CORRESPONDENCE
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 98-232
TO:
Mark G. Law
Deputy Utility Director
FROM:
~ r;. .1L--
Michael W. Rumpf
Acting Director of Planning and Zoning
DATE:
August II, 1998
SUBJECT:
Request For Site Plan Review Waiver
Existing Approved East Water Treatment Plant Site Plan
Utilities OperationsfTechnical Building Renovation
In response to your request for consideration of a waiver to site plan review, please be informed that I
concur with your justifications and agree that this utility project is eligible. This eligibility is based on
the criteria indicated in our Land Development Regulations, Chapter 4, Site Plan Review, Section 2.C
and 9.C.
cc: Mike Haag
MWR:rnjrn
J:\SHRDATA\PLANNING\SHARED\WP\CORRESP\P&Z\EAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE PLAN.DOC
MEMORANDUM
UTILITIES #98-188
I" i
. .. ::, L
liu I-'~~ ~,9 1998
!
j
_..---l
PU;;"~Nlr'JG ;.i~[)
ZONt;;c; DEL
TO:
Mike Rumpf,
Planning Director
1d~ ~r 1~'
Mark G. Law, ..1111.
Deputy Utility Director ~
THRU:
John A. Guidry,
Utility Director
FROM:
DATE:
July 7,1998
SUBJECT:
Request For Site Plan Review Waiver
Existing Approved East Water Treatment Plant Site Plan
Utilities Operations/Technical Building Renovation
Pursuant to a meeting that was held in your Department on June 29, 1998, we were advised that a
waiver would be required from the standard site plan review requirement for the renovation of
our Operations/Technical (former administration) building located at 124 East Woolbright Road
on the existing East Water Treatment Plant property. This building is being designed for
remodeling/renovation which includes the completion of the 'hole' in the second floor level to
accommodate office and conference room space.
In accordance with the CODE, Part III - Land Development Regulations, Chapter 4 - Site Plan
Review, Section 2.C., this project:
1. Does not change the pre-existing configuration of the site buildings;
2. No change of use, nor the number of parking spaces; and
3. Is in compliance with the current development for a governmental site.
Further, pursuant to Section 9.C. of the same CODE section, this project:
L Will increase building square footage less than a five (5%) percent increase;
2. Keeps the number of parking spaces the same as previously approved for this site
in January, 1998 (that site plan contained an access of required parking spaces);
3. The building renovation does not effect the development standards of this zoning
district;
4. The building renovation does not have an adverse effect of the adjacent
properties; ironically, the site improvements currently bid and ready for
implementation will enhance the site;
Page 1 of 2 pages
"V.H_B..J. J.,. '-IU.lU.l]
Mark G. Law
H. David Kelley, Jr.
File
Page 2 of2 pages
Mike Rumpf
July 7, 1998
Page 2
5. Exterior elevation design changes will enhance the appearance of the existing
building;
6. The building renovation does meet the concurrency requirements; and
7. The building renovation will not alter the current approved site plan of January,
1998.
In support of Section 9.C.1. above, the following calculation is submitted:
Proposed building floor area:
Existing building floor area:
Net increase of building floor area:
13,531 s.f
11,813 s.f.
1,718 s.f.
Approved site plan (occupied floor space):
Existing building floor area:
Existing W.T.P. occupied floor area:
W.T.P. site - other occupied floor space:
Total site occupied floor space:
11,813 s.f.
18,883 s.f.
8,679 s.f.
39,375 s.f.
Proposed increase of building floor area:
1,718/39,375 =
4.36%
As presented to you earlier, the purpose of the building renovation is to accommodate
operational space for the existing staffing currently occupying three (3) portable trailers on the
site and bring the operational divisions into one operations' building. In additional, the building
renovations will create an enhanced KO.C. function within the structure.
We request your review and concurrence of this waiver determination, and a written response
indicating same at your earliest convenience. Our architectural consulting firm is currently over
50% complete with the building design plans. If you have any questions regarding this matter,
please advise me at x6403. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.
MGL:HD~dk
xc: Dale S. Sugerman
John A. Guidry
Mark G. Law
H. David Kelley, Jr.
File
Page 2 of 2 pages
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-226
TO: J. Scott Miller, City Manager
\!l.,.~..1= t..-:t::?
FROM: Christopher Cutro, Planning and Zoning Director
DATE: November 12, 1992
SUBJECT: Height Exception for the Water Tower at the
East Water Treatment Plant
In anticipation of the site plan for the East Water Treatment
Plant, the Director ot Utilities is requesting a height exceptIon
for the new water tower at the Plant.
The attached memo from John Guidry comprehensively follows the
review criteria established in the Code of Ordinances and the
Planning and Zoning Department would concur with the statements
made in that memo.
This item has been scheduled for City Commission consideration on
November 17, 1992.
CC:cp
Ene.
FRCM:
HI!HlWfiDI
Chri. CUt,:'::o=~ ~I 39~'
John A. Guidry, Utilities Director '\
October 14, 1992 ~
RECEIVED
.l~\ 161p.....
pI..M~N\NG OEPi.
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT: East Water Treatment plant
Request for Height Exception
-
-
Your office will soon be receiving site plan documents for the phase 1
expansion of the East Water Treatment Plant site. The principal structure
to be constructed during this first phase will be a new elevated water
storage tank, which will replace the two existing elevated tanks within our
system. We hereby request a height exception be approved to allow the
construction of this tank to a maximum of 175 feet above ground level.
In support of this request, we believe that the proposed tank meets all of
the standards outlined in section 4(F(3)) of Appendix A - Zoning of the City
Code, and present a review of these standards as follows:
a. This height exception will not have any adverse effect on the
existing or proposed land use. This tank will replace one of similar
height that has been in place since the 1950's, and has becane a
landmark for the City of Boynton Beach. Please note that the proposed
tank will be made of prestressed concrete, and will never require any
painting. Impacts on the surrounding community are therefore
decreased, for the current tanks require cleaning and repainting every
5-7 years.
b. The height of the tank is governed by the pressure required in the
water distribution system. A tank under 45' in height would require
pumps, generators, controls, etc., and would not provide the same
function as an elevated tank. The maxirmn of 175' includes an
allowance for cannunication towers that will be designed, and provided
by BellSouth Mobility.
c. This tank will not severely reduce light and air in adjacent areas,
being significantly buffered on three sides by the water plant site
and also having the railroad right-of-way between it and the nearest
cannercial developnent to the east.
d,e, and f. We see no way in which the proposed tank will negatively
impact the improvement or developnent of adjacent land, negatively
affect property values, or adversely affect living conditions in the
neighborhood. We note once again that this tank will replace the
existing tank, which pre-dates all of the neighboring developnents
south of Woolbright Rd. In that the existing tank did not preclude
developnent, we see no reason why the new tank, which will be IOOre
attractive as well as functional, would adversely affect the
surrounding area.
Chris Cutro
October 14, 1992
Page 2
g. This height exception will be granted to the City for municipal
purposes, and will therefore not constitute a grant of special
prvilege to an individual landowner. All of our water custaners will
deri ve sane benefi t fran the new tank.
Items "h" and "i" of this section will be determined by the City Ccmnission.
We are willing to provide additional documentation, including pressure
calculations justifying the height of the structure, if necessary.
Please process this request as soon as possible so as to avoid any delay in
the site plan approval process. Any questions on this rratter should be
referred to Peter Mazzella of this office.
JAG/PVM/rd
be: Peter Mazzella
xc: Bob Kenyon
Mike Haag, Planning Dept.
David Flinchum, Stanley Consultants
Carrie Parker, Asst. City Manager
File
APPENDIX A-ZONING
Sec. 4
has been studied and consid~red in relation to the
following standards, where applicable:
a. Whether the height exception will have an ad-
verse effect on the existing and proposed land uses.
b. Whether the height exception is necessary.
c. Whether the height exception will severely reduce
light and air in adjacent areas.
d. Whether the height exception will be a deterrent
to the improvement or development of adjacent
property in accord with existing regulations.
e. Whether the height exception will adversely af-
fect property values in adjacent areas.
f. Whether the height exception will adversely in-
fluence living conditions in the neighborhood.
g. Whether the height exception will constitute a
grant of a special privilege to an individual owner
as contrasted with the public welfare.
h. Whether sufficient evidence has been presented to
justify the need for a height exception.
i. The city council may, in connection with process-
ing of application for exception hereunder, refer
same to the planning and zoning board for recom-
mendation.
4. In residential zones, freestanding television and citi-
zens' band broadcasting antennae may not exceed twenty-
five (25) feet in height, and no freestanding antenna
may be constructed within the building setback lines.
Roof-mounted or wall-supported antennae may exceed
the maximum district height regulation by ten (10)
feet; but in no instance, may an antennae exceed the
roof line height by more than fifteen (15) feet.
a.
With respect to private community antenna sys-
tems as defined in this Code, the aforesaid twenty-
five (25) feet height regulation shall not apply. In
the instance of private community antenna sys-
tems, the receiving antenna may not exceed forty-
five (45) feet in height unless an exception is granted
by the city council, and no part of any receiving
antenna may encroach in any setback.
Supp. No. 25
1899