LEGAL APPROVAL
r
y
m~r. . ~
j.-L-V
.... ,. -tA"
~\ lli u \jj v;
w
r (
\ \ ~
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PLANNING ANO
ZONING DEPT.
APPLICANT: Quantum Associates, Inc. ,
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Roscoe Bibv, Kemlev Horn and Associates. Inc.,
DATE OF HEARING BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: November 19,1996
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Reouestino aooroval to establish landscaoino soecifications
for the PID perioheral oreenbelt and modify the aooroved sion orooram to include two
multiple business wall sions located at the northwest and southwest corners of the
intersection of Gatewav Boulevard and Hioh Ridoe Road/Park Ridoe Boulevard and one
multiole business freestandino sion located on the east side of lot 91.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Quantum Corporate Park. Northwest and southwest corners
of the intersection of 1-95 and Gatewav Boulevard.
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of
Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having
considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant,
members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows:
1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner
consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
2. The APp~nt
_HAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative
staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as
set forth on Exhibit "E" with the notation "Included".
4.
The Appli9Bnt's application for relief is hereby
-1 GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3
hereof.
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this order.
7.
Other:
DATED: November 19.1996
~~~~a~/~~
Cit lerk
IlJ.lJ l ill III" · II'
r""I rll
LOL;AT ION MAP
QUANTUM PARK
~. 1"-11
i?'o~ '~~~r~ ·
rtill :E '1 CJl~
~ 'I ~~~
,? ( ~ ~~
, - ~;.~ .~'
_.~ ~~~. 'd
- t-~ C ~. ~uiL,.
~ ~ ~ ~ :
~- I/o 'I: ~nr, ~.
rI&r~~ ~ ~:" ",;~
nn j , I
. . .
tn: I.
~ffi . m ~ : . .-~ I
..-
l '4 (. ~hl .~ (t ~ I
1j~1~ (!) 1'10 4. ~ ~ ,
L. ~lf'j ~~ ~ '-~...
qb 2 ~ ~~r;t4t1'-= ~
r~ ~ L::t FW I : . .:'
..J~ ) ...:;
. TV' ~ l.!:::1" ~ M 1 "'I' J 17Fl
:R .. '-:.J...I /-
~ <5f t1D .~! J:
~ r:=: ~ V~" c
o I' ,..V
v rJ]~f., J I l-. I
~ '.
. ....-v::Jl1
"n" ..... if' U i "-=Li j ((:
,
"
,
.. I
" I
~ l:.'.i
I i)
,
C::;:J~
.
-
III J I I \ I
I I
I I R1AA
I
I -- ~ " /" /r'\ A
,
~ -
- ,~
! =c o gOij
, \ AR RI
, STAT~ ~JI
- -
I
~
_".
IJ..;I ,
~\
" .
" \
" ,
" (
,
.
, . I
-
..~~' '....
'.
, 'R~AAr'
.1 1
\
,
,.
I
~ ~'
,...... .. u
iI
~ lEt]
,.
,
~
NO.... "
IN I
CITVI
~ ~
,
,
.ft~l.
.! L!! 1
.. y ~f-rI)-
AI ,U_
,- .:.... 0.&..1.':" \__
J I
1 ,
-.", '...
1!1. -. r
I f~
^A
-
:I;~~
;J JjJ _
~~) ~.:3
(~~
1"\0 )
. ",,/i .
< ~ ~"~)._J
/) / :~J(~V/J '/'-~ IH'\
I.. ); I I - I
~ ~L- :\.: J
.- ,
.....
....-. ." - -"
.' rj
~'
"'"" - , .
~- .... ;.' \' .\~ ....: :'::: :ili~~~ ~lnr J ;][IIr~ ' ~. - .
: \-- =I' .:-R-n ,. I-~ 'T:' !~ 6: _ J1J ~
\:~ ~;IEI' ~ r- .~-... 1/:i1 .
'" ,Ii, I,~~X :i-~ ~ . ~ '
I ' , ~~~--'. ~ ~: ~O. 1/8 MILESV' "'I
l R A A I . ....~ ~), ~,,;-, - II II 1111 " . "' I
! !~m \..UH\1 Ilv,' ~o .400. '800 FEET If!!t
t I~ r'HJr'. I I' I c PLAIVIfIIIV/: 01'=-Dr. I/-qc. nHl1
l. ..... .
rl 'j
P.
'IrIUk~ ~
mll/ ~~ ,
p
,
...,
. I
'J .p~j
~~
------
---
----:
0--0
-
· =.......... I
~ 'l':JO\il,
~.L
ytll 'i
I ....
! I '"
PIC , ~~
"MOTOROLA I !
,
I
.
~.
~
I \
I
..
P t.
o' / .
"
, ilL
~~
:io.
~
~ Jrt;n'
'~II)
I~
~XHIBIT "E"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Quantum Park (Peripheral greenbelt and modified sign program)
File number: MSPM 96-007
Reference: The plans consist of 6 sheets identified as 1 st Review. Maior Site Plan Modification. File #MSPM 96-007
with a Seotember 27. 1996 Plannina and Zoning Deoartment date stamo marking.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS
I\I()I\I!=
UTILITIES
Comments:
1. Sumit an accurate survey with the proposed sign locations, so that we may determine t../"
if the signs will be within utilities easements, or otherwise impact our utilities.
FIRE
~ , . I\I()I\I!=
POLICE
- I\I()I\IF
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Comments:
2. The proposed 75' pylon sign is 55 feet taller than the 20 feet permitted by the LOR. /'
Chap.21, Art. IV, Sec.2, par. A, pg.21-15 and Chap.21, Art.lV, Sec.2, par,B, pg.21-16.
3. The proposed pylon sign is an off-premise sign by virtue of the multiple advertisers /
and is therefore prohibited. Chap.21, Art.II, Sec.3, par.T, pg.21-8.
4. The proposed entrance wall sign identified multiple off-premises users, and is /
therefore prohibited. Chap.21, Art. II , Sec.3, parT, pg.21-8,
5. The proposed pylon sign is approximately three times larger than maximum /
R.d. c:n ft f""'h...n?1 Art 1\1 Sp-c2 narR nn ?1_1R
PARKS AND RECREATION
I\I()I\I!=
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments:
6. The appropriate agency (South Florida Water Management District, Lake Worth
Water Management District, Florida Power and Light) shall review the landscape ~
buffer plans to make sure the vegetation meets the criteria of each agency, if the
vegetation is planted within their easements and/or right-of-way.
7. The maintenance of the landscape buffers including irrigation shall be the ~
responsibilitv of the Quantum Park COD, rather than the individual lot owners.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
8. The peripheral greenbelt plan shall include all existing native, desirable vegetation .,..-
and trees. This comment shall be placed on the plan. All exotic vegetation shall be
removed from the peripheral greenbelt as part of the plan.
Pa~le 3
Quantum Park
(peripheral greenbelt and modified sign program)
File No. MSPM 96-007
I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
9. The free standing sign shown on sheet 5-1 at lot 91 is not allowed per the sign code
regulations. The requested sign is non-conforming with respect to height (code
allows 20 feet vs. proposed 75 feet), area (code allows a maximum of 64 square feet
vs. proposed approx. 252 square feet) and sign location (sign is off-premise based
on the fact that the Carmax business identified on the sign is not located on the lot
where the sign is proposed). The following changes are recommended:
i. limit the sign face to identifying the Quantum Park name only,
ii. reduce the total area of the sign face to comply with the sign code area
regulations, ~
iii. reduce the overall height of the sign structures to comply with the maximum
sign code height of 20 feet.
It should be noted that a 25 percent increase in area and height of the sign, above the
code regulations, may be requested from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Contact the
Planning and Zoning Department for a variance application to the sign code
regulations.
10. For better visibility, it is recommended that the sheet 5-1 project identification free
standing sign be relocated from the east side of lot 91, to the northeast portion of lot ~
90A.
11. Add to sheet 5-1, the color name, color code, manufacturer and type of material ~
proposed for each member of the free standing sign support structure.
12. Regarding the sheet 5-1 sign, to obtain some uniformity with respect to the approved
sign colors and the proposed free standing sign, it is recommended that the color of
the perimeter of the proposed sign support structure match the color (pinegrove M- ~
46-009) that is specified in the current sign program for monument signs located on
individual lots and the Quantum Corporate Park sign along 1-95 rather than black.
13. Add to free standing sign drawing found on sheet 5-1, the color name, color code,
manufacturer and type of material proposed for the sign face, sign panels and sign t/
panel framework.
14. Specify on sheet 5-1, whether the free standing sign is back-lit or reverse channel /"
letters. Also indicate on the plan whether the reverse channel letters will be
illuminated.
15. Submit a partial survey of the area around the location of the sheet 5-1 proposed free /
standing sign. The survey shall identify the location, type and size of all easements
of record located within the vicinitv of the proposed free standina sian.
Page 4
Quantum Park
(peripheral greenbelt and modified sign program)
File No. MSPM 96-007
I DEPARTMENTS
16.
Add to the submittal an enlarged site plan of lot 91 delineating the specific location
of the sheet S-1 proposed free standing sign. The location of the sign may be
identified as a general area, however, the minimum sign code setback of 10 feet from
all property lines shall be shown. To ensure that the sign and landscaping structure
is not located within an easement, add to the site plan all easements of record in the
vicinity of the sign. Adjust the location of the sign structure and landscaping
accordingly. Also, add the following note to sheet S-1:
If the sign and sign landscaping are placed within an easement, written authorization
approving the location of the sign and landscaping will be submitted, with the sign
permit application, from all utility companies that have rights to occupy the
easement(s).
The following landscaping is recommended, if the sheet S-1 free standing sign is
approved at a height of 75 feet: four, 12 foot tall large native canopy trees; twelve,
10 gallon native multi-trunk shrubs and twenty-five, 3 gallon native hedges be spot
planted around the base of the sign structure. All plants shall be placed within a sign
easement. Also add the following landscape notes to the plan:
i. All landscape material shall be Florida #1 or better,
ii. installed in a sound workman like manner and
ii. irrigated with an automatic water supply system.
The recommended landscaping is in addition to the required peripheral greenbelt
landscaping.
The following landscaping is recommended, if the sheet S-1 free standing sign is
approved at a height of 75 feet: four, 12 foot tall large native canopy trees; twelve,
10 gallon native multi-trunk shrubs and twenty-five, 3 gallon native hedges be spot
planted around the base of the sign structure. All plants shall be placed within a
sign easement. Also add the following landscape notes to the plan:
i. All landscape material shall be Florida #1 or better,
ii. installed in a sound workman like manner and
ii. irrigated with an automatic water supply system.
The recommended landscaping is in addition to the required peripheral greenbelt
landscaping.
It is recommended that a legal description be prepared that identifies a sign easement
for the sheet S-1 free standing sign. The sign easement shall include a 12 foot wide
access to the sign from a dedicated public or private road and include sufficient area
around the sign structure to allow for installation, repair and maintenance of the
structure and landscape material. The legal description of the sign easement shall
be dedicated to the Quantum Park COD for perpetual maintenance of the sign and
landscaping located within the easement. A copy of the recorded easement shall be
submitted with the permit application for the free standina sian,
17.
18.
19.
IINCLUDE I REJECT I
~
/
~
/'
Page 5
Quantum Park
(peripheral greenbelt and modified sign program)
File No, MSPM 96-007
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
20. The wall structure and walls signs shown on sheet S-2 are not allowed per the zoning
code and sign code regulations. The requested wall signs are non-conforming with
respect to height (zoning code allows a maximum wall height of 6 feet for walls
located outside of the buildable area vs. proposed 9.5 foot tall walls - no setback
dimensions were identified to show the location of the wall structures with respect to
the buildable area), area (code allows a maximum of 64 square feet vs. proposed
approx. 225 square feet) and sign location (sign is off-premise based on the fact that
the Carmax business identified on both of the wall signs is not located on the lot
where the signs are proposed). It is recommended that both wall structure/signs be
approved if the following changes were made to the request:
i. Both of the proposed wall signs were limited to a sign face that identified the ~
Quantum Park project name only,
ii. the total area of the sign face on each structure complied with the sign code
area regulations,
iii. the overall height of the sign structures complied with the zoning code
maximum height regulation of 6 feet if the sign is located outside the
buildable area. If the location of the sign structure is within the buildable area
the requested height would be acceptable.
It should be noted that a 25 percent increase in area of the sign above the code
regulations may be requested through a Board of Zoning Appeals variance
application. A request to increase the wall height above 6 feet may also be requested
through a Board of Zoning Appeals variance request. Contact the Planning and
Zoning Department for a variance application.
21, Add to sheet 8-2, the color name, color code, manufacturer and type of material
proposed for each member of both wall structures that support the signage depicted ~
on the submitted plans.
22. To obtain uniformity between the approved sign colors and the proposed wall signs,
it is recommended that the color currently approved for the background of the
individual lot monument signs (pinegrove M-46-009)be added to the wall structure ~
trim such as; the end columns and the diamond shaped feature located at the center
of the wall.
23, Submit a partial survey of the area around the location of each of the proposed wall
sign structures. The survey shall identify the location, type and size of all easements ~
of record in the vicinity of the proposed wall sian structures.
Page 6
Quantum Park
(peripheral greenbelt and modified sign program)
File No. MSPM 96-007
I DEPARTMENTS
24.
Add to the submittal an enlarged site plan of each lot where the wall signs are
proposed. The site plan shall delineate the specific location of the proposed wall
structure/signs. The location of the sign may be identified as a general area,
however, the minimum sign code setback of ten (10) feet from all property lines shall
be shown. Add to each site plan of each wall sign the 25 foot on-site line of sight
triangle, required by the zoning code, that shows the area that is required to be kept
clear and unobstructed to allow cross visibility where the wall signage is located at
the corner of a corner lot. Also, add to the plan the 35 foot on-site line of sight
triangle, required by the landscape code, that shows the area that is required to be
kept clear and unobstructed between 30 inches and 6 feet to allow cross visibility
through landscaping material that is located at the corner of a corner lot. To ensure
that the sign structures are not located within an easement add to the site plan all
easements of record located within the vicinity of both wall structures. Adjust the
location of the wall sign structures and landscaping accordingly and add the following
note to sheet 8-2: If the sign and sign landscaping are placed within an easement,
written authorization approving the location of the sign and landscaping will be
submitted, with the sign permit application, from all utility companies that have rights
to occupy the easement(s).
It is recommended that a legal description be prepared that identifies a sign easement
for each wall sign structure. The sign easements shall include an access to the sign
from a dedicated public or private road and include sufficient area around the sign
structures to allow for installation, repair and maintenance of the structure and
landscaping. The legal description of the sign easements shall be dedicated to the
Quantum Park COO for perpetual maintenance of the sign structure and landscaping
located within the easement. A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted
with the permit application for each wall sign structure.
Add to the site plan the foundation landscaping that is required around the base of
each wall sign. It is recommended that a five (5) foot wide bed of native flowering
groundcover be installed at twelve inch centers around the entire sign structure at
both locations. It is further recommended that more than one specie of material be
used. All plants shall be placed within the sign easement. Also add the following
landscape notes to the plan:
i. All landscape material shall be Florida #1 or better,
ii. installed in a sound workman like manner and
ii. irrigated with an automatic water supply system.
It is recommended that the design (letter style) and color of the recommended
Quantum project name signage for both wall signs and the sheet S-1 free standing
sign match.
Add to sheet B1 a distinguishable symbol that represents the perimeter of the
Quantum Park PIO as described in Ordinance 84-51 including the land referenced
in Ordinance 96-45.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Amend sheet B 1 to show and identify the zoning classifications that abut the subject
PIO properties as identified on the Current Zoning Map.
Indicate on sheet 81, in note form, that the Comprehensive Plan states the land
located west of lot 83 is designated for a planned industrial development zoning
classification and the peripheral greenbelt for the Quantum PID in this area shall be
25 feet wide rather than 40 feet.
30.
IINCLUDE I REJECT I
/'
~
~
~
~
/'
/
Page 7
Quantum Park
(peripheral greenbelt and modified sign program)
File No. MSPM 96-007
\-
DEPARTMENTS
31.
Omit from sheet B1, the 0 foot wide and 5 foot wide buffer symbol from the legend
and plans, and replace with either a 25 foot wide buffer required where the subject
property abuts a commercial, or industrial zoned property, or a 40 foot wide buffer
where the subject property abuts a residential zoned property. The only exception
to implementing the greenbelt buffer requirements would be the lots or tracts of land
that are identified as a water management area or where there is an existing
environmental requirement. As discussed at the October 29, 1996 TRC meeting, it
is recommended that the applicant contact the city's environmentalist/forester, Kevin
Hallahan, to determine which lots fall into these categories. Once the lot or lots that
are environmentallly protected or designated as water management tracts have
been delineated and verified by the forester, indicate them in note form on sheet B1.
However, the required peripheral greenbelt width shall be shown and identified on
sheet B1 for all perimeter lots. A reduction in the width of the required peripheral
greenbelt requires approval of a Board of Zoning Appeals variance application.
Add to the lots that are identified on sheet B1 as "indicates parcel not included" a
distinguishable symbol and dimension that identifies the appropriate buffer width of
25 feet wide or 40 feet wide. Also indicate on sheet B1, in note form, at lot 90A that
the Board of Adjustment on April 17, 1995 granted approval of case #204 to reduce
the required 40 foot wide peripheral greenbelt along the east property line to 0 feet.
To clarify the areas shown on sheet B1 as "indicates parcel not included" it is
recommended that the following note be added, "peripheral greenbelt landscaping for
these areas is shown on the individual site plans".
Omit the symbol that represents "indicates parcel not included" found on lot 88 and
show in its place the proper location and size of the peripheral greenbelt. Lot 89A
and lot 92 (northeast corner) are developed and the symbol and note apply to that
lot. Also omit the symbol from the east half of lot 46B and 47C. This portion of the
site is not developed and should be included with the proposed buffer plan.
Add the following general landscape notes to sheet B1:
i. All plant material shall be graded Florida #1 or better
ii. All landscape material shall be installed in a sound workman like manner.
iii. All landscape material shall be irrigated with an automatic water supply
system.
32.
33.
34.
INCLUDE
REJECT
~
/
v
/
Page 8
Quantum Park
(peripheral greenbelt and modified sign program)
File No. MSPM 96-007
DEPARTMENTS
35.
Submit a survey of each perimeter lot shown on sheet 81. The survey shall
include the location, type and size of all eas.ements of record. Place a note on
Sheet B1 indicating that written approval from all utility users and outside
agencies that have rights to the Quantum lots, shall be submitted with a permit
application to install the buffer landscaping. Considering that the applicant is
requesting the buffer plan be implemented on a lot by lot basis and staffs
objective is to produce a uniform buffer around the project, it is recommended that
written authorization from all parties (utility users and outside agencies) granting
approval to install all landscape material as shown on the approved site plan be
submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department prior to the first buffer being
implemented on any perimeter lot. Following landscape approval from all utility
users and outside agencies, it is recommended that a landscape easement be
dedicated on each lot for the required peripheral greenbelt landscaping. To .
remain consistent with zoning code terminology it is recommended that the title of
the easement be identified as peripheral greenbelt. The legal description of the
easements shall be dedicated to the Quantum Park Property Owners Association,
Inc. for perpetual maintenance of the landscaping and irrigation located within the
easement. A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted with the permit
application for the installation of the landscaping.
To ensure that the buffer is uniform around the project, It is recommended that if the
utility companies and outside agencies do not approve of the landscape material as
specified on the proposed site plan, the applicant will submit for a new site plan
approval for peripheral greenbelt landscaping. The new site plan shall show the
landscaping that each utility user and outside agency will allow to be planted within
the required peripheral greenbelt area. If the proper buffer is not obtained with the
buffer plan that the outside agencies and utility users approve, the new submittal may
require shifting the greenbelt out of the easement.
Grass only shall be located on the portion of perimeter lots that is encumbered by
a SFWMD right-of-way/easement or LWDD right-of-way/easement.
It is recommended that the approved perimeter greenbelt landscaping be installed on
a perimeter lot by lot basis. Building improvements, on a perimeter lot, will not
receive a certificate of occupancy until the approved perimeter landscaping permit is
finaled or the approved perimeter landscaping material is installed as part of the
building permit for their perimeter lot. Place a note on sheet 81 indicating that the
peripheral greenbelt will be installed on a lot by lot basis and the use of existing
native vegetation and trees within the peripheral greenbelt will be evaluated at time
of site plan review for the lot.
It is recommended that on sheet B2 (25 foot wide buffer) the spacing of the Date
Palms be shown and dimensioned at a maximum soacina of 50 foot center to center.
36.
37.
38.
39.
INCLUDE
REJECT
v"
/'
~
V'"
/
Page 9
Quantum Park
(peripheral greenbelt and modified sign program)
File No. MSPM 96-007
II DEPARTMENTS
40.
Specify on sheet 82 the quantity, size and spacing of ground cover, medium shrub
and medium shrub (with medium texture) landscape material. It is recommended that
the required 25 foot wide buffer area be indicated with a typical fifty foot long section.
The typical plan view section drawing shall include a width and length dimension of
the buffer. The drawing shall also include a labeled symbol that represent the
location and specie of lawn grass, ground cover, shrub, hedge, tree and palm
landscape material. Accompanying the plan view drawing shall be a plant list that
identifies the common and botanical name of the plants with a specific symbol
representing the native species. The plant list shall also indicate height, spacing and
quantity of material including any other planting specifications necessary to identify
the plant. The minimum code requirement for tree or palm height is 8 feet and the
minimum hedge height is 18 inches at time of planting. The code requirement for
minimum spacing for hedge material is two feet center to center. The recommended
minimum spacing for ground cover is twelve inches center to center and the
recommended size specification for ground cover material is one gallon. The
recommended minimum spacing for medium shrub (with medium texture) is 10 gallon
and the recommended minimum spacing for the medium shrub is five feet center to
center. Amend the plans accordingly. The design of the 25 foot wide peripheral
greenbelt is acceptable, however, existing native landscaping, other code
requirements including the vehicle use area landscape area and material screening
required by the landscape code.
Specify on the lower portion of sheet 83 the quantity and spacing of low ground
cover, medium/tall shrub, accent tree, canopy tree and palm tree landscape material.
It is recommended that the required 40 foot wide buffer area be indicated with a
typical one hundred foot long section. The typical plan view section drawing shall
include a width and length dimension of the buffer. The drawing shall also include
labeled symbols that represent the location and specie of lawn grass, ground cover,
shrub, hedge, accent tree, canopy tree and palm landscape material. Accompanying
the plan view drawing shall be a plant list that identifies the common and botanical
name of the plants with a specific symbol representing the native species. The plant
list shall also indicate height, spacing, quantity of material and any other plant
specification necessary to identify the plant. The minimum tree or palm height is 8
feet and the minimum hedge height is 18 inches at time of planting. The minimum
spacing for hedge material is two feet center to center. The recommended minimum
spacing for ground cover is twelve inches center to center and the recommended
minimum size speCifications for ground cover is one gallon. The recommended
minimum spacing for medium/tall shrub is 10 gallon and the recommended minimum
spacing for the medium/tall shrub is five feet center to center. It is further
recommended that the accent trees be eight feet tall at planting and the canopy and
palm trees be twelve foot tall at time of planting. Amend the plans accordingly. The
design of the 40 foot wide peripheral greenbelt is acceptable, however, existing native
landscaping, other code requirements including the vehicle use area landscape area
and material screening required by the landscape code.
The content of the site plan drawings and the permit plans are subject to compliance
with all applicable city code of ordinances. It is the applicant's responsibility to show
compliance. Additional comments may be generated following the review of
subsequent submitted plans.
If recommendations are approved by the City Commission, incorporate them into the
workina drawinas reauired for oermits for the proiect.
41.
42.
43.
INCLUDE
REJECT
v'
-c
~
/
~
Page 10
Quantum Park
(peripheral greenbelt and modified sign program)
File No. MSPM 96-007
DEPARTMENTS
44.
Amend the plans to comply with the final determination of the Board of Zoning
Appeals Case Number 226 regarding the reduction of the peripheral greenbelt along
the east property line of the project. It is recommended that a note be placed on the
plans that briefly describes the request, the file and case number (BZAV 96-010 Case
#226) and the date the final determination was made.
As a courtesy to the applicant, staff has attached the Carmax sign drawings to the
modified sign program. The proposed thirty (30) foot tall internally illuminated pylon
sign, designated on the submitted plans, as P-1, and shown in the southeast corner
of the Carmax site exceeds the maximum sign code height of twenty (20) feet by ten
(10) feet and the proposed 186 square foot sign area exceeds the code allowed sixty-
four (64) square feet by 122 square feet. The pylon type sign is not currently listed
as a tenant identification sign in the sign program; this is a modification. Twenty (20)
feet is the maximum height allowed by the sign code for free standing signs.
However, a variance for an additional 25% above the code height may be granted by
the Board of Zoning Appeals. Therefore, the maximum height allowed with approval
of a variance is 25 feet. Indicate whether the proposed pylon type sign will replace
the monument sign for the remaining sites in the project or whether it is in addition to
the monument sign.
Pylon signage along 1-95 is not recommended, as rear wall signage will provide
visibility from 1-95. If this sign is approved for lots that have frontage along 1-95,
the size and height of the sign shall comply with the sign code regulations and
comply with the sign regulations regarding colors as specified in the Community
Design Plan (1 square foot per 1 linear foot of building frontage). The light grey
color of the proposed pylon sign structure and the blue background of the sign
face with yellow and white text are consistent with the Carmax corporate colors
and comply with the color limitation specified in the Community Design Plan.
tf pylon signage along 1-95 is approved, it is recommended that the type of
illumination for the proposed pylon sign be changed from internally illuminated to
external lights focused on the sign face.
The proposed pylon sign is located in a FP&L easement which will require an
easement release from all parties that have access to the easement area. Written
authorization that the sign may occupy the easement will be required from all utility
companies.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
The proposed seven (7) foot tall, 52.682 square foot internally illuminated monument
sign, designated on the submitted plans, as M-1, and shown in the southwest corner
of the Carmax site matches the type (monument sign) of tenant identification signs
specified in the sign program. However, the sign exceeds the sign program overall
height of 3'-6" by 3'-6" feet and the approved 28.5 square foot sign area by 24.182
square feet. The proposed colors do not match the approved colors which are
pinegrove M-46-009 for the base of the sign, beige 180-49 for the sign text and tan
180-39 for logos versus the proposed sign colors blue and light grey sign base and
a sign cabinet with a yellow, white and blue sign face. It is recommended that the
proposed monument sign be amended to comply with the current project identification
sign regulations. It is further recommended that the internally illuminated sign face
be changed to a ground lights focused on the face of the monument sign. This type
of illumination would be added to the sign program which would give the tenants that
have existing monument signs the opportunity to add ground light to illuminate their
siQns.
INCLUDE
REJECT
../
/
~
~
~
~
Page 11
Quantum Park
(peripheral greenbelt and modified sign program)
File No. MSPM 96-007
I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I
50. The proposed monument sign is located in a railroad spur easement which will ~
require an easement release from the holder of the easement.
51. To maintain continuity with regards to design and color of signs located within the
park along the internal public rights-of-way and the many other existing signs located
throughout the project, it is recommended that the existing sign colors, and design ~
remain consistent with the sign program specifications.
52. It is recommended that the proposed directional signs which are two (2) foot six (6)
inches tall including an area of 100 square inches and identified as a row sign,
designated as R on the submitted plans, being added to the Quantum sign program ~
be allowed for all sites in the project.
53. It is recommended that the proposed 16 square foot sign panel that will be attached
to the light poles and identified as a category sign, designated as C on the submitted
plans, being added to the Quantum sign program be allowed for all sites desiring to V
sectionalize large vehicle areas. This type of sign is not addressed in the sign code.
However, the sign code allows flexibility with respect to type of signs,
54. It is recommended that the proposed directional signs designated as 0-1 and 0-2,
on the submitted plans, which are three (3) foot tall and approximately 4.5 square feet
in area being added to the Quantum sign program be allowed subject to the signs V
complying sign code setback regulations.
55. The location of the sign designated as D-2 is not shown on the plans. Amend the V
plans accordingly
56. It is recommended that the design and color of other site related signs identified as
sign 0-3, 0-4, 0-5 and 0-6, on the submitted plans, being added to the Quantum sign ~
program be allowed for all lots desiring them.
57. Submit one set of color elevation view drawings and three site plans delineating
the location of all signs being added to the approved sign program, V'"
58. Place a note on the plans stating that wall signs are excluded from the sign /
program and shall be allowed subject to compliance with the sign code and
Community Design Plan.
59. Landscape easements to encompass the peripheral greenbelt shall be dedicated ~
to the Quantum Park COD.
60. It is recommended that the Carmax monument sign be reduced in size to match the
existing lot signs in Quantum due to the signage on the Carmax building proposed ~
::Inn tn thl" . . . .. . nf thl" lint
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
61. No more than 3 business names (in addition to the name of Quantum Park) shall be /
advertised on the pylon sign on lot 91 near the Gateway Boulevard/l-95 interchange.
62. Internal illumination for the wall sign at High Ridge Road and Gateway Boulevard, the ~
1-95 pylon sign on lot 91, the Carmax monument sign along High Ridge Road and the
Carmax pvlon sian facina 1-95 shall be allowed.
Page 12
Quantum Park
(peripheral greenbelt and modified sign program)
File No. MSPM 96-007
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJE~ I
63. The wall signs at High Ridge Road and Gateway Boulevard shall be limited to the
southwest corner of the intersection and reduced in size to six feet high and ~
proportionally reduced in length with an 18 inch high design projection above the top
of the wall.
64. Consistent with page four of the staff report, if the 1-95 pylon sign on lot 91 is
approved, it shall not exceed twenty feet in height (25 feet in height with approval of ~
a Board of Zoning Appeals variance) above the point of the Gateway Boulevard/I-95
off ramp (a height of 35 feet at the highest point) to which the sign is across from.
65. Add to the end of comment 6 - "and if the agency has regulations regarding
planting in their easements and rights-of-way." ~
66. Reword comment 27 to delete the last sentence regarding illumination. ...,/"
67. Reword comment 39 to allow 60 foot spacing, rather than 50 foot. l./""
68. Reword comment 40 to delete the last three sentences. ~
69, Reword comment 41 to delete the last three sentences. ~.
70. Reword first sentence of comment 46 to read as follows: Individual lot pylon
signage facing 1-95 is not recommended, if the Commission approves the 1-95 ~
pylon sign on lot 91 near the Gateway Boulevard/I-95 interchange, as rear wall
sianaae will orovide visibilitv from 1-95.
71. Delete comment 2. ~
72. Delete comment 3. ~
73. Delete comment 4. I~
74. Delete comment 5. ~
75. Delete comment 9. ~
76. Delete comment 10. ...............
77. Delete comment 12. ~
78. Delete comment 14. ../"
79. Delete comment 17. V
80. Delete comment 18, ~
81. Delete comment 22. /'
82. Delete comment 35. /
83. Delete comment 37. ~
84. Delete comment 47. /'
85. Delete comment 49. ~
86. Delete comment 51 .
P ~ge 13
Quantum Park
(peripheral greenbelt and modified sign program)
File No. MSPM 96-007
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS II
87. To be determined. ~~ ~h.,...,.~tk7J
Ibme
c:quant-gb1
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS/COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSION
1. The size and height of the Carmax sign facing 1-95 shall comply with the sign code
regulations and comply with the sign regulations regarding colors as specified in the Community
Design Plan (1 square foot per 1 linear foot of building frontage). The light grey color of the
proposed pIon sign structure and the blue background of the sign face with yellow and white text
are consistent with the Carmax corporate colors and comply with the color limitation specified in
the Community Design Plan.
2.
The proposed Quantum Park Multi-tenant pylon sign along 1-95 is not permitted.
3.
Telephone signs are permitted on light poles.
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
Vice Chairman Golden seconded the motion, which carried 4-3. Messrs. Rosenstock and
Wische, and Ms. Frazier cast the dissenting votes.
B. Site Plans
New Site Plan
1.
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Carmax at Quantum Park PID
James G. Willard
Quantum Associates, Inc.
Lots 77, 78, 79 and 80 - Quantum-.Park, High Ridge
Road
Request for site plan approval to construct a 53,072
square foot auto sales facility on 13.678 acres in
Quantum Corporate Park.
Jim Willard, Attorney for Quantum Associates, introduced Paul McClellan and David
Seaman representing Circuit City, and Rocky Biby and David Risinger of Kimley-Horn &
Associates. Mr. Willard asked for permission to discuss Item 7.B.2 before Item 7.8.1
because it affects all of Quantum Park and the Carmax site plan, and when the Carmax
site plan comments are discussed, several of them will not be relevant.
Motion
Mr. Rosenstock moved to switch 7.B.2 to take precedent over 7.B.1. Mr. Wische seconded
the motion, which carried 6-0. Ms. Frazier was away from the dais.
Major Site Plan Modification
2.
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Quantum Park (peripheral greenbelt and modified
PID sign program)
Roscoe Biby
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
Quantum Associates, Inc.
Northwest and southwest corners of the intersection of
1-95 and Gateway Boulevard.
Request for approval to establish landscaping
specifications for the PID peripheral greenbelt and modify
the approved sign program to include two (2) multiple
10
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
business wall signs located at the northwest and
southwest corners of the intersection of Gateway
Boulevard and High Ridge Road/Park Ridge Boulevard
and one (1) multiple business freestanding sign located
on the east side of Lot 91.
Several drawings of Quantum Park, the location of the peripheral greenbelt, the lots owned
and controlled by Quantum Associates, the lots that have been sold, the 25 foot and 40
foot landscape buffer plan, and the primary signs that were requested as an amendment
to the Quantum Park sign plan were displayed. One was the project identification and
anchor tenant identification sign proposed at the corner of Gateway.and 1-95 on Lot 91
This is a curved monument type sign. A wall sign is proposed at the southwest corner =
Gateway and High Ridge, Mr. Willard said there are a number of Carmax site signage ::-
the Carmax site that are being considered as part of an amendment to the over2
Quantum Park sign plan.
Mr. Willard confirmed for Chairman Dube that the wording on the toll signs at 1-95 is
identical.
Mr. Willard advised that two monument signs, one on the northwest corner and one on the
southwest corner as you enter the Park on Gateway, were previously proposed. However,
the one on the northwest corner is being eliminated because it is not necessary, and the
size of the other one will be reduced from 9 1/2 feet to 6 feet, as recommended by staff.
In addition, there was a proposal by Carmax for a pylon sign on the Carmax project. In
consideration of the request for the Carmax identification on the major 1-95/Gateway sign,
the applicant would withdraw the request for the pylon sign on the Carmax site.
Comments 2, 3, 4, and 5
Mr. Willard had no objection to Comment 1. He said Comments 2, 3, 4, and 5 are
repeated numerous times and reference objections to the height, size, and character of the
signs as advertising off-premises. He contended that Quantum Park is a Planned
Industrial District, and the Planning and Development Board and the City Commission have
the flexibility to grant changes to the master sign plan.
Comment 2 states that the proposed 75' pylon sign is 55 feet taller than the 20 feet
permitted by the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Willard said the reason for the height
of the sign is twofold. One, it is proposed to be on the southeast corner of Lot 91, which
is about 25 feet below the crown of the ramp at 1-95 and Gateway. There are also many
11
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
trees there. The reason for the height of the proposed sign is to get the signs above the
trees, and the reason for the size of the letters is to provide readability at 1 ,000 feet so that
cars traveling on 1-95, especially southbound traffic, can see the sign and identify the
letters. In addition to the identification of Quantum Park, there will be up to three major
users within the Park.
With respect to the issue of off-premises advertising, it is suggested that the word
"premises" be defined as the entire Park. Mr. Willard said this is clearly a master plan, a
Planned Industrial District, and he did not see any reason for limiting the interpretation of
premises to Lot 91. He believed that identifying users within the Park is not off-premises.
For this reason, if the Board approve the signs, Comments 2, 3, 4, anctS would have to be
rejected.
Comment 6
Mr. Willard would like to insert the words "it any" in Comment 6 so that it reads, "The
appropriate agency... buffer plans to make sure the vegetation meets the criteria ot each
agency, if anv, it the vegetation is planted within their easements and/or right-ot-way." He
said staff is concerned that the landscaping to be constructed in the peripheral greenbelt
area meets the requirements ot the South Florida Water Management District, the Lake
Worth Drainage District, and power companies to the extent they have such criteria. He
did not mind advising these agencies what he intends to plant, and it they have
requirements, he will meet them.
Comment 7
Mr. Willard would like to change the "Quantum Park Association" to "Quantum Community
Development District" (the COD). He advised that maintenance obligations ot all common
areas in the Park, including the road system, the stormwater drainage system, and the
landscaping, is all handled by the COO.
Comment 9
This comment mirrors comments 2, 3, 4, and 5.
12
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
Comment 10
Mr. Willard asked that this comment be deleted because Quantum Associates does not
own Lot 90A. That lot was sold to Tri-Rail and he did not have the ability to put the sign
there.
Comment 14
Mr. Willard requested that the last sentence of this comment be deleted. He proposed that
the sign face of the freestanding sign be illuminated with internal lights focused on the sign
face. He did not believe it is appropriate to illuminate it with externaUigbts.
Comment 17 and 18
Mr. Willard said these comments are the same. They ask for foundation landscaping
around the base of the freestanding sign. He did not believe that is necessary or
appropriate at this time. No one is going to see it. It is heavily wooded. At the time that
lot develops and is site planned, it is likely that the grade of the lot would be raised and it
would be appropriate to landscape the base of the sign at that time if any of the existing
vegetation is removed. He asked that these comments be deleted.
Comment 19
Mr. Willard requested that "Quantum Park Property Owners Association, Inc." be changed
to "Quantum Park Community Development District".
Comment 20
Mr. Willard said this refers to the wall sign that is proposed for the corner of Gateway and
High Ridge. The one on the northwest corner will be eliminated, and the height of the other
one will be reduced to 6 feet. He asked that this comment be modified.
Mr. Aguila noticed that the plan indicates that the monument sign has an overall height of
9' 5". He pointed out that the overall height is to the top of the arch, which is more like 12'.
Mr. Risinger said if we are reducing the dimension from 9'5" to 6', then the center arch
would be another 1 '6" tall. The height of the sign was 11 '.
13
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
Comment 22
Mr. Willard asked that this comment be deleted. This comment asks that the color
currently approved for the background of the individual lot monument signs be added to
the wall structure trim. Mr. Willard does not believe it is necessary to do that.
Comment 25
Mr. Willard would like to change the "Quantum Park Property Owners Association, Inc." to
"Quantum Community Development District".
Comment 27
Mr. Willard would like to delete the second sentence in this comment. He proposed that
the lights be internally illuminated, not back-lit or ground lit.
Comments 35 and 37
The first sentence in Comment 35 states to submit a survey of each perimeter lot shown
on sheet B 1. Mr. Willard advised that every lot is platted and he did not want to do
individual surveys.
Mr. Haag said this survey shows where the easements are on the lot. Florida Power and
Light will not have any regulations or requirements. All they will have is some
recommended planting materials for their easements. The applicant has not shown on the
plan where the perimeter greenbelt will be. Because the scale is large, you cannot tell
where the greenbelt starts and where it ends. He believes it starts at the lot line and works
its way in towards the project 25 or 40 feet. Mr. Willard said that is correct. Mr. Haag
stated that on the surveyor on the platted lots, you are going to encompass some of the
South Florida Water Management District right-of-way and some Florida Power and Light
and Southern Bell easements, which are going to make it very difficult to plant the material
shown. He was not necessarily looking for a survey, but a plat would show where all the
easements are. He believes that the applicant will not be able to plant that 25 or 40 foot
buffer when you fall under the restrictions of South Florida Water Management and Florida
Power and Light.
Mr. Willard was not worried about Florida Power and Light or Southern Bell. Comments
35, 36, and 38 are somewhat related and pertain to the manner in which the greenbelt is
constructed and maintained. He did not object to Comment 38 because it states, "It is
14
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
recommended that the approved perimeter greenbelt landscaping be installed on a
perimeter lot by lot basis." As each perimeter lot comes in for approval, we would have
a site plan identifying the perimeter 25 or 40 foot and any easements that are located on
it. If the approved plan was prohibited by the South Florida Water Management District,
then an alternative would have to be evaluated at that time, which would include pushing
it further into the lot. There are some perimeter lots that are on canals and there may be
South Florida Water Management District easements that encroach into part of that area.
But whether it is on the slope or bank of the canal or on the surface makes a difference as
to whether they are going to object to what is planted there. As those lots come in for
approval, we would like that to be considered at that time. The same goes for the 1-95 lots.
Mr. Willard did not think it was necessary to identify every easement ohwery agency today
and get permission in advance when some of them, with the exception of the South Florid;
Water Management District, do not have the authority to dictate what is planted there. ~..:.
Willard did not want to do the surveyor identify all the easements today. He just wantec
to approve the 25 or 40 foot plan. It is to be measured from the exterior lot line as platted
and approved and installed as a condition of site plan approval for any of the lots, pursuant
to Comment 38.
Mr. Haag disagreed wholeheartedly. He referred to the lots adjacent to Dos Lagos and
said there is a Lake Worth Drainage District equalizing canal E-4. He was in possession
of a copy of the plat showing a dedication for right-of-way that is 87 feet wide. That 87 feet
is on the applicant's lot. That means the first 87 feet has been dedicated in an ordinance
or in the official record books to Lake Worth Drainage District. Mr. Haag believes the
applicant is not going to have any ability to do anything within that area.
Mr, Willard said the "A" lots are basically the canal because they did not have any right-of-
way at that time. It was platted and dedicated on the plat for drainage purposes. Not all
of the 87 feet is in the canal. He agreed that when these lots come in for development we
are going to have to go to the top of the canal and we may encroach into the easement
and have another 25 feet coming into the lot. He will do that when the site plan comes in.
Mr. Willard did not object to Comment 36 provided it is clarified to state, "at the time of
individual lot construction". He pointed out that the last sentence in Comment 36 states
that if the proper buffer is not obtained with the buffer plan that the outside agencies and
utility users approve, the new submittal may require shifting the greenbelt out of the
easement. He requested that Comments 35 and 37 be deleted.
15
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
Comment 39
Mr. Willard advised that we have shown the tree spacing of the Date Palms that are to be
located on 1-95 at 60 foot spacing. We believe that because of the size of Date Palms as
well as the existing vegetation and other plantings that are in the peripheral plan for the 25
foot cross section, the 60 foot spacing is appropriate. Mr. Rosenstock pointed out that the
applicant would only need four additional Date Palms because of the 50 foot spacing.
Chairman Dube recognized the presence of Dale Sugerman, Director of Human
Resources/Assistant City Manager, in the audience. Also, at this time, Mayor Gerald
"Jerry" Taylor arrived.
Mr. Aguila pointed out that this area is along 1-95. At 65 miles an hour, 60 feet spacing is
probably appropriate on 1-95.
Comments 40 and 41
Mr. Willard requested that the last three sentences in Comments 40 and 41 be deleted,
and that "40 foot on center" be changed to "60 foot on center". Mr. Haag advised that
these are landscape requirements. Mr. Willard said when we talked about interior property
lines as part of the perimeter greenbelt plan, we are not trying to deal with interior lot lines.
If that is already in the landscape code, when a site plan comes in, we will have to comply
with whatever the code says at the time. Also, we did not want to do a site plan for each
perimeter lot until such time as it is proposed for development.
Mr. Aguila suggested deleting everything from the end of the comments starting with "The
design of the 25 foot peripheral greenbelt is acceptable, ...n He said it deals with
perpendicular lines to the greenbelt that are not part of this issue. These requirements can
be addressed at the time of individual site plan approval for the individual lots.
Mr. Haag said this comment attempts to say that the peripheral greenbelt landscaping can
also be used for the vehicle use area screening. Mr. Aguila stated that that becomes a site
planning issue. Ms. Heyden advised that we are trying to establish consistency. From now
on, we will allow those kinds of landscaping requirements to be applied to the greenbelt
and landscaping.
Mr. Willard objected to these comments to the extent that they require current site plans
for each perimeter lot. If these comments are only intended to imply that at the time of the
perimeter lots development, a site plan would show it, then he had no objection.
16
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
Comment 45
Mr. Willard said this comment deals with the proposed pylon sign on the Carmax site,
which will be deleted in the event the 1-95/Gateway sign is approved. Mr. Haag asked
about the wall sign. Mr. Willard said the sign on the northwest corner will be deleted and
the one on the southwest will be reduced in height. Mr. Haag stated that the condition for
the pylon sign on the Carmax site is linked back to the 75 foot tall sign. Mr. Willard agreed
that there is sufficient Carmax identification so they do not need an on-site pylon sign if
their name is going to be on the 1-95/Gateway sign. If the 1-95/Gateway sign is
disapproved, we wish to have a 30 foot on-site pylon sign.
Ms. Heyden asked if Mr. Willard is proposing any freestanding signs along 1-95 or on any
of the other lots. Mr. Willard said he is not proposing that. The only lots we currently have
a development plan for is Carmax. We would eliminate their sign and attempt to eliminate
pylon signs up and down 1-95. However, there may be a user that needs one.
Comment 46
Mr. Willard asked that the first sentence in this comment be deleted. If the 1-95 sign is
approved. then the first sentence stays. If it is not approved, we would like the pylon sign.
Comment 47
Mr. Willard would like this comment deleted. Ms. Heyden advised that the Quantum
Corporate Park sign is no longer illuminated and asked if Quantum Park plans to relight it.
Mr. Willard did not know, but will find out.
Comment 48
Mr. Willard said this comment relates to the on-site Carmax pylon sign in the Florida Power
and Light easement. This sign may be eliminated if the other sign is approved. If it is not
eliminated, it will either be relocated or a release from Florida Power and Light will be
obtained.
Comment 49
Mr. Haag pointed out that a sentence was omitted from this comment. After the third
sentence, the following sentence should be inserted: It is recommended that the proposed
17
:\tINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
monument sign be amended to comply with the current project identification sign
regulations.
Mr, Willard said this particular comment focuses on a Carmax monument sign on High
Ridge. Carmax is proposing to use its standard corporate color scheme (the yellow, white,
and blue sign face). This comment appears to be inconsistent with Comment 4S, which
states that the light grey color of the proposed pylon sign structure and the blue
background of the sign face with yellow and white text are consistent with the Carmax
corporate colors and comply with the color limitation specified in the Community Design
Plan.
Mr. Haag said we are trying to create uniformity within the PUD's internal road system so
that all of the signage is the same. Mr. Willard understood the purpose of this comment;
however, he requested the Carmax corporate colors.
Comment 51
Mr. Willard asked if this comment is directed to a specific sign other than the Carmax
monument sign on High Ridge. Mr. Haag advised that it is also directed to the directional
sign further north. Mr. Willard confirmed that anything that can be seen from High Ridge
Road is to be changed to the green Quantum standard colors.
Mr. McClellan did not agree with this comment. He said there is a comprehensive sign
plan for the overall site with consistent colors throughout the site.
Mr. Aguila did not generally have a problem with the greenbelt plan and proposal.
Mr. Haag advised that with regard to the greenbelt. the applicant wishes to omit comments
35 and 37, and modify Comment 39 to state "SO" foot instead of "50" foot.
Motion
Mr. Aguila moved to approve the greenbelt as submitted, subject to staff comments, with
the following conditions: Eliminate Comments 35, 37, and 39. and delete the portion in
Comments 40 and 41 that does not directly deal with the greenbelt.
Vice Chairman Golden felt there are some valid points in Comments 35 and 37, and he
had a problem eliminating them. With regard to Comment 37, Mr. Aguila pointed out that
the applicant is only going to be able to do what they are allowed to do by the various
agencies. Ms. Heyden advised that South Florida Water Management District is very vocal
18
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
and allows basically only grass. She wanted it understood that that part in the greenbelt
does not just go away. It gets shifted. Mr. Willard pointed out that this is addressed in
Comment 36.
Mr. Rosenstock seconded the motion.
With regard to Comment 35. it was agreed that the platted document would be suitable,
instead of doing a separate survey.
The motion carried 7-0.
Mr. Haag addressed Development Department Comments 2 through 5. He said these are
code regulations and staff cannot change them. He said Mr. Willard feels "premise" should
be considered all of Quantum Park rather than each site. One of staff's recommendations
was to reduce the 75' tall sign and use the overpass as ground zero so that the sign height
would start at the elevation of the overpass. It is approximately 35 feet from 1-95 to the top
of the guardrail.
Mr. Rosenstock asked how high the sign would be above the roadway. Mr. Haag said it
would be 20 feet, which is the maximum the code allows. He believes the power poles on
Lot 91 are 75 feet tall and that the sign would be the same height. Staff wants nothing on
this sign but "Quantum Corporate Park". Staff does not want tenants identified on it. Staff
wants it to be a project identification sign similar to the one that runs parallel to 1-95,
Mr. Willard asked if the City would agree to the trimming of the pine trees if the sign was
reduced to 60 feet. He said the only reason for the height of 75 feet was so that the panels
would be legible from the Interstate. Ms. Heyden pointed out that this lot is going to be
cleared when it is developed, so those trees will not be there. Therefore, the sign could
be lower.
Mr. Haag summarized. The sign should be 75 feet tall and should only say "Quantum
Corporate Park". In addition, the area is way above what is allowed by the Code. You can
only vary 25 percent of the area. The top of the sign would be a maximum of 20 feet
above the top of the interchange at that area. The measurement should be from the
guardrail up.
Mr. Willard said the sign is based on the letters for legibility from 1-95, which is a unique
circumstance in the City. The off premises is a very logical interpretation based on the
definition of premises in the LOR and the fact that you have a Planned Industrial District.
19
:\1INUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
Mr. Willard confirmed for Mr. Aguila that there will be no more than three users identified
on the sign.
Vice Chairman Golden asked if other types of signs have been considered. He associated
this sign with a truck stop or gas station. He stated that Quantum is a special project. It
is not a commercial strip or light industrial center along 1-95. It is an upscale project. He
felt something a little more unique would be appropriate there. Mr. Haag believes the width
is due to Florida Power and Light lines being very close to 1-95. Mr. Willard said the
applicant has no need to build that sign if it is limited to "Quantum".
Mr, Haag addressed the wall signs. He said the applicant omitted..the sign on the
northwest corner and is willing to reduce the size to 6 feet. The center projection would be
18" above that. Staff has a problem with the off-premise sign because it contains users
that are not on that specific lot, and the area is above code requirements. The sign for
Carmax alone is 77 square feet, and only 64 square feet is allowed for freestanding signs.
Mr. Willard said because of the reduction in the height of that panel, it will go below the 64
square feet. Mr. Haag said it will meet the Code requirements of 64 square feet per sign.
However, the applicant still wants two additional signs. Mr. Willard said this is a curved
sign and will be located at the corner of Gateway and High Ridge. The Carmax logo would
have the left end panel with an arrow because they are located south on High Ridge. It
would serve as a directory sign for cars exiting the Interstate at Gateway. We would have
a space for two other users to give them prominent identification at the main entrance of
Quantum Park.
Mr. Haag stated that if the three signs are approved there, the lettering, style, and color will
be consistent, and they would be more sophisticated than the signage for Carmax. With
respect to the two on-site monument signs on High Ridge and the sign in question,
Mr. Willard said the monument structure itself (the materials around the perimeter and the
wall) would mesh with the existing Quantum color scheme and materials, and the panels
would be the corporate panels and colors for the particular users. A significant portion of
the signs would tie into the existing Quantum signs. He did not intend to replace all the
existing signs.
With regard to some of the signs, it seemed to Vice Chairman Golden that we are moving
in the direction of a shopping center instead of a corporate park. Mr. Aguila felt we are
going in the wrong direction if Mr. Willard is talking about a green, metal sign with the
Carmax insert instead of a stucco and cast stone curved wall monument sign. Mr. Haag's
concern was making the sign age consistent for all three of the panels.
20
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
Mr. Aguila asked if the applicant would agree to equally reduce the width of the sign.
Mr. Risinger advised that the length of the wall will be reduced. Mr. Aguila asked what the
individual signage is being constructed of and if it is going to be lit. Mr, Risinger said the
design notes on the drawings indicate that three panels would be accommodated when the
wall is built. If the other two panels are not used for some period of time, the wall will be
completed with drivit panels or stucco veneer and will be internally illuminated.
With regard to the big pylon sign, staff made some comments about foundation
landscaping. Mr. Haag did not see how the applicant is going to put up that sign without
disrupting the vegetation around it. Mr. Aguila suggested making them aware that they
should take proper care not to destroy that vegetation until they are ready to develop that
site and make some remedial repair if they do. He pointed out that foundation planting on
an undeveloped site is going to die.
Chairman Dube asked for a consensus with regard to the lighting of all signs. Mr. Aguila
said it makes sense to interior light the signs. It is one less thing for people to vandalize
and you do not have to deal with the projection of light beams. Ms. Heyden agreed to this.
Mr. Haag said there are no problems with the Carmax signage except for whether the 75
foot sign is going to be there or not. He believes the applicant agreed to comply with staff's
comment and change the monument sign to green, but still wanted the cabinet internally
illuminated. Mr. McClellan had a problem with the green on the monument sign at the
south end because the green color clashes with his logo. He proposed to do a high quality
sign and use the materials of the wall sign and a neutral background. Chairman Dube
stated that this defeats the purpose of having all the signs the same. Mr. McClellan asked
if a new sign could be created in the park for major users. Vice Chairman Golden asked
if there is any way to tie into those signs some of the pine green color. Mr. Willard advised
that it could be put on the other signs.
Mr. Haag asked if the applicant is going to omit the pylon sign on the Carmax site with the
green with the 20 feet above the crown of the road. Mr. Willard answered affirmatively.
Motion
Mr. Wische moved to approve the pylon sign, 60 feet, with the trees trimmed so they can
see it, with only three reader boards on the Quantum Corporate sign. Mr. Rosenstock
. seconded the motion.
21
MINUTES
PLANNING Al"JD DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
Mr. Haag asked that the motion be amended to state "20 feet above the guardrail" instead
of "60 feet". Messrs. Wische and Rosenstock agreed to the amendment. Vice Chairman
Golden felt the applicant could do a lot better.
The motion carried 5-2. Vice Chairman Golden and Mr. Aguila cast the dissenting votes.
Motion
Mr. Aguila moved to approve the proposed monument sign subject to the discussion about
the reduction in height to 6 feet of the wall plus 18" for the center decorative element,
subject to staff comments and other discussion this evening. _ ._
Chairman Dubs asked about the signs on the ends on High Ridge and it was pointed out
that they were going to be addressed as part of the Carmax site plan. Mr. Aguila stated
that his motion refers to the one sign on Lot 65B.
Mr. Wische seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
Chairman Dubs declared a recess at 10:05 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:15 p.m.
B. Site Plans
New Site Plan
1.
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Carmax at Quantum Park PID
James G. Willard
Quantum Associates, Inc.
Lots 77, 78, 79 and 80 - Quantum Park, High Ridge
Road
Request for site plan approval to construct a 53,072
square foot auto sales facility on 13.678 acres in
Quantum Corporate Park.
Comment 42
Mr. Willard said staff is concerned that the PID use approval required that the vehicle
storage area be limited to 15 percent of the site. It has to do with a zoning code provision
in the PID section that says outside storage is limited to 15 percent of the site. It was
Mr. Willard's recollection that as discussed with the Board in July, this is a staging area that
22
/'111 -J . '/ .. /} i. ' I (
;' I ,/~L/ ,.),jl. <. i) . /(V'7-/,,-:1 J ~.. ( LJ'>-?~'I. ~
/~l.-L:k12 ,4A.,. h
/{ ORDINANCE NO. 096-~
~@~~w~
w
11: I
,/
!
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION F
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORID,
REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF QUANTUM PA .
PID/PCD CENTER; AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-70
---- ~ ..---..
OF SAID CITY BY-REZ~.~G A CERTAIN TRACT
OF LAND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN, FROM PCD (PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT) TO PID (PLANNED INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT); AMENDING THE REVISED
ZONING MAP ACCORDINGLY; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
PlANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida has adopted Ordinance No. 91-70, in which a
Revised Zoning Map was adopted for said City; and
WHEREAS, James G. Willard, Esq., agent for the owner of
the property more particularly described hereinafter, . has
heretofore filed a Petition, pursuant to Part III of the Land
Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning of the City of
Boynton Beach, Florida, for the purpose of rezoning a certain
tract of land, said land being more particularly described
hereinafter, from PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to PID
(Planned Industrial Development); and
WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it in the best
interests of the inhabitants of said City. to amend the
aforesaid Revised Zoning Map as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1: The following described land, located in the
City of Boynton Beach, Florida, as set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and the same is
hereby rezoned from PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to
prD (Planned Industrial Development).
A location map is
attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and made a part of this
Ordinance by reference.
Section 2: That the aforesaid Revised Zoning Map of the
City shall be amended accordingly.
Section 3:
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 4:
Should any section or provision of this
Ordinance or any portion thereof be declared by a court of