Loading...
AGENDA DOCUMENTS PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-201 TO: Chairman and Members Board of Zoning Appeals FROM: Tambri J. Heyden ~ Planning and Zoning Director DATE: April 12, 1996 SUBJECT: Clear Copy, Inc. - BZAA 96-001 Administrative appeal to minor site plan modification determination The Board of Zoning Appeals has the authority to review zoning related decisions made by the Planning and Zoning Director if an aggrieved party wishes to appeal such an administrative decision. Changes to a previously approved site plan for Clear Copy, Inc., a print shop owned by Robert Feldman and under construction at 660 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard, were recently submitted by the owner. These changes were determined by the Planning and Zoning Director to constitute a minor site plan modification, as opposed to a major site plan modification. Minor site plan modifications are permitted to be approved administratively by staff rather than requiring Planning and Development Board and City Commission approval. Dr. Mark Roberts, the property owner adjacent to Clear Copy, has appealed this minor site plan modification decision, contending that these changes requested by Clear Copy constitute a major site plan modification. Pages one through four of the attached Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum # 96-143 provide a history of the Clear Copy proj ect, as well as a qetailed description of the changes Clear Copy requested, the definition of a minor vs. major site plan modification and the basis upon which the administrative determination was made. The Board must review the determination and act to either uphold the administrative decision or over-rule the decision declaring the Clear Copy changes as a major site plan modification. TJH:dim xc: Central File a:BZAACler.rnern CASE #4-001 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL CLEAR COPY MINOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-143 Agenda Memorandum for March 19, 1996 City Commission Meeting TO: Carrie Parker City Manager FROM: Tambri J. Heyden Planning and Zoning Director DATE: March 15, 1996 SUBJECT: Clear Copy, Inc. - MMSP #96-03-003 (Minor site plan modification for parking lot and building design changes and request for overhang determination) Please place under Legal - Other, on the March 19, 1996 City Commission agenda, discussion of 1) a minor site plan modification that has been submitted for Clear Copy and 2) Commission legislative intent for commercial building overhangs as it relates to the pending RHS Corporation v. City of Boynton Beach case. INTRODUCTION On September 19, 1995, the City Commission approved, subject to comments, the site plan request for Clear Copy; a new print shop to be located at the southeast corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and N.W. 7th Street (660 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard) - see attached Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96-142 - Exhibit A for location map. RHS Corporation subsequently filed a Notice of Administrative Appeal to appeal through the circuit court system the City's decision to approve Clear Copy's site plan. RHS owns and occupies the abutting property immediately east of Clear Copy's parcel. There is a medical/dental office building located on this abutting property. Since the September approval, the applicant has moved forward with construction permits and the building is currently under construction and nearing completion. On February 27, 1996, I received from the city engineer, William Hukill, a memorandum notifying the department that the applicant for Clear Copy had submitted, through permitting and in response to Mr. Hukill's request for a code compliance certification, a site plan drawing showing several modifications to the permit that had been previously approved for Clear Copy's site improvements. For expediency and simplification, all applicants are allowed to submit modifications directly through the permitting application process for determination of minor vs. major change or may submit modifications directly to the Planning and Zoning Department, with a letter describing the changes (although we have also allowed modification plans to be evaluated for determination by meeting with Planning and Zoning Department staff). Since the development is the subject of pending litigation, city policy requires staff to notify the legal department of any actions related to pending litigation. Such notification occurred and on March 4, 1996, the legal department advised staff of the following: a) that the City Commission be apprised, expeditiously (at their next available meeting), of the minor site plan modification that has been submitted; b) that the City Commission ratify staff's determination and c) that the RHS Corporation be notified that the modified site plan will be presented to the Commission at this meeting. As previously discussed with you, on March 8, 1996, the legal department filed a Motion for Extension of Time with the circuit court regarding the subject case. Reference in the motion was made TO: Carrie Parker -2- March IS, 1996 indicating that the modified site plan would come before the City Commission at their March 19, 1996 meeting. On or about March 5, 1996, the legal department notified the RHS Corporation that the minor site plan modification would be discussed at the March 19th Commission meeting. In addition, copies of this memorandum will be provided to the RHS Corporation, specifically Dr. Mark E. Roberts, today, after transmittal of this memorandum to you. It is the Planning and Zoning Department's responsibility to determine which departments review minor site plan modifications and to inform the applicant of the completeness of his submittal. After receipt of engineering plans to accompany the modified site plan received, staff distributed the submittal to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) for comments and placed the request on the agenda of the next available TRC meeting (March 12, 1996). It is noted that the standard method for obtaining comments from designated TRC members for minor site plan modifications is by telephone request to review plans held in the Building Division. However, the TRC meeting forum was used in this case due to the pending litigation and to more quickly and effectively assemble the attached materials for the March 19th Commission meeting. The modifications are described in the attached Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum #96-142 and are illustrated in the attached copy of the modified site plan (Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum #96-142 Exhibit B). After comparison with the September 1995 approved site plan (copy provided in attached Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum #96-142 - Exhibit B), these modifications have been determined to be minor in nature and can, therefore, be approved administratively through the permit process. For clearer Commission understanding of the modifications requested, the original site plan staff report has been attached and revised to reflect the changes. Also attached in Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96-142 - Exhibit C is a list of all administrative comments that condition this minor site plan modification approval. For reference purposes, the applicable sections of the Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations (Part III of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances) used to determine the processing of a modification to an approved site plan are provided below. Following each criterion, staff's conclusion is included and appears in brackets: "Section 9. Modification of approved site plan. C. In making a minor/major modification determination, the planning and zoning director shall consider the following: 1. Does the modification increase the buildable square footage of the development by more than five (5) percent." [No change in the size of the building is requested.] 2. "Does the modification reduce the provided number of parking spaces below the required number of parking spaces." [No change in the number of parking spaces is requested.] 3. "Does the modification cause the development to be below the development standards for the zoning district in which it is located or other applicable standards in the Land Development Regulations." [The modification does not change, and continues to meet, the C-3 zoning district development standards (building and site regulations). In addition, compliance with the attached staff comments will ensure that all safety and technical concerns, as well as code requirements, have been addressed.] TO: Carrie Parker -3- March 15, 1996 4. "Does the modification have an adverse effect on adjacent or nearby property or reduce required physical buffers, such as fences, trees, or hedges." [The modifications include replacement of the N. W. 1st Avenue ingress only driveway for a N.W. 7th Street ingress only driveway, a flip-flop of the location of the row of parking spaces with the access aisle to the parking spaces, switching of the handicapped space location, addition of window sills to the building exterior. The building exterior modification does not lessen the appearance of the building. In fact, the change lends a more finished look to the building, making it more compatible with the exterior appearance of adjacent buildings. The driveway change meets code locational requirements and does not negatively affect adjacent properties. The parking lot "flip- flop" and handicapped space change are internal to the development and have no negative impact (virtually no impact at all) on adjacent properties; nor do they diminish the function of the parking lot. With regard to reduction of physical buffers, the modifications do not diminish the degree of buffering afforded by the September 1995 approved site plan. No change in the landscaping proposed as part of the original site plan approval for the area between the Clear Copy parking lot and Dr. Roberts' parking lot is requested, consistent with the September 19, 1995 city determination that this landscape buffer is acceptable.] 5. "Does the modification adversely affect the elevation design of the structure below the standards stated in the community design plan." [The modification to the elevation design of the structure meets the community design plan and as stated in criterion 4 above, the building exterior modification does not lessen the appearance of the building. In fact, the change lends a more finished look to the building, making it even more compatible with the exterior appearance of adjacent buildings. ] 6. "Does the modified development meet the concurrency requirements of the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan. " [The modifications have no impact on the previously granted concurrency certification.] 7. "Does the modification alter the site layout so that the modified site plan does not resemble the. approved site plan. II [This criterion grants a certain degree of staff authority and requires application of judgement ~nd common sense to ~ssess the magnitude of change. Consistent application of this criterion is apparent through the quarterly reporting to the Commission of site plan waivers and minor modifications processed by the department. When magnitude of change and similarity, or lack thereof, is evaluated between the approved site plan and the modification, the following comparisons are noted: a) no change in building location; TO: Carrie Parker -4- March 15, 1996 b) same building to parking relationship - building in front, parking in rear; c) no change in number of driveways or type of driveways (two-way vs. one-way and ingress vs. egress); d) service areas are in same general location and method of refuse collection (curbside pick-up for trash and recyclables) is unchanged; e) degree, quality, quantity and location of landscaping is unchanged; f) type of parking spaces is unchanged; g) location of impervious lot, sidewalks and virtually unchanged. areas (parking structures) is h) building height, style, type and use are unchanged; and i) utility service modifications are to the extent that they have no effect on other site improvements. Therefore, based on the above evaluation, staff concluded that the changes requested constitute a minor site plan modification and meet the following definition of minor modification: "a non- impacting modification which will have no adverse effect on the approved site and development plan and no impact upon adjacent and nearby properties, and no adverse aesthetic impact when viewed from a public right-of-way as determined by the planning and zoning director" . In addition to ratification of staff's action on the modified site plan, the legal department advised that staff seek from the Commission a determination of their legislative intent when adopting the following section of the city's zoning code: Section 4. General Provisions. J. Other Structures. The following structures shall be permitted in front, rear or side setbacks as provided in this ordinance, in any zone, except where so noted; taking into consideration existing easements: 3. House eaves shall not overhang or exceed the setback lines for more than two (2) feet. Specifically the question is whether commercial buildings are allowed to overhang into setbacks, so long as the overhang does not exceed two feet. The Development Department states that historically overhangs of commercial buildings have been allowed, at time of inspection, to exceed the setback lines. These overhangs, which include building surface treatments, as well as window sills and cornices, have been reported to range from one inch to six inches. This determination is necessary because the tie-in survey submitted for the Clear Copy building indicates a 10 inch overhang into the front (north) and east side setbacks. Clear Copy's window sills, plaster, raised stucco bands and the cornice extend beyond the TO: Carrie Parker -5- March 15, 1996 setback by three inches, 1 1/4 inches and 10 inches respectively. The window sills were not part of the original approval and the cornice was extended a greater distance than originally planned in order to add roof ventilation; a design detail that is not considered until the construction drawing stage - after time of site plan approval. CONCLUSION In conclusion, two actions are requested by the Commission as follows: a) ratification of staff's action to process the submitted modifications as a minor site plan modification and b) a determination as to whether the Commission's action when approving the zoning code included various commercial building features to be treated as house eaves, thereby permitting such features on commercial buildings to extend into the setback by no more than two feet. tjh Attachments xc: Central File C:ClrCopy PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-142 SITE PLAN REVIEW STAFF REPORT FOR CITY COMMISSION March 22, 1996 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Project Name: Clear Copy, Inc. Applicant: Agen t : Location: File No.: Land Use Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Type of Use: Number of Units: Square Footage: Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning District: Existing Site Characteristics: Proposed Modification: Bob Feldman, Owner George C. Davis Southeast corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and N.W. 7th Street MMSP 96-03-003 Local Retail Commercial (LRC) Neighborhood Commercial (C-2) Print shop N/A Site: 9,788 square feet (.225 acres) Building: 3,780 square feet Find attached Exhibit "A" - location map. North - Boynton Beach Boulevard and farther north commercial building, zoned C-2 South - N.W. 1st Avenue and farther south, single family dwellings, zoned R-1A East Commercial building, zoned C-2 West N. W. 7th Street and farther west commercial building, zoned C-2 The 3,780 square foot two-story building is under construction. The proposed request is to modify the previously approved parking lot to relocate one of two driveways and flip-flop a row of parking spaces with the access aisle location. Find attached Exhibit "B" - approved site plan and proposed modified site plan. The following are changes to the exterior elevations of the building that have been made or have been submitted for review since the September 19, 1995 City Commission approval of the site plan: Page 2 Memorandum No. 96-142 Site Plan Review Staff Clear Copy, Inc. File No. MMSP 96-03-003 Report i. change the color of the walls of the building from S-W BM 1-3 pink to Benjamin Moore base-2 OP-58 peach, ii. change the shape of the windows by adding a radius top, iii. added a horizontal stucco band mid height to the walls, iv. change the color of the roof tile from S- W BM 1-31 red to Adobe Copper Smooth, v. move the windows on the north elevation to the east approximately 6 feet, vi . change the swing of the door on the southeast corner of the building and vii. add decorative window sills Items i, 11, and iii where changes made as part of building permit rectification of the comments from City Commission approval of the site plan. Items iv, v and vi are changes that have been approved administratively through the permit process, as a waiver, and item vii is currently in permit review pending Commission determination of their legislative intent regarding house eaves. Concurrency: Traffic - As requested by Palm Beach County Traffic Division, the applicant filed a restrictive covenant that limits the use of the structure to a print shop, unless further reviewed for traffic by the County. Drainage - Drainage submitted Division. awaiting applicant code. information has been to the Engineering The city engineer is certification from the that the drainage meets Driveways, TwO, one -way dri veways to the parking lot proposed. Both driveways are located on N.W. Street. The south driveway is ingress only and north driveway is egress only. are 7th the Parking Facility: The proposed parking facility contains the required thirteen (13) parking spaces, including one (1) handicapped space. As previously approved, curb pick-up is the method refuse and recyclable material will be collected. Landscaping: Following compliance with staff comments, the proposed development will comply with the minimum landscaping required by code. The applicant has agreed to dedicate to the city area in the southwest corner of the site to construct the required sidewalk in the city right-of-way. Page 3 Memorandum No. 96-142 Site Plan Review Staff Report Clear Copy, Inc. File No. MMSP 96-03-003 Building and Site Regulations: The proposed development meets the requirements of the building and site regulations. Total site area is 9,788 square feet, building coverage is thirty- seven percent (37%) and the building height is twenty-five (25) feet. Community Design Plan: As a condition of site plan approval the proposed two-story stucco building will be a peach color with white trim. Signage: A free standing sign is proposed between Boynton Beach Boulevard and the front of the building. The free standing sign is under construction. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Department has granted approval of this site plan modification request, subject to the comments included in Exhibit "C" - Administrative Conditions. Deficiencies identified in this exhibit shall be corrected on the set of plans submitted for building permit. Commission ratification of this action is recommended. MEH:dim xc: Central File a:STFFRPTMM.CLE E X H I BIT II A" ". \ ~ -l.' I-~.'. ~ I - ~ ;! ""' : J-lU JM !~I ~ ~ ~ =- -l I, \.~~_~_~.~] I . - f-" R -, -> f- f- -: ::: ,,:'". r- .. - "--'";TTT;TlI' ~ ' " -_ I-- ~ : -" I- 'I- - I -:-:: .', " - >-- ! ~, t E : - f- 'f- - " ~-.- i ..,. ."..,'!t:.rI" . . ~, I _' I- I-- - _ -'- f- _ .- f ~~~ J .... '. ~~\C ! = ~ -f- \- - i .! -_ -- - = -=. I._!' ~:I;:~!I:III.Ji':t~ ., . - - . rt:= =- = -= ~ · nnffi II '. ... - p.=- - :::- - - ,. ~,l Hh ;1111'11' / \.. "~\.l 1-' ':':--:tlr' ~~'~;, - l']' . I=le ~ · .~. !ill .-..1' ~:. '. ..,.....,11 I IIIII ,,- II ,'''::"' -=-=1= . c m"II'\'.'" i I I\..U II f- .. - l-' - {Q) WJl -~ I \~ : ~J~~LC ~ ~~.\.- - IT ~~~j .: '- UI I' --, ~~ : :- ~I '-:-.:: - ::,:... ~ r- ! I : , "1&::1 ,,-- ... ___ - -.: ~ ......----: , : ,..; I I- . ~ .-." ,..... , . a-I r1 ..:.- i,\~ -r= I F- I I F I .... .;..: -.....- '''-1 : ;t::; t::1 ~~~ '1'- ~\... ~ "T~~! 1-. I 'I---' l \" ." -" .. . p ... _ ?" ' r- -- --:: ,-' -- . r r-r'TI~ - .... .. - .., ---... ' f~JJ(fJI /;~ I' "~~ ~ .':= ~~~~ ~'~.:i: I U.'~ " _.~.- "\ . I I I J J ~l i J..J :"-/f(~ I- l'a;;; w -;=.:- ! I I 1 R -~ '"I r, I J': .~ J. J ....^ O()\ - - - I I E . J. h j ~,- ~~. ~""~) ~ }I'I J-- l! ' c I b::t;JU '- Ir"'Ff(~r;:;,.1 ..";': !s::' ,~. : I - .~ : f~ I ; , - - ;CD -. I I '--', i~I~L; JhJG.Efff J IDii 11l~~ ~ ~~(' ~~1;i-~ ~oy. JT~'" ~~,.,( ~- ~" ~~ I n-:-~:n .lllI~ '1.n;-'IS:,.IJ:'1 r-:..I- ~ ,,\ I :mr (T"';j1m- , '~:~""I' I~I :~:~~II" ., 'ff" ()\~.~~I~.!.I '\' :1ll1 '] _":."\' "."" r '1 ~ ~ '~' l 'l \ r- ::~;::;111~~~111. ~ II r-.?~ ';; \: ~ II \ ~I~,i.l,- }[~~~: I . 1=13 ,--', i rn~,.,~I.f\ I ~:'. 'l~li["."l'~- ~ ~~~d(t.;.11 ~: \')/" A.,_.~.,.i.I'II\_' I :( J~"I~ ".111. : ~r .~: I_j - ~ rnl-F6; ~r~1~ ~ I, [.~rl I -i I~, \~....' II F.11 'I: ,. ~-..J:. i; '!1 ~_.... \ L'-"~J A. ..f-'-J-:-~BSJ rill i _ " r'Tf- . ~ \~ ..---.......l~. f\ ,\ fit. 11,..u ..1- <------11....- :t:1.:J 1 , I. \,0.... \ ,REC ':~'\\\:'::-'L'::'''t ,e Jttr.J ElIllIlIill ...: I 1[~'fi~~Jj. ' ' \" "- "II - ...- r1J .4i'!~'~~' ~:';~::~~~.J~]:~~I-Uft., Db~~Ut-::i~I;Ln:="- qTt>t I ; G\ ~ ~ ~.I :. -~ -=' ::: r-I! ~ . -. ,., t~ .. ....- - -- ~ftf . - ~I 11 r; ..., ''':.:. ., or.', ~.-.: "';.;1. ~.::: ::_ ...-".- 'ifTIr '''. I.r -.. R: R E C ~ /',' J - .~. . .- , ra ~ I i H 1 'I ~"....,.'" f-. I 1 .' 'l"LtrUlLtI " ~. )I'IIL ~1 m , . ]i ICJIl:>>~;:~',<.>.. ,.~~'~<l.j~ _ !': <\ ~uL!,~o ~. ffiIillLuLU / . 1 "/.. ....l~ " '. . x. '~~." \ ' I \ .'.' . ","',~, ,-.d.A.,'~ _ ,". ,,'-I}... '" ,,1',. I" , .~ - ~-!... ..~~,.~ '\J/~ ~ ,.;~. . ":>:.' .~.~. ' '~LACEu ~~lr~r,: - -. ".)<..' ~ ~ ..... '.'~: I '. \ UUlll :: --: I... "r " V,' . ~ ,,'p~ " " ...' ~'; , .... (: " ~ .\ Ij'~L_, '..~: '\ '1111 III .. '~l '--~ 1 1'1~\"" .pes r I · iOi -1'" 'J Ii ~ ! _ ~,-. ..,.....;rI,:TI H ~ . I ~ " . . : . ..:- . IlIq'I:A'11 ~ ,,' :i I j . J -.. ~ I- - T":: , . " ',~ I.............. f' j r) ~l L':'.~ ''::: -." .. 'T..- 1.,..f ~ ~ r'-" -:- -...y<~~~~~ 'q~ ~.. Fi';-' "- -. m~~[t=" -0 'I..~' '~'~ JJP "1 -r-' '.. :"_#O"'~' ..!\o/4 N'''~':d~.;..~; ':Jrr-~~n, . l.~'o 1/8 MILESV "" ,t=--~ ,,;,>~~.!~~<~l)~i~HH}' '1111', . 'I'" \'::/;,:..:;w4' :1 J. J-~;; '\, :~~~~~k~ I ~."\ :..0 ,400. '8.2~_.~~.~T __ _~ ~ __ LOL.ATION. MAtJ . CLEAR COPY, INC. R1AA r-J E X H I BIT II C II EXHIBIT "C" Administrative Conditions Project name: Clear Copy, Inc. File number: MMSP 96-03-003 Reference: One (1) sheet, ST-1. prepared by Georqe C. Davis, Architect (as revised March 5, 1996) and two (2) sheets prepared bv H Burton Smith P E siqned sealed and dated 3/2/96 , . , DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS Comments: 1. As previously approved, Public Works has no concerns providing curbside service for the removal of solid waste and recycling UTILITIES Comments: 2. A mini manhole will be required in Clear Copy's north entrance placed over the City sanitary sewer cleanout near the property line per Utility Department criteria. FIRE Comments: NONE POLICE , Comments: 3. Place bollards along the east edge of the handicap parking space safety zone and the north half of the east edge of the handicap space. ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: 4 . Certification by the applicant's design professional that the work, when completed, will conform with all codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and City Commission approvals. 5. Elimination of dimensional variations between Davis drawings and Smith drawings. 6. Restriping of NW 7th Street as directed. 7. Dedication of property occupied by small portion of sidewalk infringing on southwest corner of site. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: 8. Provide Building Division with a copy of the final approved plans to be incorporated with the construction plans. PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: NONE I DEPARTMENTS FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: NONE PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 9. Show, dimension and label on the site/landscape plan the line-of-site triangles required at the intersection of N.W. 1st Avenue and N.W. 7th Street, and both sides of each ingress/egress driveway located on N.W. 7th Street. Add a typical note to the plan that indicates the landscaping within the line-of-sight triangles between thirty (30) inches and six (6) feet in height shall be maintained to allow an unobstructed cross visibility. Also, show on the site/landscape plan the zoning code visual obstruction safe sight corner. [LDR, Chapter 7.5, Article II - Landscape Code, Section 5 Hand Chapter 2 - Zoning, Section 4 E] . 10. Identify on the site/landscape plan the location of the raised curb required to protect the landscaping. [LDR, Chapter 23 - Parking Lots, Article II, E]. 11. On the site/landscape plan identify the specie, spacing and height of the landscaping shown. All landscaping shall be identified consistent with the specifications of the landscape code. Note: One-half of the total number of trees and hedges shall be identified as a native specie. [LDR, Chapter 7.5, Article II - Landscape Code, Section 5 C, D, E, and Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.4.6]. 12. Specify on the site/landscape plan that the grade of the landscape material is Florida #1 or better, that the landscape material will be installed in a sound workmanlike manner and that the material will be irrigated with an automatic water supply system. [LDR, Chapter 7.5, Article II - Landscape Code, Section 5 A, B, C, and Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.4.6] . 13. Specify on the site/landscape plan the specie of lawn grass and the method of installation. [LDR, Chapter 7.5, Article II - Landscape Code, Section 5 C 6] . 14. Add to the site/landscape plan the existing lane striping within the N.W. 7th Street right-of-way directly west of the site. Page 2 of 3 I INCLUDE I REJECT I nRPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 15. To conform to accepted practices, amend the configuration and horizontal control dimensions of the landscape strips and parking lot shown on the sheet identified Development Plan (prepared by H. Burton Smith, P .E.) to match sheet ST-1 (Site/Landscape Plan - prepared by George Davis, Architect) . 16. Place a note on site/landscape plan that indicates the refuse and recyclable material generated at the site will be collected via curb pickup. Recommendation(s} : 17. It is recommended that the oversized parking space located directly west of the building be reduced to meet minimum standards. This change would allow the slope of the driveway to have a smoother transition from the right-of-way into the site. 18. To clarify the request, it is recommended that a distinguishable symbol ( cloud) be used to identify the areas of the site/landscape plan that are being revised from the original permit plans #95-4541. TJH:dim a: ComDept.Cle Page 3 of 3