Comments - Clear Copy, Inc.
File No. NWSP-95-004
Dear Davis:
The City of Boynton Beach has completed its first review of the
documents submitted for the above-referenced proj ect. Attached are
comments made by the reviewing departments during their initial
review of your project.
In order to complete the review process, the site plan and
documents must be amended to comply with these comments within 90
days of the date of this letter. (If amended plans are not
submitted in 90 days, a new application fee will be required.)
When there are comments made by the reviewers that you feel are not
applicable to the approval of the project or will be addressed
separately and you have not amended the plans to comply with the
comment(s), you must prepare written explanation for each comment
stating why the comment is not applicable and return the
explanation with the amended plans and documents.
After amendinQ the plans and documents, please submit twelve (12)
complete sets (including surveys) of the plans to the Planning and
Zoning Department. When the amended plans and documents have been
submi tted to the Planning and Zoning Department, they will be
distributed to the reviewing departments for second review and
recommendation to the appropriate boards for approval or denial
(see attached meeting schedule) . A recommendation for denial will
be made if there are major comments that have not been addressed on
the resubmitted plans.
We have also enclosed for your convenience an approval schedule and
a checklist that contains information regarding the second
submission of the plans and documents for review.
51 1TU rica 's fjateway to tlU fjulfstream
Page 2
Site Plan Review - 1st Review
clear Copy/ Inc.
File No.: NWSP 95-004
If you should have any questions regarding the comments or the
approval schedule, please feel free to call Michael E. Haag, who is
coordinating the review of your site plan for the Planning and
Zoning Department.
v~e:Y~lY yours,
/) tt
. foF-
T i J. Heyden
planning and Zoning Director
TJH:dim
Atts.
A:18tComlt.Cle/T~C
, The Ci-ry of ---
Boynto~ Beach
....A~
{~./ ~'iN}~~~~
I" ... ~
I . t1l
lO 'I] 'ffJ
7< ,"'~"'~
'<:) ~-!: .~<~,J
0JJIett oj 1M city Attorney
100 E. BOJ"'fo.. Bem:It Bo"lnllnl
P.O. B~ 310
BOJ"'to.. Bem:It. Florida U425-0310
(407) 375-6050
FAX: (407) 375-6011
February 15, 1995
Reginald G. Stambaugh, Esq.
Miller & Woods, P .A.
1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 860
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Re: Clear Copy Project
Dear Mr. Stambaugh:
Your client's letter of February 15th to Tambri Heyden has been referred to me
for a response. The City will continue to monitor this project consistent with current
policies.
Very truly yours,
~ aWM(;~
James A. Cherof
City Attorney
JAC/ral
co: Tambri Heyden, Planning Director
AmerledB Gateway fD the Gulfttt'eam
MARK E. ROBERTS, D.D.S.
r[:~'\ p- ~ ~ n w rn ill
'I",r q
I.UUI cco 1 5 ~ \
! l 1
) PLANNING AND
Ze~mlC Q~Pl
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. - Suite #2 - Boynton Beach, FL 33426 -(407) 736-=1700
February 15, 1996
Re: Clear Copy Project
660 West Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, Florida 33426
-CC;~-I --
...-r/ .<~', . f 1 1')-,
!<~>,' ~ :~"\}:~ ,:_~./.?\v
/6 ~'..t\:t.d:~ ,'.' \~
~~--{ Frs 1~ 109G F
\ -:\ CiTV ("if F'~','l,.,:rf'~\ ,. .
$'\ " 6r~r.:~~' L~/\
\/\ N"?~H":'C ./..7
'\,-, " <9"/
'" /<;/
I .: f :--"C, \ ')/
.,,<..lJ_~_~/'
Ms. Tambri Heyden
Director Planning and Zoning
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Dear Ms. Heyden:
At the September 19, 1995 City Commission Meeting you stated
that if the required yet unsubmitted Engineering Plans resulted in
condi tions requiring variances of the Land Development Regulations,
they would be required. I sent letters to the Development
Department and Code Enforcement Department stating the need of
these variances and other violations to meet Land Development
Regulations but no action has been taken to initiate application
for variances.
I feel it is the responsibility of your department to address
the issues of code violations that require variances. I have
attached a non-conclusive list of code violations the Clear Copy
Project has with City ordinances. Also enclosed is a copy of a
letter from Gee and Jenson, Engineers-Architects-Planners, Inc.
signed by Harold T. Benoit, Jr., P.E. addressing many same problems
and violations I addressed in my list.
This letter shall act as a formal complaint of the ongoing
code violations occurring with the construction of the Clear Copy
Project. I request that your department initiate appropriate
action requiring the Clear Copy Project to obtain variances where
appropriate and require necessary remedies to conform with the Land
Development Regulations. Please inform me of your intended course
of action.
Si~y, Ii
(/ ; !1ii!lid /1/;
Mark E. Roberts. D.D.S.
MER/sm
Hand Delivered
Enclosures
Copy: Reginald Stambaugh, Esquire
C:\WPDOCS\VARIANCE
Listed below are areas of non-compliance of the City's Land
Development Regulations by the Clear Copy Project that I feel
should be addressed by the Code Enforcement Board:
1. Condition of Land Development Regulations to obtain
Environmental Permit prior to issuing the building permit has not
been met.
2. Condition of Land Development Regulations to obtain a certified
statement of conformance with Chapter 22, Streets and Sidewalks
prior to issuing paving/drainage permit has not been met.
3. City Commission requirement of conditional site plan approval
requiring certification that sidewalk could be built to required
codes has not been met. It is impossible to meet this requirement
(Certified survey submitted Richard L. Shepard, and Associates) and
building permit should be revoked until this condition is met.
4. Although the engineering required to receive all building
permi ts (building, paving/drainage, and landscape) was submitted as
a condition of the site plan approval, they are not satisfactory,
and contain many errors and/or misrepresentations (Gee and Jenson
letter dated January 24, 1996).
5. The landscape strip shown on approved plan of neighboring
property is 10 inches less than the 30 inches required, therefore
a landscape strip on this property is required. Note that on the
plan it states that the City will verify that an existing hedge
meets minimum City requirements.
6. The landscape strip that is required does not have the required
30 inches available within the 50 feet wide property, therefore a
variance is required to reduce the backup area to 24.5 feet from
the required 27 feet.
7. The minimum required parking lot improvements are: a 5 feet
landscape area, 18 feet parking space, 27 feet of backup area, 6
inch wide curb, and 2.5 feet interior landscape strip. This equals
53 feet. The survey indicates the property is only 50 feet wide.
A variance is required for the 6 inch curb, in addition to above
mentioned landscape strip, to reduce the backup area to 24 feet.
This is three feet narrower than the required minimum backup space.
8. According to Gee and Jenson Engineers, Architects, Planners,
Inc. (hereafter referred as Gee and Jenson), the required landscape
hedge will not be able to be installed on such a severe slope as
shown on the plans. It is their opinion that the required
landscape strip will have to have a retaining wall installed. This
will reduce the required 5 feet of landscape strip to 4.33 feet,
thus requiring a variance (Gee and Jenson Exhibit III).
9. The contractor's plans indicate a buffer of only 4.88 feet
adjacent to the N.W. 1st Ave right-of-way, thus requiring a
variance to be obtained. Gee and Jenson feel a retaining wall is
appropriate due to the slope severity. This will further reduce
the landscape strip to 4 feet 2 inches. Since 5 feet is required
by Land Development Regulations, a variance is required.
10. Adjacent to the handicap parking space adjacent N. W. 7th
Street a required 6 inch curb has been left off the approved site
plan. This will reduce the required 5 feet of landscape strip to
4.5 feet. This requires a variance.
11. According to Gee and Jenson, the resulting backslope within
the above mentioned 4.5 feet landscape area will make it difficult
if not impossible to plant and maintain the required landscaping.
In addition, a potential safety hazard will be created (Gee and
Jenson, Exhibit II).
12. The Land Development Regulations state, "The area of property
located at the corner formed by the intersection of two or more
right-of-ways always shall create a visible site triangle 35 feet
as measured along the two abutting right-of-way lines. Landscaping
installed in this zone shall provide for unobstructed cross
visibili ty at a level between 30 inches and 6 feet." Gee and
Jenson opinion that the submitted elevations on approved site plan
will cause the required landscaping to encroach into the required
unobstructed visual area. In addition to creating the potential of
a safety hazard by not meeting the vertical zone requirement, a
variance is required.
13. Per Chapter 4, Section 8.C.5 safe and efficient access to the
proposed development shall be provided for emergency and service
vehicles. Gee and Jenson have indicated a service vehicle (garbage
truck) cannot by means of lawful ingress/egress navigate the
parking lot without traversing through designated parking spaces or
over planted areas to access the dumpster or recycle containment
areas (Gee and Jenson Exhibit V). In addition to creating the
potential for this property to collect onsite garbage due
unavailable garbage pickup, thereby creating a health hazard, a
variance is required since this condition is in conflict with the
Land Development Regulations.
14. The Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances, Article II.
Refuse, Garbage and Trash, state "Containerized refuse service
shall be carried out by the city at commercial or multifamily
residential establishments in the promotion of improved sanitary
condi tions for the prevention of health hazard." Al though the
Public Works Director has proposed curbside pickup of
noncontainerized pickup and 90 gal recyclable containers, this is
contrary to the provisions of the above cited ordinance. It is
impossible for the approved site plan to provide access of the
City's garbage truck or recycling garbage truck for the required
containerized refuse service (Gee and Jenson, Exhibit V).
15. Per Chapter 4, Section 8.C.5 safe and efficient access to the
proposed development shall be provided for emergency and service
vehicles. Gee and Jenson indicate that the fire department
vehicles cannot by lawful ingress/egress navigate the site without
traversing through designated parking spaces or over the planted
areas to approach the proposed building (Gee and Jenson Exhibit
VI) .
16. Gee and Jenson indicate that it is doubtful that some delivery
vehicles by means of lawful ingress/egress will be able to service
the site without encroaching into the designated planting areas.
17. Per Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 10.T sidewalks shall be a
minimum 4 feet wide within local streets right-of-ways. It is Gee
and Jenson's opinion that the required 4 feet minimum sidewalk
cannot be maintained at the southwest corner of the site at the
intersection of N.W. 7th Street and N.W. 1st Ave (Gee and Jenson
Exhibit VII). The resulting drop curb at this intersection will
result in an unsafe condition requiring pedestrian traffic to enter
the street in order to turn the corner. In addition, a wheelchair
movement cannot be maintained without entering vehicle movement
areas. A minimum of 42 inches is required for proper handicap
accessibility. Although 48 inches is required by code, this only
provides 28 inches, quite short of the minimum 42 inches required
for wheelchair movement. To correct this problem, the site plan
has to be altered, thus requiring a variance and easement
dedication.
18. Chapter 481.321 of the Florida Statutes requires that a
licensed landscape architect prepare and sign all landscape plans
unless for single family home. The landscape plan was sealed by an
architect and this is contrary to Florida State Law.
19. The Land Development Regulations of Boynton Beach require that
the submitted landscape plans show sprinkler and water outlet
locations. This has not been provided.
20. Based on the proposed elevations of the finished parking lot
and the existing edge of pavement along N.W. 1st Ave an approximate
slope of 10% would be required to enter the site (Gee and Jenson
Exhibit VII). The sidewalk as shown is to be constructed at the
same slope. Typical sidewalk cross slopes in the City are 1/4"/ft
(2% slope). Correcting the sidewalk to be constructed at the 2%
slope, thereby meeting the Florida Handicap guidelines, American
Disabilities Act guidelines, and Boynton Beach City standards, the
resulting slope will be greater than the maximum 10% recommended
driveway slope for commercial properties per Florida Department of
Transportation Roadway & Traffic Design Standards, Index. No. 515,
thus requiring a variance.
21. Based on the aforementioned proposed elevations of the ingress
driveway, Gee and Jenson have the opinion that water will collect
and create ponding at the easterly adjacent property driveway.
22. Based on the proposed elevations of the finished parking lot
and the existing edge of pavement grades along N.W. 7th Street, a
driveway approximately 23% will be required (Gee and Jenson Exhibit
IX). If the existing sidewalk were to be reconstructed thru the
exit driveway at its current elevation and cross-slopes, then the
entrance slope would become approximately 43%, thus requiring a
variance to the Land Development Regulations. Maximum recommended
driveway slopes for commercial properties per Florida Department of
Transportation Roadway & Traffic Design Standards, Index. No. 515,
is 10%. Slopes beyond those recommended by Florida Department of
Transportation can cause bumper and or vehicle frame dragging.
To correct the situation of a 43% slope of the egress driveway
currently not meeting code, I believe the required drainage
engineering will have to be totally redrawn. It is my opinion that
this will require the loss of the handicap parking space, thereby
requiring the site plan to be altered, and also requiring a
variance.
23. The Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations requires that
properties be designed to be self draining. Approximately 1/3 of
the property currently drain offsite in the front portion of the
site facing Boynton Beach Blvd.
24. According to Gee and Jenson, based on topographical
information obtained by Gee and Jenson, existing grades along the
adjoining easterly property line vary by as much as one foot from
the proposed grades on the approved construction plans. They
indicate, grading east of the proposed pavement to match existing
grades would have to occur on the neighboring property which would
encroach into and probably kill the existing required hedge.
25. Currently an existing power pole and guy wire is in the
vicinity of the N.W. 1st Ave entrance. No provisions for
relocation of the pole or guy wire are shown on either the site
plan or construction plans.
26. Per City requirements, the parking lot must maintain a minimum
average foot candle lighting. Not only has this plan used offsite
lighting, which mayor may not be on, but it has not taken into
account that light cannot go through the concrete walls of the
garbage dumpster enclosure and 6 feet high hedges. Taking this
into consideration, the lighting design does not meet the City's
minimum requirements, which should be maintained in order to deter
crimes and ensure safety, thus requires a variance.
This addresses the issues in violation of the Land Development
Regulations of Boynton Beach, Florida and of Florida State Law
that the Code Enforcement Board should investigate on the approved
plans. I believe that new issues will arise after unsuccessful
attempts are made to comply with all required codes, which I
believe to be impossible to meet.
n
GEE & JENSON
Engineers-Architects-Planners. Inc.
Mr. Mark E. Roberts
RHS Corporation
650 W. Boynton Beach Be ulevard, Ste. 2
Boynton Beach, FI 33426
One Harvard Circle
West Palm Beach. FL 33409
T Ie hone (407) 683-3301
[D) m l!). m 0 VI rn ~ I ,(407) 68',""
lJ1],,) 251996 ~~
. \ ~~~r~/ ..'
,,(i: ,,' - _ '. c~
BUILDING />, . f!~n:/" '-(<~
I,~,i id;'vtb\.t '1;:."
..... ~~\
~\\ 'F~:~J~IRf6 ~j
. /~",_ ,.' h;" ./~:;;
//" /\/
; i"~','(... \ Y
'~'_f I G:~-~
Per your request, we haVE reviewed the approved site plan and site construction
plans for conformance with the City of Boynton Beach Land Development
regulations and note the following:
January 24, 1996
Dear Mr. Roberts:
SITE PLAN
The site plan reviewed we3 prepared by George C. Davis, AlA, dated March 6,
1995, revised November '15, 1995. Other supporting documents utilized in our
review were a property sur'vey prepared by Richard L. Shephard & Associates,
dated February 27, 1995 & topographic survey information was obtained by this
office. (Exhibit I).
1. Per Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.E, a landscape strip of 2-1/2 feet
minimum width sr all be provided along adjoining interior property
lines where either off street parking or vehicular use area is
propo~ed, landscape area shall be protected by a raised curb per
Chapter 23, ArticlE~ II.E.
No landscape strip is shown on the approved site plan. However, a note
on the site plans in,jicates that the City shall verify that an existing hedge
on the neighboring property meets minimum City requirements.
The available planting strip on the neighboring easterly property is
approximately 20" in width which is 10" less than minimum code
requirements of 30'. This is not enough area to support a 4-6' hedge as
required.
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 2
The minimum required parking lot cross section per Exhibit II indicates a 5
ft. landscape area adjacent to N. W. 7th Street, 18' parking space and 27'
of clear back up area and a 6" curb or a total cross sectional width of
50.50'. The approved site plan indicates a cross section conforming to
this criteria. However, the property survey for this site shows the property
to be only 50' wide. In order to complete the required improvements, the
curb would have to. encroach the neighboring easterly property by 6" or a
variance obtained to reduce the backup area to 26.5'. Construction of
the curb, even if a variance were granted to reduce the required back up
space to 26.5' I will destroy approximately half of the existing hedge and
its root system, not only disturbing the hedge but perhaps killing it.
2. Per Chapter 7.5, Article 11, Section 5.D.1., a minimum landscaping
strip ot 5' in width shall be provided between off street parking and
adjacent right-at-way.
Where as the approved site plan indicates a 5' landscape strip, the
construction plan and survey information indicates a vertical difference
between the edge of parking space and back of sidewalk of approximately
2 '. (see Exhibit III), The resulting slope created is approximately 2-1/2 to
1. It is our opinion that the required hedge & shade trees would not be
able to be installed on such a severe slope given the minimum width in
which to landscape. It is our opinion that a retaining wall is necessary.
However, if a re,taining wall is installed, it would reduce the minimum
landscape area to approximately 4'-4", requiring a variance from code.
In addition, the contractor's plans indicate a buffer of only 4.88' (4'-
10-1/2") adjacent to the N.W. 1st. Ave. right-of-way. Clearly code has not
been met. If a retaining wall is utilized due to slope severity, a further
landscape area reduction to approximately 4'-2" would result ,again
requiring a variance for approvals,
Also the construction plans indicate a cross section at the building front
entry, facing N.W. th St., of a 5' landscape strip and 17' of pavement to
the front of the building. (Exhibit IV). The 17' of pavement includes a 12'
handicap parking space and the required 5' clear area adjacent to the
GEE & JENSON Engineers-Architecls-Planners, Inc. . 1 Harvard Circle. West Palm Beach. Florida 33409 . (407) 683-3301 . Fax (407) 686-7446
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 3
handicap parking space. The construction plans do not include the
required 6" raised curb as shown on the approved site plan. In order for
the 6" curb to be installed outside the handicap parking space, a
reduction in the 5' landscape area to 4.5' would be necessary and would
require the proper variances. Furthermore, the resulting backs lope within
the remaining 4.5' landscape area would be approximately 1.8:1, again,
the ability to plant and maintain the required landscaping would be
difficult if not impossible. Also a potential safety hazard would be created
adjacent to the handicap parking space.
3. Per Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.H. The area of property located
at the corner formed by the intersection of two or more public rights-
of-way shall create a visible site triangle of 35' as measured along
the two abutting right-of-way lines. Landscaping installed in this
zone shall provide for unobstructed cross visibility at a level
between 30" and 6'.
The shade trees and shrubs as shown on the approved site plan will
clearly encroach into the clear area and do not meet the vertical clear
zone requirements.
Shrubs - Since the elevation adjacent to the parking space is
approximately 24" higher than the adjoining street elevation on N.W. th
St. and N. W. 1 st. Ave., the placement of 18" high shrubs per the approved
site plan will encroach into the unobstructed visual area.
Trees - Tree placement if possible, within the 5' landscape area will be
approximately half way between the sidewalk and edge of parking space
pavement. Based on proposed elevations, the base of the tree elevations
will be approximately 12" above the adjacent street elevations of N. W. th
St. and N. W. 1 st. Ave. The 8' overall height trees as specified on the
approved site plan will have an approximate clear trunk of 4'. The trees
as selected and placed on site, will again encroach into the clear site
corner.
GEE & JENSON Engineers-Archltects-Planners. Inc. . 1 Harvard Circle, West Palm Beach. Florida 33409 . (407) 683-3301 . Fax (407) 686-7446
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 1241996 - Page 4
4. Per Chapter 4, Section B.C.5 safe and efficient access to the
proposed development shall be provided for emergency and service
vehicles.
Proper access to the site has not been provided for as shown on the
approved site plan:'
a. Per Exhibit V, a service vehicle cannot by means of lawful
ingress/egress navigate the parking lot without traversing
through designated parking spaces or over planted areas to
access the dumpster or recycle containment areas.
b. Per Exhibit VI, fire department emergency vehicles cannot
by means of lawful ingress/egress navigate the site without
traversing through designated parking spaces or over the
planted areas to approach the proposed building.
Per Exhibit V, it is doubtful that a delivery vehicle by means
of lawful ingress/egress, with the exception of a van can
service the site without encroaching into the designated
parking spaces or planted areas to obtain access to the
approved loading zone,
5.
Per Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 10.T sidewalks shall be a
minimum 4' wide within local street right-of-ways.
Per Exhibit VII due to the boundary of the site and edge of
pavement required radius of 3D' the required 4' minimum sidewalk
cannot be maintained at the southwest corner of the site at the
intersection of N.W. yth S1. and N.W. 1st. Ave. The site plan
indicates construction of a drop curb at this intersection. The
GEE & JENSON Engineers-Architects-Planners. Inc. . 1 Harvard Circle. West Palm Beach. Florida 33409 . (407) 683-3301 . Fax (407) 686-7446
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 5
resulting unsafe condition would require pedestrian traffic to enter
the street in order to turn the corner. In addition, proper
wheelchair movements cannot be maintained without entering
vehicle movement areas. A minimum of 42" is required for proper
handicap accessibility.
6.
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 sealed by an architect and this is contrary to
State Law.
Construction Plan Review - The construction plans reviewed were
as prepared by H. Burton Smith, PE, Consulting Engineers title Clear
Copy Offices, Development Plan dated June, 1995 and Teele. &
Associates Consulting Engineers, Titled Clear Copy, Inc. dated
October 20, 1995. The approved construction plans contain both
discrepancies from the approved site plan as well as conflicts with
existing conditions.
1. Construction plans show parking space dimensions to be 9' X 16' on
Sheet 1 of 2 vs. 10' X 20' on Sheet 2 of 2. The approved site plan
indicates parking spaces to be 9' X 18'.
2. The construction plans do not indicate the construction of the required
6" raised curbs adjacent to the planting areas per the approved site
plan. Per the dimensions shown on the approved construction plans,
construction of said curb cannot be accomplished on the site without
reducing required parking space dimensions or required backup
areas.
3. The construction plan indicates only a 4.88' landscape area adjacent
to the N.W. 151. Ave. Right-of-Way line, The approved site plan
requires a minimum 5' landscape area at this location.
GEE & JENSON Engineers-Architecls-Planners. Inc. . 1 Harvard Circle. West Palm Beach. Florida 33409. (407) 683-3301 . Fax (407) 686,7446
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 6
4. The construction plan indicates that the required sidewalk at the
intersection of N.W. yth 81. and N. W. 151, Ave. can be constructed per
code. The sidewalk per the approved site plan and site boundary
survey clearly show that a sidewalk and drop curb at this location
cannot be constructed in accordance with the City Land Development
Regulations. (Exhibit VII)
5. Based on the proposed elevations of the finished parking lot and the
existing edge of pavement grades along N. W. 151, Ave. as shown on
Exhibit VIII. an approximate slope of 10% would be required to enter
the site. The sidewalk as shown is to be constructed at this same
slope. Typical sidewalk cross slopes are X"/F1. (2% slope).
Additionally, the entrance may block current swale drainage flowing
westerly along N.W. 1st. Ave. toward N.W. yth S1. and create a water
ponding problem at the easterly adjacent property driveway entrance.
6. Based on the proposed elevations of the finished parking lot and the
existing edge of pavement grades along N, W. yth 81., as shown on
Exhibit IX, a driveway slope of approximately 23% will be required.
Maximum recommended driveway slopes for commercial properties
per Florida Department of Transportation Roadway & Traffic Design
Standards, Index. No. 515, is 10%.
The sidewalk as shown on the construction plan is also to be built at
this 23% cross slopes. Per Exhibit IX . if the sidewalk were to be re-
constructed through the exit driveway at its current elevation and
cross-slopes, then the entrance slope would become approximately
43%. It should be noted that slopes beyond those recommended by
Florida Department of Transportation can cause bumper and/or
vehicle frame dragging on the pavement.
7. Based on topographic information obtained by this office. existing
grades along the adjoining easterly property line vary by as much as l'
from the proposed grades on the approved construction plans.
Grading east of the proposed pavement to match existing grades
would have to occur on the neighboring property which would
encroach into and probably kill an existing hedge.
GEE & JENSON Engineecs-Architects-Planners. Inc. . 1 Harvard Circle. West Palm Beach. Florida 33409 . (407) 683-3301 . Fax (407) 686-7446
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 7
8. Currently an existing power pole and guy wire exist in the vicinity of
the N. W. 1 st. Ave. entrance. No provisions for relocation of the pole or
guy wire are shown on either the site plan or construction plans,
9. It is apparent on the approved parking lot lighting plans, (Exhibit I) from
review of foot-candle dispersments, that the engineer is utilizing
existing lighting fextures on the adjacent easterly property to meet City
lighting requirements on the proposed site. This plan does not take
into consideration light blockage and shadows created by the
proposed dumpster or a 6' hedge along the internal property line. Per
City requirements, the parking lot lighting is required to maintain an
average of 1 foot candle without utilizing offsite lighting to meet this
criteria. If the parking lot lighting plan were to be revised and poles
located in the east side of the parking lot, the poles would either have
to be constructed on the adjoining property or within the required
backup clear area for vehicles. Proper parking lot lighting levels
should be maintained in order to deter crime on both properties,
We trust we have satisfactorily addressed those issues where the approved
construction plans and/or site plan are in conflict with the City of Boynton Beach
Land Development Regulation requirements. Should you wish to discuss any of
the above items more in depth or have any further questions or comments
regarding this report, we would be pleased to review them with you at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
cH~'T:~r-t.
Harold T. Benoit, Jr., PE
HTB/bf
Ene!.
96-105
cc:
Reg. Stambaugh
Scott Morton
Kathy Spain
Jim Norquest
GEE & JENSON Englneers-Architecls-Planners. Inc. . 1 Harvard Circle. West Palm Beach. Florida 33409 . (407) 683-3301 . Fax (407) 686-7446
/'
...,!:,\
.~\ ....
{'.
~
.....
,~
,'\~
~ ~
"'"
..
~
..
....v,
(')~
~~
~
....
.J
...:
I
~ . - '
l- --t(?-~ ')l
I.., ~ ~
. iii ~
----lQ+- :
I ' ~.....-;
o-_.E:. CI.. 'y'f.
~~l 1111 (/.;~.
')~ . ~--
~ k,. .
." I~! '!
~]'Ol .\
~ I .!
'<;. l'
~ I}L
""I 1-;:;---'. '
'~ ;t' L'~..
~f .\' L 11' [::!
') \. I;. r I
f1\t ~.I \:t \ 11,:;'~re
" :t.: ~ f .; !O
~ 'S. '.:: .
"' ~ t't\ ~. " ~
... b I i q'-,--
t " I
~ 'i J ~
"-' 0. ~.~
, _ ~,,"ii
~ ~~' t f..~\I
::-,. 'ii ~ '"
I' ~ ;;I: ~ ~
- -;.~,
.l:)~ -" ~ ';'
'-\~ \~
..tf~ ~ ") {
~ .
. .~ ~
- ~:-
'ft~~
"'I: to.
f>~
~t.
~
}:: ,
"...
~l.
t ,
7rh
1
srE'cC:=T
/Y. vy.
-~------?----
:" .~;Z'~f';/~:~;:~~~;:-:~;~'~ ...:':::-:-. :".",,--.} l~~
.. .. //5.00..... . .. . ..... '. /11.44... . L" ZfJ.4("
'<.:..-- ----,
, .;1 t::;. S4 . '\\'" ;",49. e... ,
, il;~ ~ :' , .,
-r~ ._~ !i:~ .-. ~ ~g~_,_:: e ' ::\. !
i; : 11: ~t ~~;g ii.\ N f,:'~~ . ~
~ I 1'';;- ;) :- N\tl \..1 l' 'n .., . ~
II- "",' ..,. . " I ' ~
:I:~~. ~ \\ . ;.: I~
:d, ~"::'~
': ::~ -\..:- ~ '>i\~itlr;:~
~ 11\ . 11l~ I ~
i\ ~ ~ .' :. ~ t-, 'I
~ ~ I ..I:: ..~ ' l0
, i .. I \.1 ~~.;:..
\ '..1 . 1
I I~ ~ . . ~ I
I J... ;. 'i:)o"l -;1','! ...,: ~
,,& 80.7<;' ,!\ "'1,308"
O - - -1"""-
- <;. ~ ...,. I'
:I;~. ///.$ :....l~ ~
! ' \.: .,e:
: I : !;':\{I. . ~:.,' ~ I
; I: 11.'
~~
..n-
o
/4 ::> ~ 0 0>
'"
'"
S' C~~ c,dl-r Wal,i::
I'
30'
'tlJ
:::;.~
~.'<.
~"
'"
I'IJ~
~ <:
~.~
11\ . II)
~
1\.
~
~ Ul
~,~
\x) ~
l;:)
~
~
~
~~\'-
. ...
~~
r::-.,""
~~
<-
""
'"
<>
~
\II
~
, \\
: 0
- l\l
~,\)\
"
~
~
/IC~oa
~~0
}c.. ~
3. "t)~
~'S.
.. '
~
>
~~I
tl~
)
~ll..
.~
,~'\
I~
. .
~
I\l
"01
?~~
il.'
~...3-
.. ...
...~~'
),~
.
.
i:
~;I ~
~~!
~~i
--,
=< <.,
~~I
r=t
Co .
~7~ t
~~l?
<!;:::I
h~'\
_..~
...
g2! .
C:S~ :=II
~==r- ..
OCQ ·
~8~
-:'~2
Y'~
1"l
:i
g
'"
~
:;::
g
~
f;
:J:
'"
c:
;:
<>
z
'"
~
~
~
~
:;::
....
...., Ul
o 1-"
..::0 ~
~~ ::0
- ~:x:-
l . -f
::- I'T1
r -\- ;:g
.. ::0
l :$:
=;
- cr-
. '-
l '-::0
'" -<> I'T1
7;' to
~ =
.,;-,-
~ =
m
.~
.50
;!!
c:
.;;:
~
g
;;0;
'"
-n Cf
0'...
\:;-; r-::
~ ::::~
~ ::::~
G-~~'"
r\~ If;
J ::;J
;23
c 3!
;:5
,..,.-.
c;;
~
1
\~(";:J
~
~...
~
r.~
...~,
r:"
--~--
..~
i i
~ .i
~o.
>~~
~ii
i . .
~PI .
H!
~H
HQ
",:>J
0'"
-<<:
z;;o;
....=E
0",
i.fo ~- ----
;I:-
~ '
s:::J
'"
c
'"
,...
. .,.
~~l!U} 0 ;l>~li!!e-' .
~5~~8~ :,:._~~ "!il~~IIl1il~ .
~o~~~~.'. ~~ ~iS!
~olsr'" "'. ~illlii",~g
'~i~~~I" , ~ t~~~~~ ..
.i..l:hili .~. . ~~i..~ '
.~~~'i~iIl . '" .,~~~~..! .
,.!!llli;!12. '-. 8~J:5~i ~
'~!13d. :::",' ,:liI~~nt /f/~ -~ 4~.'"
12~~~2'" -',< .,....~~~~!i!.. 1"-1 -" l!!;;; ;:\<1;.
2 ~i~. .'.. .'. ' . "'lI'l"~i' ')1 <.'1i !;!! B~
. 1< z. '.., "'FI ~ i; - -c;i;
::$I:o~;e; . C ," '2 '0 S.
: <~~~1O ,..... ."l'l~ ~ q.., <:i :rt
.. '. .. - :i~::f2'L..:.' ....(: gll;l: 1./. y #' s:
. . -. '. '3!'iil<< iJ' . "..2 ~i
'.' .~..". . ..- .~~ 5 !~g ~ .~~..~!.~'(:'~ 05 Iii: ~ ~
'.. i.. ~..~. ",' -", ",Il: i'"
., .' .~:~ ",..... ;.' .~-4I
. ...... o[<<ili. ~ ....., .,v:', a ~. c:::v=u ..
,~.::/ ~ . ..>.}~~~~s .:'..~ ~?;'~]i! ~l::-: F
. '. ""lii~~~~ ','. ...~.e~ 1S5' ffi
;.;:.'~:.~,~ :<<;;..~id2Ie~;~;' (~iv ~dn < g
. .:" '. J.~:~,.~.t~iC>i ~ ':D' ~':'..'.,hO~~". ~
.:~~r~~; :~f~::~t:.;~!~ 21 ~~.~~ ~~;:~~ ~Icll:'. :.. ~
...~.;.r'..;.'...:_,';..1I\ I i-!'"~' \;:r;)i' ~ ,. " "'-,
...".... .'....~~~ "';;t,'. II"" '''''I '., '
'.' '1,." .:......~ ~;.1;g"~ '. A~L) .~ " . .
~'::~:.~..:.~i.:~~ {.~2J.. -:..~~r: . ~ ..1!.--" ~..~.
,,",_.'" ...i:"I"~!i~ ~1..1.. '~. ~~lili!iJ_' . .... ,
.... :".... ..,. ;.... ,. ~ cT.. ,.;;~. It:~~'\o. . .... .. ..
~::~"',.~" ~~;'-"" :=i=~\tJ .~ -:~,:".n~'~q:' '.;'::' '.. .
~_.{~~'_~:~~~~}.~~_'.~~R!ll.f~ . ~ . ftllil~ "~.>:. .. ...: '. .. . .~. .
i~.ij
-~ ~ J ~.~
~~~1 =:-~
~
:€3
~
;
~.'
i~~~~; ,..
. Inn .... en
. "':I:-:I;D......>
..,.,....:0"'. r"" I
(..,......OMN . :
":) .",,?... t::I.
h:iO':J ,.,,,..,..,.
.:; l. 0....":10.......;:.:'"' ..-..
.,.... "'..~' :.a...~,. "'_~ '.' :. :: . . ..;
I - ~ "', :0' :.' .
A ..~~;~:~J,<j ~ ~t .. "'1~-
. g:~ ~ '{.e;ig::~:i':.:~:~f:,,::':', <'.:;'.:"
$ . 0 -....- ,.. - .,'. , l
.,.
'r. .
~~:. ~:
~
r.
r.z
!ill
.,
! ':,
! .'
, .
i'
~.:~ :::.
. }:....:....:~.
._ .". 'ClI~ t> u _1~H.\
l)ll \' r~\... ~;V
~ '- r r ': I ':
- 3\ I.~ ; ~ '>." '. -~ \~~
;; !< .:;. S ~ -:-\ ;;i' \ ~
i:~,'-n,.. ~,,'"
"? t"' .C,e~t, ~f-~
01 l"t\>t-~~ 3)'Z:..
(\\ I~ ,.,-855\ 'iY~-
I, 'r I'!: .... ~ r :>
.~ .;: I~:c:::" "'~::;:.
~~..f;$:' ":2 ~
~ S; . ! >' ~ '" " .-
> 'ir,'?; G .' ~ ~
:; 1- ,".:! ~ . ~'
., c " ~ t. ! '
:". Co., ~I,^F <:l <-~, " >
~!g :11\'~~" c
?: i <:i [, I F ~ ~ ~
:- I~ ' ~, " ,I D L '>
-I:: '<.1'~i!, I,~ '11),,,
:: 12 If'l ~ ;! , ' I~, \l'''
'.';'::\ I~!',: Ii ~.t1 ~ 7
~': II~ , :: ~jli ~*. ~'t . ~ ~ ~'l>,~,
. P "'~~'I ~,.,. ~ ~ ~ ~
~? 'i ~ ~ i I' ~ ~ ~t: ~ ~ ~.
3 ffi :'W{ I' . kr.'1t ':'.~'~~ i.!: b
::II! !!g' '1 .j,,,, S . i'~'
;~ !1!Hl i~;i~jJ~~r ~ ~
_, ','Il ".,. I: : . m::.,t, .J;;,. 11'6
- '" ." C i . .n ....,!I' \.. rl. .~..
.~ ~ g ~ I, : I " :. f :: "l ~:'
" ! ~ 'J;:. I'-~~--'~itf ~
: c: . .j\ ()l :.r:. '" r- 'I ""
-::r j ~ . .: I! ~
.~ II ~, .x:. "
't, ~ :" -f..~I;';'~" ~~'Ol' ~ j}
~ ~ C1> ~ ~ 'i' ~ :8'; ~ ~,;:
~ ~ I . - - 2t-1' ~ ~ ~.~
~ ! 'l' ~It!~ I~ ~," :'I)~ ~.~". ~. H
,~ ~I~!r: 'hO<: ~ 1'CJ.l ~i$~'''ii- ~ ~ '
'C ~ ~I~I~ 'I'~;~:~!~~~~:~":"~
\1 ,- .\l':~!~~: ,~~:~ ~S~~~~.5: 2-
. .SI~:'U_;; .~ I ,~rn~F;\;'~~ . ~
\""'" lc"t. ..I~. -I.-s:{Ym~ C L--
'...;~~ 1-"'1' ,', ~g~~>6~ ,.;'
'.;i~i~ -1~:~~1-~~E~r~~.': I
s;; ~ ~ ,-.>' \l' - 1 III <1 ~ ~ 1II " :ll _tlT;-;, Ba:aJ.::rrn.t' =e-=.7:il1rJl=-,e:.J-v,Q--
<.1' :E. ,': 01 '" i"'r~'~
. ~i j i~li. ,:1 ~~f~~~I~~ II
it i~'So - - .-: -" _.~..~ - ,r.~ Iii ~ .il
~I:~i~ ~~9. ~:~ ~r;~~!..!~
'" c:!~ !~i. S'~ ~~i~~z.~
~;~!f --- ~<S:'"' ~;.::.. ~;ahlG
~~Jf~ .:;:I:~ :' i% l;l!m III
t"!M"~ :$!~ f'it<' ~~~ !L
,~O, .j . .~~ _.,~
!, i . ~~tll~
b I~ ' I..." : ~~ z;\I:-;-,
'i ~ "-: .F ~.~ 1 i .
z:.!~ . 'If 'J. "-
.Q ~:~ . ",'~'" '. .. - I '
~. II'- · 'I: f ~ ..' "'. . ". .. ~...i I
~ ! > i 9 j'..E..:~. f' I L ,;; " ~. . , ,
]) ~ ~ 1-<:' t I~ ~ ./- .. ,~. .'. . ..", .. . I
.,'.' I ~II ~. I \J' -l. - . ~ ~ I'::i \ .--...J ,.'i/"~, ~.' J;t;.. -;..~ ,6>: ~
9. c:: I ~ I ~ ' ; J;;' I >I : ~ ~ . I'<" .' ~ '::J' r.:t;--..
. ~ I~~ ',::~Ii ~r:rr\b 'f~(.'l,rr' lif ~
o IJ.-' I~: r'-" i -I ... -\ :'1;' } .: ~ m
j C; I~!:- -; I I ~. I I '. ~. :~ I .. ~i~ . l'1
Ql(Q :z:........ ,,-' 1. ~ ." ..,..
j CD . .I~::<' ~ ~ .. . '.1 ". ; :z(.,.~ . ~lIlDT271";'CiH
g. rJ ~ ~ l': \I' . !~.'I;;:' ",. :. h ~ ' ~ ~
Cr' 0 :3 i ~I · ~ - , . ': :;; ': . . .. Il' . . ~ 11' ~ ~ , '.~ -
g~. ~ i~l~ ~~ '""'t ~ ~ ~I" Ilf ~r:'. ~ .'~ ~ IOI-I~- M-ifi
~ I : ';/'.1 a . ~:\. ~k"'" . . ii,' i Ih ~
? ~ t} !l~ ~ ~.~ ~-. 1 ", ~:-"-'I~ '~'.-.l~~. i~i
~ . I~ ~ ~ I l ~ 10: 7::: illt' ~ ~ i~
....~ ~n~l~ ~ I':. '~.Q. 'S:~ I~
~ !~ ~ ~~ R 1 : t -t -il . ~ I ' - . ~,'IT. I ~ b
: !~ ~.1;l_~t' ...l:-:.!!'~ .... ~~tli. I ~ ~
(~['!'~".
! ~ . ~
~ ';:" :
~$.) 2.:
'" ~ '\:), ....
)> ~,!;
\'o.~~ ~ ~.
ill' f\ '" ,. ~
{V ('\ II (-
=i1 - ~.! c:
m~.rn ~
.~ t" ~ M
~ .
,..._~
~
~
"
~
~
~
"
l=
i;'
t .'~
'\ c.
. ;
... H
-- >'
iL
1 I' .
<: Q i;.
i Ii ;
! . .
ll~ i
,~
I~
~ ~~I!l
.J>-"
I' "
r.
!",:;\
l"n
!~
i\\\
'-.:)
1.:.2
Ii
);
''J>
;\N
'.,s\
T'-.
!~
~
.~
<J
:~
:11'1
!~
:1\1
I:
I~
j~
If
~
Ii
1
~
t
z.
__.....l..~.
~
~
~
'E~
~ '
'. :z'
''''''
,~
')$
I_I
ilJ!!;!
I I
II
~-
,
H~_
=-.. h1 n f
I~ -\ it :,
I III po
I~ ~ 11= -::- .:
IQ ~ ~ I~'- ..
;j l!" [
,e c ~ ~ I""
,~ 3): ! 2 .......
,v ~ : ~ %..
R ~ ~
~
-\
m
~
.1
- ~ ~["...I~<!..~:
. ::.. I : f":'f"'; I;
,- ~C' -
.........~ i .:" 1_-;, ~
li- I~: ILl.?..... I ~
j; 1 ; I~ ~: I ~
.:-f '.1. l:~ i I.
~ ~"":""":~~!
c::I ,I.'t:::!
;;;
<l-
~
!;
'"
-I
:t1
....
'2
~
. l'l.~' ~
.', \
. ~-'I~~
: ~I~
.~~'I~~' ;~;'
~ ;~. ~ '-' ::,~'~
c'" I:: ,~
:..,...1.. !' : -
.' . '. ~ :
.. -=- ":'....
.1
~
~
~~
J~~
~i~
i~
~
'"
.-\
:;:
c
~
<!:.
t
~
I~
~i!' .
'"
....
...
~
n
'"
~
-I
2
J I;~~'
.0
1 j i z-
:\ .' 'I
~r
[
.F:
~
i
~
~~
rq
!~
()l:.
Z:Jj
, "
f.!
<::
-=r!.0' ...
I
I r--
~~:
'0 I.. .
: t5 ~
....~ ~
':~ f
~~~ .
. ..s;-., ~..,
~. 'S.
;n . "..
~
I
,.-l
I~~-'._.,... .
J
I' ' ,
~~
:- ~
:l
J
~
~.
,
I.z..-O
'J
'"
..
I ~hV! .t .'.,'
t9 li, :- /::.:
~ :',',",:,:
. !~
i~
~ ff~:- . .~-
!:.L:. 1';0... i
g,~'\. -
~;!: i.1:. . ~
S',.. '~
'-j..~ ~
1 .~
::J
~
...
,..
~
a
1.
~~ 'I
f(' .
~'O . ",;
I ~. I t
i . , EII!ft~ '
i- .l..~;. ~ 01 ~
~ 1 , 1'('
~ I . :; U
, ~ ~ ~
,e. \I'" ,;c.
. l~ I ~
s-
Coo. ..... ....,- --...-----+ ' ' t
d.t
'"
,
,
z;.i\i
",t;i
~~
'1
~
']
~
I
.~
I~:
~
~
~
..
.,
"
'"
~,
~ ~ I
! + ~:~ ~,. 'II:.-_'~"Pf
~--,~ ~ ~ i~ -L-~" '. I
. 1.,(~.i\iJU;'\J
: ,,s z: ....~;,.\ ~. I
.!; . ~ "f\ ~ . - -. -
GI ~~S ~ "1.:i1 ~ I J
" ~ . .... . I .
"'" . _ /. t; ,,~____l1'-.. _
~
r1 ~ ~ \ '\ \-' '\ \ \. '. ...
_ti.t.tt~
tt~t,~~~99~""~
" 9 >. t' I> 6 ... t' l.' ,. ~ " ~
~ ~ ~!.~~~~~~~t\'tI'
~~~~it""~""" ~I)
.." 'l).~\\e.'il~\;ttl'
\\\,,\\\,.n
~ .. \ \ \t- ~ ~ 'Q l "
'Z '1 f. t \ ~ It. 11!\ r. t. .~ \ t
. \ v. ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~
~ ';. \ ~ ~ ~ ,-. !. .., ?.~ 'f.
~~'t \l....~ltll
?\~,,~~~'t'" ~1
?i~'i:l.;''''''~1' 't't
1'f'C\~~"'1
.. 'i ; ; 'i.
..
.e
'..,
.<'>
~:c
;0
SC
:.~~
a~ 0'
r- Ii< t;:l
;;lo. '..
,"';. 0
~cn"2..7'
..l ~t:1.1
'" ."
~a
'CO
~~
;0
>
~
z
\; \
o f\
'I
,
\
~
2
::.
...... ."-
~it;
...~~.
'''If;f'"?i
,..~
- ....~If
~\;"
~~\~
~~~\
H~r.
~\~\
\\
~ 3
':. ~
; ;
i ~
. ~
~
'"
~
~
"
"
""
'"
~
t
\I't
"""
1I0'i!l'fOl'lllVO\ 1I0\l\..." 1\\\0.
It
~'t>
t):.. u" w!1---: ---
----------------
"'~
C;'i
. .......
~~ ;~ ~ %
--:. ~ (l
. .. !!
~.. '0..
"< ~
. 1\).90' V ~5.\Of.'IIl08M-" .
'.:. ~ 't",
~~ 0 ~
~\.... '" \ '''''0
...:e'o ~
~1 ('0'~
q .~.,. {~
n 0
}O~~ . .... ~ ~
"<;,. .... ~?''''('\~
, ~~~%
\;\
o. ;< <;;
~ %
~~
".' 7'"
:....-
. . '!)(i.O'
~~
.:-
....
.~
\ 1 \"..........
\1
\ \
\ \
\ .
~ \/
\~ X"
" \
\~
\\. \...."...............
\~ ~
\ \ .
h
\ \ /
\ .
\ \'
\ \
\ \ I
\
\
\
\
\
.'~
t't
_ _ _ .' ," H~ ~q:\, t'l \~ n\ W
~\\ \l \\\\~ \\ \\ \\\\ \\ \ W\ l\\ \\ \;\ \\, \\ \\\ \1
\\\ 'ii' \\~,\ \t \ \_ \\ \~ l \\~ \\ ,\ \l\ \\\ \~ \\~ ,
\~\ ~ \'~%.~, %'~ ~~ ,~ ~ n' ~,~\ .~~ ~~; t~ n\
t\~ ~ ,\it\ '\ % \\ i\ tH u\ ~\\\ lit \\p\ it\
0\\ r-t\\ \~ \ ~\ i\\\\ \\\ \\ \~ \\\ \\\\\\\\
;0" .~ ' \ ' \" . t'} ~; ,b, -h \' hI
'>0 \\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\\\ \\ l" \~\ \\\ ~ ~
"-. ~\~; _ '. \ l . ~. \h;\ \~~ \\ ,t I
\~~ ~ ~l1l '\ . , \ P, '\\ " · ~~, 'I. \\
l.'~ \ '~i\\~ \ · ~ q \~; ~ \ '\' \\ \\
.."',,"',. '\~ i Ml\ \ \ \ \; '\~ ,l \ \~ \' l
~., .,. ~\ % i~\\"" , ~ \ i' l i\' ~
."", ,,\7.1 '" F3 "'~ .. I".
i~<-.'~ .' ",'" '< ';, I,:l{: ~..
I ~~" ~'4 \ .
~\~~-----------
"""".. ~/ ~
..!\. ..". --~_.__..........-------------.
1>
~ ....-?o ~
"",
.
'..
'..
.~~
dg
O\1t
z~
~I?
~~
~~
;@
[1'lR
g
.'(;
~.
\t
'i\ri
n~
;~~
'5. .
~
~
. ~
~ il
~ ;~
. .0
\ ~ 'r.;
~ ~
\ '" ~
.. ~
~_.-- ('" \ ~
\~ ~~
C\ ~~~
\\ \\~
\\ ~ \
~
\
\
\<'-
\~
\~
'"'
\'"
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
_l.
\\
\\
~
>..
~o
.~
~
.0
'~
... "
~
~. '->
~ ~
.
~
'p
~
..
.'"
\~~
f9
\\~
1\
~
~
~
.
.
n
=
~
.
o
n
o
e
~
~
~ l>
II y
I' II 1
i li I
II I '1,1
III
I'
,
i~ Iii! ij 11 ill n ~ I a
~ ,! il!~ Hili
:: 1llllli,I !I111
< I '" II ,I"
~ h I' II~ ,i II i I ~
~ I! I iI/I i I"I
~ ,: ilj~l ': Ii
0-. 'I'; I I I I a
I I' I! I q
~ illl' Ii 11! I j
~ '! ! i a. II
= I' II I !H I'
I I ~ .
II i'l !
. I III I
~
~
"-
~
~
~
~
\
~
"
. i:~::Qj5.i' .,
l!l:J:~llii I~lld~" ;'ij
!I~~ji!~ji l~ ')j1~"'"
I~ Ilus~1 '.' \Q~'~'t .
. 'Il...~;,.tl ~
., "! I' ~
~I' Ii ii I~d ,: ~ ',I
,~r +il iil" q ~~~~)~ t ~h "
. '" ~ l! 'Id I \ - .
2 ~ Ii" 'f i. ;'\
o i ' ' I!"
~ ~. 1,1 , . -...1 ":
\I ~. .. I
~~' ~~ -'
- .. ..
. .
. ..
~ I'
. I 'is
,~
{to
0"
O;li
2~
~~
:c~ ~
mil F'" ~'\
S~ n?i
. "':
,~
~~
l>
E> i'
l! ai
3j I'
l, :!
i! ~ E
jj I
!I ~
i ~
i I
I '
I ~
~
i
,
~ ~ l'
; u ~i!~W;il" ~I;;:
. If al!:;ili OJ:1
. !5'~~li"i';!'1
'l~lrl"d!'
. l '11.,,!!Po'1
_ .1 Ii 'I_I' I'
n '11"1 Iii. ·
. ~tl~.I:1 : ijl
n'illlll,1
~ r I ,ii II'il
. !: .p. ,
: i' i I I" lig
. ! a lag
: I ,:i
. I j.1
. , Eaa
~U
m
, -
=Ia
."
i.~:
a
a
TIg!
tL. I \~
,;- ~\~~.
_0
.Z
~:;l ~
~ ! ~ s.
:I: c a ~
~ ~ g
! ~ i
~. =
P
f ~..
.. ~
I:
~ s
~
4'.0.
I UO'Cli(K1'TM
~
i
!\~
~2
q
I ~.\
~ "
~ J ~;
, .\~ ~ ;, \
~ ~ i i I
."
.,
h
. i8 q
,Z ~
\~ ~ rtj~J nIl!" .
~ ~ ~ ~,.,:j.;;:~,: J\... :E .: ~I j' .
~,.. Eo:' ..:,:....... ~~o_.bJI d
! qU~r · I I - >.:-Fr----
~ I~ ., ~ 20' I
.... A.A"". .
~ ~
.i't'~~eE:l Ug~1 ga.cc YCJI:fO'=, 'H::Jv3B NOINJ.OB ~
3Mj() 3alJCloAlO:l !llle [7
.531 'VI::J055V3S:lN3i3'3j'-:d
!
t
~ ~ 3
....... ~ !},..
~ l S
08NI 'Ad08 l::IV'3l8
;
, 3
.
!
~j
;=
:I:
<!l
:::;
I-
o
-'
Cl
z
52
a:
<
Q.
'~ ~" . l
~ :
, ..
;. ~
,.i.'{
:/,
f'i;,
,..
:- #,: !!: .~ : '1' ,:.'.!,"~ '.'}'" '~~I
, '".:'di,: ';,i,ff'
., \..', '; , , ""1.0" 'VII'., . .,," t I~.' ..
..: i!X'/ :;:it:};';;~j:} }~~'L
fj. '\:
,'l, .t:'
'c' " ~I... .\'
..., . .,1 ,'\ '-\-'
, ~ t,: t'- Or"" ~ .'
i.:. '4> ',~.t :~ ~l \
~ ',: "i..: ~.~"
~
~!
,I .;
,
~ ,.
~ ~
N \ ,\
\
~
~ ,.
I'
I~
~
\.."
~
'f
~u
: ~~
% lOQ
~ ~:
~
Q'"
~~
~
"
~
~
~i
1"
'.
~ ;
~.1
:,.:S
'.'~; ~ \
UJ ., I ,
:;f f':.',
o i". r,
en ,~;.' l'
0'
l-
t-
o
Z
,'...JI
. , ';'::;:
I-
W
o
" 0
a:
.. <,
o
;"2: ..
;.' <(
0-
(/)
~ <!:J
z
~
:x::
G
:J
..,'.'."'..;
,~.,~:::.\~~ ~
J'. ~~ I,
~" ~ ,?UL
u 'l!
:! .
,;, ';'0
~:;:
% ll~
~?i:
~
~
~
~~ .
~~~
~ .
" ~
. '.
.l'
~:~l:
H
'},' Li .
..'~ '1 "..: .t' .
" '( , : \ f
.. ,I.
\ '".
l
-'
-'
w
u
~
o
J:
"-
l:4
~
w
;):
iE.
,.
",5
~~
-,,,,
"-
>:2
00
u~
"'~
-'0
~:
-'0
..,,.
z>-
~u
'"
T
tig!
"0
l::o
~W
~a:
.....
00
~Z
jjjO
(3
,\ ',,;'
I, ,,:2'f~}}: t,
i;~~~~Y': '
\'" .
"'/'
~."
,"',
I '~
:~ 1
. ~.j.
. ,
;'. :~!
..
.. .,
,"
,.
,
,1'1
~;':~::.. \
'..:,~! .,.
".,~ .. .'
, ,
,(
I" \1
ruOI'...... . .
f"'1 000 ~~I-
~tf) ,tf) ~ N ;"" e ~
: ~r-~......1~3
o III ~ 170
~!'i ~:s
t-.' ~
:;; ::i
I
-1
(f)
, . ~"..:.
!
': {> .
r~ :
~
@b.
cg
~
~
~
~
"
CD
N
o
N
N
"1
-1
N
.to
;0 lJ!
l'T1
0
C
;0
l'T1
0
(f) fTl "1 ~
(1 X (1 '0.
J:>
r I c ~.
f!1 - ;0
CD tIJ CIl
<:I: -1 N r
I I ~ JTI
::
\I II
NO
. .
VI (Jl
VI 0
~
-0
J:>
;0
2S
z
G') ~
(f)
-0
J:>
(1
l'T1
f9"
(/)
-; .to o:!
fTl Ut
1::111 ~c -0 f9"
C/ln :II rr1ro ~-~ j
5> > xJ>r
,.. ,,:IE R
~... z ::CZfTl ,
OJ+J> _If;
> n ""0:::0 r
, x l>
~ ... t:1oo z z
n I~
c :l'l zO ~ 0
< ... CIl
... (/)-0 IT1
c c -..I ()
-1-< ~ :T l>
~o ~QO CIl -0
-i CIl JTI
t.O r" 01<- CIl :-i l>
...<>>... J>" am "- ;0
;:: I ~ z() jZ ~ rr1
PI :::ofTl l>
z ~
!:l fTl(/) -0
< ~Z
fTl
III :E
x
... c
'" :II
.. >
~
0 ~
.... ~
~. ._-----_.__."-------~. .---
SoV\li:
N III
,~ a
Ul",)Z
(l\ 1'1
o
(j)
~
IT!
IT!~(')
X)>r
;!;ZIT!
(D+)>
n - :::0
~ -In
non
~ zO
o (j) -0
, ~" \=\ ; ~
"I~ )>-
1'1- Z n
~~~ ::u ~
IT!
<
IT!
:E
):> 7"l
CII~ c... ~
6> >
~::; -n~
>
,
J
~
1'1
o
III
%
'"
'"
-4
o
:w
~
~
~
o
."
~
N
o
I\)
I\)
I\)
~
~
~
'",
N U)
C/l
()
~ ITI
~ X
<..I: :r:
ICIJ
: II -I
II
NO
. .
~-
~
"0
o
...
~
~
.E i. N
m Ci' ~
\1\
to- IJ\ ('Jl
IJ'I ~ .
cJ 1\
"b In
r--, ~
I 1--- - t
\'"
~ I:S>=. )>~jQ
p ~ ;a en
, fl\c.~
'> ,l>Oc.
\ IJI-
r ('~ Z
1l(Tl
I~ , ~o t
rn
\ ..j
i~ '"
;r
l>
.m
jZ c.
~
~~
- - ------~-- -------_.~-
(j)
(")
"?-
r.'
<:::c
I '
--:-:
::::. IJ"\~
N~ ~~
.....'"' "l>.~
\D '" S",
(J\ 0
(fl
'::\
rn
"\3
~I()
:J:J::>I
_~rn
tE+~
~ (\-\()
1 ~H~~
~ ~\~~-<
o '0
"\3-n
l-n
J::>-
~~
::xJ(fl
~
~
l"
fJI V\Jo rs <i
}~ (,.,..
r- _:l
'" \1%
~
IJ)
~ 6'1'"
_ 10
r- __
"'0
% CJI~
9 '
II'
:x.
'"
~
o
,.
~
%
~
~
II \I
l'-lQ
,
\~
\~
\~
t'Z
(P
~
:!:
~
~
::xJ'P
E:~
(fl
~~
.....
()::xJ
ern
~p
q
\'V
o
---
~
~
~
\'V
\'V
N
.>
:c
'0
"'1)-
7-l'-l
G"l
::j
~
--
\
\'V
o
"~
~
-1
-
::r
~ tn
b
G"l
~
'\..0
r:>
~
~ '0--
0):..... ____ '0
N
(.,l
"Q
~
\~
"i
-1
:;:
~
~
"
~
'0
..,
'"
lIIc
~
~
mN^:nnos H:>V3S N01N.l.Oa
,
o.n
<Xi
r---1
!
~
~
~
Jt
Z
'~
O~^:nnos H:>V39 N01N.l.Oa
1:>
..
.~
~
i
VI
i!:
.....
~
z
{)
,",~,~,--,-~,-",,------,--,-'----"-~"'--'
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD
'l\
tIC
~
.....
.
,
~
~
t;Z~
;IE -
~
~
.8
.. ,
n
.j>
o.
~
~
~
ill
5
-.
.
..
q
30 133HS
~. ~38t'1nN
133HS
DlS-<;OI 3113 ov:>
OO'c;Ol-96 'ON Bor
'JUI 'SJ~UUOld
-SP~l!4JJV -s~~u!6U3
NOSN3r
'8 330
u
(f)
-l
fTl
-00
II
)>rrl
Z)>
fTl ~ ::::0
~() 0
-00
OJz-o
~:~
t::\1'1
)>'1
z-
o
;:orrl
fTl(j)
<
fTl
:E
" " ~ ;i '"
> ;a
~ > ., 2 ~
~ ~ '"
n
S' ~
- ~
I
IS .
, , , , , " ~
'" ~
> .<
c
'" ;
;;
~
>
"
;a
<
"
>
M
z
~
"-J
~
(J)
:ti
IT1
IT1
-i
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD
N.W. 1ST AVENUE
Vl
n
l>
r
1"1
-
.
"
w
~
~ 0 "\~
~ "Ill
"... S"'i5
:1:'" z
'"
o
III
:z:
'"
'"
-4
o
'"'
<::r:
r I
II II
~q
o
:It
~
~
i
~
,
I~
.m
I~
.m
jZ
~~
l.Il
()
l>
r
P.1
I\)
o
I\)
I\)
I\)
~
G'>I'll r
:::UXl>
o-'"U
cl.ll'"U
Z-f:::U
. 0
o ?<
rr1
X
I
OJ
-i
\~
en
-;
lTI
lTI-o
xro
Il>r
n CDZlTI
:z:-+l>
~ -; :u
'" 0
a~oo
zO
en"U
;-1-<
",1O
_Ole.. -00
:;;.!..i r"
~ g~ ~ ~
:ulTl
lTIen
<
lTI
:E
.~
i#
I
/
-;
/
/
I
\
I
,~
'0
I o.
I
I
I
.t>
l.Il
'-
~
rr1
'-
'"U
~
Z
~
ii)
-
~
fTl
::::o~lil
N:. ~!!!
'-f)-a (/)
<0'" Z
en '" -/
0
l> rrl
lJ'l VI", 0 -0
:x: ~ (... ~ rrlrn
~ ~ 1'~ X)>r
z IZrrl ,
:. m+)>
, n -/n::O
) :r
'"
n ~o8
~ :l'I I~
'" '" Z-o
0 0 ~-<
U> -00 i~
rll
~ Oh- )>11
,... 10 .m
'" -. zn jZ
Z o~ ::om
!:l tn. m(/) .0
< ~Z
III fT1
% :E
'" 0
... II
-4 :.
.
0 i
.., ~
l.Il
()
J>
r
f!1 rr1
<:1: X
I I
. CD
. II
II ~
~q
I'\)
o
I\)
I\)
I\)
~
J~
~
z 0
-l
/'T1 ,
:::0 :E
l.Il
IT\
()
-l
r~ <5
z
VJ
~ 0>
0 ~
-ll>
~!:i
o~
J>r
ro
l.Il-o l.Il~
,m
:Et} en ~;:I:
:::0 r()
r'
tn
1.
'\Yo
..!?
()l.Il 0
or
20
l.Il-O
\\0 -llT\
\CP -0-0 Z
rm =E
\1+ J>:::O
Z -.J
'- l.Il :;.
~ l.Il
~ :--l
."
-l
DEP ARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING D!VISION MEMORANDUM NO. 96 45
'MM~~gmD
TO:
Carrie Parker
City Manager
IW.~ m ~uki1l, P.E.
tftI!\ngmeer
FROM:
DATE:
February 2, 1996
RE:
CLEAR COPY
We are handing you herewith copies of requested responses from the Architect (George Davis),
the Civil Engineer (H. Burton Smith) and thc parking lot lighting Consultant (M.A. Teele) as they
relate to the Benoit letter to Roberts. They appear to be self explanatory.
I am forwarding Mr. Cheraf copies ofthcse responses in anticipation of our scheduled Tuesday,
February 6 meeting in my office at 2:30 p.m., and trust that he will make them available to the
permittee's agent.
WVH/ck
xc: James Cheraf, City Attorney
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
C:CLRCOPY
BUfLDING
meTican Institute
of Architect!
G E 0 R G E C. D A V I S
Ylrchitect
rn"m;:~ ~: ~ m ~
1100 SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY. BOYNTON BEACH. FLORIDA 33435
I' 8. 8BJI Unlit, l"I,one 732.6154
February 2, 1996
Mr. william V. Hukill, PE
Director of Developnent
City of Boynton Beach, Fl
R: CLEAR COpy
Dear Mr. Hukill:
Your letter of January 25th including a copy of a letter to Mr. Mark
Roberts from Mr. Harold T. Benoit, Jr. PE, has been received. Following
are my cornnents, by the numbers:
1. No landscaping strip was provided on the east side of the parking
area. I interpret the landscape ccx1e section 7.5-3.5 (e) ( 2) to mean that a
30" plant strip is not required when an acceptable hedge is existing. The
existing 20" area in which the hedge is located is on the propeerty to the
east of Clear Copy site, and its nonconforming dimension is not a fault of
Cleapr Copy. As you may recall, the parking lot was redrawn several times
in an effort to please the city, and somewhere in the scramble 45'+5'+0.5'
=50.5' was overlCX)ked. If one were to interpret the landscape code wording
of a 5' strip of land, some people may assume 6" of that strip could be a
concrete curb.
I cannot agree that traffic in the parking area will destroy the
neighbor's hedge.
2. Consideration was given to providing a retaining wall for the west
and south sides of the lot, but a wall would only make the 50' dimension a
bigger problem. Mr. Smith, the engineer who prepared the drainage plans and
finish grades advises me that he is reducing the grade heights so that there
be no problem with those landscaping strips.
3. The new finish grades should satisfy the line-of-sight matter
brought up by Mr. Benoit.
4. It is noted that 30' and even 40' vehicles are used to illustrate
the contention that safe and efficient access is not provided for energency
and service vehicles. The parking lot is designed using the same dimensions
from the parking ordinance that has been used by nearly every parking lot
in the city. Any energency entry will be made using the SW 7th Street
entry .
Examination of the survey shONs that -using a scale- there could be
3.5', perhaps rrore, for a sidewalk at the southwest corner of the property.
The comment "...unsafe condition would require pedestrian traffic to enter
the street..." A rrore fair statement would be: to enter the right-of-way,
the paving being a few feet away.
6. I admit I was unaware of chapter 481.321 of the Florida Statutes.
I am not alone in my ignorance; rrany of the local building departments are
accepting landscape plans not signed and sealed by a RIA. Your own landscape
code makes no mention of this requirement.
To anSVler item 9, page 7 of Mr. Benoit's letter, concerning the park-
ing lot lighting, I enclosed a letter fran Mr. Michael Teele, the electric-
al engineer who prepared that part of the plans. /
I hope this will clarify same of the criticisms of the work.
page 2 of 2
~.~
Davis
~ Teele &
V LI Associates
Consulting Engineers
(407) 738-4747
FAX (407) 738-4888
21 03 Corporate Drive
Boynton Beach, FL 33426-6655
February 2, 1996
Mr. George C. Davis
1100 S. Federal Highway
Unit #3
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
Ref: CLEAR COPY
Dear George,
As requested I have reviewed our design of the parking lot lighting for the above
referenced project.
Our design is in full compliance with the current codes of the City of Boynton Beach
and follows acceptable engineering guidelines. The City Building Official may at his
discretion test the installation at the completion of the project to verify compliance.
Based on the comments provided by Mr. Benoit in his letter dated 1/24/96 I would like to
request that I be present at any test of the lighting system.
Si~ d-
~ael A~E.. C.LP,E,
F:\MSDATA\MT\GDAVIS.D
OC
~. .
H. Burton Smith,P.E
Consulting Engineers
February 1,1996
~m&mll\V1R@
w~n
r ,I
, - 2 1096 ~
ENGINEERING
Mr. William V. Hukill, P.E.
City of Boynton Beach
Department of Development
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Fl. 3342500310
Re: Clear Copy
Dear Mr. Hukill,
Thank you for the opportunity of addressing the comments of Mr. Benoit, of Gee
& Jenson. There apparently has been numerous conversations and comments made
concerning the development of Mr. ' Feldman's building on Boynton Beach
Boulevard. Since I was not involved in the site plan review process, where this
project was reviewed and approved by your department and the other City
departments, I was not aware of Mr. Roberts' concerns until he called me and
asked for a meeting on January 10,1996, However, in a spirit of cooperation with
everyone concerned, I believe that most of the grading concerns can be
accommodated during the construction stage. This would eliminate several of the
objections to this project by Mr. Roberts.
My paving and grading plans were based upon a site plan given to me by George
Davis, architect for Mr. Feldman. However, Mr. Davis made several changes as
this project was reviewed, and approved by the City, without providing this office
with an updated version. Therefore, certain comments by Mr. Benoit are a result of
these changes in Mr. Davis' site plan that occurred during the City's review period
and can be readily accommodated during the construction phase of this project.
The following are my responses to Mr. Benoit's comments.
Page 5, #1.- The parking spaces will be constructed in accordance with Mr. Davis'
approved site plan and will be reflected on my record drawings.
#2. - The 6" raised curb was added by Mr. Davis to his later site plan and not
reflected on the site plan I was given by Mr. Davis to work from. However, this
curb can be added to the general parking area without reducing the parking space
dimensions, as the City approved on Mr. Davis' site plan, or reducing the backup
space. By adding the 6" curb to the east property line and the west edge of the
parking spaces, the backup space will continue to be approximately 26' as shown
on the City approved site plan.
825 Whippoorwill Trail, West Palm Beach, FL 33411 (407)798-5058 FAX(407)798-9773
. .
#3. - The landscape strip adjacent to N.W. 1st Avenue will be 5'. When the
required parking space dimension plus the required curbing around the landscape
strips is added, it leaves 16.5' for the one-way exit onto N.W. 7th Street. This 16.5'
is from the 6" curb to the face of the building. My plans show a dimension of 15'
for this drive versus the 12' on the City approved site plan. I feel the 15' should be
kept to assist persons exiting the site.
#4. - The City approved site plan calls for a 48" sidewalk along N.W. 1st Avenue.
This project is tying into an existing sidewalk on the east, that appears to be
immediately adjacent to the property line and will tie into the sidewalk along N.W.
7th Street. The City has located the sidewalk along N.W. 7th Street, closer than
normal to the east right of way line which prohibits the construction of 48"
sidewalks within the right of way as specified by Chapter 6, Section 10, T.
#5. - The entrance on N.W. 1st Avenue shall be constructed with a sidewalk cross
slope of 1/4" per foot and there shall be no slope as great as 10%, as mentioned in
the Benoit letter. Also, the design shall accommodate the swale drainage along
N.W. 1st Avenue. .
#6. - The site grading plan shall be graded to reduce the entrance slopes to the
greatest extent possible. The entrance onto N.W. 7th Street shall have a driveway
slope considerably less than 23% and the sidewalk shall remain with a 1/4" per
foot cross slope.
#7. - The design grades for this site shall match the existing slopes along this
project's east property line. No grading offsite shall be necessary.
#8. - As usual the relocation of any guy wire, or power pole, must be coordinated
with the appropriate agency. This has been done and the guy wire shall be
relocated at the owner's expense.
#9. - Lot lighting is not under the purview of this office.
In general, where the paving and grading plans are not consistent with the site plan
approved by the City of Boynton Beach, revisions during construction will be
made to ensure that the completed project will conform to the City approved site
plan.
I feel that it should be obvious to anyone familiar with construction, that most of
the comments by Mr. Benoit are items that can, and are, usually addressed during
the construction phase of any project. This is particularly true where it is necessary
to fit a project onto a very small fill-in property that has many existing constraints
, .
I trust this answers the questions raised by Mr. Roberts and the individuals he has
paid to create these comments. Should the City have any further comments, please
do not hesitate to contact me. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this, or any
other project, with City staff.
~
H. Burton Smith, P.E.
cc: John Bulfm, Esq.
Weiderhold, Moses, Bulfin & Rubin
MARK E. ROBERTS, D.D.S.
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. - Suite #2 - Boynton Beach, FL 33426 -(407) 736-1700
January 25, 1996
Ms. Carrie Parker
City Manager
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
ill
.'5111)
w
RE: Building Permit #954541
Clear Copy Project
PLANNING AND
IONING DEPT.
Dear Ms. Parker:
Enclosed is a copy of the signed letter from Harold T. Benoit, Jr.,
P.E., of Gee and -Jenson, Engineers-Architects-Planner, Inc.
outlining non-conformance of City of Boynton Beach Land Development
Regulations for the Clear Copy Project. I believe this information
clearly shows that the conditions the City Commission imposed to
obtain site and building permits are not met.
This letter also indicates that if the site is to be developed as
per the submitted engineering plans, that at least eight
infractions of the Land Development Regulations will requlre
variances. Since the conditions required for building permits have
not been met, the engineering contains multiple errors, and many
variances will be required if constructed per the Construction
Plans prepared by H. Burton Smith, P.E., I requested that Mr. Bill
Huckill, Director of Development Department suspend or revoke the
building permits as provided for by the Land Development
Regulations immediately.
I have enclosed only the seven page letter and not the lengthy
engineered Exhibits attached to it. These may be obtained from Mr.
Huckill should you desire seeing them.
'~1I111}/JJ
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
MER/sm
c.c. Mayor Taylor
City Commissioners
Tambri Heyden, Director of Planning and Zoning
Enclosure - January 24, 1996 letter from Gee and Jenson (7 pages)
January 25, 1996 letter to Mr. Bill Huckill
Hand delivered
'.J
.,
)
'.'
I
n
GEE & JENSON
Engineers-Acchitects-Planners. Inc.
One Harvard Circle
West Palm Beach. FL 33409
Telephone (407) 683-3301
Fax (407) 686-7446
January 24, 1996
Mr. Mark E. Roberts
RHS Corporation
650 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard, Ste. 2
Boynton Beach, FI 33426
Dear Mr. Roberts:
Per your request. we have reviewed the 9Pproved site plan and site construction
plans for conformance with the City of Boynton Beach Land Development
regulations and note the following:
SITE PLAN
The site plan reviewed was prepared by George C. Davis, AlA, dated March 6,
1995, revised November 15, 1995. Other supporting documents utilized in our
review were a property survey prepared by Richard L. Shephard & Associates,
dated February 27, 1995 & topographic survey information was obtained by this
office. (Exhibit I).
1. Per Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.E, a landscape strip of 2-1/2 feet
minimum width shall be provided along adjoining interior property
lines where either off street parking or vehicular use area is
proposed, landscape area shall be protected by a raised curb per
Chapter 23, Article II.E.
,No landscape strip is shown on the approved site plan. However, a note
on the site plans indicates that the City shall verify that an existing hedge
on the neighboring property meets minimum City requirements.
\')" .
The available planting strip on the neighboring easterly property is
approximately 20" in width which is 1 0" less than minimum code
requirements of 30". This is not enough area to support a 4-6' hed~as _
required. W -
./ L--1-f..<."CO-1../
. ,,)., if" . -,'''J t ·
,.> \ '
~;;..'
, ..;,>..-~..
:......t' .",
\ "T;'
~. f"'I..
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 2
'r-I
,,-,
\"\ /'1
,,';J. r)
r'~ "I ~
\,-~lr r:~/
: \.,-' \:'.
J
The minimum required parking lot cross section per Exhibit II indicates a 5
ft. landscape area adjacent to N.W. 7th Street, 18' parking space and 27'
of clear back up area and a 6" curb or a total cross sectional width of
50.50'. The approved site plan indicates a cross section conforming to
this criteria. However, the property survey for this site shows the property
to be only 50' wide. In order to complete the required improvements, the
curb would have to encroach the neighboring easterly property by 6/1 or a
variance obtained to reduce the backup area to 26.5'. . Construction of
-Jhe curb, even if a variance were granted to reduce the required back up
A- space to 26.5' , will destroy aP2roximately half,of the existin~he?ge and
,,' its root system, not onl~sturbinQ the hedge but peQl_C1QsJsilJing it.
._ ._.__._~_.~_______~_. ___..__n' .._~._.__.~___....,_____.__.. __._ ._
2,
Per Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.0.1., a minimum landscaping
strip of 5' in width shall be provided between off street parking and
adjacent right-of-way.
Where as the approved site plan indicates a 5' landscape strip, the
construction plan and survey information indicates a vertical difference
between the edge of parking space and back of sidewalk of approximately
2 " (see Exhibit III). The resulting slope created is approximately 2-1/2 to
1. It is our opinion that the reguired hedge & shade trees would not be
able to be installed on such a ~~~~,~Jo.~~--gTven the minimum width in
which to landscape. It is our opinion that a retaining wall is necessary.
".. '? ./ However, if a re,taining wall is installed, it would reduce the minimum
{Nt\A.od ~ landscape area to approximately 4'-4/1, requiring a variance from code.
,- .~
,
I,
\.'U/
t 'J~
-'
. In addition, the contractor's plans indicate a buffer of only 4..mr (4'-
10-1/2/1) adjacent to the N.W. 1st. Ave. right-of-way. Clearly code has not
been met. If a retaining wall is utilized due to slope severity, a further
landscape area reduction to approximately 4'-2" would result ,again
requiring a variance for approvals.
Also the construction plans indicate a cross section at the building front
entry, facing N.W. yth St., of a 5' landscape strip and 17' of pavement to
the front of the building. (Exhibit IV). The 17' of pavement includes a 12'
handicap parking space and the required 5' clear area adjacent to the
GEE & JENSON Englneers,Architects,Planners. Inc. 1 Harvard Crrcle. West Palm Beach. Flortda 33409 . (407) 683,3301 . Fax (407) 686,7446
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 3
~
\,'
r ~:'V . ',~(
IJ' 'l'\"V"P-
C :J~" ~f-'
,j ~ l,
,'f"
\
t'.'
L-
3.
,l(.
~i
It> ,
.Ir "~
'V' 11'
-< I ~
I ) I ~\.
.' I /" .'l~7rj
/ 00-/ ~r 1>,1
I f 'J) ( \
. ;'
t.J ,,,1
I;~ ( J'"
~~,. ~,~ rj
"It
/. .v \
! j fl" '1'"
l'
/ ,) .
(.
i,}\t
IV),
~
,!,~ ,'l~
. f;j~
, ,2~/ '. ,;
/"_ /,,,"\V
,fl!' )
/J ,,;\ ^.
~i). VI"
, f". "'JD
?J {ft, ,
,~, ~. l'~
1';:")~' \~.
. ~ ,.t~'~' l~'
,,{,/'- _I' 'l f;
{p 4'
('. .J~' /.1'
r '-,' ~.
./J " :~ ,c.,
I ~~
, ." r
~.
handicap parking space. The construction plans do not include the
require~e(:Lcucl.:LE1~.~tlOWn on the approved site plan. In order for
the 6" curb to be installed outside the handicap parking space, a
reduction in the 5' landscape area to 4.5' would be necessary and would
require the proper variances. Furthermore, the resulting backslope within
the remaining 4,5' landscape area would be approximately 1.8: 1, again,
the ability to plant and maintain the required landscaping would be
difficult if not impossible. Also a potential safety hazard would be created
adjacent to the handicap parking space.
Per Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.H. The area of property located
at the corner formed by the intersection of two or more public rights-
of-way shall create a visible site triangle of 35' as measured along
the two abutting right-of-way lines. Landscaping installed in this
zone shall provide for unobstructed cross visibility at a level
between 30" and 6'.
, Th~,~agE; tre.e,s _and_Shrubs as shown QD.Jhe approvprl sitp pl::!n will '
,--=g~_~rly encroaclLin1.o..lh.al:Lerea.and do nQLrJle~!Jhe vertical clear
zon e req,=!iiE;ment.s-,-
Shrubs - Since the elevation adjacent to the parking space is
approximately 24" higher than the adjoining street elevation on N.W. ih
St. and N. W. 1 SI, Ave., the placement of 18" high shrubs per the approved
site plan will encroach into the unobstructed visual area.
Trees - Tree placement if possible, within the 5' landscape area will be
approximately half way between the sidewalk and edge of parking space
pavement. Based on proposed elevations, the base of the tree elevations
will be approximately 12" above the adjacent street elevations of N.W. yth
St. 'and N. W. 1 SI. Ave. The 8' overall height trees as specified on the
approved site plan will have an approximate clear trunk of 4'. The trees
as selected and placed on site, will again encroach into the clear site
corner.
GEE & JENSON Englneers,Archllects,Planners, Inc. . 1 Harvard Circle, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409. (407) 683,3301 . Fax (407) 686,7446
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 4
4. Per Chapter 4, Section 8.C.5 safe and efficient access to the
proposed development shall be provided for emergency and service
vehicles.
Proper access to the site has not been provided for as shown on the
approved site plan. .
/ a.
/
il ~~.~. ~. ~
, ('-'~. / 0 ,P
\~ 0 1:" rf{:. b,
, r/' .)~\
,~I . ,trd/. \"'/
, (YG ~\) ~J./',.,v
\.nl. \,./ .
/\V .. rJ-.': \ /
, lyJ' ~'.~~
~~ ~/v
/
5.
Per Exhibit V, a service vehicle cannot by means of lawful
ingress/egress navigate the parking lot without traversing
through designated parking spaces or over planted areas to
access the dumpster or recycle containment areas.
Per Exhibit VI, fire department emergency vehicles cannot
by means of lavvful ingress/egress navigate the site without
traversing through designated parking spaces or over the
planted areas to approach the proposed building.
Per Exhibit V, it is doubtful that a delivery vehicle by means
of lawful ingress/egress, with the exception of a van can
service the site without encroaching into the designated
parking spaces or planted areas to obtain access to the
approved loading zone.
Per Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 10. T sidewalks shall be a
minimum 4' wide within local street right-of-ways.
Per Exhibit VII due to the boundary of the site and edge of
pavement required radius of 30' the required 4' minimum sidewalk
cannot be maintained at the southwest corner of the site at the
intersection of N.W. th St. and N.W. 1st. Ave. The site plan
indicates construction of a drop curb at this intersection. The
GEE & JENSON Englneers,ArchlteCls-Planners. Inc' 1 Harvard Circle, West Palm BeLlctl. Floflda 33403' ,.10ll 683,3301 . Fax (407) 686-7-146
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 5
resulting unsafe condition would require pedestrian traffic to enter
the street in order to turn the corner. In addition, proper
wheelchair movements cannot be maintained without entering
vehicle movement areas. A minimum of 42" is required for proper
handicap accessibility.
6. Chapter 481.321 of the Florida Statutes requires that a
,.' / licensed landscape architect prepare and sign all landscape
. 1iJ).~rJt~ plans unless for a single family home.
(,!. ~ (..
,\.- /("-
fV" I~ ;J lJ
tlr:{v.ft ;
-f
The landscape plan was sealed by an architect and this is contrary to
State Law.
Construction Plan Review - The construction plans reviewed were
as prepared by H. Burton Smith, PE, Consulting Engineers title Clear
Copy Offices, Development Plan dated June, 1995 and Teele. &
Associates Consulting Engineers, Titled Clear Copy, Inc, dated
October 20, 1995. The approved construction plans contain both
discrepancies from the approved site plan as well as conflicts with
existing conditions,
I
. . ~J1.- .01,
I A tvL(,..' J /
I, I t~tr:--' .J (,J: I.. "t' ---
Jj\Y. -"A '..' +-
'v"", > Ii
. u'" . f" V'
A..K ' L~)... ./7
. j;)... ~';I: .
I 't; or" .-yJ;
.1 tY -v" [.'-.
/fit: ',.{.oj
, ,vA- "':jf/)
: \)1-' 0 .\~ ;' ,(..,v
/~! t, r ('; I.'l
. 'I r-.......:.c{\ .,
.....; r--> . ~_ , .,'
/ rV"". ,J"".
~ IrC.:"
.. U,I
,..") r ".. I<
r~~
'\ ) f,i:./
....:,4.)
./<' . 3. The construction plan indicates only a 4.88' landscape area adjacent
'!,j\,(,. \,0'V1/ ~f~ II to th~ N.W. ~Sl: Ave. Right-of-Way line, Th~ appro.ved site plan
\."!., ctJ/Jv, h\ ~equlres a minimum 5' landscape area at thiS location.
/l.v '.' '''1'' v *', y -']
r "",' l' "JfN,/ ()
.,f ,Y' .')y ,i' j) VP ~
,~'\ I, 1'1 /-c- r)
, ) ti/ :::>1 il1
V
GEE & JENSON Englneers,Arch'tects,Planners. Inc. . 1 Harvard Ctrcle. West Palm Beach, Flonda 33409 . (407) 683,3301 . Fax (407) 686,7446
Construction plans show parking space dimensions to be 9' X 16' on
Sheet 1 of 2 vs, 10' X 20' on Sheet 2 of 2. The approved site plan
indicates parking spaces to be 9' X 18'.
2. The construction plans do .og! indicate the construction of the required
. 6" rElI~~C[Curbs adJacentto the planting areas per the approved site
"Plan. Per the dimensions shown on the approved construction plans,
construction of said curb cannot be accomplished on the site without
reducing required parking space dimensions or required backup
areas.
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 6
4. The construction plan indicates that the required sidewalk at the
intersection of N.W. th St. and N.W. 1st. Ave. can be constructed per
code. The sidewalk per the approved site plan and site boundary
survey clearly show that a sidewalk and drop curb at this location
cannot be constructed in accordance with the City Land Development
Regulations. (Exhibit VII)
5. Based on the proposed elevations of the finished parking lot and the
existing edge of pavement grades along N. W. 1st Ave. as shown on
Exhibit VIII, an approximate slope of 10% would be required to enter
the site. The sidewalk as shown is to be constructed at this same
slope. Typical sidewalk cross slopes are XI/1Ft. (2% slope).
Additionally, the entrance may block current swale drainage flowing
westerly along N.W. 1st. Ave. toward N.W, th St. and create a water
ponding problem at the easterly adjacent property driveway entrance.
6. Based on the proposed elevations of the finished parking lot and the
existing edge of pavement grades along N.W, th St., as shown on
Exhibit IX,_a d[jY~'vVay slQpaoLapQroxLrn.?~ely 23%.wULQe required.
Maximum recommended driveway slopes for commercial properties
per Florida Department of Transportation Roadway & Traffic Design
Standards, Index. No. 515, is 10%.
The sidewalk as shown on the construction plan is also to be built at
this 23% cross slopes. Per Exhibit IX , if the sidewalk were to be re-
constructed through the exit driveway at its current elevation and
cross-slopes, then the entrance slope would become approximately
"-~. _______4_._____
43%. It should be noted that slopes beyond those recommended by
.-Florida Department of Transportation can cause bumper and/or
vehicle frame dragging on the pavement.
7. Based on topographic information obtained by.this office, existing
grades along the adjoining easterly property line vary by as much as l'
from the proposed grades on the approved construction plans.
_..Gr~~i~~~!_<2(.!~~Qf~()E.9.sedpavement to match existing grades
_~~ld.J}ave to occur on the neighboring property which would
encroach into and probably kill an existing hedge.
GEE & JENSON Englneers,Archllects'Planners. Inc. . 1 Harvard Circle. Wesl Palm Beach. Florida 33409 . (407) 683,3301 . Fax (407) 686-7446
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 7
,"vi~~:-- Currently an existing power pole and guy wire exist in the vicinity of
fJo .Jt:i/ the N.W. 1 st. Ave. entrance. No provisions for relocation of the pole or
fJ1r' vJJ/'j guy wire are shown on either the site plan or construction plans.
) D1r~Y ~~"Jlt is apparent on the approved parking lot lighting plans, (Exhibit I) from
rO. Y review of foot-candle dispersments, that the engineer is utilizing
. r~ existing lighting-fixtures on the adjacent easterly property to meet City
lighting requirements on the proposed site. This plan does not take
into consideration light blockage and shadows created by the
proposed dumpster or a 6' hedge along the internal property line. Per
City requirements, the parking lot lighting is required to maintain an
average of 1 foot candle without utilizing offsite lighting to fTeet this
criteria. If the parking lot lighting plan were to be revised and poles
located in the east side of the parking lot, the poles would either have
to be constructed on the adjoining property or within the required
backup clear area for vehicles. Proper parking lot lighting levels
should be maintained in order to deter crime on both properties.
We trust we have satisfactorily addressed those issues where the approved
construction plans and/or site plan are in conflict with the City of Boynton Beach
Land Development Regulation requirements. Should you wish to discuss any of
the above items more in depth or have any further questions or comments
regarding this report, we would be pleased to review them with you at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
c-H~T~rt',
Harold T. Benoit, Jr., PE
HTB/bf
Enc!.
96-105
cc:
Reg. Stambaugh
Scott Morton
Kathy Spain
Jim Norquest
GEE & JENSON Englneers-Architects,Planners. Inc' 1 Harvard Circle. West Palm Beach, FlOrida 33409' (407) 683-3301 . Fax (407) 686-7446
MARK E. ROBERTS, D.D.S.
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. - Suite #2 - Boynton Beach, FL 33426 -(407) 736-1700
January 25, 1996
Mr. Bill Huckill
Director of Development Department
City of Boynton Beach Building Department
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
RE: Building Permit #954541
Clear Copy Project
Dear Mr. Huckill:
Enclosed is a copy of the signed Letter from Harold T. Benoit, Jr.,
P.E., of Gee and Jenson, Engineers-Architects-Planner, Inc.
outlining non-conformance of City of Boynton Beach Land Development
Regulations for the Clear Copy Project. I believe this information
clearly shows that the conditions the City Commission imposed to
obtain site and building permits are not met.
This letter also indicates that if the site is to be developed as
per the submitted engineering plans, that at least eight
infractions of the Land Development Regulations will requ~re
variances. Since the conditions required for building permits have
not been met, the engineering contains multiple errors, and many
variances will be required if constructed per the Construction
Plans prepared by H. Burton Smith, P. E., I request that the
building permits be suspended or revoked as provided for by the
Land Development Regulations immediately.
sincji:;/!~
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
MER/sm
Enclosure - January 24,1996 letter from Gee and Jenson
Hand delivered
EXHIBIT I - page 5 of 5 never received.
~~<.
f
^
.f'
..,
.c:t
~
W
ca
u
(/)
o
z
c:!
..J
.e::'
~
;;
tf)W
We:::
uZ
-4
U--3
'50-.
rVlH 0
85H ~
e::: u \- ~
4+-
WZca
-34:I:
U-3r5
0-
W
t:.
tf)
~
~
r-
~
z
\
~.
"-
(/)
~
~
t...-
~\ ;
~
~
- -
~\
m'
-;\
~\
C
u.1
~
Q..
(/)
Co C)
z
%
Q..
in
~
~
-
-
Q.t-.l
II \I
. .
:,...':-
lj ~ r- I I
(/) - "1:>
:;a tn ~
-
'0. ~ .c:t
~~ u
\.1.l (/)
ig
-
o
t'1
~
"
10
.e::'
..,
~
5
"
J
-'
J
~
2
-'
':>
?
.3
...
"
--
<t U>
t'1
t'1
t'J
i
'i
i
C-
O
~ ~
....
...
...
X
'"
i ~
. ...
o I ~
"'<0\1.
en
o
...
".
o
t
~
<
xu.. ... i
~~~~
C- vII)
o "'~
.-.------------------------
....-=--- - - ---=
i ~
i
i l0-
a: III
~ 0 101
~
III
~\ ~
~ (J) 0::: . 10 ci
uJ Z ioJ:
., o _101
<t. ~, -<1~f'"
-;\ u.. -1 ..\I) j;;
J. u.. 0- (1l
\- \ o .
\" ~\ )-~
I1J o.-z e 0
J \ 101
o~ go lit ~
2 uJl( ",O\- ~ t
~-l ~ C ~ ~
....,. ~ 4+- u
':)Q4( 0(. uJz~
~1\U } -14~ l\L'j~
tl4.~ 4.
...)4- ($:) O.JuJ c .c
~ 0.- ~..,ucn
\:ll."'cri
~ ...\ uJ 4
- t:
(J)
in '-_..1
to
C\l
\IS Q..
':l ~
_ ... is'
cD \J\ ~
.!) w
"J. 'i
i ~
tt
tf.
'ON
- 1I
"
o
_<t
\-
CO :.--;
:E -r>
Q~
c:1
g
...
()
<.!! N
"'.
~
-:r
; ~
..
;
....
c..
~
;::.
....
~
!
c..
%
c:C
...
....
.....
.
d..
~
....
::>
c
~
...
.ro
'It
t'J
t'J
t'J
o
t'J
------~_._-----,-~-------------
i ~
'i
i ...
C \II
0 \II
~
~ '"
g~ -
'in ~
-!: \ (/)(X: i\O i
Wz .Q\II
f- m' S2.d. 01=
~ ...I.S) ...
~\ ~.J 0'1
~O-
~J o .
~\ ,... ~ 0 0
\II
-- 0- z~ ': ~
00 ~ t
C (.)(.) ~ ..
(X: r- \J <
d.+- 'Ot.
wz~ X~IOI~
.Jd.~ ~"J ~
U.JW ~~~
U> 0- 4-
.co W 0 Ul
o (X: t: ';~ 101 en
~::> (/) ~~ ':C ....
'=- (.) ~IJ\ 0 5
co ......0
- 3:W
~ cJ)
~a
w d.(X:
ci
~ 'in
==
t-
~
-e::' - -
in
to
~ ~
t;: Q..
t.5
-.x:
in
s'
-'
0
" ci ~
"
" '3
" u."
-:> en
:< u...
." (\l
- q-
(\l (\l
.J
J
>
~
-'
0:>
~
.~
n
;r
o
(\l
\
gN
\I It
---
:.-:-
I 1
:X::;;.
'1
C::1
(.)
If)
t:
co
:r.
~
o
(\l
co
-
-~-~
3nN3I\V lS~ 'MoN
b
M
~I
-
W
...J
<t
U
VI
a~V^31n08 H~V38 N01NA08
...
~
<>
>
..
..
..
~
~
01
~
<>
~
..
~ <> I , , I I
. Si
.. .
-
.;;
~ :;/ .:;
~ ~ i
~ .;; ~ .;;
:0 el ~ ~
" 0 0 <>
~
w
w
~
Ul
j:!:
'"
S;
Z
3:
W
>
(f)w
wo::
Uz
lJ....4:~
lJ....--'
00...
>-~I-
0... z -
OOm
UU~
~O(jW
<(z
W4:
--.J--'
uo...
W
I-
(f)
n
,GEE &
JENSON
Engineers- Archilec ts-
Planners. Inc.
JOB No, 96-105.00
CAD fiLE 105- SK 1
SHEET
NUMBER
SHEET
1
OF
~
~
<1>0::.
Wz
~c::1
U-..J
U-a..
O.
>- '(j; g
o..z g 101
o 0 ~ ~
u u ~ t
c.a ..~ ~ ~
wz- z
..J c::1 ~ xu. ~ ~
U ..J W ~., ~ ~
a.. ~ '\:L tIll/)
W 4.
t::. g U)
<I> IoIS- 101 0\
X", '"'....
I!~ '" C\I
"'l. g-
!'^ ~
-
-
-
zi
~\
~\
~\
\ C
\
\
'0 ,
o. \
.~
,,'
0. -
...... - \
uJ \ . 0
~ .Z
ui I cr.t;6
a I o.)<.cr.
- I cawc>
~ J
~ J..
\n
I
I
.&:}
q-
N
-------
t:
en
E
C\l
C\l
i
'i
i
~
...
o
...
101
101
;.
ilOi
0101
.- oJ
0'-
... toO ...
en
ON
- "
It t-
:-,
:l:~
'3
4.
L>
(/)
o
C\l
::::=-----
--
~
~
t-
!
.:!
(.).4,
'J::\-
...:}(J)
\0
<Xi
rn
-
\0
\D
5
t
uJ
(/)
~ffi
o~
...:}
--
(/)
Z
~<l
w.J
0.. 0...
w';n
o..z
go
(/)(.)
~
~\
q-
N
~\
o.
t-
u..
~
<t
.....
..\\
cO.\
~\
~
tr.3
w.....
o..(/)
ga
(/)(.)
~~
<l\-
N
N
---------
o
N
~\
m'
...,q
GIS \
~\
C
r-
eo
~
w
'ON
- \I
1\
. -
~ I
\
'J::~
~
<l
U
(/)
~
-
:;:;0-
cJ')w
We::.
ga
U--l
\5 0..
,... t; t)4! 0
o.z,~ III
80 ~
e::. U r- 0
.::1+-
wz,tB
-l<!~
u i,w
w
~
c.f)
~
(')
%
i
~
It
o
...
o
~
III
~
'"
i\O ~
.glll
o ' ~
...1..0 ...
en
o
III
~
f.
..
.c
z
~I,\.. '1~
.c-) .c ~
c--"\.1 ell
o \X.. "'en
4
o \D
';.~ IIICS\
,:!~':c""
"'~_ 0 (1.1
'g"" '
~ -----
MARK E. ROBERTS, D.D.S.
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. - Suite #2 - Boynton Beach, FL 33426 -(407) 736-1700
January 25, 1996
Ms. Carrie Parker
City Manager
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
lill m~~5~@1
r
RE: Building Permit #954541
Clear Copy Project
PLANNING AND
ZONING OEPt
Dear Ms. Parker:
Enclosed is a copy of the signed letter from Harold T. Benoit, Jr.,
P.E., of Gee and -Jenson, Engineers-Architects-Planner, Inc.
outlining non-conformance of City of Boynton Beach Land Development
Regulations for the Clear Copy Project. I believe this information
clearly shows that the conditions the City Commission imposed to
obtain site and building permits are not met.
This letter also indicates that if the site is to be developed as
per the submitted engineering plans, that at least eight
infractions of the Land Development Regulations will requ~re
variances. Since the conditions required for building permits have
not been met, the engineering contains multiple errors, and many
variances will be required if constructed per the Construction
Plans prepared by H. Burton Smith, P.E., I requested that Mr. Bill
Huckill, Director of Development Department suspend or revoke the
building permits as provided for by the Land Development
Regulations immediately.
I have enclosed only the seven page letter and not the lengthy
engineered Exhibits attached to it. These may be obtained from Mr.
Huckill should you desire seeing them.
'7J;/l1/ I)llJ
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
MER/sm
c.c. Mayor Taylor
City Commissioners
Tambri Heyden, Director of Planning and Zoning
Enclosure - January 24, 1996 letter from Gee and Jenson (7 pages)
January 25, 1996 letter to Mr. Bill Huckill
Hand delivered
n
GEE & JENSON
Engineers,Architecls,Planners. Inc
One Harvard Circle
West Palm Beach. FL 33409
Telephone (407) 683.3301
Fax (407) 686.7446
January 24, 1996
Mr. Mark E. Roberts
RHS Corporation
650 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard, Ste. 2
Boynton Beach, FI 33426
Dear Mr. Roberts:
Per your request, we have reviewed the ~pproved site plan and site construction
plans for conformance with the City of Boynton Beach Land Development
regulations and note the following:
SITE PLAN
The site plan reviewed was prepared by George C. Davis, AlA, dated March 6,
1995, revised November 15, 1995. Other supporting documents utilized in our
review were a property survey prepared by Richard L. Shephard & Associates,
dated February 27, 1995 & topographic survey information was obtained by this
office. (Exhibit I).
1. Per Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.E, a landscape strip of 2-1/2 feet
minimum width shall be provided along adjoining interior property
lines where either off street parking or vehicular use area is
proposed, landscape area shall be protected by a raised curb per
Chapter 23, Article II. E.
No landscape strip is shown on the approved site plan. However, a note
on the site plans indicates that the City shall verify that an existing hedge
on the neighboring property meets minimum City requirements.
The available planting strip on the neighboring easterly property is
approximately 20" in width which is 10" less than minimum code
requirements of 30", This is not enough area to support a 4-6' hedge as
required. \'-CJ)~~1.-<--(n,.
I
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 2
The minimum required parking lot cross section per Exhibit /I indicates a 5
ft. landscape area adjacent to N. W. 7th Street, 18' parking space and 27'
of clear back up area and a 6" curb or a total cross sectional width of
50.50'. The approved site plan indicates a cross section conforming to
this criteria. However, the property survey for this site shows the property
to be only 50' wide. In order to complete the required improvements, the
curb would have to encroach the neighboring easterly property by 6" or a
variance obtained to reduce the backup area to 26.5'. . Construction of
_the curb, even if a variance were granted to reduce the required back up
space to 26.5' , will destroy approximately half of the existing hedge and
_ its root system, not only disturbing the hedge but perhaps killioftit'-- .
2. Per Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.0.1., a minimum landscaping
strip of 5' in width shall be provided between off street parking and
adjacent right-of-way.
Where as the approved site plan indicates a 5' landscape strip, the
construction plan and survey information indicates a vertical difference
between the edge of parking space and back of sidewalk of approximately
2 '. (see Exhibit III). The resulting slope created is approximately 2-1/2 to
1. It is our opinion that the required hedge & shade trees would not be
able to be installed on such a severe slope given the minimum width in
which to landscape, It is our opinion that a retaining wall is necessary.
I < However, if a re,taining wall is installed, it would reduce the minimum
Ilv'''''j' landscape area to approximately 4'_4", requiring a variance from code.
In addition, the contractor's plans indicate a buffer of only 4 8~ (4'-
10-1/2") adjacent to the N.W. 1$1. Ave. right-of-way, Clearly code has not
been met. If a retaining wall is utilized due to slope severity, a further
landscape area reduction to approximately 4'_2" would result ,again
requiring a variance for approvals,
Also the construction plans indicate a cross section at the building front
entry, facing N.W. th St., of a 5' landscape strip and 17' of pavement to
the front of the building. (Exhibit IV). The 17' of pavement includes a 12'
handicap parking space and the required 5' clear area adjacent to the
GEE & JENSON Englneers-Archilecls-Planners.lnc,. 1 HarvallllCucle. West Palm Beach, Flo"d~ 33..09' 1407) 683.3301 . Fax (407) 686.7446
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 3
handicap parking space. The construction plans do not include the
required 6" raised curb a~_ ?b()~~_~n the approved site plan. In order for
the 6" curb to be installed outside the handicap parking space, a
reduction in the 5' landscape area to 4.5' would be necessary and would
require the proper variances. Furthermore, the resulting backs lope within
the remaining 4.5' landscape area would be approximately 1.8: 1, again,
the ability to plant and maintain the required landscaping would be
difficult if not impossible. Also a potential safety hazard would be created
adjacent to the handicap parking space.
3. Per Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.H. The area of property located
at the corner formed by the intersection of two or more public rights-
of-way shall create a visible site triangle of 35' as measured along
the two abutting right-of-way lines. Landscaping installed in this
zone shall provide for unobstructed cross visibility at a level
between 30" and 6'.
, The shadE;2J~s-.arn;Lsl:lIubs as ~tlQYVn on the approvprj sitp r1an will
'_ -clearly encroach into the clear a~and do not meet tQ~_v:erticc:3l_clec:lL
zone requirements...:.
Shrubs - Since the elevation adjacent to the parking space is
approximately 24" higher than the adjoining street elevation on N. W. th
St. and N.W. 1 st. Ave., the placement of 18" high shrubs per the approved
site plan will encroach into the unobstructed visual area.
Trees - Tree placement if possible, within the 5' landscape area will be
approximately half way between the sidewalk and edge of parking space
pavement. Based on proposed elevations, the base of the tree elevations
will be approximately 12" above the adjacent street elevations of N.W, th
St. 'and N.W. 1sl. Ave. The 8' overall height trees as specified on the
approved site plan will have an approximate clear trunk of 4', The trees
as selected and placed on site, will again encroach into the clear site
corner.
GEE & JENSON Engrneers,Arch'lects-Plannecs. Ire .1 Harvard Circle, West Palm Beach, Flollda 33409. (407) 683-3:101 . Fax (407) 686,7446
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 4
4. Per Chapter 4, Section B.C.5 safe and efficient access to the
proposed development shall be provided for emergency and service
vehicles.
Proper access to the site has not been provided for as shown on the
approved site plan. '.
/ a.
/'
;jJJ-~/ /
A cJ. ,;1
\; ( Iz<f :1
I ,S -tIC
):~ L L~J~
,\vJP f~
5.
Per Exhibit V, a service vehicle cannot by means of lawful
ingress/egress navigate the parking lot without traversing
through designated parking spaces or over planted areas to
access the dumpster or recycle containment areas.
b.
Per Exhibit VI, fire department emergency vehicles cannot
by means of lawful ingress/egress navigate the site without
traversing through designated parking spaces or over the
planted areas to approach the proposed building.
Per Exhibit V, it is doubtful that a delivery vehicle by means
of lawful ingress/egress, with the exception of a van can
service the site without encroaching into the designated
parking spaces or planted areas to obtain access to the
approved loading zone,
Per Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 10.T sidewalks shall be a
minimum 4' wide within local street right-of-ways.
Per Exhibit VII due to the boundary of the site and edge of
pavement required radius of 30' the required 4' minimum sidewalk
cannot be maintained at the southwest corner of the site at the
intersection of N.W, 7'h St. and N.W. 1 st. Ave. The site plan
indicates construction of a drop curb at this intersection. The
GEE & JENSON Englneers-ArchlleCls-Planners. Inc.. 1 Harllard Circle. West Palm Beach Florida 3:>~09 . (.107) 683.3301 . Fax (~07) 685-7.;,;6
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr, Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 5
resulting unsafe condition would require pedestrian traffic to enter
the street in order to turn the corner. In addition, proper
wheelchair movements cannot be maintained without entering
vehicle movement areas, A minimum of 42" is required for proper
handicap accessibility.
6. Chapter 481.321 of the Florida Statutes requires that a
. A ~ licensed landscape architect prepare and sign all landscape
i-~'~~ plans unless for a single family home.
e,~ "
\..,. 'vL
(' t.w ;J, \JI t
[L r""': 1)
.i~.
, j
. "~~ In1,
A ~.....-v.' J, /
I . . ',\L('-- lVV-I.""'-~
), ,/.... '- . +
"" '- . ''''''\.
., -. I', ..7
..2 " '~ -;t'
I 1.-.......,V-
~\.I. ['- 2.
t · i -1.,:,":
..A~
. "
'y
The landscape plan was sealed by an architect and this is contrary to
State Law.
Construction Plan Review - The construction plans reviewed were
as prepared by H. Burton Smith, PE, Consulting Engineers title Clear
Copy Offices, Development Plan dated June, 1995 and Teele. &
Associates Consulting Engineers, Titled Clear Copy, Inc. dated
October 20, 1995. The approved construction plans contain both
discrepancies from the approved site plan as well as conflicts with
existing conditions,
Construction plans show parking space dimensions to be 9' X 16' on
Sheet 1 of 2 vs. 10' X 20' on Sheet 2 of 2. The approved site plan
indicates parking spaces to be 9' X 18'.
The construction plans do noUndLcate tILe. cpnstruction of the required
6" ral~d cIffbs <3dj~c~Qt t<2.J..he planting g[e_as_per the approved site
plan. Per the dimensions shown on the approved construction plans,
construction of said curb cannot be accomplished on the site without
reducing required parking space dimensions or required backup
'areas.
3. The construction plan indicates only a 4.88' landscape area adjacent
. /,' ify'l/ ~t4/ to the N.W. 1sl. Ave, Right-of-Way line, The approved site plan
, . ''^'; ,~,.Jv ). . tv~(\ requires a minimum 5' landscape area at this location.
'- .,' ,y I
I ~ .'. " .'\.., "t', .p.),A' ,
. .\1"' ;.Y' 11
.--"'1 ,) I'"
"-- \ '~, ,.,'
I / {f v'
, /'/'f"/
1\.../
GEE & JENSON Englneers,Architects-Planners. Inc,. 1 Hacvacd Circle. West Palm Beach. Florida 33409. (407) 683,3301 . Fax (407) 686,7446
n
RH8 Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 6
4. The construction plan indicates that the required sidewalk at the
intersection of N.W. ih 81. and N.W. 1S\, Ave. can be constructed per
code. The sidewalk per the approved site plan and site boundary
survey clearly show that a sidewalk and drop curb at this location
cannot be constructed in accordance with the City Land Development
Regulations. (Exhibit VII)
5, Based on the proposed elevations of the finished parking lot and the
existing edge of pavement grades along N. W. 1 S\, Ave. as shown on
Exhibit VIII, an approximate slope of 10% would be required to enter
the site. The sidewalk as shown is to be constructed at this same
slope, Typical sidewalk cross slopes are X"/Ft. (2% slope),
Additionally, the entrance may block current swale drainage flowing
westerly along N.W. 1SI, Ave. toward N.W, th St. and create a water
ponding problem at the easterly adjacent property driveway entrance.
6. Based on the proposed elevations of the finished parking lot and the
existing edge of pavement grades along N.W. th St., as shown on
Exhibit IX,..9 drivewat SIOrA of approximate!Y..2_3!&.wllLQ~_r~quired.
Maximum recommended driveway slopes for commercial properties
per Florida Department of Transportation Roadway & Traffic Design
Standards, Index. No. 515, is 10%,
The sidewalk as shown on the construction plan is also to be built at
this 23% cross slopes. Per Exhibit IX , if the sidewalk were to be re-
constructed through the exit driveway at its current elevation and
cross-slopes, then the,_entrance slop-~woul~b~~()_rn~_apprQxi[Tlately
43%. It should be noted that slopes beyond those recommended by
-riOiida Department of Transportation can cause bumper and/or
vehicle frame dragging on the pavement.
7. Based on topographic information obtained by.this office, existing
grades along the adjoining easterly property line vary by as much as l'
from the proposed grades on the approved construction plans.
Grading east of the proposed pavemenUcmatch existing grades
~ would have to occur Qn the n~Jghboring property which would
encroach into and probably kill an existing he-age,
GEE & JENSON Eng.neers-ArchIlecls.Planners. Inc. . 1 Harvard Cllcle. West Palm Beach. Florida 33409 . (407) 683,3301 . Fax (407) 686,74.16
n
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 7
)j
" ..'~"'-'
"v(e!;...{J~ 8, Currently an existing power pole and guy wire exist in the vicinity of
L ./ L~'~ the N. W. 1 st. Ave. entrance, No provisions for relocation of the pole or
"v.,-,/I/ -. ,14' guy wire are shown on either the site plan or construction plans.
. /'<". \ l"'. " .1).-'1'1
. -1 \ '-l.L/~~"'/:;I/'" t
.~/",;J 9
_ v'-.:,V' .
,..,,-/.
It is apparent on the approved parking lot lighting plans, (Exhibit I) from
review of foot-candle dispersments, that the engineer is utilizing
existing lighting.fixtures on the adjacent easterly property to meet City
lighting requirements on the proposed site. This plan does not take
into consideration light blockage and shadows created by the
proposed dumpster or a 6' hedge along the internal property line. Per
City requirements, the parking lot lighting is required to maintain an
average of 1 foot candle without utilizing offsite lighting to meet this
criteria. If the parking lot lighting plan were to be revised and poles
located in the east side of the parking lot, the poles would either have
to be constructed on the adjoining property or within the required
backup clear area for vehicles. Proper parking lot lighting levels
should be maintained in order to deter crime on both properties.
We trust we have satisfactorily addressed those issues where the approved
construction plans and/or site plan are in conflict with the City of Boynton Beach
Land Development Regulation requirements. Should you wish to discuss any of
the above items more in depth or have any further questions or comments
regarding this report, we would be pleased to review them with you at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
c/.1~T~rt.
Harold T. Benoit, Jr., PE
HTB/bt
Encl.
96-105
cc:
Reg. Stambaugh
Scott Morton
Kathy Spain
Jim Norquest
GEE & JENSON e"'9'neers-Archltects-Planners. Inc. 1 Harvard Clfcle. West Palm 8eacrl, FlOrida 33409. (407) 683.3301 . Fax (407) 686,7446
MARK E. ROBERTS, D.D.S.
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd. - Suite #2 - Boynton Beach. FL 33426 -(407) 736-1700
January 25, 1996
Mr. Bill Huckill
Director of Development Department
City of Boynton Beach Building Department
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
RE: Building Permit #954541
Clear Copy Project
Dear Mr. Huckill:
Enclosed is a copy of the signed letter from Harold T. Benoit, Jr.,
P.E., of Gee and Jenson, Engineers-Architects-Planner, Inc.
outlining non-conformance of City of Boynton Beach Land Development
Regulations for the Clear Copy Project. I believe this information
clearly shows that the conditions the City Commission imposed to
obtain site and building permits are not met.
This letter also indicates that if the site is to be developed as
per the submitted engineering plans, that at least eight
infractions of the Land Development Regulations will require
variances. Since the conditions required for building permits have
not been met, the engineering contains multiple errors, and many
variances will be required if constructed per the Construction
Plans prepared by H. Burton Smith, P.E., I request that the
building permits be suspended or revoked as provided for by the
Land Development Regulations immediately.
Si/;;/!~
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
MER/sm
Enclosure - January 24,1996 letter from Gee and Jenson
Hand delivered
EXHIBIT I - page 5 of 5 never received.
-- --
-
~
--
--
(f) rn
(') ~
~
r!' -
OJ
~:r. ~
I 1
-s,-=
" "
-
1\30
. .
\'J
o
(/)
::i
rn
X~ -ei -0
rn,0 - -
5~ ~ ?i~'
r \\~
~'" :& _zrn ,
g!+~
~ t\ -\ () ?J
1 ~ ~00 \~
i '" ZO
'" '" ~1
0 0
:..00 \~
\D ,1'\
",,0)... ~:!!
_10
';. . Z0 \~
:& ~ ?Jrn
? m(/)
< ,Z
oil ~
X
'" 0
'" ,.
... ~
0 i
"" ~
.--,~-_._.-~ --_._----_.~~_.
- --
1\1
10
01 ~
-
-
.~
~
c
~
o
"1
2
16
1?~
'0.
~
01
01
~
-0
~
~
~~
(f)
-0
~
rn
1=".
u;
~
<
J
<.
5,
(
r
r
-
"
.
"
r:
r:
v
.
.::-
re-
(J\
Q
- re-
\ I
~ ~
0
(f)
-J (')
;: ~
~ rn
~
J::>
~
--.-----------------------
~...
- --
N
o
- - --
'J
...
~
c
....
%
::;-
....
....
...
...
:z:
..,
0
:l
~
'.;
..,
..
..
..,
...
-
~ ~
-
(\)
I\)
N
,I)
~
-..,.
N iii
Con
0 ~-
):II> rn
~ ~
~ 0
<~
I -
I - CD 0
-: -
. .. -\ ...
\I _
1\)0
. .
E (\)
l CJl
~
"""
~
0
"Q
-
-
- -
-
,
N ,
f\) ~ '.
f\) f\) -n OJ ,
0 ~ G
-
(J) ~ p
.0
-
~ U!.
~.
rn ~
~
-
OJ
::\
~
~ U!.
(1\ ~
.-
<::~ - -
I I
-;-= --- \
II \I
~
,,!Q N
0 -J
~ -
-:r
~
~ \1\%
- 0 V.
I') ~ ~a
~"'~~
en 0
(Jl
~
f1'
'"U
~"Ai rn l ()
(I\~~~; ~ -p ~
~ ~% - Z -p
Q!+:;x3
~ ('I -\ 0
1 ~~~g
~ ~\~~~
o . 0
'"U-Tl
l-Tl
-p-
z~
~(Jl
.c::::.
~
~
"" en-
_ 10
r __
"'0
% tJ\!
? .
'"
~
'"
'"
-I
~
i
;
%
~
,
\~
\~
\~
~%
:;x3~
E.:...t
(Jl
~~
g:;x3
:;x3f1'
alP
Ol
~
'IJ)
t'3
~
~
~
~
:- , b--
<P. ____.n
- .
~
'q
\f&
"i
-J
:;:
~
-----
--.....-------
----'
-~----
JO J.33HS
~ 1:I3srinN
J.33HS
I>lS-<;OI 31lJ av:>
00'<;01-96 'ON SOl'
':lVI 'SRUUDld
-sl:lal!Il:l./Y-s..aau!6u3
NOSN3r
~ 330'
u
(/)
-l
fTl
-00
rr
)>rrl
Z)>
fTl ~ ;0
x()o
Ioa
CDZ-u
~:~
J:\rl1
)>11
z-
o
;orrl
fTl(f)
<
fTl
:E
0 . li: ~ ;t "
~ ! . II! 2 ~
0 J i
~ III
!? !? ;
- !!'
.
IS .
, 0 , . I 0 1
~
'"
:il
g
'&
~
.
)
<
0
~
z
~
.....
:I!
(I)
~
",
",
-i
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD
N. W. 1 ST A VENUE
VI
n
:t>
r
'::1
-
.
II
W
o
(f)
:4
rn
~'" 7\1 -0
~ ~ '-'i rn \ n
~ '" \\s ~ J:>> \
% .....z rn
t' OJ + J:>>
?W s:4 ;0
1 ~ nn
i:ll 00
~ ~ Z-o
~-<
'0
-0""1\
\""1\
~o
;o~
~
~
~
"" en'"
F.!-i
"'Os
s 0\0
9 .
'"
s
~
-I
~
1
I
%
~
t/l
(")
~
r!'
c::::I:
,
, -.
-: ,;
" -
f'-1Q
,
\~
\~
\~
~'%
t\>
o
rn
~
to
~
r
G>~!U
~--o
g~~
Z' 0
'0 1<
l"J
Jlo
l"J
l"J
I
I
rf
I
I
I
\
\
--
-
,"
\ ~ .
'Q
\ o.
\
\
\
O!
~
~
-
'"
-
~
r'
rn
.....
-0
---------------
--------------
.--
N
o
N
f\)
f\)
>
\~
\~
CP
o
~
r.' rn
<'f ~
~-:
: II tP
1I _ ~
~q
f?""
~O
fTI......
-;.o:E
CP
fTI
~
~
\~
~
o
(JoI
CP
'<J!
~~
1:l~
n'(I)
~b
(1)-0
......fTI
:E-n
0
':;0
~o~~
....~ ~a (J)
\0'" ~s
en '" ~ - -
0
)> {1l
cX"t. i "1)
e ~ t...~ ~,()
~ '" \"Is ':]:J:-' , 0(/1
% _zrn oG
Q!.J:- %-0
. t' -\07J ~fTI
.. :x-
l a 00 \~ \'\P '-0 -0
~ ~zo \"0> l~
'" ~~
0 \'. ~
,i'f\
""1) 0 \~ (I)
......
\D ,1'\ ~
~~o -p:!! """
,. -- ZO \~ -n
"'0
% O\! 7Jrn :4
9 . m(J)
.c::. ~%
-
VI ~
:x- 0
'"
'" :It
-' ~
0 i
"" s
9
(/If?""
~::r.
:p.
FP
~
--
~
-J
-
::T
~
.-------..-------------
.
. ,,\;'; ~"". '" '~
\\..... "",rd\,
~}~"~
C,\\' -
e.tZ.' ~~
%4~
IN THE CIRCUIT COUNT OF THE
FIFTEENTH nJDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA
.....
CASE NO. AP 95-8266 A Y
Plaintiff! Appellant,
-- fEJ
!UD
I
MAR , , 1996
RHS CORPORA nON,
~ fiLl rs n \In f:"
LS ~) l.S li !,j It
~..............",...,.,~...,'...._,~-"'-'""
v.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
i
........
PLMHHNG AND
ZONING DEPT.
_-Ot'--...___........,~.....
Defendant! Appellee.
I
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING ON
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
Appellant, RHS CORPORATION, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files "
this its Motion for Emergency Hearing on Motion for Temporary Injunction and as grounds
therefore state as follows:
r'
1. On September 19, 1995, the City Commission of Boynton Beach passed a Motion
to conditionally approve the site plan for the development known as "Clear Copy, Inc." (Clear
Copy). However, RHS CORPORATION (RHS), filed a Notice of Administr.ative Appeal,
appealing the City's decision to approve Clear Copy's site plan.
2. RHS owns and occupies the adjoining property immediately east of Clear Copy's
parcel. In light of RHS' decision to appeal the City's approval of Clear Copy's site plan, Clear
Copy has been vigorously attempting to' complete construction and occupy the premises prior to
the Court even considering the issues on appeal.
3..
" : or ~ .'
Attached is a copy of RHS' Motion for Temporary Injunction, which delineates
,0", '.
;':...-'..
. ".
~.
Ii:
~-
. - ~~:..? T
1
the nwnerous violations of the City Land Development Regulations "and City Ordinances, which
currently exist and will continue to exist until rectified.
4. Should Clear Copy be able to continue construction and occupy the premises will
only exacerbate the irreparable harm which has already occurred and will continue indefinitely.
5. As a result of RHS' irreparable harm, which is occurring' and will continue to
occur, RHS requires an emergency hearing on its Motion for Temporary Injunction.
6. RHS will be severely prejudiced should the Court not grant an emergency hearing
on its Motion for Temporary Injunction, as the irreparable harm will be inordinate.
WHEREFORE, RHS requests this Court to set an immediate hearing on RHS' Motion for
Temporary Injunction and supporting Affidavit. Additionally, the CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
will not be prejudiced in anyway by such a hearing.
"
r-
I HEREBY CERTIFY th~ and correct copy otthe foregoing has been furnished via
U.S. Mail and Facsimile this ayof /I) ILtt/< . 1996, to: Clerk of the City
of Boynton Beach, Boynton Beach City Hall, Boynton Beach, FL 33436 and James A. Cherof,
Esquire, 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd., Post Office Box 310, Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310.
,.
I
MILLER & WOODS, P. A. Jr
1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 860
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(407) 687-8100
";'
Attorneys for Appellant
F:\FILES\2I26\E.HRG.MOT
2
. .
~~.&.
. ~~..,
IN THE CIR<;UIT COUNT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO. AP 95-8266 A Y
RHS CORPORATION,
....
Plaintiff! Appellant,
v.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
Defendant! Appellee.
I
MOTION FOR TE~fPORARY INJUNCTION
Appellant, RHS CORPORA TrON, by and through its undersigned counsel, moves
pursuant to Rule 1.610 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to have this Court issue a
"
temporary injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and
I'!fr'. .
attorney and those persons in active concert or participation with them, from issuing any more
permits, certifications, approval authorizing the further development of the property located at
660 Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida. In support of this Motion Appellant
iI'
-. .... .r
alleges as follows:
~ :.
I. On September 19, 1995, the City Commission of Boynton Beac14 in Palm Beach
..
-.
. ... -
:' a;'riritY~ Florida, passed a Motion to conditional Iv approve the site plan for the development,
- :'~:.:;~-j}.;)~~,,: . . ~
':-,"kri~~~a:s "Clear Copy, Inc." (Clear Copy). Although permits were issued the condition that the
~:~;:~:~~~~~~~ . .. ..,. '
" . sidewalk be in compliance was never met.
,.~.~~, .'The property in question is located at the southeast corner of Boynton Beach
. .-.:'- ........~~._.,
, .,. " . .' ~. ~ .
.".,,' :~..' 1" . . .
. .
.".;: .-", . " .
'. ::...~.~.;.~.~..:. ','J .;~::'~~;~"~:~';::: .....~
_ ~:..t '='~~~"'-~',,::'i;-:~~~ 4*~z.,: 1W':\J:~}~:;~;1 :::.~.:..}.~ ;;d.;ti:.1-'t~~ ~;;,",,=''';;~ '.:.,:: .:.:.:. ..~.~: ,,,,.~.~,-;~::"~~~a~~~.~:~~.;.;~<:.: ':;"~"A:'~
:. ~-";Jf;~E~":;;i!.~~;;V:~..-i!.' ~~..-~.:~;:..~r..,:;jiii.:;''i~;;';,'!f;..~ril~''.~-: ~.c.:~~~~-~j...r,t:~~!:'
_~~~:aJ ~ ~_~..:;..--mlo~B....~_...~~\,;.. ..&~~~ h~~~
_....,. _....._;..;~,. --...... ~_~ _.......... f~____ rT___ - __.___
Boulevard and N. \V. 7th Street. It consists of a 3,780 square foot, tw.o story building, crammed
onto a minimal.22S acre parcel. Appellant, RHS CORPORATION ("RHS"), owns and occupies
the adjacent property immediately east of Clear Copy's parcel. The Appellant, RHS, filed a
Notice of Administrative Appeal, appealing the City's decision to approve the site plan, wherein,
the plans have numerous violations of City ordinances and Land DevelopmentRegulations.
3. Appellant, RHS, will suffer irreparable hann should the Appellee and its officers,
agents, servants and employees continue to permit Clear Copy to build and occupy the Clear
Copy parcel which is inadequate to house such a building. Furthermore, RHS does not have an
adequate remedy at law because there are currently violations of City ordinances and Land
Development Regulations which will continue indefinitely should the building be completed and
occupied.
4.
The Clear Copy project being constructed is in violation of numerous City
"
ordinances and Land Development Regulations. The continued construction of the building and
l!/ .
site will cause immediate and irreparable injury, loss and damage to RHS should a temporary
injunction not be granted. Specifically, RHS will suffer immediate and irreparable injury should
Clear Copy be permitted to complete construction and occupy its two story office building
ilt
.... I
without complying with th: City ordinances and Land Development Regulations (LDR).
S. The purpose of the LDR is to insure the health, safety, and welfare of the
,~.~. .' ..
:.:~'~#~T~unity, and deal effectively with future problems which may occur as a result of the use and
.~'~'.~~.:::1.::; .
. :'':.:~€ye~opment of the land. Should Clear Copy not be required to comply with this regulation,
. ~\}t~:;;.:. ,.. -..'.
{RHS 'and citizens of Boynton Beach most certainly will be faced with the consequences of a
..::~~i~ .
..:.t.:J~ap1iazard development described as follows:
-..:~ ~.;f~' ..~
'ij;f:;,.;;~...,
....:<1!.:..~..
.:"".;i>'i~.~.,..,.AC. .
'.-'.~v.:o..:tl .,.,
. :~~.~.~.~
J~':~:~ii'~ -.
2 ;', ~'~~.'
. . ~ . .;.;"7):: ~
7. ". , ~..::.~..
.::;2.;;fi~i;iA> ,;;;;}:;1:;,~:: ",.'. '. '. ';"~':"'" c' ,'" '. .",i.~f~f
. ~"l;:J.';':_;. .. - '. : '~'Xi;-'~r.'~':'i;;~j..~.;,;. -:::.-~ '~""~"~~\~~~"'i':~ ;~i..:::':~';l ..p~;,"';{;...-"'{-: ~ ;.Z':.~;. ~;:::~~ .
- ~~~-,. to -,-...~.... ~~.:..'~~..~.:if...~.,..,..JiiIt-~-e.~......fA..f111o;..:J'~ .~."'......:._. '....,.~.. !~~-,~..... -..... .4... ..~.-i -.-- ~
_ . ._ T7Jii.~~~ ~_ ___Illraa:>. ~.......,- -- ----- .
6. First, the City of Boynton Beach LDR, Chapter 4, Section 8.C.5., requires "safe
and efficient access to all areas of the proposed development shall be provided for emergency and
. 'service vehicles "(emphasis added)". The site plan submitted by Clear C~py does not provide
for safe and proper access to the site for the fire department emergency vehicles. Due to
insUfficient ingress and egress of the site, a fire truck would have to traverse ov~r a curbed 5 foot
wide landscape buffer zone with an elevation change of approximately 3 feet from one side to
the other. Not only does this violate LDR, but it is impractical if not impossible to do. The lack
of sufficient ingress and egress for emergency vehicles, especially the fire departments', will
cause irreparable injury or loss to the immediate adjoining property of RHS Corporation, because
insufficient access to Clear Copy's property will cause imminent injury and threat of great bodily
harm to the adjacent property O\\'I1er, RHS, and the general public in the face of an emergency.
7.
Secondly, the site plan violates Chapter 6, Article IV, Section lO.T, which requires
"
sidewalks to be a minimum four feet wide. At the southwest corner of the site, at the intersection
.r-
of N. W. 7th Street and N. W. 1 st Ave., the four foot \\idth cannot be maintained because no
property has been provided to do so. A condition of the site plan approval and LOR
requirements prior to receiving building permits. ~s a certified statement of conformance with
,I
...... ..
LD~ Chapter 22 stating th~t the sidewalks meet code. This condition has not and cannot be met.
,')~.s violations will result in an extremely unsafe condition to pedestrian clients of RHS who
":.~{g;~. :
:ft~i4re walking to or from its adjoining parcel and require using this intersection. Additionally,
'k(f~~~}~~ :
?i "indiViduals in a wheelchair will be precluded from making the turn without entering into the
:.;:tt-1t~ ' ~ .....
:rWeet and encountering moving vehicles. A minimum 42 inches is necessary for wheel chair
-..t!~~'~~ .' .~:;;
~;t'iiioveinents, and only 29 inches is available.
.J:~:-~~..:
-~.~...~-.
-J.i.:?Aii:. .
.;......:~~...
. 'Eiri1.~.
'~~~,.; 3
?t ~' #'-;-
......
.c
-.... ~~...--
i
Sfc
1 ~
~JI'''':-.-.,...-;;'""''.
8. An enonnous amount of RHS Corporation's tenant's- clients reside in the local
neighborhood and walk to its office building, requiring them to use the sidewalk. The inability
,
of Clear Copy to comply with the four foot wide sidewalk requirement \\oil1 irreparably harm
RHS Corporation's clients, office staff and citizens of Boynton Beach in using the sidewalk at
this location. This violation can be expected to cause irreparable physical'injury, if not death,
to RHS's clientele, staff and citizens of Boynton Beach and such irreparable harm will continue
indefinitely until the violation is rectified.
9. Thirdly, an existing powerpole and guide wire exists in the area of the entrance
to Clear Copy's property near N.\V. 1st Avenue. The site approval plan did not provide any
provision for the relocation of the pole or guide wire and any movement of such a guide wire
will create an unstable structure, which in the slightest storms will create irreparable harm to
"
RHS's property, staff and clientele and further create a catastrophic situation. Again, this
irreparable harm v.ill continue indefmitely until the violation is satisfactorily rectified.
~'
10. Fourthly, Clear Copy's site p)~ approval clearly violates LDR, Chapter 7.5,
Article 2, Section S.E, which requires a landscape strip (buffer zone) of thirty inches minimum
width along adjoining interior property lines, where either off street parking or vehicular use is
'1"
.... I -
proposed. In addition, a laI)dscaped area shall be protected by a raised curb as required by LDR,
"'
Chapter 23, Article II.E.
11. The current buffer zone between Clear Copy and RHS's property is twenty inches
. ~ri RHS's property which clearly does not meet the required thirty inches. Clear Copy, therefore,
. - ..... .........
,
; ,'i~r~uired to provide an adequate buffer zone as per LDR, Article 7.5, Article 2, Section S.E.
. ,.
. ~..
~"';'.fl:~ Copy is unable to provide a legally sufficient buffer zone and will cause irreparable injury
4
.'.
.
,-
:l
t.
.,..
5, - L ......;!:~~~ :O:''C.......!''1f.~:::;t./i.~IJIf''"'~...~ .;-,,- <.~. ~. ..... -.:t.' 1 ;'. ..... - '~" '. J-.._,. ' ,. ....f> '. ft,~" '. ~~
.,~..",. ' .~,~ '-T"'-~--:,,,,,,,,,/~_~";"'-,:,,,,- ',".-< ,.,.Yo:" ..,:",".' , ,--' - -
-~ . ,~j>.
'. ~'.~: ~..;
.~:. ;'~J~.fi
to RHS' property.
."
12. The primary purpose of a buffer zone is to mitigate the shock impact by
...
automobiles coming together and reduce the shock caused by a collision. Clear Copy's inability
to provide the required buffer zone will cause irreparable injury to the clients and staff and
individuals entering RHS' property and creating an ongoing, continuing invitation for significant
physical injury, if not death to invitees on to RHS Corporation's property.
13. Fifthly, a survey of Clear Copy's property reveals a width of fifty (50) feet. The
minimum required parking lot requires a 5 foot landscaped area adjacent to N.\V. 7th Street, an
18 foot parking space, a 27 foot clear backup area, a 6 inch curb and 3 foot landscape buffer.
This is physically impossible because the property is only 50 feet, not 53 feet and 6 inches.
14. In order for Clear Copy's parking lot to meet its site plan without the 3 foot buffer
as proposed, it would require the 6 inch curb to encroach upon RHS Corporation's property by
6 inches, causing irreparable harm which will continue until the problem is rectified.
~~.
15. In addition, assuming a variance was sougbt, construction of the curb would reduce
the required backup space to 26.5 feet, and would destroy the existing hedge on RHS's property
leaving no buffer and again causing irreparable ha:Cm to the adjoining property because the buffer
IN
. .'. ..
zone will not be sufficient to protect RHS Corporation's property.
:..
"',
~
~-
-~ ."
~~~ ,
16. Sixthly, the site approval plan violates Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.A., which
:'aeiiUires that landscape instalied at the comer of an intersection of two or more public right-of-
. . .~. ~ :..;,';,,-;.,'~" .
:....;..~.~ ':~.':"'.
~<~ys' shall create a visible site triangle of 3S feet, as measured along the two abutting right-of-
. .~,~::~;~~{~~0'.~:' ~ ,'h .
:,.:..Wiys'.and shall be unobstructed with cross visibilitv at a level between thirtv inches and six feet
..:J;i~~j: . . . '. '.
~{a~ on the elevations of the site approval, the placement of the shrubs and shade trees clearly
;_:;;t~~~~;~:',~ . .
.,-..~~. .,
. i'~"k:~~dl~:"~ . .
".'-,"o"III!.~iJJ.;.- .... .
", . . . ;<{l~
,t~~~~~~J~~,x~i;~::~.~t}~}~/&;~,;~~;~~ii~;;;~t;~;;, ~~ig<.};~:~~D;" :,;:,:'..." ':.:1
. ~~"~~"'-:-~-~:~.{R~~~~~~~~~A!.:t~:;';:!fr~~~~~~:~~~~~: ~~~-;;..-.::f'~..~:.f~~~~~~G~.~~~~~~~~~:j..j:~~~~
... .' .~z~ .. . ~~.,F.."00C.-~.,,-:i&~.J.;!~'~'_""Fr..iCJ:;~:<':"~~"''7-l'.-.::.~t.''L.\'7r:.~.~.,.-~~
n.4 1M.: "'"'-:.co.... ~~~~".:.-..,.~~..:~~I.;_........~.. ./.... .-. - .
;.
-,-----"------~
encroaches on the visibility of this triangle causing irreparable harln to RHS clients, staff and
invitees using these public roads to access the adjoining property. This irreparable harm will
continue until such compliance is in accord.
17. The City of Boynton Beach LDR, Chapter 4, Section 8.C.5., requires safe and
efficient access to all areas of the proposed developmel!t shall be provided for service vehicles.
The site plan submitted does not provide for the City's required garbage and recycling trucks to
legally access the property. Both of the appropriately sized trucks required for garbage and
recyclables as per Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances, Article II, Refuse, Garbage, and
Trash, are too large to access the property. The provisions made to pick up garbage are
inadequate and contrary to provisions provided for in the City ordinances. The health and
welfare of RHS' tenants and clientele will be irreparably damaged by the unsanitary condition
"
that will occur with the inability to properly dispose of garbage. This irreparable damage will
continue causing harm until this problem is rectified.
/71"
18. The sidewalk as shown on the site plan along N. W.. 7th Avenue is currently shown
to be built at 23% cross slopes. If the sidewalk were to be reconstructed through the exit
driveway at the current elevation and required ~~9ss-slopes, then the exit drivew:r slope will
become approximately 43~. 'This will effectively close the only egress for the property, leaving
no way to exit except for vehicles to illegally back out into the street in front of RHS' driveway.
..
. '::R~e'to a 6 feet high concrete garbage enclosure at the most southwest comer ofRHS's property,
< tI:udcs and other vehicles will be unable to see pedestrians and vehicles as they are illegally
:.~.. ~:..""':~ ... ~.....
:,~~~king out of the Clear Copy property. This violation will result in an extremely unsafe
. ..1"" .
.:;/&;~ctition to clients of RHS and could be expected to cause irreparable physical injwy, if not
. .' -' ~ . ..
- :Xi~~/
-. ~.;..-::.:~:"
.~i~ii~.. .
:-~~'$.,'\~"'" ;
.:::~~~')'-:-
....~'i:!-.:~'~.
, .~ ~;.~:~' .
t;. :~._ ~;., .-.
i .;=' ~'~~:~~~~<,{~~~~.,:,:- -:~.:;~.~j:/;'.'iS,~ :;.:~,i~A~.:.. 'l_~-:'~~':~~;~~{~;:'~c;'>" ~,')J;:~;~t;\::;i~'~~<~;{:',~:':;:'~ <.~':~~;'~;~:/~;
~"., it~";\!:}: ,"-W",.,'t:;~,'.t.~i~;, :,"~"""'!';:<'''' ~'::~~~.':"":"?'....~ '
~-4lt"?'" ~._.,.____.~,_.__ __ _____ ~
6
;:)
y.~
~ ~ ~.
- .
:.~~'~~ .
'. death, to RHS' clientele, staff, citizens of Boynton Beach, and personal property of such. This
. ,
. -:-
"J _irreparable damage \\ill continue indefmitely until the violations is rectified. If Clear Copy had
. ~:: ~
',' ~omplied with this requirement when the engineering was submitted, they would have eliminated
,'more parking spaces.
19. Lastly, based upon the site plans' proposed elevations of the fuUshed parking lot,
an existing edge of pavement grades along N.\V. 1st Avenue would create an approximate ten
. percent (10%) slope to enter the site and the sidewalk at that entrance would also be at a ten
percent (10%) slope. The City's typical sidewalk cross-slopes are one quarter of an inch per foot
or two percent (2%) slope to meet Florida handicap requirements. The current sidewalk slope
. would be greater than the norm within the City. Additionally, the ingress driveway will block
Swale drainage 'flov.ring westerly along N.\V. 1st Avenue toward N.W. 7th Street and create a
.~
:_~ater ponding problem at RHS's driveway entrance. This irreparable damage \\ill continue until
, tJ.ie problem is corrected.
20.
,~.
Accordingly, the primary purpose for the City of Boynton Beach Land
Development Regulations are to preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens, to prevent
.~. ~ ~y haphazard and insure the citizens of Boynton ~:~ach, including RHS' property, ~at they will
,:1}~~:.. ~ .- .
.i'.~O~ bear the cost of the hap-hazard land development.
'":~::.'
:,1;}rz;~ 21. The totality of all Clear Copy's violations of these Land Development Regulations
';r~:'::'.
:~~ City Ordinances will cause a continued irreparable harm, which will never be rectified as
'. ~{- .
.'~ ';'..-:"~ .
~'f lo~g as the building remains as the site p.Jan proposes the construction.
.~ . ;:;;.. .. .
'"
~
;k
~
~..
~ but will continue indefmitely until such compliance is achieved.
22. The irreparable and immediate hann has already started because construction
....... -
;:".;. ":.,;';:-
. .- ~
.,
. ""''',
. ;:;...~
. .' ..~J,.
. ....;.~~
, ~-~J
:.;.~;5
" -,,,:'2
.:....~\1
.,.'~1~
'. '.f.;.~~
. ."..:'~~;
.'. ~.:~~. ~iil
. '.... " .;::.r.:~.,
7
~-~..-- --- --~-
~----- --------
.'
23. An engineering analysis is attached to this Motion: for Temporary Injunction,
prepared by Gee & Jensen, cooberating Clear Copy's noncompliance with the Land Development
Regulations and the irreparable harm caused thereby (see Exhibit "A").
24. In addition, Dr. Mark Roberts sworn Affidavit is also attached, coo berating Clear
Copy's non-cOIl1pliance of the LDR and the irreparable harm caused. RHS\.\i.ll not have an
adequate remedy at law because of Clear Copy's non-compliance.
WHEREFORE, Appellant, RHS CORPORATION, respectfully requests this Court enter a temporary
injunction enjoining the Appellee, CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH and their officers, agents, servants, employees
and attorneys and Clear Copy, and its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys from permitting any
further construction, issuing anymore permits and Certificates of Occupancy on the property located at the
.~
southeast corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and N.W. 7th Street.
rn-'.
J ....
I HEREB"G~F$.l1FYthat ~ an41correct copy of the foregoing has been furnisbed via U.S. Mail and
Facsimile this /7'/ day of /11 VcA' . 1996, to: Clerk of the City of Boynton Beach, Boynton
Beach City Hall, Boynton Beach, FL 33436 and James Cherof, Esquire, 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd., Post
Office Box 310, Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310.
~~
. I,ll
j /;
MILLER & WOODS, P. A.
1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 860
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(407) 687-8100
-
. .~ .
~
.. .........
. '... ".'
Attorneys for Appellant
'.;0.:
~~~V
.: .
;.~)~;:'>~
~
.e .
'.' >:
. ..(::.';,
"
.'
GEE & JENSON
(ngineers.ArchilK1S.P!an.'\tIs,Inc.
January 24. 1996
One Harvard Circl.
Wesl Palm Beach. fl J3,609
Telephone (407) 653-3301
. ~.
Fax (407) 6SS.7~~S
..
."..
. Mr. Mark E. Roberts
RHS Corporation
650 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard, Ste. 2
Boynton Beacn, FI33426
Dear Mr. Roberts:
.' -
Per your request, we have reviewed the approved site plan and site construction
plans for conformance with the City of Boynton Beach Land Development.
regulations and note the following:
SJTE PLAN
"
The site plan reviewed was prepared by George C. Davis, AlA, dated March 6.
.1995. revised November 15. 1995. Other supporting documents utilized in our
review were a property survey prepared b~hard L. Shephard & Associates.
dated February 27, 1995 & topographic survey information \I{as obtained by this
office. (Exhibit I).
.1.
Per Chapter 7.5, Article If, Section 5.c, a landscape strip of 2-1/2 feet
minimum width shalf be provided along adjoining interior propefty
lines where either off street parking or vehicular use area is
proposed, landScape area shall be protected by a raised curb per
Chapter 23, Article II.E.
-' -'. ..'
'.
.. ... . ....;..... . ~
,tFiri.f:.~'
:'5~~~~r', No landscape strip is shown on the approved site plan. However, a note
..i;[i.~Z~~: on the sife plans indicates that the City shall verify that an existing hedge
'~~f~-: on the neighboring property meets minimum City requirements.
;:!:;;'ii!.~r' .. .... ....
:~?i~%r: The available pranting strip on the neighboring easterly property is
;'~~~~;.: approximately 20. in width which is 10. less than minimum code
. .::;.~C requirements of 30.. This is not enough area 10 support a 4-6' hedge as
lf~reqUired. EXHIBIT", f\ 6 ,.':,jil1Jf?
.. ,~ .. t.. '-'\..~..:!~",:~~''':1'''"1'
~ '" ,- ". . ,~.... .:i-,:~~-=-~:t..~~~:
.. #....:; ";. ....~:-:::.;~tt:i!t~;!.::.
.~: '. .~: ..:..: ~.~.;C;~~~ ."
. . . ~ .. .,," "";.....__. ". .: "~"'.::".,~, . to .
..' ... .. .........J.......... .~" F
-". ". :.-.~'" .:.... '. ..;:" . _..:..t..~~--".....-;~-A.~.;: ~
_.~.._ '"';.. ....;.. ..;~~,;J.~.;..~ :;~._.-:!~F...;."!;~..,.~~ Iii.
~. ,~..._..Z':." '_ ..&..~ _ -.. -
. -. .. ..
: .
. ..: ":'" \ "
.~
. J>:.:~. .
.<.,.~ .... ~ .
.;.,,~ -.. ....
~
" RHS Corporation
Attn:', Mr. Mark Roberts
J~riuary 124 1996 - Page 2
. ~
The minimum required parking lot cross section per Exhibit II indicates as
ft. landscape area adjacent to N. W. 7th Street, 18' parking space and 27'
of clear bc::ck up area and a 6. curb or a total cross sectionc::1 width of
50.50'. The approved site plan indicates a cross section conforming to
this criteria. However, the property survey for this site shows the property
to be only 50' wide. In order to complete the required improvements, the
curb would have to encroach the neighboring easterly property by 6. or a
variance obtained to reduce the backup area to 26.5'. Construction of
the curb. even if a variance were granted to reduce the required back up
space to 26,5' , will destroy approximately half of the existing hedge and
its root system, not only cisturbing the hedge but perhaps killing it.
2. Per Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.D.1., a minimum landscaping
strip of 5' in width shall be provided between off street parking and
adjacent right.of.way.
Where as the approved site plan in~es a 5' landscape strip, the
construction plan and survey information indicates a vertical difference
bet\yeen the edge of parking space and back of sidewalk of approximately
2 '. (see Exhibit III). The resulting slope created is approximately 2-1/2 to
1. It is our opinion that the required hedge & shade trees would not be
. able to be installed on such a severe..slope given the minimum width in
, which.to landscape. It is our opinion.' that a retaining wall is necessary.
" However, if a re~aining wall is installed, it would reduce the minimum
,jandscape area te> approximately 4'-4., requiring a variance from code.
~.<<,~.::,~.i~~jl1,. addition~ the contractor's plans indic~te a buffer of only 4.88' (4'-
'. "~:~'::::~f~~'V;19:112.) adjacent to the N.W. 1sl. Ave. Tlght-of-way. Clearly code has not
...,.~.{~f~~Ji~~!~n met. If a retaini~g wall is utili~ed due to slope severity, a f~rther
. ,,'.:'.~?~.~!0iJapdscape area reduction to approxImately 4'-2- would result ,agaIn
. ft~k~~~;~!equiring a variance for approvals. ;:",_
.~;:~::.;i}5i:~~?~~[tr - .. . .
. .:.:}~~1:~}~}t;iso the construction plans indicate a cross section at the building front .'. ~~, ...,
i~~~l~~itenijy. facing N.W. tb St., of a 5' landscape strip and 17' of pavement to ',<~,:~ ....,_:,.~ .
';.{~~J2i.:tiJront of the building. (Exhibit IV). The 17' of pavement includes a 12' ..;:i;.~.~;....~X>.::.':.?};'..
'~i~~f&~~icap parking space and the required 5' clear area adjacent to the ,~j.;;,.~.~~
.r:.'!.::.~~~""t ~;; ~:fi;~~~~~t~
.;.... ....... . ..._~~~~ 4~~~
:' ... _ . -: ;r.fJ!tii.- "".. i)'f':I
. 1~ :...~~ .u~e:
'...;::;g . ~ .:~ ...."i't~
.......~6 ;; ..~.,=~ ~
.fEI . "'EHSOJf ~...At~eC:ls.PIa~"e/l.1/'lC. - t ~'..a'a c.,It. VIeS! Palm Bu~ FlO/iell 33.01- (c07) 61),3301 - Fal (C07) 6a&-7'.'~' .'C:.'
:: . .~ :.:.
-" . ~~~
~ .~....
.~
..:/;~.:;< ';
~ ;
..~. --:'
'.' .~,.~ .
.. ..... ~~.. ."-...... :
.\
~.H~ Corporation
Attn:, Mr. Mark Roberts
Jan~afy 124 1996 - Page 3
.. handicap parking spece. The construction plans do not include-the
required 6- raised curb as shown on the approved site plan. In order for
the 6- curb to be installed outside the handicap parking space, a
reduction in the 5' landscape area to 4.5' would be necessary and would
require the proper variances. Furthermore, the resulting backslope within
the remaining 4.5' landscape area would be approximately 1.8:1, again,
the abilily to plant and maintain the required landscaping would be
difficult jf net impossible. Also a polential safely hazard would be created
adjacent to the handicap parking space.
3. Per Chapter 7.5. Article 11, Section S.H. The area of property located
at the corner formed by the intersection of two or more public rights-
of-way shall create a visible site triangle of 35' as measured along
: t!le tv.'o abutting right-of-way lines. landscaping installed in this "
. zone shall provide for unobstructed cross visibility at a level
, , betvveen 30" and 6'.
,'nr-'
The shade trees and shrubs as shown on the approved sile plan will
clearly encroach in10 the clear area and do not meet the vertical clear
zone reouirements.
I
Shrubs - Since 1he elevation adjacen~ .to the parking space is
. approximately 24- higher than the adjoining street elevation on N. W. 71h
, ; Sl and N.W. 1st. Ave., 1he placement of 18- high shrubs per the approved
:: site plan \'r'ill encroach into the unobstructed visual area.
.. ". -:'::":~'::":<l
.:: ;:',....,5~~,Trees - Tree placement jf possible, within the 5' landscape area will be
':)ht'~:~~~pproximafely half way between the sidewalk and edge of parking space
...Jfii~~~yeme[lt. Based on proposed elevations, the base of the tree elevations
. .'~.\i:X~;f~Yrl!!,be approximately 12- above the adjacent street elevations of N.W. th
.:~.~:t.~,~i~(~1~~~,.and N."'!. 1st. Ave: The'S',overall h:ight trees as specified on the
_~j;;'~:~i:~~.aPeroved sIte plan wllJ have an approxImate clear trunk of 4'. The trees
)~~Jli~~~~~ras.selecled and placed on site, will again encroach into the clear site ;"..... ,...,:. ~':. :
-...:::.;,":..;o:.'-;";;:-co'i6rn' er .'. ..;.:.,.'.?!.'..::,.... .
....~~-;""~~~:t. . .....'.:.~~...~~...'l r....:;~;.
'_.:;:.~~..L<"";;;'~~~~ < ..,.....:i"S-~..-.=.;.;:~~.~;:": ~
..-.....':....~--~..,,~-::.-;... ,r'''~ ~ -.;,........-.- .
""'-.h:M""-'I~:-";" .~. ... ~.......~". ...;..:',
:,;'~:~.1:''':tttJ_. ~-~~.' .' ~..'~_-":::"'~..'1i'"........:.
...;o..oo._.....~ ~~" . _-"\...,-....;..~~..
,;'<;:;!.~"..0.1 ~7J:1; . ",'~ -o.e.t.~",..", __ ,.
. 7"..:.~.:...,._~~~~. ;" . .:.,.t'"~"'..~:r.;....:" ~:,,".
.-;:.:,;~~~ .... -, " -'.F';:"~'~.'~.( "'-.-
-.,.,:,C .~" . '..f..~~ ..... ..01:::>.,.
,. ..... ~.. .#" II>c~~ :..-v.,..
: .'." ...... - ..;J...... . ~ ~~....._,.
. - - - . . . .~-. Ol' ~.
. "- . . -,........ . .. """'.
- ....~ . ...~.. ~_.
~- . ~ ~
~....,.,..... ~- ~"'~1' ~..c=~
.'.. . '='-. .......~. ~~-
'."..""""'...-.. "'" · I ........ 0.''', W... Pol.. ...,~ ""'.., 3)'D' 'I'D~ ,,~'''" · Fo'I'D~ ....~~;jI"...:i%(,.~
. . . ~~ . ~....~ .. ~
...:.." iIJlI' ~ . ~'.
.;'~ .,'1 L. '..
t .=-. . .".
~:-,~... c.~ '.
~~. iii. ~ ,'S~....... '~'"I~......._~~,.,..~.~.....~--..-_. ..-.-,....-- -- -- ,--
~ .A'_" ..lIIIM. .~~"::&'r;'.~..,':"'...."'::~-_~~ ~ .__.__u.______'_.___
.. .. ::.
.'.-,:;,:~:~:..,~~ ~'.
.
..3 .
.'~""'~:'t .'
~. ..
;' ~.~":~ "~~' : '.
';
'RHS Corporation
'Attrl:' Mr. ~ark Roberts
J~n..ti~ry'1~11996 - Page 4
4.
.... _.
p~r;~haPter 4, Section 'S.G.S safe and efficient access to t~~
proposed development shalf be provided for emergency and service
vehicles.
Proper access to the site has not been provided for as shown on the
approved site plan.
a.
Per Exhibit V, a service vehicle cannot by means of lavr'ful
ingress/egress navigate the parking lot \vithout traversing
through designated parking spaces or over planted areas to
access the dumpster or recycle containment areas.
"
b.
Per Exhibit VI, fire department emergency vehicles cannot
by means of lavr'ful ingress/egress navigate the site without
traversing through deffl,nated parking spaces or over the
planted areas to approach the proposed building.
. ...
Per Exhibit V, it is doubtful that a delivery vehicle by means
of lawful ingress/egress, with the exception of a van' can
service the site without .'~Dcroachjng into the designated
parking spaces or planted areas to obtain access to the'
approved loading zone. .;r
~~
"
".f':
- '.
, '-
...' .
.
t;.
,,:..~ c-:- ...':' '-- ....;- :....:...... .ri:."':;.1,..;r..: .
. .
.",';~j,,:""",
. . ..."t.
, ?~.l \~.
::.t4~~.; ..
. . .
RHS Corporation
'AltO:" Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 5
..
, resulting unsafe condition would require pedestrian traffic to enter
the street in order to turn the corner. In addition, proper
wheelchair movements cannot be maintained without entering
vehicle movement areas. A minimum of 42" is required for proper
handicap accessibility.
6.
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 sealed by an architect and this is contrary to
State Law.
Construction Plan Review - The construction plans reviewed were
as prepared by H. Burton Smith. PE, Consulting Engineers title Clear
Copy Offices, Development Plan dated June, 1995 and Teele. &
Associates Consulting Engine~, Titled Clear Copy, Inc. dated
Oelober 20, 1995. The approv~onstruction plans contain both
discrepancies from the approved site plan as well as conflicts with
existing conditions.
1. Construction plans show parking space dimensions to be 9' X 16' on
Sheet 1 of 2 vs. 10' X 20' on Sheet' 2 of 2. The approved site plan
. . i~ofcates parking spaces to be 9' X 18'. .:
"
.'
. .
:- '. ::..~~..lj1e construction plans do not indicate the construction of the required
;.:.":'-;:~:.~:.':~} .~~'r~ised curbs adjacent to the planting areas per the approved site
::.. <;~;~~PJ?7tfRJa~ Per the dimensions shown on the approved construction plans,
. :'#~\f~1~.! ~~lruction of said curb cannot be accomplished on the site without
..i.'t$;~l~f-i!~~.~jng required parking space dimensions or required backup
. :._'....?;:~~>.I'._~ areas. ." . >
':~...::~~~~j::t~~~k:~~ ' ~ ~
. -....;~..;..:;~...~....~"'.t'~c~
, .:~,.lt~4.~?:'1.~3~:r11~construction plan indicates only a 4.88' landscape area adjacent
'.i:"~~';j.C:_' ~J!.!!2e N.W. 1st. Ave. Right-of-Way line. The approved site plan
:;'~"{:.... ~ requires a minimum 5' landscape area at this location.
......~~':. ... ~C!\i^..I; . .
~~--~ _.:::~ ~ ~ ~~f!~ ;
.~..=.,.:~ - It ~~~.
':"",::...~'; t.. ..
'~~5--:i ~ . .....
",:;fz.:.:
-:~.
}.:.'f.j
~~:
.~
."
.~
. ~ ': ;" . ".
.: ~: '-:".,./.-.;
... . ~'. .' .
:~;tt;./-... .~~...,
.:..~.:.~ ~.r:>:..:.: ::./:
O".~ .' .
..' ". ...
'A
~
RHS Corporation
Attn: Mr. Mark Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 6
· 4. The construction plan indicates that the required sidewalk at, the
intersection of N.W. 71':1 St. and N.W. 1~\. Ave. can be constructed per
code. The sidewalk per the approved site plan and site boundary
survey clearly show that a sidewalk and drop curb at this location
cannot be constructed in accordance with the City land Development
Regulations. (Exhibit VII) ,
5. Based on the proposed elevations of the finished parking lot and the
existing edge of pavement grades along N.W. 1sl. Ave. as shown on
Exhibit VIll, an approximate slope of 10% would be required to enter
the site. The sidewalk as shown is to be constructed at this same
slope. Typical sidewalk cross slopes are X"/Ft. (2% slope).
Additionally, the entrance may block current svvale drainage flowing
,westerly along N.W. 1 ~I. Ave. toward N.W. t" St. and create a water
. ponding problem at the easterly adjacent property driveway entrance.
"
6. Based on the proposed elevations. of the finished parking lot and the
existing edge of pavement gradeg~ong N.W. 71h St., as shown on
Exhibit IX, a driveway slope of approximately 23% will be required.
Maximum recommended driveway slopes for commercial properties
per Flo'rida Department of Transportation Roadway & Traffic Design
Standards, Index. No. 515, is 1 O~.
The sidewalk as shown on the con'struction plan is also to be builrat
this 23% cross slopes. Per Exhibit IX , if the sidewalk were to be re-
. ~nstructed t~;rough the exit driveway at ils current elevation and
. : . < Cross-slopes, then the entrance slope would become approximately
.' ,:< ....~}:i~;.~~~. It should be noted that slop:s beyond those recommended by
,':. ::,:;.:.::.::;:;~ fJonda Department of TransportatIon can cause bumper and/or
.' .~...:.. ~i.:i;~ ~~::~i:~~If?1~hicJe fraine dragging on the pavement.
: '~:<~Yb~~::';;:1~:;:'~~~S: .. ....,
. ;,~~:::}:~~;!;f~, 7;...~ Based on topographic information obtained by this office, existing
.". . " "i'" .:._~. ~;J,."'~"- ::::'p',
.:~ '~~~:::-';;1:~1:;:.i.n~rades along the adjoining easterly property line vary by as much as l' .... '. '
:'~~'~~;~~t.~f4f.~:i~~ft9,in the proposed grades on the approved construction plans. : ,~/;~~.:; I>.:;"
'\~:..:;'~-==~x~~.Grading east of the proposed pavement to match existing grades ~ ~_~.,~::..:::{..;::; .
._.....~i.;~..,.~~'~~~":"lfP'..:. Id h .. . .. ....:::..:..oI~ir,:-........ ;.... ,.
" ,';~~~~r1'~a~~'1~wo~ ave to occur on the nelghbonng property which would . -J.:?~~~.~~~t~ .',-
,~~~W*.t~j~:.:'~'~';Croach into and probably kill an existing hedge. .:;;~{~~~~~
~ 4..;.~<'1f-=~-it. ~.: .".....:.. -:. ;/ s..-' IJ~~~-.:":.
:...........1;;.~. .. .iJj..;"l _ -,:'.- ,::~;'o~~~~~J'.~ '"
.r;....t:...... A~ ~." .~..'Y~-;sr~_."...'l;.
. '!::.~~... . '.,:~.,.-').~~;
:' .~ft-; J~H,~tc:hileC:IS.p'.al\"IeII.IrlC.. , HalV.'d Ci1c:1e. We$! Palm eu~ FIOIi". 33401. (4D7) 68)'3~1 · Fal ('D7J ~~~~~W-~
.::.r;~ ~-. :':i~ 'iJ:!t.' ;
4 ..:-~ J.'
.' : 't '. .....~
;l ..~:.. ~: . -.~.
i2. ~..' , -.
:....: ... ~ . :~..
~_~:~~~;.r.~~~!-;.,~,.!t!----:..:"'r::~~':~?'~i"_-""~....._~:~-:'~~--" MOl.' - -,---
, ..
. .'.:'. . ...~": .. .
: ';:~:~:;9~:~ ':~:~>.:.
A',~"
...,
.....
. .
RHS Corporation
AUn: Mr. Marl< Roberts
January 124 1996 - Page 7
"8. Currently an exisling power pole and guy wire exist in the vltinity of
the N. W. 1 st. Ave. entrance. No provisions for relocation of the pole or
guy wire are shown on either the site plan or construction plans.
9. It is apparent on the approved parking lot lighting plans, (Exhibit I) from
review of foot-candle dispersments, that the engineer is utilizing
existing lighting fixtures on the adjacent easterly property to meet City
lighting requirements on the proposed site. This plan does not take
into consideration light blockage and shadows created by the
proposed dumpster or a 6' hedge along the internal property line. Per
City requirements, the parking lot lighting is required to maintain an
average of 1 foot candle without utilizing onsite lighting to meet this
criteria. If the parking lot lighting plan were to be revised and poles
located in the east side of the parking lot, the poles would either have
to be constructed on the adjoining property or within the required
backup clear area for vehicles. Proper parking lot lighting levels
should be maintained in order to ~t~r crime on both properties.
:.~
We trust we have satisfactorily addressed those issues where the approved
construction plans and/or site plan are in conflict with the City of Boynton Beach
Land Development Regulation requirements. Should you wish to discuss any of
the above items more in depth or have any fy,rther questions or comments
re'9~r~ing U;1is report, we would be pJeased to: review them with you at your _
. convenience:'
. .~.
. .. .
-. '. -'....
. .. -...~ .-
'.
~ ," ,a
,~ "''''.
. .'. ~ 4
.." .'
Kathy Spain
Jim Norquest
-.
.......-- ""
-~-------,--"',._,-_._----.__._---
...
IN THE CIRCUlT COUNT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUlT IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO. AP 95-8206 A Y
RHS CORPORATION,
.'
Plaintiff! Appellant,
v.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
Defendant! Appellee.
I
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. 1\f.ARK E. ROBERTS
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
"
BEFORE ME, a notary public, du1~~uthorized to administer oaths and take
acknowledgements, personally appeared MARK E. ROBERTS, D.D.S., whom being by me duly
sworn upon his oath, deposes and says:
,~ " .
1. .~y name is MARK E. ROBERTS~ D.D.S., and I am over the a~ of 21 and
competent to make this affuiavit
,..>.::); 2. I have personal knowledge concerning the case between RHS CORPORATION
,'-~~~;~~/;ci~;;~~ . .
.{Y'LGtti' OF BOYNTON BEACH. In addition, I have personal knowledge concerning the facts
'. ~:;j:~~~~,; .
'}ai1d~ciicumstances surrounding the site.,plan for the development known as "Clear Copy, Inc.",
:;~~~?-f~!:r .
.~: 'locatccfat the southeast comer of Boynton Beach Boulevard N.W. 7th Street, Boynton Beach,
_ . . ~:..:~~t:~~~~. . .
..~"".
- :-:F' 'I"~~"fr~>,
.:;; onws.;,
':,~~"~< . . ..
~;' '~~~.~.". Ibaye~evie~edthe.Joca1~~~.ord~~an,~,J~d:~~~e.~~~~en~re~~o,~~orth~ .<~>
. .' , <:;};;.~ 1'.: ..,.-: :::..; ;.: ~:. :>~. - ';-: ':;: .;.-;~~~:'~~,~" .-:," - :,A:j~~
.' 'l;t~:.: 'C:..:.,~:,;;':};k~j:' . ,~:.:;j::>j}k~~~~iJ~i~~tr.lk?.L ';.:~~~
l; ~- ~.'_r__C ",,' ;."_--.' ..~.... .......... Jk..; :!S':.t~f'-.". -.... . ~ -' . '~.'W..___._ ;......~....f:,:..'!'lo(.;}....,.~-e.~"""'..,:..;.r...........--. ;.,-'.., "':,
~ ,;;:::,'_:~..4'-~~,j;.;}l. ~,;;.::.,,,:,:j.~~~:-:..,-, ' :.,~:.:~~~ ':.--::~~~Y~~"~-~1...~;.+;:k~-~~~~~i2;?g:~,,:j;;. ,
Je::: ~. ... .'.r...,', "'~';..;?ri..~t;.--"- , ~~-:;;" ~'&;"!ii>~' .:.;i.;:....~ ':t:!:-....::.Ji!.. jJ(iti!4'1i.....:~1I.t;;::..7:.~
_ .~ . ~~;;~.~_~~~ 6 ~~.>~~~~~~. i;.~..~,.~~... ~~~';It-.: ...,. ~..."...,._..... - .. ,-
!t'lI!~ .. . . -. . --.. .... ..... ... -- -
~~}:"."..._ zo. ._...._.,...~.w~._WO'-.~ _.- .- __~____.___ --------------- -- -
City of Boynton bc:ach. Additionally, I have reviewed Clear Copy, Inc. 's site plan which was
submitted to the City of Boynton Beach for approval.
::
4. That after my review of the above materials, it is my op~on that the following
areas are in non-compliance of the City's Land Development Regulations by the Clear Copy
project and should be addressed by the City of Boynton Beach code enforcement board:
'"
1) Condition of Land Development Regulations to obtain Environmental
Permit prior to issuing the building permit has not been met.
2) Condition of Land Development Regulations to obtain a certified statement
of conformance with Chapter 22, Streets and Sidewalks prior to issuing paving/drainage permit
has not been met.
3) City Commission requirement of conditional site plan approval requiring
certification that sidewalk could be built to required codes has not been met It is impossible to
"
meet this requirement (Certified survey submitted Richard L. Shepard, and Associates) and
building permit should be revoked until this col),(ji1ion is met
'I;.
4) Although the engineering required to receive all building permits (building,
paving/drainage, and landscape) was submitted as a condition of the site plan approval, they are
",.
not satisfacto~~ and contain many errors andlor xirlsrepresentations (Gee and Jenso~ letter dated
Januazy 24, 1996). ..
5) The landscape strip shown on approved plan of neighboring property is 10
.~--":..: ~i~i::it.-:~
'. \~~~~ less than the 30 inches required, therefore a lan~cape strip on this property is required.
::i;;:~~~t:~.
:{~~~~that on the plan it states that they.,City will verify that an existing hedge meets minimum
-':.~i~~~~~~'
;:~:t;f~. !equirements.
~~~;k~~~~.~'
~~~~~t~ , 6) The landscape striP. that i~ required does not have ,the required 30 inches
';~$~:;'~"".' . "... ,...". .
~ ~~~YJ!,~Tt.4 I~.. '. . . .. ~ '~ _. '
'?-avail~.le Within th~ 50 feet wid~ proPerty, therefore a variance is required to reduce the backup . :~.
t, ' ' ;~~;i:~;'$;{'-~~\;'; f;31i;~-. :~i~,;:~~:~~:~C~'~,i,.,,;:,;;',~I~izifi.~;~Jit~ti~4J
'tf ';, ~~1.J?'-~1;~~:~~;;~;,~ ~~.~.:~!-&~~~;:..::: ;~:.:;4'i~'L' .~;~-:-p1.~~.t.~~~;.:- ~;'~~.x;:,~~;~;~';:ii~'!'1~';'~<"1""~"~'
Ji. .:: .. .~~~;...~~ ~:~~...... . .~~Jt.;i)~~~~$:;~~~~~~~eV:;:'!~.~<<~~c;,.;.).... i6t
~. . ..;:: ---. . . :.p~, .........,... _"',__ _ -';'\l ... .~';;'''',,'..,;r.-.,.......'t. -_. . .
~ ......~ ~:..::.:.:~..._.._."....~.~ .:~-:. "_.__~~_.<~.J___ _m~_____"__"'_____''''''____
'.
.area to 24.5 feet frum the required 27 feet.
~
7) The minimum required parking lot improvements are: a 5 feet landscape
area, 18 feet parking space, 27 feet of backup area, 6 inch wide curb, and 2.5 feet interior
~
landscape strip. This equals 53 feet. The survey indicates the property is only 50 feet wide. A
variance is required for the 6 inch curb, in addition to above mentioned landscape strip, to reduce
".
.'
the backup area to 24 feet. This is three feet narrower than the required minimum backup space.
8) According to Gee and Jenson Engineers, Architects, Planners, Inc. (hereafter
referred to as Gee and Jenson), the required landscape hedge will not be able to be installed on
such a severe slope as sho\\n on the plans. It is their opinion that the required landscape strip
will have to have a retaining wall installed. This will reduce the required 5 feet of landscape
strip to 4.33 feet, thus requiring a variance (Gee and Jenson Exhibit III).
9) The contractor's plans indicate a buffer of only 4.88 feet adjacent to the
"
. N.W. 1 st Avenue right-of-way, thus requiring a variance to be obtained. Gee and Jenson feel a
retaining wall is appropriate due to the slope seve~ This will further reduce the landscape strip
~,.':
to 4 feet 2 inches. Since 5 feet is required by Land Development Regulations, a variance is
required.
!:"
.~..O) Adjacent to the handicap parking space adjacent N. W. 7th Str~t a required
6 inch curb has been left off the approved site plan. This will reduce the required 5 feet of
. ..1~~pe strip to 4.5 feet. This requires a variance.
't~~~;, 11) According to Gee and Jenson, the resulting backslopc within the above
,;:'jnentioned 4.5 feet landscape area will make it difficult, if not impossible, to plant and maintain
o. '~.~~:~r:~~7~
.~. .!li~:~equired landscaping. In addition, a potential safety hazard will be created (Gee and Jenson,
, .i~:~~.~t.~.9~:. ~ ,
i: EXhibit II).
. _~. .....4-..-. - .
.~~t:~~~~... . ...' ". ,.'
4:1li..~:..-:'~~<. 12). The Land DeyClopiiicnt Regulations state, "The area of property located at
.~'1It{, :~~ -~;~'~<; ,I. .:;.:{t.;~1t~; '\.:.,~ ~;;~.!:.. ;:~S;:?';~iL~t~~~ft1j~;:; ~. ,~, _ ::~~~
'J:. _" --*':~..: ~~:'?'?~~~i; ~.~:~!.~f'~~~~~' !...~:~t~_.~~~a1:~:~~~.:~~;:u}.i~.~--:; 1~':.:l"lf5~~~-:?~'$::~.:i.~::"~~~:.~ ::::;:'~.~;.' ,.~~~...~
i.' .z __n~-~..~-c, .-;..:.~'~~~ ;;';~"':"'..""'..... L.~'" >>....~. .~.. ..,.~..; - -~~..' I..r:.~l:"':",,,-::,,~','- .
. -- ....-. ..""~ - .'~,~... >:-' ...... "" co' -~tr.;' ~ "ol:';;::'.:A~"....~,.. - --.: .
..~ . . r ~-;'...~. ~~~ .~~.. r;;.,"r.~ ~.~~,....t%:L~.....,,-,..-;;r_a.T--::-...:"'~.t-..t. :..- ~.- '
.~~_.... ~.J.__'" J._~" ~. ........,.-, 7:"""-: ........ ~ ... ... ~ _"_ 4~:.___ .,__ . _"...A.,.-."".-~~f1".:4- ....!--.....: .- .. -
the corner fonned l-J the intersection of two or more right-of-ways always shall create a visible
,
site triangle 3S feet as measured along the two abutting right-of-way lines. Landscaping installed
in this zone shall provide for unobstructed cross visibility at a level bet\~een 30 inches and 6
feet 'I It is Gee and Jenson's opinion that the submitted elevations on approved site plan will
cause the required landscaping to encroach into the required unobstructed visual area. In addition
..
to creating the potential of a safety hazard by not meeting the vertical zone requirement, a
variance is required.
13) Per Chapter 4, Section 8.C.5 safe and efficient access to the proposed
development shall be provided for emergency and service vehicles. Gee and Jenson have
indicated a service vehicle (garbage truck) cannot by means of lawful ingress/egress navigate the
parking lot without traversing through designated parking spaces or over planted areas to access
the dumpster or recycle containment areas (Gee and Jenson Exhibit V).
"
14) The Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances, Article II. Refuse,
Garbage and Trash, state "Containerized refus~ervice shall be carried out by the city at
"':.
commercial or multifamily residential establishments in the promotion of improved sanitary
conditions for the prevention of health hazard." Although the Public Works Director has
",,
proposed curbside pickup of non containerized pickup and 90 gallon recyclable containers, this
.... ~
. is contrary to the provisions of the above cited ordinance. It is impossible for the approved site
" .~!~ to provide access of the City's garbage truck or recycling garbage truck for the required
,; :..~'. _:ro;':':. ..'
';:~n~erized refuse service (Gee and Jenson, Exhibit V).
, ',' -0'
~. .... "-.
.. .... '., -'.
15) Per Chapter 4, Section 8.C.5 safe and efficient access to the proposed
,..~e.yetopment shall be provided for emergency and service vehicles. Gee and Jenson indicate that
.'~~?=lr~~/'" jO
:~:~~~fif~' department vehicles cannot by Ja'V1W ingress/egress navigate the site without traversing . ::_./:
'i;01~f~:"" ....., . : ".'.::
";li!tt01i~. designated parking spaces or oyer the planted 'areas to approach the proposed bui1~g :~~'t:1
~ 'f ~,;:. >., ' ... "."~.:): 4, '.:,....;:: .jt.r
.. . '. - '. ..'... "'f . . .'. - . ......'.. -. . ,..~~
~ r '.-.: ~:': ~::~ :._'.'':': '..:' .. '-;:::':.:.;:t',;.;.r.~; -~k8~~::. .', - .::"':.>>. . : .~/ '. ,_ :';~./ ;"...~'...:~.::.:-:::~-it,;,-::~,. -:. ,~..,'t;?..~:ii
1a ,! ...-'t";. "'~";~';:':J:~;~~i?f~~~~ ::;;-: : .-'-..,.:.:fj~jf;;J..-:.~~ jt'~i,~::.;-;:~~.s;:::~i;"?i-i7~~~~if';ri-;:~~;-~~:'..
~- : ~I!I;;;l~=-~~~~-:~~~~!>';"" .,.4.'-':~~\"'f,";~':.~ '.;-- ~ " ..".~:-=-~~~~....~~.:.:~v r-. ..... -, ..
~..".;:I~~~~~":-,:~,,,_.~~=--::___~,,,,, V"' ~._..____ ~__~__ _ _ ~ __ ______ _~ _ ____~
(Gee and Jenson E^",ubit VI).
16) Gee and Jenson indicate that it is doubtful that some delivery vehicles by
means of lawful ingress/egress will be able to service the site without encroaching into the
,
designated planted areas.
17) Per Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 10. T sidewalks shall be a minimum 4
feet 'wide within local streets right-of-ways. It is Gee and Jenson's opinion tEat the required 4
feet minimum side\\'alk cannot be maintained at the southwest corner of the site at the
intersection of N.'V. 7th Street and N.\V. 1st Avenue (Gee and Jenson Exhibit VII). The
resulting drop curb at this intersection will result in an unsafe condition requiring pedestrian
traffic to enter the street in order to turn the corner. In addition, a wheelchair movement cannot
be maintained without entering vehicle movement areas. A minimum of 42 inches is required
for proper handicap accessibility. Although 48 inches is required by code, this only provide 28
"
inches, quite short of the minimum 42 inches required for wheelchair movement To correct this
problem, the site plan has to be altered, thus repg a variance and easement dedication.
18) Chapter 481.321 of the Florida Statutes requires that a licensed landscape
architect prepare and sign all landscape plans unless for single family home. The landscape plan
-"I
was sealed by. an architect and this is contrary to/Florida State Law.
'.
-
19) The Land Development Regulations of Boynton Beach require that the
:.. subnuttcd landscape plans show sprinkler and water outlet locations. This has not been provided.
. . J.. ."_-. .
~;}}].iJ:'-
-. .....
,: .{:~J~~!i;':.
:/"~XiS!!ng edge of pavement along N.W..Jst Avenue an approximate slope of 10% would be
~~:~~~}~3[~~!,..
'~f~~~ to enter the site (Gee and Jenson Exhibit VII). The sidewalk as shown is to be
......;:~~~.~:'~
'~i~~ted at the same slope. Typical ~dewalk cross slopes in the City are 1/4"/ft (2% slope).
.,;;.....r~-.;~
-i.S:~)~~g the sidewalk to be constnlcted at the 2% 'slope, thereby meeting the Florida Handicap
?1~ . ~ ~~~;..~.~
S
20)
Based on the proposed elevations of the fmished parking lot and the
, ..
,..
" .. :...~~..::..:,.~~::. '.
..L(':.:t
. 7~;rj)!f
-':"}'}~
:":.i&(.
. . ';'i"')1;
.::'~(;t.7J!:.
~... ~~~~:lij
,.. . '.- .,:.:.:..:,<;, ;.J~.!;'.I.
". .. .'" .. " . '.. - 4 . ..,........ ._r.'_" ~.~
:...._..~ ..~.. ':.'. '.:':'.,_' e..:.. ......._._..
'.
-gUidelines, Americcil.l Disabilities Act guidelines, and Boynton Beach City standards, the resulting
I
slope v"ill be greater than the maximwn 10% reconunended driveway slope for commercial
properties per Florida Department of Transportation Roadway & Traffic De~ign Standards, Index
No. 515.
21) Based on the aforementioned proposed elevations of the ingress driveway,
Gee and Jenson have the opinion that water will collect and create po~dU;-g at the easterly
adjacent property driveway.
22) Based on the proposed elevations of the fmished parking lot and the
existing edge of pavement grades along N.\V. 7th Street, a driveway approximately 23% will be
required (Gee and Jenson Exhibit IX). If the existing sidewalk were to be reconstructed thru the
exit driveway at its current elevation and cross-slopes, then the entrance slope would become
approximately 43%. Maximum recommended driveway slopes for commercial properties per
"
Florida Department of Transportation Roadway & Traffic Design Standards, Index. No. 515, is
10%. Slopes beyond those recommended by Fl~da Department of Transportation can cause
~ ~..
bumper and or vehicle frame dragging.
To correct the situation of a 43% slope of the egress driveway currently not meeting code,
",.
I believe the r~~uired drainage engineering will ha~e to be totally redrawn. It is mY...9pinion that
this will require the loss of the handicap parking space, thereby requiring the site plan to be
.'-~:3!t~ied, and also requiring a variance.
~ ~~.;:~~~~. .
,"~~~~~<:~.' 23) The Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations requires that properties
. f:q~~:f;~:
\8~~~~~gned to be self draining. Approximately 1/3 of the property currently drain offsite in the
:~~.~~!:;::::. ."
':{!o~iportion of the site facing Boynton Beach Boulevard.
::J}:f~f~ .
,~.~. .;( ...~ ' 24) A d. G d based bieal ~_r: . b' ed
~';::~~4$!~\'., CCO~ mg to ee an Jenson, on topograp uuormation 0 tain
-;;;-ti~:-. '
......... ~$f.~.-J . . _ . .
J by'; Gee and Jenson; existing grades along the adjoining easterly property line vary by as much
.:~ .. .".::....',.~.:~.;. .'..' .- .. . .. "" .:~ :'. > '. -. . '. ': '.. .-~:~
~. .,.....-.". .~ ....~~ .:-'. '". :'-:.~'i' .'- . ~:~\~.~~:.~~
,'- ....;:: :. '. . . ... - ;,:.,'J ~ .. 6 . .' ~
I; r ~~~~.t,,,,,~',Li;. :~~Lj!-t.4~fi}4t.:<;~/~<i~; :;~. "",:1.": . :'., ~i:.:;~fJ;G,\; .~;:. . .> .::./ji
i ~ "-;"~'~~;"~~..~~t~:.:~(:.!.~~~;. C"~>-'wl~~:r.~.:.;..~:,.. ~~"'-~~1f. {;:-';--::: {:.:t~:.;f:.;..1:;ii".;.(:;; ~:K<!~?~;'':;:i' '1.r:--:;:;";~:.i~yi5J;tl.l
. -:-: l....~....~.':...... .....IIl!.,.....".:.,.... i!'~.... ..."..~.r- ...:....._..........;-...;:;.,.....;;o-~~:..;J.;.~...~-.... ..,~_..._,..~~.~_. ,~. ..-;...~
~"'. ..~~.--. _:';AT~_~..... _~ ...........'f'~. .,.."...-.._ ., ..)-::r.,r~..:.... .-.........,~_....~..~.._.._.,_. ~~. --:,~.
~';~~_~~~,.._..~-=-:-==:T~~=____ _ ," _ "..__________'~___.
'as one foot from th'"- ~roposed grades on the approved construction plans. They indicate, grading
.,
east of the proposed pavement to match existing grades \,""ould have. to occur on the neighboring
property which would encroach into and probably kill the existing requir~d hedge.
I
25) Currently a guy wire from an existing power pole is in the vicinity of the
N.W. 1st Avenue entrance. No provisions for relocation of the guy wire are shown on either the
site plan or construction plans.
".I,
26) Per City requirements, the parking lot must maintain a minimum average
of one foot candle lighting 'with no more than 10% below one foot candle and none below 1/2
foot candle. This plan used offsite lighting where there are no provisions in the Land
Development Regulations allowing for this. Although the offsite lights mayor may not be on,
the lighting plan has not taken into account that light cannot go through the 6 feet high garbage
dumpster enclosure and the 6 feet high hedges, therefore, the site will fall below the minimum
"
. acceptable levels. Taking this into consideration, the lighting design does not meet the City's
minimum requirements, which should be maintaJicd in order to deter crimes and ensure safety.
, -to"
27) In LDR Chapter 2, Section 6, Article B3, it says that no building or portion
thereof shall be erected or constructed with less than 15 feet side yard setback. The approved
, .',
~ite plan sho~~. the east side of the building to .be 15 feet from the property bO!ger, thereby
~~ting LDR requirements.~ The constructed roof of this building encroaches the required 15 feet
. .., set1?~k by approximately half a foot This violates the approved site plan and LDR requirements.
.~i~~~.~:~:;' . .
.' ~1~~~r~~ . 5. It is my further opinion, based upon the above mentioned violations, that these
.:, JJi1.t:~-~-~. ~
.:,;,y!q(a.tl6ns are currently causing irreparable harm to my property which is located immediately
.:.-~~~~2:.~"~~' .
. :{~';iind such non-compliances will continue indefinitely until they have been rectified. In
.."1'-......SZ'....,........_~
':~~~~~....., .
;.~_.:.,.~.
~8dd1ti~n, I do not have an adequate remedy of law because of Clear Copy, Inc. 's non-compliancc .' .'
. .e local ordinances which will place almost entirely the haphazard development upon my .', ~:,
.~\ ... ~:.;.' ~ ~~-;:::
" - ..,~: . . ~ -. : ."5.'~'~
~,f ~lf,;,:~" ; . , , .;,j:>.j ~:;; " 7. " :Y "'. '~;, : i"'~",:' \:,f,~;:j~,;:~{~:.,,;, ~;~i~
"', ""~. ", ,-' "" ,."--,,,.,,."..,-,, ..... ".' .., - ., .$;'. ,,"'.. .' .-w" '."... .'_< . ,~
.... -: .,.+"::~.;:::""-.......... ....; -:--""-fl"~""':''''A.~,............t<I:....~;.tI..-...'.._.....:~-.:.......... ....:......~:.:l#.._:. ._..... :''':;-'1';:'".-. "I...~.-.. ......... "-_'
~ .. ~ ~'----.--."-I""".'. _._..~_"':..~ .._"..... - . - _. ~"..' .. __.......-.,......
~:~~..b.:,;I;;J~~~~...~~lI~~I!'- =..."~.~,-=-~~~..,..__ -- - --- .._~-__________________ ---
property's shouldel.
6. Furthennore, after the construction engineering for drMnage and site construction
is corrected I believe that additional violations of Land Development Reg';llations will occur. I
believe that between 3 and 4 parking spaces may be required to be eliminated. Since Clear Copy,
Inc. indicated that 8 of 13 parking spaces are needed for employees, and one for the handicap
requirement, this would not leave any spaces for their clients, thus these cli~n~\vill have to park
on RHS Corporation's property, causing irreperable damage to RHS Corporation until compliance
is rectified.
7. Lastly, it is my opinion that compliance cannot be rectified, therefore the building
in question should be required to be either 900 or 1,200 square feet smaller. The large size of
this building blocks RHS's site visually, due to the oversized building that would otherwise Dot
be allowed since it doesn't meet Land Development Requirements. RHS Corporation is
"
irreperably damaged, which will continue indefmitely until these violations are rectified.
8. It is my opinion that a temporary-,.JBiunction must be granted to prevent Clear
Copy, Inc.'s continued Don-compliance and irreparable harm.
: ., f
1//
.-
.'-. "
......".,.
____-----------------n-o
... "tJ
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me an officer duly a~th~nzed in the State
aforesaid and in the County aforesaid to take acknowledgmen , OBERTS,
D.D.S., to me known to be the person(s) identified herein ersonally known by me)'o [who
'produced as identification in the form of an w 0 executed the
foregoing instrument and he acknowledged before me that he executed the same and who [did]
[did not] take an oath.
Fe. wr~Z! hand and official seal in the County and State aforesaid this eX q ~y
of 8. . 1996.
~,~.
(j".d:.vt'
'~.*
"?t1j;;'~'"
Fa.CIA H DANIEl
My eomm....on CCQ.uot
Expio_ o.c. 05 1998
Sond.cl by HAl
a00-422 1555
,~
Notary Public, State of Florida at Large "
My Commission Expires:
T)'pe~nt Notary Name: ~LlClA- ~\ \ ~L
, ,.. (
, ,
[Notary Seal]
! f " .
1/;/
--
.)~~,.
:;~~..;.
',"~;'~'~'
':~~.;t.
:~*F:\Fii..ES\2I26\JlOBBTS.AFF
.~~~~~~t
'i:~1..~~' :
. :'J.,- . ''''':,..
- ,
. ~. ~
"'.....,. "
. ~.. . -
,"
~ "
. ......: ~.....
",: r ".,.
-.:..:.. ....
. .... ':"2".. .
. ......
~~~(~~
.~'1..~~.-~_...Q-~..,._... ..LI ..._____~_..__~
. I! {liP'>'.
rJO ..,It': P? ~'() It
(AJ ~ lrv II~
vJ I)- f) pyJ J (If'l''
D~\V~ p(LI~.,J ~e.~'
~t_ A ~-r f)
/) f7 , .AI {}j Do.
P fZ ,tft'
flJeflO '1~
. #t.
, ,/hf..1 Sfpf\/
A J t' v . 01'(
'v _ 11 ~ ,!)Is' A\ A
. "".,{"V .lob'"
/t flj:.> II, .1' f1
~tV ,J/f;"'l
..I-" - f ;,1' v'" A~&.f
rJ.I'vI . j r'<
!~ ,,-J..v - , (d)'"
/:.t' ~ .>
10
. .,'~
Fee
Applicant: t
CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
Date Submitted:
May 18. 1984
Applicant Name: MTL Associates.
Attnl John Lynch
Applicant Address: 2420 No. Andrews Ave. Ext Phone: 97, 3.-3444 (~~~)
Pompano Beach. Fla. 33064, ~
Site Address: 802 N.W. 2nd Ave and 315 N.W.7th Ave
Legal Description: Lot 1 and the South 82' or Lot 4 Laurel Hills
Subdivision or the City or Boynton Beach. Florida. accord1n~ to
.,. ,
the Plat there or on fl1e in the of rice or the Clerk or the Circuit
Court 1n and for ~~M Palm Beach County. Fla. R corded in Plat Book 21
Page 38
Project Description: 78 Seat Wendy's Old Fashion Hambur~er's
Restaurant with a Drive thru window
-
""
--,
/'7/ ~1//7____...
~~ER
Mr. Robert Beano
~~.. S? &.14 ,~
Mrs. .c=at:llyn Beane
HTL Associates
The Owner haa hereby de-
81gnated the above .igned ,..J;
peraon to act: a. hia agent: ~
in regard to this petition.'
(To be executed when Owner.'
designate. another to ACt:-'
on his behalf.)
L{~tW,a.Y1\u:~
, ' _ NotAry l'u~l)n MU: StA)t Cr~-
, .. aw.....~ PJaIS MY:S rill..)
; ~... C>>IWL IMMMG"~
~~..'~ ~~"''-~ ; ,',lei ..~' .' ;
, . """l:'!Ii';';~i~.;;';:' ~
ann ftCJ DepartMDt' '/13
'I
'.
,
.. ~ '
'\~, ;; .,',:: .>)~'t.':',
. "'". \".' j~ /",.:'::T'~S3~",;;:;~,;
.'. '.'.:,'~,:.';.~,:,;,,:,.:.',.,';,,:,",.;"'.,;';'.~".,',~.t.,-, 'f ',; ,,'-', :2CO~_~~ t~~~,a~i' ~~~.' Appl1c:a t
",.:~, ;;;' . . ",. .. ",:,)&;i,~~t:~j~f{f~;;f~~
.,' ,,"B,OYNTON BEACH P~IN~- D:~A~~>
r ;.t-'"."". " '. ". ..' ....:.'~f_"". .' t" ",. " ", ~
APPLICATION INFORMATION FORM\:~; ,; >'''~i:.b:>
_, .".' :, - - ~:;,~~~~"~/~,~;"!'~~::.'::';[>3~fH"Y:;1:"i,.\
NOTE: This form must be filled out completely 'anI! "accurately.
and must accompany all app1icati~ns submitte~ to" the~.$;J>;~
Planning Dept. i 't, j,,';~~~J,,:,'f:t!;;::t1,';;S~;;;f,::&,i~....iv..-Y;!';~~f*tt:~~.tvi:~~~t""
"" ~\:~,v :~. ":,,,~~;':';\'-.,~:j(;'h~:;f~):~1~~~t:.~"" "",'.';!t::'~i
PROJECT NAME:.' WENDY S OLD FASHIOR HAMBURGERS'..... "J~. "..,.. ' "ft..
J\GENT'S NAME: HTL ASSOCIATES .:;";'"r:l~.~-...,:;~,,,7:,;';;;:i':'.~:If>~;:''' ~. " "
ADDRESS. . . ;:::~::.::: 3::~.~'~d~':,' ;~;c~".~&J!'~i;1
.;;. '. ~. t.
. . .~'. .,
"~~~t;:ii~~.':~~f{fj:"Ji
':':, :<:.,~1:'
" ~.~' >,~~
".,~
,;~t~'11
".~,.,'i:~l
" ,:-',~J::'~;:!,~fYi{
.... . ~ .to
PHONE:. -...('JO~l q,,-'rlolaA
~""""l. ,"
..~ ...... 1: \
.
OWNER'S NAME: Robert & Caro'l)'ft ~.n.
(or trustee's)
J\DDRESS: P. O. Drawer 370
Boynton lleach. FL 33435
."{ .~'
PHONE
732-6700
.l; .': '.
'~I .
';"'~;,\:}IV
PROJECT LOCJ\TION: 802 R. V. 2nd A.vena
(not legal description)
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS~
(if different than
agent or ovner)
KTI. Anoclat..
2420 Horth Andrew. Avenue Extenaion
POlIIpano lleach. FL 33064
Attentlon: ~. Jobn Lyncb
"
* This is the address to which all
materials will be forwarded.'
,: v dene. "it e t . wrlhJ[ff~_~~~~~.:~:~, ~a
f .'~ his contract, "t.he . (seller)' ,'n L ), shall, at' '1 t.. expen.ej',deUv
"t.o'Buyer'orhi.'attorney, a title insurance commitment:is.ued by(", ,
!fa qualified: Utle insuror' agreeing t.o'issue to Buyer,: upon recor4-
;ing 'of the c!eed hereinbefore mentioned, ,an Owner'. Policy of ,Title
Insurance: in,the amount. of ~ the, purchase price, ',insuring . t.itle,co!i
fthe Buyer, t.o. ,~he real property, subject only t.o . llens, encumbrance.,
'exceptions or!.quaUfications set forth in this agreementand,thos..
:'which shall be discharged by Seller at or' before closing:t~Uf:.title
,;is found to be defective,; Buyer shall within, fifteen (15)1c!ay., of.
,':; receipt of. title insurance commitment or upon findin9.thati\Utle
,~ida defective,' notify, Seller in writing,', specifying th.."def.ct." ,
" If t.he said defecta. render: the title unJr.arketable,';'t.he :'sel1er:-s1ial1,.
" have ninety J90) day. from\'receipt"'of~such noUce.,to;curetthe"defects
and if after, aaid period Sellershall,not, have cured~.th.~,4efect.
Buyer shall have .th.option of. (1)' accepting title ali'1tithen~1"
or (2) demanding 'a . refund "0&. all monies paief hereunder: whlch!sha
forth~ith be returned~o the Buyer,. and t.hereupon t.he Buyer,;an4::
Seller shall be" r.e:~e,~sed of., all. f':lrt.~er. obl~gatiol\s"under,-this;c
tract. '~,\:::', : ';f\~" ;~~;~'~~~f!i~r}H;\~:-~f;r~;/,~.~;~{~~~~t
8. Irrespective!of'th."foregolng,';:th.~"Seller..a9tee^, u or na
t.he aforesaid purchase money mortgage to an institutionalmortgag
., obtained by Buyer' for; t.he purpose of constructing '.: Wendy'. ,Image
. Restaurant on the 'real propertY",which mortgage shall;not~('eX:ceed ':;~
, t.he sum of $400,000.00, and agree a to ,execute alldocUment.~' ',' :'.
';';:/.;." necessary as required by the lender.\!1!:~fFurther,~the'Seller.! agre.~;
,'/:-:"to subordinate't.he Purchase Money Mortgage\to the lien:of,.~t.he,~~'~)<"1,
-". restaurant equipment package:.nd;to execute,.ucb:c!ocument.;..'it'.!.,::"".,~.
may be required by said supplier. froaa tim.',to t1me'.o long ..', ,..-':"
such liens are for the the. financing of ,~th~, sai~!tquipment~t "': ;~~.<', ',';,
';' .:..'" :,r~::"&, " ",;!;~~;~1;yt.~~;,~;;~~:;t,~:.;.~,:~...
.. ~,.).,. '.;, ?, t :< .....~~
., .
/r
','
':l.
~ "'J
:::,' , ',+:}~~/..~~~,1,:;, .~~::-'i'~r 1::'~t}r}:~~:~~~',~.:!;:?;r
'. ,,;tJi\ >l"f,'~ ,~t~fl"'1t'~!tttf}:t}<";~.. :,';il,
, .~. .,I.::'~; '".: ,lr.~" '. - ,. ..':,~'. ./~, ,f. .c""::~~' ":
.j.....',..'
. '.. ~
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA' _ . t:::
... ,. ~ . ~. ~ "'t~ ~~, ";"/'~ ~~~:~
Councilman Cassandra referred to the staff recomm~nding no~': :\~t'ts;:,
to grant this variance and stated ~e would like to hear their:\' ,{i:
reasoning. Mr. Annunziato replied that the Technical Review ".j,,;'.
Board discussed the purpose for sidewalks and felt there . ..,. .,",
would be the opportunity for people to cut driveways into'
9th Street and if there are driveways, there should be side-' ,.
walks to separate the pedestrian and vehicular traf~ic.
Councilman Cassandra questioned the number of sidewalks in
the Laurel Hills area and ~~. Thompson told about less than
50\ of the homes having sidewalks.
Mr. Thompson continued that he realizes what the Technical
Review Board is trying to do and appreciates their input.
However, having a sidewalk along this stretch would not be
beneficial. He explained how the grassed area would be
better with giving the children more room to play, etc. "
lie agrees that some-bomes will put in driveways, but he
does not see where a ~idewalk would be beneficial. The
people have always walked through the Laurel Hills area
with no problems.
Mayor Zimmerman referred to there being problems with
storage of things in the rear of these homes and stated
it would help this problem by having a sidewalk as the
owners would probably keep it in better shape with having
people walking along there. Mr. Thompson replied that he
didn't think a sidewalk would have any bearing on that.
A hedge might make it more aesthetic for people across
the street looking into back yards. ~~st of the people
have cleaned up their yards and keep them looking nice and
he doesn't see where a sidewalk would have any impact.
Mayor Zimmerman stated that he wants the area to be im-
proved and thinks maybe a sidewalk would be an encourage-
ment. ... -
~~. Thompson told how the road was about two feet lower
than his yard and a wall would be required in addition
to a sidewalk. He would rather have a hedge for privacy.
Mr. Hoppman explained how it was felt it would be prefer-
able to have an area sodded with sprinklers and a good
sized hAdge. lie added that it is not normal to have side-
walks at the rear of homes. Also. the residents living on
the other side of the street would rather look at greenery
than a sidewalk.
.~yor Zimmerman questioned who would plant and maintain a
hedge and Mr. Annunziato npUed that if it is planted on
pri v~":.' property. the property owners would have to 1181n-
tail _l:. Mr. Hoppman clarified tha~ the intent is to put
it on private property. 'rhoy w111 plant and water it until ',.
growing and then the redelenta will .-1ntaiD it.
)-",Jlt~~..,:l',,' '}~",,'f-~,r~"" ..) ...;....../ ": ,;,;",,~,;, ",'
:;<~1i-
;:'~'~."'< ""';/j. . ~N
k' .J. .,.;,.,,:"'f
REGUL^R CITY COUNCIL MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 19,
-
Councilman Cassandra moved to approve the applicant's
request for a variance of the Bidewalk for the rear of their
development. He is not prone to concrete walls, as we have
enough in this city. It is at the rear of homes. He feels
the developer has met the commitments as far as the front
of homes. Since the surrounding community is also in favor
of granting the variance, this iB having the community at
heart. Vice Mayor Ferrell Beconded the motion. Under
discussion, Mayor Zimmerman Btated in this case, the wall
would not be any higher than the level of the Bidewalk and
would only be a retaining wall. Mr. CaBsandra stated that
he realizes this. Mr. Wright stated he is not in favor of
a Bidewalk in a back yard. Motion carried 4-0.
Approve request for a Beventy-four (74) seat restaurant with
drive-through facilities to be located on West Boynton Beach
Boulevard and NW 7th Street Bubmitted by MTL Associates for
Wendy' BOld Fashiort>:Q.arnburger FaBt Food ReBtaurant/Robert
and Carolyn Beane
~}"
.~ ' ..
.,.\.,k
Mr. John Lynch, 1290 N.E. 4th Court, Boca Raton, told about
a Wendy's Restaurant with drive-thru facility being planned
for this location. In accordance with the Community Appear-
ance Board meeting last night, they have agreed to put a
6' high wall on the north side of tho property as well as
on the west side of the property where the commercial pro-
perty abuts residential zoning. In addition, they are pro-
viding a great deal of landscaped areas around the entire
site to buffer the restaurant from adjacent areas. He also
explained how the lighting would be a low powered type
prohibiting shining into adjacent areas. He thinks the
question is this particular site being used as a drive-thru
restaurant site rather than just a restaurant. He told
about the Wendy's in'this area and their employment of
local people. He respectfully requests this be approved
and will be pleased to answer any questions.
Mr. Annunziato referred to submitting a lengthy recommenda-
tion and pointed out the location with advising that it is
zoned C-2 and telling about the surrounding zoning. Coun-
cilman Cassandra questioned the R-2 zone shown and Mr.
Annunziato explained this is 1-95 right-of-way. He con-
tinued with explaining the access to the site and parking
provided. The building and landscaping meet and exceed
the codes. The plan _ets the technical codes except
those included in the staff collllllents. He added that the
_mo clearly lists the reasons for the basis of their
recommendation for denial. Be noted reasons expressed
for traffic congestion resulting. The staff recOllllllenda-
tioRS were forwarded to the Planning . Ioning Board and
..-
..
j,' ~1(Z;";lft.
" "iJi.:rt,;'"';"''"'' I,
"'Jl~,~~""'~''''~l
",( ?~5~~~:~';~?
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
BOYNTON BEACII, FLORIDA
,','" '1-'
, T' ~
. JUNB
-
after conductring a public hearing, the board recommended, ,!!'l'
denial. This was reviewed by the Community Appearance ' ;j~"; .'
Board and comes with their positive recommendation. ,If ,'.'
the Council approves, he suggests approving SUbject to',
staff comments. " "
Councilman Wright referred to employment being created'and
questioned the number to be hired and Mr. Lynch replied it: ".
would be 30 to 50 employees. Mr. Wright referred to there
also being a scholarship program and Mr. Lynch agreed. '.,'
Councilman Wright stated he has looked at this~' Unfortu~"
nately, he was not able to attend the Planning' Zoning ,
Board meeting and is interested to know what rationale Mr.
Linkous and Mr. Pagliarulo used in voting for the project.
Mr. Annunziato replied that he didn't recall any specific
comments on their part. Mr.-Cassandra added that he be-
lieves ~~. Linkous.~aid they were against progress.
"-
Councilman Wright commented that it seems we are having a
problem along Federal Highway and he hopes nothing further
is considered for that area. lie thinks a business such as
this could be an asset for this area. Since there are
several service stations in this area, he. doesn't see
where this would create problems.
Councilman Cassandra asked how far the drive-thru window
is from the property line and Mr. Annunziato replied it
would be approximately 35 feet and there will be a hedge
and wall.
Mayor Zimmerman asked those in favor of this request to
please come forward.
Mr. Walter Dutch, 100 S. Federal Highway, Boynton Beach,
stated he is in favor of a Wendy's on the Beane parcel.
He referred to owning adjacent properties and stated
with the proposed new Intracoastal bridge and an inter-
change from the turnpike onto Boynton Beach BOUlevard,
this will ultimately be a highly over-used commercial
road and nothing else. He sees no objection to putting
more commercial in this area. especially where it not only
serves the cOlllJllunity. but other areas. He told about
going to restaurants with drive-thru windows and how
there atenever cars stacked up waiting and this traffic
is contained within the property itself. lie ia in favor
of this project.
Mr. Bob Yost. 2005 South Federal Highway. Boynton Beach,
referr~~ to Boynton Beach being a blooming and booadng
town L-.... stated the aajor thoroughfares awst .1so incre....i
;)~~;5;~}<5~<.J~~ ..
.<
----..-___..,____.__._.__.._n_.,.. ..__~ _~ __.___.______,_,"__,
i\~~ !;~~;,-1
,1."....~it';':'l~,,-{,
',\f~.,..:!..,;f.~'
" "",,<,~
" -""~B
-:-,:':::[{J~,
. . -')';~!:~{,
.
, ~
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
BOYNTON BEACn, FLORIDA
-
Mr. Yost continued with stating that he was
Planning &' Zoning Board meeting and the only objections he .. ",,' ',..;:....~)..
heard were in reference to lights in the parking area,
traffic in and out, and the speaker system. The property.,. ,.",r,::;,i.,;""-O;)/,'
is zoned C-2 and a restaurant would be allowed wi thouta .,:,..." , , ~:I"%/~!"'<<if>~"
drive-thru window. They have agreed to put a wall on the:'\,,<~:';';~"
north and west sides, which would buffet the speaker system. ' ,'" ,,;.;
There are several drive-thru restaurants on Federal Highway, ":~:'
within a few blocks and traffic has not,creat~d any problems. '
He is in the process of buying property across the street "
from this location and knows Wendy's would be a good neigh-
bor. He is in favor of this project.
Mayor Zimmerman then requested those opposed to this request
to come forward.
Mr. Uarold Werger, 1306 N. 't. 7th Street, President of the '
Laurel JUlls HomeQwners Association, came forward. He
stated there are 2!o homes in Laurel Hills, which is directly
behind this location. This is the main street into their
area. Sky Lake is building 300 homes in this area and one
of their main outlets will be N.W. 7th Street. He told
about having problems now exiting and entering Boynton
Beach Boulevard because of traffic from 1-95. He ex-
plained how there was no toom for stacking by the island
when coming from the west and making a left turn from
Boynton Beach Boulevard. Also, with Wendy's having take-
outs, it will create the opportunity for a lot more young
people to congregate at Pioneer Park or on Nest Industrial
Avenue. lie is in favor of a sit-down restaurant with the
drive-thru and carry-out eliminated.
Mr. Arnold Thoopson, 1307 tr.w. 8th Court. added that he
would like to point out there is no way to go out ha~fway
into Boynton Beach Boulevard and wait for traffic to clear ,~
with the design of that island. It is also a turning lane
into the industrial park. The 30 ft. right-of-way is dan-
gerous. There will definitely be a traffic problem with
this restaurant. Directly to the west. some changes could
be made on Old Boynton naad and that would be a good loca-
tion for a fast food restaurant. There is an existing
problem at this intersection. The C-2 zone i. fine for an
office complex with a small amount of traffic.
Mayor Zimmerman stated that he agrees vith the last two
speakers and the recommendations made by the Planning .
Zoning Board and Technical Review Board. He lives fairly
close to this location and passe. it often and the traffic:
on Boynton Deach Boulevard i. intolerable. especially for :
peop,1.. :oming out frea 7th Street and a 4rive-thru restaurant
viiI ~~ke it worse.
-10-
"{"'1!,~it;~i ,;.-;i:,,- ~~~.,;j\t: "
',. ;4:~~,..,. 'tJ: ,} 'f, C', .....,;.;, ","Ii:;""
..;:i1;....~<' ,;:.: ., ,=-.,-'j, 'J _\:'-"
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL'MEETING
BOYNTON BEACII, FLORIDA
JUNE 19,
.. ,,; . \... ~) ~t' ,::.'r_t...;;., ..l'~
Vice Mayor F!!rrell referred to going through the reconunenda~<>.',:, ~~.i:k~Pt'(
tions and listening to the conunents and stated this is a '"":':;;:'\,'<~~;F~t11':~:'
si t-down restaurant and is not drlve-thru, but only has. af',c;':-!?J, ~;;.::i1?;ti~'
drive-thru window. There will be 74 seats. If we deny the,:' ,::,;;::,__::,>,(:~
window, it will not bo a way of keeping them from building.., '" ,," '.::,.-<
We cannot disallow because of a high volume restaurant, ;.' c'. \ < .\;
because that is allowed. A lot of points do not have a "
bearing on whether the window is there or not. This 'will >',
be a main thoroughfare with the bridge and turnpike inter":., '
change. He doesn't think we want it to be a main thorough-
fare without development. The road with traffic makes more'
noise than any restaurant or speaker would ever make. The.'
traffic flow from a restaurant will make a difference~ but
all the traffic generated onto that spot will not be the" .,
result of a drive-thru window. lie has not heard any com-
plaints about traffic backing up at other drive-thru 'res-
taurants. Off-street parking, lights, dumpster, etc. will
exist with any restl!urant. A arive-thru window eliminates.
kids hanging at the &Lte, excess banging of doors, etc.
There is other conunercial property in this area and a lot
of C-2 property backs up to residential areas. The condi-
tional use allows individual review. Restaurants are
located at every exit of 1-95. He thinks we have to be
reasonable in what we are doing.
Councilman Cassandra told about clarification being given
for drive-thru and drive-in restaurants. He considered
the traffic concern and told about other exits of 1-95
having traffic signalS close to the exits and believes
we can make a request for one at this location. He thinks
the medians are a hazard. If restaurants are not wanted
in the C-2 zone, then the ordinance should be changed.
This request is only for the conditional use of the window.
He read the traffic analysis and their main business is
conducted only during a one hour period and only 30\ i.
generated by the drive-thru window. He has known of no
accidents on U. S. 1 because of the fast food restaurants.
In regards to a curb cut, possibly this should be studied
by the engineers. A shopping center would generate more
cars. In reference to lights, he explained how the next
building would be 75 feet away from the road and he does
not see how headlights could hit th~t building. He re-
ferred to another sensitive area where a wall was the
solution. He thinks the Planning Department submitted an
excellent report, but we Ilust consider the lDain objective
which is the conditional use of the window.
Vice Mayor Ferrell questioned "bat the staff c:omments are
if approved and Mr. Annunziato replied thes. are covered
in ';be last four sheets of the -.0 subaaitted.
"
.l," ;.
.;~
':;" .
......
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
BOYNTON BEACII, FLORIDA
",
JUNE 19, 1984
, - ,
Councilman Cassandra commented that it is normal procedure
for fast food restaurants to have a speaker coming from a
menu board speaking down to the car. The amount of sound
lost is astronomical. lie recommends the speaker being at"
the same height as the car window. Increased volume would ,
not be needed then. Hr. Lynch replied that they will check'".
into that, but their speakers are in the box itself and at
window level. .
Mayor Zimmerman commented that he sees there is no use
considering eliminating the drive-thru window from what he
has heard. He still feels the main item which has been
discussed against this project is the exit that people have
from Laurel Hills onto Boynton Beach Boulevard. It is a
bad situation and this will make it worse and he doesn't
see any solution. He will have to vote against this.
Councilman Cassandr~asked if the applicant has to donate
anything and Mr. Ann~ziato replied 5 feet for a sidewalk.
Mr. Cassandra questioned if there would be enough room to
have a separate lane for them to come out and Mr. Lynch
replied there could be a right turn lane only. He added
that their original site plan had ingress/egress cut onto
Boynton Beach Boulevard which did not interfere with
N.W. 7th Street, but that was eliminated. Mr. Cassandra
clarified that he was suggesting making another lane for
traffic coming out and Mr. Annunziato advised the possible
result would be to lose a lane of parking.
After further discussion relative to traffic, l~. Cassandra
moved to grant the conditional use variance for the drive-
thru window of this applicant. Councilman Wright seconded
the motion. No discussion. Motion carried 3-1 with Mayor
Zimmerman dissenting.
.-
Councilman Cassandra continued that since the biggest con-
cern of the Planning Department was there would be others
in this area, he asked if it would be appropriate to request
through the Acting City ~~nager the possibility of review-
ing the C-2 permitted uses to get rid of drive-in or drive-
thru restaurant altogether. ' I~yor Zimmerman replied this
could be taken care of separately. .
Approve request for abandonment of a special purpose easement
and a prescriptive easement submitted by Digby Bridges for
pine land Plaza/Pronto Builders. Inc.. located at U.S. 1
between S.E. 1st and S.E. 2nd Avenues, west side.
Mr. Annun:dato pointed out the location and explained there
~~ a platted utility easement and a sanitary sewer va. In-
, .~lled -.any years ago. 'l'he applicant is request1n9 that
this special purpose ease.eDt and the city.. rights to thi.
-12-
,.t
'.'if~r
~t~~"-"'~~')
:~.~,', '
,"
S. MINUTES
BOYNTON
.
- PLA~mING AND ZONING BOARD
BEACH, FLORIDA
'.
JUNE 12, 1984
Mr. Linkous nsked if Sec. 5-~4l(m) pertains primarily to an
obstruction from an en~ance and asked if there are no doors
leading into the building that would obstruct the firelanes.
Mr. Annunziato said that was an exact analysis of it. The
City staff sat down and discussed it long and hard. Mr.
Annunziato said the basis for projecting that section had to
do with emergency access to the building. Obviously, if
therf are no doors, you do not need the emergency access.
Mr. Linkous moved .to g-rant re'.ief from Section 5-141 (m),
seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo. Motion carried 7-0.
Mr. Annunziato asked if the intent of the motion was that the
applicant would delete one parking space or make arrangements
to open up the area of the service corridor (one or the
other). The Members answered, -Yes.-
Motion on Abandonment ..
~
Chairman Ryder determined that no one ..vi shed to speak for or
against the request for abandonment.
Mr. Linkous moved to grant the reqUest for abandonment of a
special purpose easement and a prescriptive easement, seconded
by }tt. Wandelt. Motion carried 7-0.
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use
Wendy's Old Fashioned Bamburgers
Fast Food Restaurant
MTL Associates
Robert , Carolyn Beane
West Boynton Beach Blvd. and N. W. 7th Street
Seventy-four (74) seat restaurant vith drive-
thru facilities
Chairman Ryder reminded the Members that this is located in a
C-2 area. A recently adopted ordinance by the City has per-
mitted consideration of this type of facility (a drive-in
restaurant) conditioned on certain standards. Following- this
ordinance. Chairman Ryder told the ~rs they have a specific
reque.t for a specific location.
Mr. Ar.nunziato read a IIeaoran4ua dated llay 31. 1984,. which vas
prer:,'f'd by staff. and vas written by Mr. Annunziato to the
Boa1 i'.. ae indicated the location on the overlay. After rea4-
ing paragraph 1 OIl page 2. Mr. ADDunalato explained bow the
, slte 18 1.aldaat. OIl the ...t 1. 7th Street, Boynton Beach BoGle-
"''i.: v~, 1. OIl the aouth. aDd. there 1. parkiD9 along the ...t .ide
..,',. "',"'~',""",. Jt:>c "-r.' j. .'!to
."~ ,. ".,,,,~.,,,,,,. lI!i!li,~,!'lIlIt"'" .,
;~ . "- '\. i,,'l"\ :.'. . '...~' , ' ... .. f" . ;,
PROJECT NAME: .
AG~NT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
. DESCRIPTION:
-.....
,i
~
,.~
j~~
tt:;::. '
:t, "".,
4 ..
,-"" 'I
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 12, 1984 -
and along the north pJ:Qperty line. The, drive-thru facility is
.. on the west side of the building. The speaker phone is on the
north side of the landscaped area, as is the tr~ck loading
facility and garbage dumpster. The restaurant sits more to
the front center of the property. The pick-up window is on
the west side of the buil~ing.
On page 2, after reading that curb cuts on West Boynton Beach
Boulevard are prohibited 'at this location by Code, Mr.
Annunziato thought the Members would recall that you have to
have 180 feet at the intersection of rights-of-way lines of
two streets.that are arterial before you can have a driveway.
Before reading paragraph 5 on page 3 of the Memorandum, Mr.
Annunziato informed the Members that the applicant is proposing
to construct a fire hydrant in the southeast corner of ,the
property to adequately provide fire protection.
Before reading the re~endation of staff, ~x. Annunziato
said he thought there was no question in anyone's mind as to
the conglomerating tendencies of fast-food restaurants
because they have seen it in several areas of the city. Be
concluded by reading, -Therefore, the Planning Department
recommends that this request for conditional use approval be
denied.-
If the Board recommends that this application be approved,
Mr. Annunziato said there is a set of technical recommenda-
tions from the City Staff that &hould be included in the
Board's recommendation. Be did not think it was necessary to
read them into the record at this time since the Members
already had a copy of them and could review them.
Chairman Ryder 'asked the applicant to come forward. aus.ell
Chase, Architect, 114 s. W. 10th Street, Fort Lauderdale;
representing his client, wendy'. Old Fashioned Hamburgers,
said he li$tened to Mr. Annunziato's comments regarding his
review of the si~e plan and also at the workshops they have
had. ~~. Chase understoOd some of the things, and other
things he did not understand.
!-.r. Chase told the Board they have done .everal traffic
impact studies on a number of Wendy'. restaurants in the Fort
Lauderdale area and the pala Beach County area. With no
exception do they have any restaurants that has the traffic
impact Hr. Annunziato has indicated, although Hr. Chas. va.
sure "x. Annunziato'. traffic impact .tudy was 4on. on
reCOlllmended traffic 1apact. for fa.t food restaurant oper-
ation..
Mr. I"...ase aald their traffic a~ the highe.~ peak ~be of the
day runa aomevhere around 150 to 185 depeDdiDg on the location
of the n.~auran~. ~ total traffic ~ i. ill the '
".'
, ~1~~ttf:>I'f~YI~;~~1id~~'" i., 'fr"''ii''lfIf<'~~>Iit~'t-;.t,...;.~~~Uilll'~J?'K,~()tt4-,:q "?~~~L ,,' '
,"~~~~'?3df"ll'~;s.:~\'~~1.l~r.~J.~"7f~":','\i':~::A~'tr~~~' ~,_.,~;"?.t"~~~~~~,~,.,~~~$,~"~'1~~-. '~!'i' '/I\,;~,:"V
;, '; 'f',' ;'.'::'~;1~;~ ,~~'<~'< ',' ",< ~("', '\ . '. ", .', . ': ",:,'
MINUTES PLANNING AND BONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1984
neighborhood of betweeQaSOO and 600 cars per day, some of which
are sit down people and some drive-thru people. The impact
study was done by all traffic entering and leaving the
property.
If the Board Members have been to any of Wendy's fast food
res~aurants, Mr. Chase thought they would be aware of the fact
that they are not a nuisance operation in the neighborhood.
They do have the buffer zone with the wall and landscaping
where they abut residential neighborhoods~ They are maintained
in an orderly fashion, so Hr. Chase did not think anyone would
find, 'if they were on the property itself, an odor offensive
or a detriment to any of the abutting property owners at any
of the locations Wendy's occupies.
Chairman Ryder said there is a Wendy's on Gulfstream Boulevard
in Boynton Beach but it is in a commercial zone.
Mr. Chase continued by.~aying they have attempted to meet
the requirements set forth on the recollllllendations of the
different Building Department officials and also in the work-
shops they went through. He i. aware of the staff comments
and believed they addressed most of the comments. Mr. Chase
said the comments they have not addressed can be picked up at
final approval.
Members of the Board did not wish to direct any questions to
the applicant. Chairman Ryder asked if anyone wished to speak
in favor of the proposal. There was no response. Chairman
Ryder asked if anyone wished to .peak in opposition.
Harold Werger, 1306 R. W. 7th Street, President of the Laurel
Hill. Homeowners Association, lives right down the street from
where the restaurant is going to go and vas speaking for the
Association. He stated that the restaurant vill be righ~ at
the foot of the I-95 ramp. With Gold Coast Engineering there
which has a flow of traffic going in and out, Mr. Werger said
they have an awful time ~etting out on Boynton Beach Boule-
vard from N. W. 7th Street. Not only morning and niqht,
but there are times during the vhole day that the traffic is
very heavy there.
Mr. Werger referred to Sky take and the Mall, which will add
to the congestion and confusion of Boynton Beach Boulevard.
If the restaurant is put there. he said traffic frOlll the
restaurant viII slow down along the curb. Fast. traffic viII
IDOve to the left. and the slow uaffic will try to cut in
to 90 into the entrance of the restaurant in the two locations.
With traffic coeinq out of B. If. lth Street. Hr. Werger said
ao.e of that: uaffic vill be backed up on Boynton Beach Boule-
vard coaill9 vest. Coaing east, uaffic .Ul ~ backed up on
*:,'t,,'
, ,ij{{:~~.:
',' ,..~,t:...
"~'_.~.~: ;i'~)
, ,~,,~~,
~t;'J"I:r'
, ',:1' ".tl,
''''>><"'''/It"''''
..;::.;~:;,~,~,.f:.:,
'."~' "
.~. .. ;.",:' " " '
" ~, ;'t("~' .
~,,:~..:,.
",..',"
~~{7,
,..:,I,'\}
;ff:r.,.:
111.'1.-.\',
~",'"
~l~
~t;F .
~~'"
'l~,~ l"r~'~1Jt~~~~~~:,,'k~,.~r: ~;~; ."~.{-h~;;:>
~:", ",:;':, ~::,';~~t~1,~/:~t~~/:*:;.:.::"
" " MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 12,
,',"/ ~;
an island that is there ancr-may take up one lane of Boynton I":.
Beach Boulevard because all of this traffic cannot get into
D. V. Uh Street. 'rrat:fic vi.ll. be goiD!J ill aad oat ... ....--h"9
down the ramp, so JIlr. Werqer thouqht it would be -one congested
mess". Mr. Herger stated they are against it because of this.~ .
y~. Werger said the Association is having problems now. They
wer~ informed that a light cannot be put in .because it is too
close to the ramp but they are talking about,putting a light
at Old Boynton Road. If they put a light at Old Boynton Road,
Mr. Werger said the traffic will be backed up across N. W. 7th
Street, and nobody will be able to get in and out let alone
all of the traffic and confusion the restaurant will cause.
Mr. Herger stressed that the Association was against this
because the restaurant generates too much traffic for that lo-
cation.
Mr. Linkous asked Mr. Werger if_traffic was the only thing that
c~ncerned him. Mr. Warger answered, "No.. He said another
woman from Laurel Hill~would speak on the other objectionable
areas. Mr. Herger thought Mr. Annunziato had gone over it quite
thoroughly.
Alice Quest, 1312 N. W. 7th street, said their property abuts
the industrial area. She told of a problem they have with
children on dirt bikes, drag racing, garbage thrown there,
and people dumping there. A fast food restaurant there will
make it very easy for them to have a whole day doing that.
She referred to traffic at N. W. 13th Avenue also. Ms.
Quest was very much against this.
Mr. Grady C. Boswell, 1667 Citation Drive, Nest Palm Beach,
owns the first house off N.'W. 7th Street that backs up to the
proposed restaurant. Chairman Ryder said the Kembers had his
letter. Hr. Boswell said their house is rented out now but
they hope to move into it very soon. They have a very nice
screened porch in the back of the house. He thought ~~e
noise, lights, and speaker would take away from the value of
his house considerably. Mr. Boswell said their lot is only
7S feet deep, on the west side of the street, and would back
up to Wendy's. He was informed by Chairman Ryder that there
would be a wall.
fo'.r. Hichael Munro, 1021 R. W. 7th Street. referred to the
island on Boynton Beach Boulevard for the traffic heading
east, which was mentioned earlier. He pointed out that the
island ill an angle bland which only allows for one car to
pull in there. Hr. Munro asked Mr. Annunziato if it haa to
stay like that. Hr. Annunziato did not know whether it could
be cl1anged or not but said it is not proposed to be changed.'
. 1 ~ ;.: ill not changed. Mr. Munro said that .-arat if you had
.. ~. than one car heacUneJ eaat turnineJ into Wendy's or B. 11.
.,~,th S~t. the r--t1l'lftCJ cars would .till be OIl Boynton Beach
~"- "h~'" :"'.,,.. '.. "0:.' ~..;", -\1..'...........- l'" ~ ....
1. -
"':;~~~~:~)l'''', :N};i1ffii~:';' J ..
">~:'?~;:f~~.""~ I.,~>:~,:..:,,' , ,
.:..,:
" MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
.
JUNE 12, 1984'
Boulevard. I~. Munro 4!d not think N. W. 7th Street itself waa
wide enough to accommodate two lanes of traffic coming in and
out because it is a narrow street. He called attention to the
fact that they also have the traffic for Texaco going in. Mr.
Munro believed at some point there will be a proposal changing
the Texaco station and redesigning it so there definitely
will be a traffic problem~
k
Right now, Laurel Hills has roughly 280 homes, and Mr. Munro
assumed 3/4 of those use N. W. 7th Street to come and go.
There are two other exits, one of which just opened up with Sky
Lake onto Ol~Boynton Road, and there ia another road on the
west side of Laurel Hills which g08S out onto Old Boynton Road.
Chairman Ryder asked Mr. Munro if he noticed traffic coming
from the west and going into this slot. He asked if aome of
it goes into the Texaco station. Mr. Munro work. during the
day so most of the traffic he aees is at night. Most of the
people are going home..~~The Texaco atation is not that busy.
They do not have a steady .tream coming and going. Like Mr.
Munro said, there i. a 45- angle whicn ia enough room for one
vehicle only at the island. Chairman Ryder was wondering
how much of that goes to Texaco.
There.is not too much traffic going into Texaco now, but if
it is redesigned like he understands it is going to be, Mr.
Munro said once the Hall goes in, there will be a lot of
traffic going into the Texaco station, which will make it a
lot more difficult for people heading east trying to turn
into N. W. 7th Street to cut across if they do not put a light
in there and do not redesign that turning lane. He emphasized
that they will have a real heavy traffic pattern then.
Mr. Hunro informed Mr. Mautl that there are three roads out
of this areal N. W. 7th street, a new ro~d coming off of
N. W. 13th Avenue which may not be on the map yet, and another
road on the west side of Laurel Hills. The new road is just
east and parallel to the.E-4 canal and will be cutting through
Sky Lake.
Of the 280 homes there, Mr. Munro assumed 75' of the people
in Laurel Hilla will use H. W. 7th Street.
Chairman Ryder read a letter from Marian L. and Joseph M.
Samson .tating they are oppo.ed to the placing of Wendy'. on
the corner of N. W. 7th Street. The letter .tated that the
problema auch a bu.ine.. would .ate for nearby re.ident. are
.elf evident and if the City permit. thb, it would be the
first atep toward. inner city blight. Chairaan Ryder further
nad that the City..y get. good tax baa. but it will
eventually be decreased becau.e tho.. adjacent to the property
will aell to people who do DOt care if ~re i. debrb, noise,
aDd traffic probl....
. .ikv'\..'.,.." -:- ~...,' .:0:;.. ~"t'rK '" _'
'.l!:... ,..,..~?,,~~I<~..,,~~'''~. A.~ 15
~~.o:-'''-~' to : ,h'~' . -
'<t'? .,~,.J:... "..~.,' ,'" Jill" Ii:
~:~.~ .~~~:t 1f _~~.. _'~' ,;~ :.,~ ~_" ~ . ~
{t~,'~~f;~;~tri!;.:, .'
,> ,";'?1~~?!~;r:"~);'.:'~'.~~~1j~
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 12, 1984
.,~:.::~.. .~':.~: ,:
Mr. Schultz asked if tl1.e purchase of the property was subject " ,
to zoning. Mr. Annunziato thought the answer was affirmative
that it was subject to securing a conditional use. Chairman
Ryder noted an Agent and an OWner were present and asked that
someone make it clear.
Mr. ,John Lynch, 1290 N. E~ 4th Court, Boca Raton, came forward'
andisaid the sale of the property is contingent upon the
is~uance to them of a building permit. As he understood it,
the approva~ is for a drive-thru window. At present, the
zoning allows a restaurant.
There was discussion as to what the question was. Mr.
Wandelt said the question was whether the zoning was contingent
to the purchase. Mr. Linkous advised that the zoning is
allowed with unconditional use. Chairman Ryder said it could
be considered as a conditional use providing it met the
specified standards. .
".r. Cregory wanted to ~"'ow what equity they had in the property
and whether or not it would be a hardShip on their part. Hr.
Lynch replied that their purchase agreement stipulates that
they will obtain. building permit for Wendy's Old Fashioned
Hamburgers' drive-thru restaurant. Originally, the zoning
allowed the restaurant without a drive-in. Mr. Annunziato
advised that it still does.
Mr. Linkous said this is the only east/west road that goes
from 441 to the ocean and was established as a major road by
the Department of Transportation when they agreed to move the
bridge from Ocean Avenue to Boynton Beach Boulevard. He
believed there was concern too by the Chamber of Commerce try-
ing to get exit from the turnpike. Mr. Linkou. could sympa-
thize with th~se neighbors but did not believe you could stop
progress.
".r. Schultz asked if the C-2 zoning of this property had been
in effect long. ~e was asking if there had been a change in
zoning in the last year dr two. Mr. Annunziato answered,
-No. At least since 1975.- What Mr. Schultz was saying was
that the people in Laurel Bills knew for a loncz time that this
was a commercial piece of property zoned C-2.
In the same aspect, P.r. Mautl polnted out that the rest of It
was too and the Board dld, contrary to his objection, allow
the gas station to be accepted. lIow they have this .ituation
where It does infrlnge On aome of' the benefit. of the adjacent
residential neighborhood. Be was emphatic about di.turbing
the re8idential nelghborhood. Hr. Kauti .tated he was oppose4
ta it and will never agr.. to it. 1Ir. L1nkoua cc.Dented,
. ~A other words, you are against progre.... Chainum Ryder
did not .ee how ~ could correlate progre.. with this
particular thiDg.
- 11-
,~
\. ;"'", '!~".. -'.~.;tP~'i; h"'" .J;'4ra.'~"H~"....'..~,....cti~~~'iJ',,;,.-:.'l:.1~}'::f\ '. !'~:&I'" ,- - ',<. .
?f:d>' ;":"~'!i:"';-;"{;~';ffr;>;:~A~'~i',,,,,", "'{i;f:ojif. '>Ji ' "'iit';\";;"t~{,',l.,'J>I<i' '
/J"HI=E:~ :::l\!':::': ~."" .
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
:",J;~~?""f..l:f;~~~~"
'.' ...,..,.l!)<)l'!l~ll"\",
-,' ~,.,.. .....;. ,
. ,
JUNE 12, i984
Mr. Mauti'said there w~ no question about the fact'that
Wendy's can have a hamburger restaurant without the drive-thru.,
It is a permitted use but when it affects the neighborhood,
he thought they should consider it thoroughly. Mr. Mauti
noted the neighborhood is opposed. to a drive-thru and said it
will be a hazardous situation as far as traffic is concerned.
Mr. 'f.;regory asked Mr. Annunziato what remedies, for the bene-
fit of the community, they might ask the developer to participate
in in order to make the project more probable. Mr. Annunziato
thought the primary concern the developer should have was
traffic. The secondary concerns, ,which are also very important,
are the kind of economic impacts which occur to residences aa a
result of the kind of impacts associated with high turnover
restaurants. Mr. Annunziato said there is,a lot ot noi.e
associated with car doors closing and opening. Hours of oper-
ation are extended; you have a lot ot car lights and odors.
Mr. Annunziato said thea.remedy ia to remove the nuisance a. tar
away from the residentia~ area as you can. However, they are
only dealing with a depth of 150 feet.so he did not think it
was possible at this location. Mr. Annunziato did not think
the problem of traffic could be overcome and said they are
dealing with a Pa1m Beach Farms Co. Plat road. There i. thirty
feet of right-Of-way there. Aa Boynton haa developed, that
became the main artery serving the Laurel Hills area. In
theory, a development of that size should be served by an 80
foot collector with possibly 3 or 4 lanes of traffic intersect-
ing the arterial. That cannot happen at this location. Mr.
Annunziato said there may have to be other kinds of solutions
to traffic in order to solve the existing Laurel Hills problema.
Mr. Linkous asked if Mr. Annundato was talking about 80 or 90
feet from Boynton Beach Boulevard north to the entrance ot
wendy's on N. w. 7th Street. Mr. Annunziato informed hiJll it
is about 30 or 40 feet.
Mr. Pagliarulo asked what the impact vas on vehicles on having
a drive-thru versus not having a drive-thru. Mr. Annunziato
said the prOblem is generally with peak hour trips. He
believed ~~. Chase. said they would anticipate anywhere trom 150
to 180 peak hour trips. Mr. Pagliarulo asked if that would
no~ be caused directly from the drlve-thru itself. Hr.
Annunziato replied, -Genera11y.- Hr. Lynch informed the
t-lembers that 30\ of their traffic is drive-thru.
Hr. Linkous wea -informed by Mr. Lynch that their Architect,
Russell Chase, did the traffic counts. Chairman Ryder
explained that what they have here alllo ia a condition where
~bey have traffic froa the off ra.p ot 1-95 going vest coping
,'lith the through tratfic. Within. abort 4iatance, you have
H. W. 7th Street.
- 11-
. c ~ 1 '
.,<....' " '" :".,'.., ,"'.,., ," " ,,,;' ,-.."
.' ;''V !'~~~lI';I~'r,~"" ,',.. ".. ,~,t{\":~~,",Ji,>.!,.,,; "'.",,,., ''!:
:: ';:>;I<\,1l:,~;,'r';""-~'iJ~1~:~"~~:(;'~""1:_!;:'- "
Mln\rtr;S - PLAHlCDfG ARD ZOKDfG BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 12, 1984
Mr. Annunziato said th..e were two other aspects of this that
should not be understated. He did not think it was possible
to understate the conglomerating tendencies of fast food
restaurants and used U. S. 1 as an example. ~. Annunziato
guaranteed that where you have one fast food restaurant, you
will probably have three. Even if one consumes 7' of the
ca9acity of Boynton Beach'Boulevard, ~tt. Annunziato said you
hav~ to begin to compound just the sheer numbers of trips
which ,will be taking away the capacity of Boynton Beach
Boulevard, to say'nothing of the peak hour movements.
)tt. Annunziato said secondly, they were dealing with a C-2
zoninq classification, and he brought this out at the time the
ordinance was being addressed. C-2 is intended to provide a
limited n~~er of retail service facilities to accommodate the
needs of one neighborhood. Mr. Annunziato did not think anyone
would argue that a restaurant with a drive-thru facility is
there primarily because of the tr~ffic that is generated on the
highway. Its- market area is not at all intending to serve the
neighborhood. The marke~ is directed to the sheer numbers of
automobiles on the highway.
~~. Linkous noted Hr. Annunziato mentioned each individual per-
mit will stand on its own basis, and he stated that he would
think each piece of property would stand on its own merits.
Yx. Annunziato commented that Mr. Linkous- point was well taken.
Chairman Ryder referred to the Holiday Inn and the mingling of
traffic there. He said this was a critical point and similar
to what is on the other side. ....r. Linkous did not believe
there was any problem at the Holiday Inn. The point Chairman
Ryder was making was it is a curb cut.
l-!r. Linkous moved to grant the conditional use to t.endy's Old
Fashioned Hamburgers, subject to staff comments. ~x. pagliarulo
seconded the motion. At the request of Chairman Ryder, !'xs.
Ramseyer tcc~ a roll call vote on the motion. The vote was
5-2 aqainst granting the conditional use. All of the members
voted aqainst granting the conditional use except Mr. Linkous
and Mr. Pagliarulo who voted for granting the conditional use.
Mr. Annunziato thought there should be a aotion in the positive.
so that a positive recommendation could go to tha City Council.
Mr. 1!andelt moved, seconded by Mr. ftauti. to c!eny the conditional
use requested by Wendy's Old Fashioned Bamburgers. Mrs.
Ramseyer was again requested to take. roll call vote. The
vote was 5-2 in favor of denying the application for conditional
use. All of the .embers votiClin favor of denIinq the appli-
cation except Mr. Linkous and Mr. pagliarulo who voted for
the "~)lication and czranting the conditional use.
'ftm BOARD r.ECESSED U '.10 P. II.
~.,:,~:;!:.~ ~;:.~~:~,~~~\ '. ,.' -:.;~:Ll\i:~~~f::',
. ~if., ;""~~")"~' ,."",...r~
.'. ;.:t...,.. .,', ,;~~~-; _ , ~. '':'"'' '~ ~w,.. .. 't'.' ...
- 11-
':.~
...
...
-
Owr
(Owner, Buyar, teBsee, Buildar, Developer, etc.)
8.
Street Address or tocation of Site Upon Which Parking tot
18 toc a ted :
645 N. W. 2nd Ave.
"
Boynton'Beach. Fla.
9. Legal Description of Site Upon Which Parking Lot is Located:
lot 2 and South 1/2 of lot 3. laurel Hills. Plat Book 21.
Page 38, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida
..
10. Intended Use(s) of Site Upon Which Parking Lot is Located:
Rebuild service station
11.
Royal Petroleum, Inc.
Developer or Builder:
12.
George 'C. D~vi.s :,_,
- .. -",~ .
Architect:
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Landscape Architect: Adair & Brady, Inc.
Site Planner: Adair & Brady, Inc.
Engineer: Adair & Brady, Inc.
Surveyor: Adair & Brady, Inc.
Traffic Engineer: Adair & Brady, Inc.
18. Copy of last recorde~ Warranty Deed included? (check)
19. Letter authorizing~gent (if any) included? (check)
20. Site plan and survey (2 copies each) attached? (check)
21. Number of variances requested on the following sheets:
xx
XX
.
XX
/ 7,C
Note:
A separate sheet must be completed for each specific
design requirement (Sec. 5-141) or permit application
requirement (Sec. 5-142) to which a variance is re-
quested. All variances which are requested in connection
with the construction or reconstruction of a particular
parking lot are covered by a single filing ree of two-
hundred dollars ($200.00).
Planning Dep~. 5/82
'.~.. ........" .
..,\w: ,';j;~'The undenlqned hereby petition. the PlAnnin9 and :onin9 Doard to
~'9r.nt'to the petitioner a variance to ^rticle X "Parking totl",
.~. ",'-of Chapter 5. "Building. Housin9 And Construction Re9ulations," of
'v"~;>:~:.f, the Code of Ordinance. o~ the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, as it.
~:'.,f'.'t:; ,pertain. to the property described in this application, and for the, .'-t','
,l:.'~.~."~;., r...onl Itated below. ' ':
~t~....,. , ,
1l"{::"." '.
:~~~:':: Section, Subsection, and Paragraph number of specUic requirement
'"h'.;' t.o which variance i8 request.ed, and exact language contained in
,~j,. the Code I
.'.\'.~:~.~: ','
w
....
planning Dept. 5/82
Sec. 5-141,(g) (3) - No parking lot driveway may be constructed
closer than 30' from the intersection of the right-of-way lines along
local streets and 180' along streets of a higher classification.
...
Nature of variance Requested: RpqllPo:t vllrillnrp pprmitting rnno:trllrtfnn
of a driveway within 180' of the intersection of the right-of-way lines along
streets of a higher classification.
:
Statement. of Special Conditions, Hardships, or Other Reasons Justi-
fying the Requested Variance (attach additional sheets if necessary):
See attached
(1) (We) understand that this application and all papers or plans
submitted herewith become a part of the permanent records of the
Planning and Zoning Board.
(1) (We) hereby certify that the above statements and the state-
ments or showings made in any papers or plans
are true to the best. of (my) (our) knowl dge.
will not. be accepted unless si9ned bel
Signature
Datel
.
..
\;-Llj,t....;.,~?-i1 .," (~'lt .. .'JtF
;. tt~,~,i~">:'<"'D' "" .... , ;AOA'I~i~~~tf{}~(~C.
~ ,b:"':;''('~'' l'~ '. !.;I:)'~~"~,.-";,t:~~~:\~"\P.)"
~. ~';,!,' , ~,.~! ' . .. , ' ' Con.Ulllng E;.ta~l"ti~":~~~~'1i;~ "
l:t~~;::, ,:' /.r '. i ,t . . ,':,' \ ' , Lind Surv.yo,.. Land 'PI.~;"';a
::~:~~'l"', , ., I 1958SoulhCongreIlAv.nu.'~,"
::.ti~~,;;~~t ,.' '. :. :,.- ., ' We.t Palm a.ach, Florida 3~0I
,~~.~'~.:;\ ',', , . , STATEMENT OF'JUSTI FlCATION ,T,'.phon.: (305) 954-1221 ;t"';;'.'
.:dlf.,,:(,-;;..," .. , , , ,_OffIC"I'Oloca,I'~lnS"u. .f!.:
..~fl:f'\..'....\..., . . . l"'.~'/:.,t..~.If:.,~~"....f~.....t'.">
~~~':.';.;~':> For the past two decades,' since 1962, Texaco has been serving th~ "r~'S'1d~~'~~ :Ii-:fl~'~~"
~r,;~l'>~,. t, ,,' ",',;;
~\~t<f,'{;," 'of Boynton Beach from this location. In order to better serve their customers'; ',:' ,
. ;':~"'i""':' .' . . , . i . ~:'f.,..'
\\;,,' , Texaco wishes to remove the existfng twenty year old structure arid replace it
&.. ~, ,
<,~~~~",:~,' with more attractive and modern',facil1tfes. .',"
. ;';' ~. . ~ . ,
\~.~ , :.. . ': , I. i '. ' , ',' ", . .4, .;'l .:: .~
f#f'. . Since the ~ime of the Orig~nal constructfon~ there has been anumb~r of",:
'l~~;t revisions to the City ordinances. One of these revisions restricts a~~~e,u
drives along collector roads within 180 feet of an intersection. . ,;
-...
A platted lot is nonnally bounded by no more ~han two streets, as in the case;.'
of a corner lot. It fs an unusual. feature of this property that ft fs bounded
,"
by three streets. This creates a problem which is unique to this parcel.
Since there exists only 150 feet between N. W. 7th Street and W. Industrial
Avenue. access would be denied from the frontage road. H. W. 2nd Avenue. This
is a condition which could not be !9~~~e~n and will deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by .0ther~ln-iM City.
The laneage configuration of Boynton West Road at this ,location provides for a
turning lane so that the public can access the property without unduly impeding
traffic flow on the collector.
~'
,
,e
.
MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
OCTOBER 11, 1983
into the lots which are~djacent to it. Attorney Mankuta
answered, "That is correct. Yes." He clarified for Chair-
man Ryder that they are going to eliminate that jog, and
that will be pushing back the rear yards of those single
family lots.
Chairman Ryder asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor
of the proposal.
Mr. Larry Kooi, Lake Worth Christian School, 7592 High Ridge
Road, Hypoluxo, Florida 33462, advi~~d they are the
property owner to the north. He said they would be in favor
of the plan, it would be consistent with their plan. As
the Members probably knew, Mr. Kooi informed them that the
Lake Worth Christian School has made application for annexa-
tion. He thought it was on the agenda for next month. Mr.
Kooi added that they would l!~e_~Q be a part of Boynton
Beach and wanted to sp~ak in .~a~Qr,9f this proposal.
Mr. Donald Forrester, 7648 High Ridge Road, Hypoluxo,
Florida 33462, had no objection.
Chairman Ryder asked if anyone wished to speak in
opposition to the proposal. There was no response.
Mr. Linkous moved to grant the request to abandon the 15
foot right-of-way, subject to the granting of the 10 foot
utility easement. Mr. Hester seconded the motion, and the
motion carried 7-0.
(2) Parkinq Lot Variance
Location:
Royal Petroleum parking Lot
Variance Request
Lee Starkey
Royal Petroleum, Inc.
Relief from Section 5-l4l(g) (3) of the
Boynton Beach Code which requires that no
parking lot driveway may be constructed
closer than thirty (30) feet from the inter-
section of the rights-of-way lines along
local streets and one hundred eighty (180)
feet along streets of a higher classification
645 West Boynton Beach Boulevard
project Name:
Agent:
Owner:
Request:
Mr. Annunziato, City Planner, informed the Members the re-
quest is a request for a variance to the Parking Lot Ordinance
driveway location. The applicant is r~uest~n9 that he be
permitted to have one driveway on Boynton Beach Boulevard
for this gas station, which :. located between West IndustrIal
Avenue and 7th Street at the north .lde of BOynton Beach
- .. -
.
.
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORID~
OCTOBER 11, 1983
.
Boulevard. In early Spring, the applicant requested that
this property be rezoned. The zoning was ruled to be some-
what not in order on the Comprehensive Plan policy irregu-
larities. The applicant withdrew his request based on the
recommendation by staff that the Ordinance be revisited to
allow gas stations as a Conditional Use. Mr. Annunziato
said the next public hearing on this agenda would address
the Conditional Use issue. The issue here is the parking lot
driveway.
As he mentioned, Mr. Annunziato said the applicant was
requesting to construct one driveway on Boynton Beach Boule-
vard. He will have access to the site from West Industrial
with one driveway and from 7th Street with two. The appli-
cant is also attempting to incorporate additional land to
the rear of the gas atation to ,increase the size of the
site. . .._'".
In these parking lot variance issues, Mr. Annunziato advised
that the Technical Review Board is required to provide a
written comment to the Board if the comment becomes a part
of the pUblic hearing proceedings. Mr. Annunziato stated they
have done that. On Tuesday, October 4, the Technical Review
Board met to review the plans and recommended that the
variance request be approved.
The reason for recommending approval wa~ it so happens that
this site is located at the down side of the I-95 ramp for
the west bound lanes. What the Police Department specifi-
cally has found is that area turning right into West
Industrial is an area of congestion and confusion, this site
is somewhat irregular and is bordered by three streets. It
is in such close proximity to the bottom of the down side of
the ramp that to require people at that point to turn right
onto West Industrial before they could turn left was more
dangerous than an additional curb cut onto Boynton Beach
Boulevard onto this location. Mr. Cannon pointed to the
location on an overlay. Because of that, Mr. Annunziato
continued, staff recommended that the application be
approved.
Mr. Mauti inquired if there is a curb cut at the present time.
Mr Linkous replied that the whole thing is curb cut.
Bill Wilson, Assistant Planner, Adair' Brady, Inc.,
1958 South Congress Avenue, West Palm Beac~, Florida 33406,
representing Royal Petroleum, showed a plan to the Members.
Mr. Annunziato advised tha~ the driveway beln9 proposed
would be some 40 feet west of their ..st property line.
- 5-
.
.
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
OCTOBER 11, 1983
When you reach this point~ you are at the bottom or foot of
the hill. As anybody who has attempted to turn north onto
West Industrial Avenue knows, Mr. Annunziato said there is a
moment of real concern when you are driving a car. He
thought this was the concern the Police Department had. To
force people at this point to make a decision to turn north
was more dangerous, generally speaking, than to allow them
to go into the gas station.
Mr. Annunziato admitted they would not generally recommend a
variance like this. However, he thought the down ramp
required a particular solution.
Chairman Ryder asked if anyone wished to speak on behalf of
the application. There was no response. He asked if anyone
wished to appear in opposition to the proposal. There was
no response.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO~ ~-'"
Mr. Linkous moved that the request of Royal Petroleum for a
parking lot variance be approved. Mr. Annunziato advised
his memo of October 5, 1983 could be noted as a basis for
the motion, but there were no recommendations for other
actions on the part of the applicant. Mrs. Bond seconded the
motion.
When coming south down Industrial Avenue and you hit Boynton
Beach Boulevard, make a right turn going west, and you have
a curb lane for making right turns to Industrial Avenue, Mr.
Mauti asked what happens when you pass Industrial Avenue and
meet the exit from this area onto Boynton Beach Boulevard.
Also, you have an industrial park situation on Industrial
Avenue which tends to cause a lot of traffic. Mr.
Annunziato replied that was one of the ~oncerns they had.
Mr. Mauti asked about the right turn out of Industrial
Avenue onto Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr. Annunziato
answered that the right turn will always be a problem. Any
time you are trying to enter a three lane highway with traf-
fic which is piCking up speed, there is always a problem,
but forcing people to turn right onto Weat Industrial or
into the Qas station was considered to be an even greater
problem than the interface of traffic turning right out of
West Industrial, croasing the driveway for traffic exiting
the driveway.
Mr. Annunziato informed Mr. Mauti a median i. th~re. Mr.
Mautl did not thint it intended to help the traffic going
, -
.
.
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
OCTOBER 11, 19B3
east until you get down a1most to Industrial Avenue, make
a left turn, and then go into the gas station. He was
bringing up that the congestion would be at the intersection
of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Industrial Avenue. Mr.
Annunziato agreed that is part of the problem. In the
opinion of our Police Department, Mr. Annunziato said to
force people at that point, because of the speed they have
going down the ramp, to turn north on West Industrial would
cause an even more dangerous situation at the intersection.
Mr. Mauti goes in and out of there -quite a bit- and commented
there is a hazard to get out of the industrial area and try
to get onto the main highway going east or west. Mr.
Annunziato reiterated that this is the least dangerous of
the alternatives. He advised the Board that the traffic
pattern in that area is being studied by the County Traffic
Engineer, and they may-see recommendations in the future for
additional signalization in ~h&~rea, which will create gaps
in the traffic. therefo~e, allowing traffic to flow out of
Industrial Avenue then east and west onto Boynton Beach
Boulevard a little easier. Mr. Annunziato added that it is
a recognized prOblem that is being studied now.
If this were the same condition elseWhere, Mr. Mauti thought
they would probably recommend a lane going in and a lane
coming out. He clarified for Mr. Annunziato that he meant a
turn lane. Mr. Annunziato thought there was a curb lane
used for turning onto Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr. Mauti
remarked that it ends right there.
A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 6-1
with Mr. Mautl voting against the motion.
()) Conditional Use.
Project Names
Royal Petroleum Conditional Use Approval
Request
Lee Starkey
Royal Petroleum, Inc.
Conditional use to reconstruct a Texaco gaso-
line station at 645 West Boynton Beach Boule-
vard
645 West Boynton Beach Boulevard
Agents
Owners
Requests
Location:
Mr. Annunziato advised this is a request for a conditional
use consistent with our newly revised Zoning COde, which
permits gas stations as a conditional use in the C-2 lane
on a four lane or bigger highways. As he mentioned, this is
a request for a zoning ~hange. which was subsequently with-
drawn based on the revision to the Zoning Code which permits
this.
#4';', . .) . .. '.. " .,~ ".. . ,,: . .
'.. ' . >!""J\.....,jo.~''',..'.4i,:.h-....,...l'.'Ik'J..~<<''"''''.."",,...'''; ...~L.
,.,;.....~.~. ,~.....;.;Jo:~'t ; F~.")-:f"'~~,~1,.~,.,...,-.,..'
7
--.-----
.
.
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
OCTOBER 11, 1983
4
As mentioned previously, Mr. Annunziato said the applicant
contracted for the property to the rear of the gas station,
which is a home also zoned C-2. This has resulted in the
site plan the Board could see. Mr. Cannon pointed out where
the gas station proper was moved to the rear of the site.
Mr. Annunziato told the Members three gasoline islands are
proposed.
Access to the site from West Industrial to two locations on
N. W. 7th Street and from Boynton Beach Boulevard was also
noted. The gasoline station proposes that the service bays
be directed to West Industrial and not the area to the west
which, Mr. Annunziato added, was properly done. The office
and restrooms are to be in the western one-third of the
building. Sidewalks will be constructed on West Industrial
and N. W. 7th Street. _There are existing ones on Boynton
Beach Boulevard. - - . ..
. ~.."';". ~
The Technical Review Board-reviewed this and recommemded the
conditional use be approved, subject to staff comments. Mr.
Annunziato read the staff comments fr~m the Building Depart-
ment, Fire Department, Engineering Department, Public Works
Department, Utilities Director, and the City Planner.
Mr. Annunziato indicated on the plan where the handicapped
parking should be located.
Mr. Bill Wilson, Adair and Brady, representing the
applicant, told Chairman Ryder they agreed totally witb tbe
staff comments. The plan the Board was looking at reflected
those changes. Mr. Wilson stated that he had talked to Mr.
Cannon that afternoon and told him they agreed.
Chairman Ryder asked if anyone else wished to appear in
behalf of the applicant. There was no response. He asked
if anyone wished to appear in opposition to the proposal.
There was no response.
THE PUBLIC HEARDING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Hester moved to approve the Conditional Use, SUbject to
staff comments. Mr. Linkous seconded the motion, and the
motion carried 7-0.
SUBDIVISIONS
Preliminary Plat
project Namel
Agentl
Meadows -lOa., plat No. 2
Jame. Thiele, Englneer