LEGAL APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
. Building . Planning & Zoning . Occupational Licenses . Community Redevelopment
March 13,2002
Mr. H. P. Tompkins
2295 Corporate Boulevard #240
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
RE:
File No.:
Location:
Woolbright Plaza
CaDS 01-007
1609 South Congress Avenue
Dear Mr. Tompkins:
Enclosed is the City of Boynton Beach Development Order for site plan/conditional use approval
granted on March 5,2002, by the City Commission.
To continue this project through the development process, please recall that variance approval is
needed for relief from the buffer wall requirement where the project abuts a residential zoning
district. Depending upon the outcome of the variance request, you should then revise relevant
pages of your approved site plan to incorporate all conditions of approval as applicable. The full
rectified site plan set is to be submitted as part of your permit plan package to the Building
Division. The person managing your permit applications should be made aware of any additional
documents and third party letters listed in the conditions of approval that need to be submitted
with your permit package.
The Building Division is committed to speedy and efficient completion of the building permit
process for your project. However, please note that failure to meet all applicable development
order conditions in the submitted rectified plan set may produce unnecessary delays in permit
issuance. Feel free to contact any TRC member for additional clarification of comments(s).
Important: If you plan to introduce any changes to your approved site plan over and above those
required by conditions of approval, please contact our staff before submitting a permit package
to the Building Division, All modifications to the site plan must be evaluated by our staff and
processed accordingly.
As no specific approval period for the conditional use was set by the Commission, the standard
site plan approval period of one (1) year shall apply. This approval will expire one (1) year from
March 5, 2002 if a building permit is not pulled, or if an extension is not filed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office at
(561) 742-6260.
Sincerely,
7tI tv rr
~
Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning & Zoning
MWRI AD
J :\SHRDA T A \Planning\SHARED\ WP\PROJECTS\ Woolbright Plaza\COUS Ol,007\Site plan approval letter after CC,doc
City of Boynton Beach. 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd., P.O. Box 310 · Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
Phone: (561) 742~260 . www.ci.boynton-beach.f1.us
.'
DEVELOP::"~c:NT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMlc""ION OF THE
_ITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLOR.
f)QJ~ .
VP~L
~.
~~.
PROJECT NAME: Woolbright Plaza
APPLICANTS AGENT: H.P. Tomkins, Jr, of H.P,T. Consultants, Inc.
APPLICANTS ADDRESS: 2295 Corporate Boulevard #240, Boca Raton, FL 33431
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: March 5, 2002
"AMENDED"
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Conditional Use / Major Site Plan Modification
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Southwest corner of Woolbright Road and Congress Avenue
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings
and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows:
OR
)( 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 Applicant
2SHAS
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 "C" with notation "Included".
4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
~ 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
. .-: .:-.~ f:': '"? (:9 rs D 11'7
i . ~ i . ii, i r-~ '-'. I~ ','I
III i I . ~ !
!ilK 5 W {IJU[lfAf? I ..
I L f- P,' . - \;; F ~" . . -. - '.
\ \;:..: ~)F\jtt(tPI./Cf""'-i ~_._______ __if:- I.r.
r, (:
I'
,[ I! ,r
I' :
.~ l _
DATED: - 0
:::: co :~~
s:\Planning\SHAREO\WP\PROJECTS\WOOlbri9~P~US
~ 0 ~ci:.o I
,.,.. " . .
- TA '.(Y" .
~ ~ ";::OON\ ..... ;;:: , ,
~ . 0 ........... I) ;;::,
'l/;: (]::/O \. ~\ -#
III ,... ~\"
111I1 III Jl \1\\\\\\\
~'~
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions of Approval
.. "
'.
Project name: Woolbright Plaza
File number: COUS 01-007
Reference: 3nd review revised plans identified as Conditional Use I Maior Site Plan Modification. File COUS
01-007 with a February 12. 2002 Planning and Zoning Division date stamp marking.
DEP ARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments: None X
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
1. Driveways accessing both Woolbright and Congress should be "right in-right X
out".
UTILITIES
Comments:
2. Fire flow calculations will be required demonstrating the City Code X
requirement of 1,500 g.p.m. as stated in LDR Chap. 6, Art. IV, Sec. 16, or the
requirement imposed by insurance underwriters, whichever is greater (see
CODE Sec. 26-16(a)).
3. All utility easements are shown on the rectified site plan and landscaping X
drawings; we will determine which trees may interfere with existing utilities.
In general, palm trees will be the only tree species allowed within utility
easements. Canopy trees may be planted outside of the easements so that
roots and branches will not impact those utilities within the easement in the
foreseeable future. LDR Sec 7.5-18.1 give public utilities the authority to
remove any trees that interfere with utility services, either in utility easements
or public rights-of-way.
4. The Utilities Department does not approve of a CBS screen wall or X
continuous heavy landscape visual screen barrier within its utility easement
along the west property line of this project. Palm tree cluster(s) and staggered
on either side of the existing water main may be planted to satisfy the
screening intent. However, the Utilities Department will field locate the water
main at the time of landscape planting to ensure that no trees are installed that
would be detrimental to the existing water main. Low shrubbery is
permissible provided that the applicant executes a "Hold Harmless"
agreement in the event the Department is required to excavate any portion of
the utility easement to repair and/or replace any portion of the existing water
main that would damage and/or destroy said palm tree clustering or said low
shrubbery. The aspects of this condition relative to the density of
landscapim! materials are superseded by Commission Condition #45.
"
COA revised,doc
03/13/02
2
I n
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
5. Water and sewer lines to be owned and operated by the City shall be included X
within utility easements. Please show all proposed easements on the
engineering drawings, master site plan and landscape plan using a minimum
width of 12 feet. The easements shall be dedicated via separate instrument to
the City as stated in CODE Sec, 26-33(a).
FIRE
Comments:
6. The site plan and master plan design documents shall adhere to Chapter 9 of X
the Code of Ordinances of the City of Boynton Beach entitled "Fire
Protection and Prevention." This ordinance adopts NFP AI, Fire Prevention
Code, 1997 edition, and NFP A 101, Life Safetv Code, 1997 edition
7. Design documents shall demonstrate compliance with LDR Chapter 6, X
Section 16, which provides requirements for hydrants. Hydrants in
commercial applications shall be no more than 300 feet apart and the remotest
part of any structure shall be no more than 200 feet from a hydrant.
Connections shall be to mains no less than six (6) inches in diameter. In
addition to domestic requirements at a residual pressure of not less than 20
psi, a fire flow of at least 1500 gpm is required.
8. Design documents where underground water mains and hydrants are to be X
provided, must demonstrate that they will be installed, completed, and in
service prior to construction work per NFP AI, (1997) Section 41-2.3.2.
9. Pursuant to City Ordinance 9-3F, the Fire Marshal has developed an X
Administrative Order dated May 9,2001, that provides the minimum
performance for all security gates and emergency access. Another
Administrative Order dated May 15, 2001 addresses Knox Box storage of
information for responding emergency personnel.
10. Design documents must demonstrate compliance with the requirements for X
fire lanes that are provided in Section 9-21 of the City Ordinances. Signing
and marking are described in LDR Chapter 23 Section B2.
11. Fire Lanes shall be provided at the start of a project and be maintained X
throughout construction for access per NFP AI, Section 41-2.1.
POLICE
Comments: None X
ENGINEERING DMSION
Comments:
"
COA revised.doc
03/13/02
3
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
12. Provide drainage plans and design data for site drainage (Chapter 6, Article X
N, Section 5). The plans must include flow arrows. Any work done within
the right-of-way and/or existing facilities within the right-of-way will require
review, approval, and permitting by Palm Beach County and the Florida
Department of Transportation.
X
13. Resolve the conflicts between outdoor freestanding light poles and new shade
trees. Replace or relocate large canopy trees adjacent to light fixtures to
eliminate future shadowing on the parking surface (LDR, Chapter 23, Article
II, Section A. I. b).
14. Sidewalks adjacent to parking lots shall be continuous through driveways to X
mark pedestrian paths and shall be 6 inches thick within driveways (LDR,
Chapter 23, Article II, Section P). Indicate by note that the sidewalks within
the driveway will be 6 inches thick.
15. Show sight triangles graphically on the Site Plan and Landscaping Plan. X
Reference FDOT Standard Index 546 for the sight triangles along all collector
and arterial roadways.
16. Provide, delineate and stripe a "Loading Area"; include a pavement message X
in yellow indicating "No Parking - Loading Zone". Also, see City Standard
Drawings B-9800 1 and B-900 13 for striping details.
17. Proof of other agency permits shall be required prior to the issuance of other X
permits.
18. Show written and graphic scale on all sheets. X
19. Indicate stall widths on plans. X
20. Orient the dumpster enclosure in a southwest direction to facilitate efficient X
pick-up and maneuvering.
BUILDING DNISION
Comments:
21. Relocate the two (2) handicap parking spaces located on the south side of the X
4-story building to one (1) space on the east side and one (1) space of the west
side of the building.
22. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the X
proposed construction.
"
COA revised. doc
03/13/02
4
I I
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
23. At time of permit review, submit for review an addressing plan for the X
project.
P ARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None X
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments:
24. Indicate on the landscape plan the existing desirable trees that will be X
preserved, relocated or removed and replaced on the site.
25. Indicate on the plans the newly planted trees that are replacements (separate X
symbol) for the removed trees. These trees should be in addition to the
Landscape Code required trees on the site.
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
26. Since this project is phased, this site plan is only valid for one (1) year from X
the date of City Commission approval and an additional fee is required.
Indicate the timing for the phasing. The sequence of construction will be per
phasing delineation shown on the site plan. Any change to the phasing plan
will be subiect to a minor site plan modification request.
27. The maximum allowable height in the C-3 zoning district is 45 feet. Any X
eligible architectural elements listed in Chapter 2, Section 4.F.2, such as
parapets or towers as shown on the plan exceeding this limit will require
approval of a height exception. The proposed height should be indicated in
the tabular data of the site plan.
28. In an effort to achieve further compatibility with the surrounding properties, X
staff recommends reducing the height of both pole signs to a maximum of 12
feet in height and eliminating the Light Emitting Diodes (LED) Scoreboard
display.
29. The building area and proposed uses in the traffic impact analysis do not X
match the area (57,750 square feet vs. 59,290 square feet) and uses on the site
plan. Submit a revised traffic study prior to City Commission review.
30. Provide cross access agreements between the subject property and the X
property to the south.
31. Include a color rendering of all elevations prior to the Planning & X
Development Board meeting (Chapter 4, Section 7.D.2.).
"
COA revised. doc
03/13/02
5
I I
DEP ARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
32. Submit a color sample / swatch of all major exterior finishes prior to the X
Planning & Development Board meeting. Each sample and / or elevation
shall include the manufacturer's name and color code (Chapter 4, Section
7.D.1.).
33, All required trees shall be at minimum 12 feet overall height and 3 caliper X
inches when planted (Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.C.2.).
34. Prior to the Planning & Development Board, on the site plan or separate X
sheet, provide a detail or typical of all outdoor freestanding lighting fixtures.
The detail must include the pole material, height, and color. The design,
style, and illumination level shall be compatible with the building design
(height) and shall consider safety, function, and aesthetic value (Chapter 9,
Section 1O.F.1.).
35. Sculptures, fountains, gardens, pools, and benches shall be encouraged within X
the site design (Chapter 9, Section 10.H.). The site plan indicates that a
fountain and a planter is proposed near the four-story building. Provide a
detail of both.
36. Wall signs shall be designed and treated as part of the architecture of a X
building and shall be reviewed at the time of site plan review. On the
elevations, indicate the color, type and height of all wall signs (Chapter 9,
Section 10.1.1.). The number of colors used for tenant signage for multiple
tenant buildings shall be limited to two, in addition to white and black.
Colors of nationally registered copy of tenants within the building shall be
included in this limitation (Chapter 9, Section 10.1.3). Despite the code limit
to two colors, staff recommends limiting the sign color of the tenants of the
one-story building to match the Walgreen's sign.
37. All plant material proposed within utility easements must obtain approval X
from the Utilities Department. The proposed West Indies Mahogany trees'
roots may conflict with the existing 8-inch Ductile Iron Pipe water main,
located in the utility easement along the west property line.
38. A buffer wall is required along the west perimeter buffer where the subject X
property abuts a residential district. The buffer wall shall not abridge any
easement rights or be constructed over any existing utilities in any easement
area and shall be setback at least two (2) feet from adjoining property lines
(Chapter 2, Section 4.L.). The existing easements may preclude the
placement of the buffer wall along the west property line. The applicant will
be required to either obtain a variance to omit the wall or to erect the wall
outside the easement area (see Utilities conditions).
39. Staff recommends that in the southwest comer of the site along the west X
perimeter landscape buffer where there is no utility easement, the West Indies
Mahogany trees shall be spaced closer than 30 feet apart as currently
,"
, '
COA revised. doc
03/13/02
6
I I
DEP ARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
proposed. See Commission condition #45 relative to spacing of
maho2any trees.
40. At the southeast comer of the site (along Congress Avenue), relocate the X
proposed Live Oak tree either a few feet to the north or south of the
pedestrian link to the public right-of-way sidewalk so that there are no
conflicts within the pedestrian walkway.
41. The floor plan and elevations for the four-story building must correspond to X
each other with regards to the entrances to the building. In parking areas, the
handicap parking spaces must be situated closest to entrances where handicap
ramps are required or provided. No handicap spaces shall be located where
no building entrances or handicap ramps are provided or proposed.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDTIONS
Comments:
42. None X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
43. No coin-operated or other types of stand-alone vending machines shall be X
permitted outside the one-story building or the four-story building
44. The temporary and permanent outdoor storage of shopping carts is strictly X
prohibited. This includes but is not limited to the dedication of parking stalls,
drive aisles, or sidewalks, as a place for the storage of shopping carts. Said
shopping carts must be returned and kept inside the buildings.
45. Along the west landscape buffer within the utility easement, the applicant X
shall replace the proposed Sabal Palm trees with Royal Palm trees (at same
specifications). In addition, the Areca Palm trees and appropriate shrub
material shall be installed at a height that will function as a significant lower-
to-midlevel visual buffer. The landscape material proposed in said west
landscape buffer shall be continued to the southwest corner of the subject site.
The West Indies Mahogany trees proposed on the west landscape buffer shall
be installed at a more "mature" height and will be planted tip-to-tip. A
mixture of "mature" Royal Palm trees and "mature" Live Oak trees shall be
installed along the north and east property lines.
MWR/elj
\\CH\MAIN\SHRDA T A\Planning\SHARED\ WP\PROJECTS\Woolbright Plaza\COUS 0 1-007\COA revised ,doc
Meeting Minutes
Planning & Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
! ()
\'JJ<OO~~<;jc:"-t r (... ~~
(0<...:::7,.;..>
( -f"c ....'fc,,~-()
February 26, 2002
peaked roof on a proposed office/retail
building at 61 feet-6 inches; a distance of 16
feet-6 inches above the 45-foot maximum
height allowed the in,C-3 zoning district.
After discussion, the Board decided to discuss and take evidence on both issues
simultaneously but vote on them separately.
Assistant City Attorney David Tolces administered the Oath to all persons who would be
testifying.
Eric Johnson, Planner, explained that this was a conditional use/site plan approval
to demolish an existing bank building and to construct two buildings, a one-story building
and a four-story building, on the same parcel. The four-story office building will be
completed in Phase I. The Walgreens portion of the one-story building will be completed
during Phase II and the remaining portion of that building will be built during Phase III.
The first floor of the four-story office building will be commercial/retail uses; the
remaining floors, two through four, will be for office purposes only. The one-story
building will be a total of 19,290 square feet and will encompass the Walgreens Drug
Store and 4,800 square feet of commercial/retail area. All uses are permitted uses in the
C-3 zoning district. The conditional use is required for the Walgreens Drug Store drive-
through feature proposed at the rear (south) of the one-story building.
There are 41 Conditions of Approval. The applicant agreed to meet the 41 Conditions of
Approval. The approval of the conditional use/site plan will be contingent upon the
approval of a variance, to be submitted at a later date, for the omission of a six-foot CBS
wall on the western property boundary. Due to a ductile iron pipe (DIP) water line
running through a utility easement on the west side, the Utilities Division will not allow
the erection of a wall. They do allow some types of shallow-rooted plant material. Staff
has not received a .formal variance request nor have they comprehensively reviewed for
a variance on the wall. There may be some basis for the variance considering the
presence of the DIP water line and the distance between the subject property and the
residences to the west.
Mr. Johnson then addressed the height exception for the project, saying that the
rooffine of the four-story building is 45 feet in height, which is allowed in a C-3 zoning
district. The parapet, which is eligible for the height exception, rises above those 45 feet
by five feet for a total of 50 feet. According to Florida Building Code, an elevator is
required for any commercial building that is three or more stories tall. The top of the
elevator shaft will be a total of 61 feet, 6 inches. There are no conditions attached to the
height exception.
Acting Chair Myott asked the applicant's representative if the applicant agreed with all
the Conditions of Approval and he agreed that they did but that he wanted to clarify
some things pertaining to Mr. Johnson's presentation.
Press Tompkins, representing Woolbright Plaza, stated that the main part of the
building was 45 feet, which was within the Code. They have a mansard or parapet-type
roof above that to hide all the mechanical equipment. This is also a Code requirement.
4
Meeting Minutes
Planning & Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 26, 2002
The main "tower" is nothing more than an elevator shaft that houses elevator equipment,
which was a Code requirement from the Building Division. They worked diligently with
staff to bring the project within the Code requirements and still maintain the
Mediterranean-style that they wished to present. In conjunction with that, they had
integrated the architecture of the four-story building with the architecture of the
Walgreen's building, The Walgreen's architect cooperated by installing .the same round
columns on Walgreens as on the four-story building. Walgreens also agreed to
incorporate the arches on the four-story building on their one-story building. A covered
walkway connects the two buildings.
He mentioned that the site had more than one parcel that had been platted at one time
and had two four-story buildings 45-foot high or higher. The existing property has no
wall in the rear. From the property line to the nearest apartment building across the
lake is six hundred feet., They had numerous meetings with Mr. Kelley regarding the
variance for the wall. They tried to modify the landscaping and cluster the trees and
bushes to get the effect that staff wantEld, in lieu of the wall. They tried to keep some
open spaces so the lake .could be viewed, but believed that a 600-footseparation was
more than enough. The applicant wished staff to bring this issue to the Board to see
whether a formal variance would be required or whether something could be done within
the approval process at this meeting.
ACTING CHAIR MYOTT OPENED THE PUBLIC AUDIENCE.
Herb Suss, 1711 Wood Fern Drive, Boynton Beach, stated that he lives in Quail Run,
the development to the rear of this property, and that he was representing himself and
some of the other people at Quail Run. Mr. Suss said that he was not against the
project in general but had several concerns. His concerns were whether the site was
zoned to have a drive-through window, whether Walgreens would be/open 24 hours, and
whether a traffic study was done at the site. He also expressed concerns about noise
and emissions pollution, a reduction in the amount of available light, and hazardous
waste from the dumpsters. They wished to know the details of site access and were
especially concerned that the increase in traffic would exacerbate their already difficult
problem with cars making u-turns into their development from Woolbright. They
preferred to eliminate the u-turn on Woolbright or have a traffic light installed at the
entrance to Quail Run. They thought that a tree buffer between the properties would be
more aesthetically pleasing than a CBS wall.
Mr. Suss expressed his own personal concern about the height exception, believing that
the approval could set an undesirable precedent for future development along Congress
Avenue. All of the residents that Mr. Suss had spoken to feared the traffic congestion
and attendant problems that would come from this project both now and when the
retail/commercial had been fully rented out.
At the conclusion of his remarks, Mr. Suss praised Lee Wische for his unstinting service
to the City.
Mr. Tolces administered the Oath to the following speaker.
5
Meeting Minutes
Planning & Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 26. 2002
Patrick Pucci, president of the Quail Run Villas Homeowners Association,
mentioned that he had spoken to a number of the residents whose concerns centered on
traffic and ingress to the site. It appeared that the only entrance would be from
Congress, meaning that anybody who comes north and wants to get into the subject
property would have to make a u-turn on Congress or make a left on Woolbright and
make a u-turn in front of the entrance to their community, where they had been having a
problem. He mentioned. that the area was getting more and more truck traffic from
people trying to bypass 1~95 construction tie-ups. The people who live on the side of the
lake facing the property were concerned whether there would be bright lighting from the
development. They also wondered whether the vegetation would sufficiently screen the
buildings. As far as the office building was concerned, they did not believe that a four-
story building was necessary. They also hoped that the lake would be protected from
construction materials and garbage.
Mr. Tolces administered the Oath to the following speaker.
Vince Carpentier, 1933 Wood Fern Drive, Boynton Beach, is the former president of
the Master Association for the Quail Run area and expressed concern that the increase
in traffic would intensify the problem of people making u-turns from Woolbright into their
community. He was concerned about the height of the building for the elevator shaft. He
had been a general contractor for most of his life and did not believe that the height was
necessary, favoring a three-story building instead. Also, he mentioned that between
Quail Run and Congress Avenue there was an access road to the site. He wanted to
know if this road would be kept open to the public.
Acting Chair Myott asked staff to address some of the concerns expressed in the Public
Audience. Mr. Johnson requested the applicant to respond first.
Mr. Tompkins pointed out the areas planned for ingress/egress to the site on a map
projected on the wall. He referred to the access road mentioned by Mr. Carpentier,
saying that the old plat had required cross-access between all parcels on the site and
that this road would remain open to the public.
Mr. Tompkins referred to the concern about waste. stating that Walgreens had a
compactor and that they would only have dry paper waste. A company specializing in
the disposal of that product would collect any potential biohazardous waste on request
and it would not be stored in the dumpsters.
Mr. Johnson clarified that although the Palm Beach County Traffic Division approved the
traffic study for Traffic Concurrency, the traffic study is off by 1,540 square feet and that
this explains the condition stating that the Traffic Study has to be completed and
submitted to the Planning Division before the City Commission meeting.
Mr. Tompkins addressed the issue of landscaping on the western property line. He
explained that the former developers had chosen to put the water lines on the perimeter
of the property. A compromise worked out with the City was the use of the Areca Palm,
which has dense foliage and would give the maximum screening to the residents to the
6
Meeting Minutes
Planning & Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 26, 2002
west of the property. Over 600 feet of separation exists across the lake to the first
residential building in Quail Run. Also, the planned buildings were further away from the
residential development than the existing ones. Mr. Johnson noted that a condition of
approval requires that the spacing of the trees be changed from 1 to 30 feet to 1 to 20
feet.
Mr. Tompkins addressed the necessity of the elevator tower. He stated that the architect
in his office had explained that the height was needed to house all the equipment
required to meet the Code requirements. If anyone wished to suggest an alternative, he
would be open to it.
Mr. Ensler advised that he had contacted an elevator company and learned that there
are two types of elevators: traction and hydraulic. A traction type is where the
equipment is put at the top of the elevator as in this case. The other type was hydraulic
and the equipment is all put on the first floor. If the applicant changed the plans to have
a hydraulic elevator, the extra elevation would not be needed. It would also be a cost
savings to the project since manual elevators are less expensive than traction ones.
The traction elevators are much faster than the hydraulic ones but the elevator company
felt the use of one in a four-story building would be "over kilL" Mr. Currier stated that
hydraulic elevators were used long before the traction type and that they were extremely
slow.
Acting Chair Myott asked for clarification on the roof measurement and was told that the
request was actually eleven feet over the parapet. He thought that some variation in the
elevation of the building would be attractive. Also, it appeared to him that the elevator
machine room was located on the first floor, which indicated to him that the plan actually
calls,d for a hydraulic elevator already. Mr. Tompkins apologized, saying that he was a
civil engineer and not an architect and that he did not have that knowledge to present to
the Board.
The Board discussed the next step. Mr. Tompkins suggested considering the site plan
request and tabling the height exception. Mr. Tolces stated that the issue of the variance
had been brought up but it was not before the Board. He preferred that the Board defer
discussion of the variance for the wall until application had been made and proper notice
given so it could be properly considered. The height exception was properly before the
Board at this meeting.
Acting Chair Myott noted the comment in the Conditions of Approval that would reduce
the height of the poles and that there would be no light emanating from the property and
staff and applicant agreed.
The Board discussed the hours of operation for Walgreens. Mr. Tompkins stated that
Walgreens planned to be open for normal retail hours, closing at 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., but
wanted to retain the right to have a 24-hour operation. He did not know if this store
would be open for 24-hours or not. There is already a 24-hour Walgreens in close
proximity to the proposed facility. Mr. Ensler believed that vehicles coming to a 24-hour
store would shine their headlights into Quail Run. Mr. Tompkins stated that the areas
that would allow that to happen have "bunched-up" landscaping that should eliminate
this problem.
7
Meeting Minutes
Planning & Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 26, 2002
Mr. Tompkins stated that during any normal construction operation adjacent to water
management systems, the South Florida Water Management District requires the
developer to put up silt or turbidial barriers and this would be no exception. Contractors
face significant fines for polluting or getting silt into lake or canal systems. Acting Chair
Myott thought that the drainage would not go to the lake but would be handled on site.
Mr. Tompkins asserted. that they had filtration trenches to handle water on site, but the
subject property was platted to give water retention rights to part of the lake. Acting
Chair Myott asked if the lake functloned that way? Mr. Tompkins said that it did and that
an inch and a half of water was retained on site in the filtration trenches and was then
allowed to be metered out Into the lake system.
Mr. Ensler asked whether Walgreens would sell liquor. There was a misunderstanding
about this and it was eventl,Jally clarified that this store did not plan to sell hard liquor, but
would sell beer and wine and alcoholic beverages other than hard liquor, and that this
was permitted in C~3 Zoning Districts. This met with a divided response on the Board,
with some members desiring a commitment that Walgreens would not permit any type of
alcoholic beverage at aU to be sold and others desiring that all types of alcoholic
beverages be made available.
Rob Levy, Walgreens developer, came to the podium and stated that Walgreens was
closing its liquor stores nationwide and that the new stores being built do not have liquor
stores attached to them.
Mr. Ensler favored putting the wall far enough back that it did not interfere with the
underground utility pipes, even if it encroached on the parking lot area. Mr. Tompkins
stated that the water main easement was sixteen feet wide and that they could not put
any landscape in the Water Management tract itself. The location of the water main on
the western side does not allow room for very much planting. Mr. Rosenstock asked Mr.
Rumpf if the sixteen-foot rule applied today. Mr. Rumpf could not answer that because it
depended upon various other factors and would require further study. Mr. Rosenstock
asked whether, if the City required less than sixteen feet, the applicant would be willing
to put in the wall. Mr. Tompkins said that the physical location of the water main was not
in the center of the sixteen-foot piece but closer to their property line. Even if the
amount of the easement were to be decreased, it would not solve the problem because
the water main is only five feet off their property line. Mr. Rosenstock reiterated Mr.
Ensler's comment about allowing space on his property for what would normally be an
easement for a wall. Acting Chair Myott thought it might be more attractive to look at the
landscape buffer from Quail Run than to look at the wall. Some other Board members
agreed, echoing the same sentiment that some of the residents had expressed.
Mr. Ensler read from a list of questions he had sent to Mr. Rumpf prior to the meeting:
1) There are two four-story office buildings to the south of the proposed building.
a) What is the height of these buildings, including everything? (Staff: "The
existing buildings were approved at 44'8.'? Is there anything sticking up in the center of
the buildings? (Staff: "Yes, there is a tower for screening of utilities on top of the roof."
Acting Chair Myott thought it had a chilled water air-conditioning system). Mr. Ensler
stated that it sounded like there was no elevator tower in the two existing buildings.
(Staff: "This could not be discerned from the plans. j Mr. Ensler's point was that the
8
Meeting Minutes
Planning & Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 26, 2002
existing buildings had been made without the need for towers and that he did not see
why the current project could not do the same.
b) Were any variances for height approved for these buildings? (Staff:
'Variances were not necessary due to their height.")
c) Were any variances for height denied for these buildings? (Staff: uSame
answer. j
d) Were any variances for height denied in the last few years for an office
building: If so, what were the conditions? (staff: "We recall only one, a medical building
on Woolbright that had to do with parking. j .
2) The analysis compares the new office building with newly approved buildings.
How does the new office building fit in aesthetically with the two current, older four-story
buildings? (Staff: 'The existing buildings were done in the early 1980s and were plain,
and modern for their tim~, in architecture. They did not review the project against those
buildings since they did not see features in the older buildings that would exceed the
features shown in the current project. The Code requires that existing or established
architecture or trends in a two-block area be repeated unless undesirable or of low
quality. j
3) What does staff think about the number and close proximity of pharmacies on
Congress Avenue and would having more represent a healthy situation for the future
development of the Congress Avenue Corridor? (Staff: "This use was not reviewed. It is
an accepted and permitted use in this Zoning District. It would be difficult for staff, in the
absence of some Code. requirement or reason, to object to the very typical type of use
that is being proposed.")
4) One of the conditions was to have an architectural plan with the colors of the
buildings. He asked to see this.
Acting Chair Myott stated that the Walgreens rendering was of minimally acceptable
quality and that the renQering of the office building was inadequate, since it was very
vague on the colors and materials. The Board wished to see glass and aluminum
samples of precast details and color chips of the actual colors.
Acting Chair Myott inserted a comment that he would like the applicant to place some
foundation landscaping on the north and east sides of the Walgreens store. There was
too much stucco wall.
Acting Chair Myott asked the Board to focus on the height exception item, get all their
concerns expressed, and move on to a motion.
Mr. Ensler stated that he was still asking a question about color and that he could not tell
from the drawings what the colors would be. He further stated that Mr. Rumpf was well
aware of the Board's need for this type of thing so it could properly assess the
appearance issues for proposed developments. Mr. Tompkins noted that they had
provided paint samples ,on the Walgreens board and they had duplicated the same
colors and that the paint chips and tile sample were on the board. Mr. Ens/er did not
know what paint went where in looking at the board. Mr. Rosenstock thought the "grass
green" plastic awnings would be unattractive. The Board stated that they did not have
color packets. Mr. Tompkins stated that the color packets were on the board that was
given to the City and he advised the Board of the building colors. Mr. Ensler liked the
9
Meeting Minutes
Planning & Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 26, 2002
proposed colors but asked that the Planning Division provide better visuals, especially
when the applicant brings them to the City prior to the meeting. Mr. Rumpf thought that
it was best to use actual color chips whenever possible instead of computer-aided
renderings which were not often accurate.
Mr. Fitzpatrick was in favor of any building height if there would be a tradeoff fot open
space, preferably for native plantings, but that this proje.ct was two-thirds asphalt and
concrete and appeared to be overbuilt. He was not in favor of the height exception.
Mr. Hay inquired about the signs. Mr. Tompkins stated that there were two monument
~m..~, one for Walgreens and one for the four-story building and he showed their
locations on a drawing. Mr. Hay inquired whether the signs would be. the same color
and style and Mr. Tompkins replied that they would. ~tinQ Chair Myott asked if the LED_
feature h..a.d been eliminated per the Conditions of Approval and Mr. Tompkins replied
th~.!J1J}~"C!.
Mr. Rosenstock stated that he lives on Congress Avenue and that the City had declared
a moratorium on zoning on certain parts of Congress Avenue because there is a group
of people, of which he is a member, who have petitioned the City to keep Congress
Avenue more residential. He was not against Walgreens and thought it would be
convenient for the people in the neighborhood. He was deeply concerned about the
traffic patterns that exist on Congress Avenue now, in spite of any traffic 'study approval.
The traffic conditions he sees every day on Congress are bad and getting worse as
more and more vehicles exit 1-95 to avoid the constant tie-ups there due to ongoing
construction. He felt that if this project were to be approved, it would contribute to the
existing traffic congestion.
Mr. Rosenstock was also concerned about the residential nature of the homes on or
adjacent to Congress Avenue and the fact that the Board was being asked to approve
structures that were almost two stories above the current height requirements. He also
believed that, headlights of vehicles would be seen across the lake by the residents,
regardless of any amount of landscaping that could be put there. He agreed that
landscaping was prettier than a wall but that a landscaped wall would be even better.
His primary objection was granting an exception of sixteen feet to the height of the
building because he did not know where that kind of decision would lead in the future.
Would a church come.in and build a hundred-foot steeple? The rule in the City is 45 feet
and more and more people are coming in to break that rule. He thought that if the
applicant put in hydraulic elevators, the height exception would not be necessary.
Acting Chair Myott suggested a vote on the height exception first.
Mr. Ensler asked for an opportunity to summarize his comments but when offered a very
brief period in which to do so, declined.
Mr. Rumpf encouraged the Board to approve or deny the height exception as they
wished but if they could not approve it, he asked that they declare a height that would be
acceptable. The City did not want to totally discourage height exceptions because their
purpose was to motivate and encourage architectural elements that prevent a "box-like
10
Meeting Minutes
Planning & Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 26, 2002
appearance." Mr. Tompkins stated that if the Board wished them to lower the building
height, they would be happy to consider a compromise.
Mr. Rosenstock noted that the Planning Division had come to the Board asking for an
exception for church steeples and it was now in the Code. His position as a Board
member was that if the applicant went over 45 feet, he would not support it. He was not
going to tell the applicant how to design his building. Mr. Ensler stated that they did not
want to see Manhattan or Chicago skylines.
Acting Chair Myott called for a motion on the height exception.
Motion
Mr. Currier moved to allow the height exception pursuant to the City's Land
Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.F.2, to allow a peaked roof on a
proposed office/retail building at 61 feet-6 inches; a distance of 16 feet-6 inches above
the 45-foot maximum height allowed in the C-3 zoning district. Mr. Cwynar seconded the
motion. The Recording Secretary polled a roll call vote, which resulted in the motion
passing 4-3, Messrs. Ens/er, Fitzpatrick, and Rosenstock dissenting.
Acting Chair Myott called for a motion on the conditional use/site plan.
Motion
Mr. Currier moved to grant conditional use/site plan approval to raze an existing bank
building in order to construct a new 14,490 square foot Walgreens store with a drive-
through facility combined with 4,800 square feet of commercial space and a separate
four-story 40,000 square foot office/retail building for a total of 59,290 square feet of
building area on 4.945 acres. Project to be done in three phases. This approval is
~bject to .!!1e applicant me~tilJ.9.2ULgp_n.9itioll~ Of,A.pe!:.Q.val i!l. th~~l~ft RelNtt Mr.
Hay seconded the motion.
Mr. Ensler asked that ~o amendments be made to this motion: 1) that no alcoholic
beverages be sold in. the store, and 2) that if Walgreens puts in a 24-hour operation, that
a wall be built on the western side of the property so the headlights do not flash across
the lake at night. Acting Chair Myott said the wall was not being addressed yet because
a variance had not come before the Board. This is an open condition that is in the
Conditions of Approval. Mr. Tolces asked whether the wall was part of the site plan
submittal and Mr. Johnson told him that it was not. Mr. Tolces agreed that the Board
could specify such a limitation if they came to a consensus on it.
Acting Chair Myatt proposed a vote on the two amendments.
Mr. Tolces stated that Mr. Currier had to be asked if he would agree to include the
amendments suggested by Mr. Ensler. Mr. Currier agreed to the wall amendment but
not to the prohibition on the sale of hard liquor in Walgreens. Mr. Tolces asked Mr. Hay,
who had seconded the motion, whether he agreed with the amendments, and he did
agree to both amendments.
11
r(f' , {7o~
cc-f
tr-<,.St"7
~ 6- c~ '\
L ~:~ ;-b<0 )
L..
(CV7 \..il
Sc~S
0/)7 l( (
, Ll
~M~A~J
((.~
Meeting Minutes
Planning & Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 26, 2002
Mr. Currier clarified that the wall requirement would be for a wall only large enough to
protect the residences across the lake from car headlights going through the drive-
through only. Mr. Tolces asked Mr. Hay if he accepted that amendment. Mr. Hay asked
why this could not be done with shrubbery and Mr. Currier said that there was some
thought that the shrubbery would not be sufficient protection against the headlights at
night.
Mr. Tompkins clarified that the drive-through does not face the residences - it faces
Congress and the headlights would be facing Congress and not west across the lake.
The possibility of someone coming ,in from the side access and making a u-turn does
exist, but it would not be common. Acting Chair Myott stated that it was six hundred
feet across the lake to the nearest house and that he was neutral on the wall
amendment. He thought it would be difficult to build it.
Acting Chair Myott suggested a vote on the alcoholic beverage amendment.
Mr. Tolces stated there was a motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Hay, on the floor at
this time. The only amendments to it were the 41 Conditions of Approval in the Staff
Report. Mr. Ensler asked if that passed if they could vote for changes to that with
limitations. Mr. Tolces said that the limitations needed to be made part of the motion. At
a subsequent meeting a motion to reconsider could be made. Mr. Rosenstock
suggested tabling the main motion to determine the Board's consensus on the two
amendments to Mr. Currier's motion, and then return to that motion.
Motion
Mr. Ensler moved to table the original motion by Mr. Currier for five minutes while the
. Board discussed the two amendments. Mr. Rosenstock seconded the motion that
passed 6-1.
Acting Chair Myott asked the Board to consider the amendment to Mr. Currier's motion
that would prohibit the sale of hard liquor at Walgreens.
Motion
Mr. Currier moved to allow the sale of hard liquor, along with beer and wine and any
other alcoholic beverages, at the proposed Walgreens, subject to the City's Code of
Ordinances. Mr. Cwynar seconded the motion that passed 4-3, Messrs. Ens/er,
Rosenstock, and Myott dissenting.
Acting Chair Myott stated that there would be no amendment to Mr. Currier's motion that
would prohibit the sale of hard liquor or any other alcoholic beverages at Walgreens.
Acting Manager Myott asked for a motion on the wall amendment.
After discussion with Mr. Tolces, the Board determined that action would not be
necessary unless the applicant came back before the Board with a variance. As it
stands, the wall is required under the Code.
12
Meeting Minutes
Planning & Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 26, 2002
Mr. Tolces advised the Board that the tabling of Mr. Currier's original motion had expired
and that they should now proceed to consider that motion.
The original motion was made by' Mr. Currier and seconded by Mr. Hay. It was to
approve the conditional use/site plan for Woolbright Plaza as presented, subject to the
41 Conditions of Approval. The motion carried 6-1, Mr. Rosenstock dissenting.
Mr. Ensler wished to reconsider his vote. Acting Chair Myott recognized Mr. Ensler for
one minute to explain his reasons for wanting to reconsider his vote. Mr. Ensler wished
to make certain that this motion had nothing to do with the height exception. Acting
Chair Myott assured him that the vote for the height exception was a separate item and
had already been approved. Mr. Enslerwished to allow his vote to stand.
7. Other
Acting Chair Myott wished to discuss the vacancy on the board. Mr. Tolces said the
Board was required to appoint a new chairman at its meeting in April and suggested that
Vice Chair Myott act as Chairman during the interim, which he agreed to do. Mr. Tolces
said he would put an item on the agenda for the following month to appoint a Vice Chair.
8. Adjournment
The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Collins
Recording Secretary
(two tapes)
(02127/02)
13