Loading...
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