APPLICATION
PROJECT NAME: Seacrest Medical Tower
LOCATION: NE Seacrest Blvd
PCN:
I FILE NO.: HTEX 03-004 II TYPE OF APPLICATION: I
AGENT/CONTACT PERSON: OWNER:
Larry Kramer PHONE:
Southeast Architect Services, Inc. FAX:
PHONE: ADDRESS:
FAX: 954-771-6050
ADDRESS: 954-771-0037
Date of submittal/Proiected meetine: dates:
SUBMITTAL / RESUBMITTAL 4/25/03
1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS DUE: N/A
PUBLIC NOTICE: N/A
TRC MEETING: N/A
PROJECTED RESUBMITTAL DATE: N/A
ACTUAL RESUBMITTAL DATE: N/A
2ND REVIEW COMMENTS DUE: N/A
LAND DEVELOPMENT SIGNS POSTED N/A
(SITE PLANS):
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD 6/24
MEETING:
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT N/A
AGENCY BOARD
CITY COMMISSION MEETING: 7/1/03
COMMENTS:
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Seacrest Medical Tower\HTEX\2003 PROJECT TRACKING INFO.doc
SOUTH EAST ARCHITECT SERVICES, INC.
2209 N.E. 54th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
(0) 954-771-6050 (Fax) 954-771-0037 (E-Mail) sealk@gale.nel L1C.#AR6273
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MIKE RUMPF, PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
FROM:
LARR Y KRAMER m f(' fn) R n
D 12 I.~!?, ; ~~ C~
SEACREST MEDICAL TOWER HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS w. iJ: , -', m
OUR PROJECT #04-03 , I rJ'~ 2 5 21'(;.' i i J J I
L ,.j ILlI
APRIL 24, 2003 ,;: '; \,,>i .J_ J
RE:
DATE:
The proposed "Seacrest MedIcal Tower" is a 2-Story Medical Building above parking located at the
N.E. comer of Sea crest Blvd. and S.E. 23rd Avenue.
The roofline, flat roof, is compliant with the Height Regulations for the City of Boynton Beach. The
only exception to the height regulations are the parapet walls which enclose the mechanical
equipment and the elevator tower.
The proposed exception complies with the requirements for the Exception under Chapter 2, SectIOn
4F(3 ). With regard to the applicable standards please note the following:
a. Whether the height exception will have an adverse effect on the existing and proposed land
uses?
Response to Item a:
The height exception will not have an adverse affect on the existing and proposed land uses. The
height exception is developed to enclose mechanical equipment and provide for a decorative
architectural element at the elevator tower.
b. Whether the height exception is necessary?
Response to Item b:
The height exception is required for the elevator to provide necessary height above the finished floor
as a matter of code. The parapet wall is both a decorative element and an enclosure of mechanical
equipment which must sit on the roof of the structure.
c. Whether the height exception will severely reduce light and air in adjacent areas?
Response to Item c:
The height exception is minimal and will not reduce light and/or air to adjacent areas.
Page Two.
d. Whether the height exception will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accord wIth existing regulations?
Response to Item d:
The height exception will not be a deterrent to the Improvement or development of the adjacent
properties. The height exception is minimal. The parapet wall and the elevator tower are decorative
and will in fact become an attractive element in the design of the building.
e. Whether the height exception will adversely affect property value in adjacent areas?
Response to Item e:
The height exception will not adversely affect property values in adjacent areas. The parapet wall
and the elevator tower are decorative and will in fact become an attractive element in the design of
the building
f. Whether the height exception will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
Response to Item f:
The height exception will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The
adjoining properties are medical professional buildings. The height exception will not have any
impact onto those structures, nor have any influence with regard to the living conditions about this
structure.
g. Whether the height exception will constitute a grant of a special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with the public welfare?
Response to Item g:
The height exception will not constitute a special privilege since the exceptions requested are
normally allowed as a height exceptIOn and has been nomlally granted as a height exception.
h. Whether sufficient evidence has been presented to justify the need for a height exception?
Response to Item h:
Sufficient evidence has been presented to justify this height exception. The elevator tower is required
by code to be of a certain height which may be considered extraordinary in terms of normal floor to
floor heights in a structure. The parapet walls are necessary in order to properly hide mechanical
equipment and are used in this design as a decorative element.
'MER'PRESIDENT
SOUTH EAST ARCHITECT SERVICES, INe.