CORRESPONDENCE
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELC 'JIENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIViSi'ON
. Building . Planning & Zoning . Occupational Licenses . Community Redevelopment
August 23,2002
Mr. James H. Anstis, F AIA
Architecture 4
225 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Re: St. Mark Catholic Church - Building Addition 1 Site Improvements
MMSP 02-033
Dear Mr. Anstis:
In response to your request for the administrative review and approval of the modification proposed to
the above-referenced, approved site plan, please be informed that the proposed changes as shown on
the revised plans date stamped 08/07/02 are "minor", as defined within the Land Development
Regulations, Chapter 4- Site Plan Review.
This project may continue to be processed by the Building Division as a permit application subject to
the following condition:
1. If the scope of the project demands removal of plant material then such plant material must be
relocated to an area subject to approval of the City Forester;
Be advised that the proposed changes may require a modification to the building permit. Please
contact me at (561) 742-6260 if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
~L
Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning & Zoning
Cc: Lusia Galav, Principal Planner
Jose Alfaro, Planner
Eric Lee Johnson, Planner
Kevin Hallahan, City Forester 1 Environmentalist
S, IPlanninglSHAREDI WPIPROJECTSISt Mark Catholic ChurchlApproval Lettcr,doc
City of Boynton Beach. 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd., P.O. Box 310 . Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
Phone: (561)742-6350 . www.cLboynton-beach.fl.us
07/18/2003 16:12
SERRAES C()NSTr -.., Ot~
56184r'r- 'I)
Serraes Consll"Uction General Contractor, [r .c.
----~------'
56:, .848-t607 CG-COl84S:;
July 1.8, 2003
VIA FACSTMILE & MAIL
Ci!y of Boynton Beach
Planning Zoning imd Building
lOa Ea:;t Boynton Beach Blvd,
Boynton Beach, Floricla 334~: 5-031 0
A. IT: Ed Brce!le
RE: St. Mark Church, 643 N 13 4lh Aveoue, Boynton Beach, PT.
Denr Ed,
As peT your conversatiFI1 with Jim Anatis :~AIA c0l1cen:1;n8 the dt,co:I'ative
soffit out-lookers t:hat were palt of the plana during minor Bite ~l!rl ilpprc>val; we
agree to put the out-lookcl'S bH::k in lhe design. atl previously ap:?fo""d.
Thank YO\l {or YO'lIT cOJlsideriltioll in this malter.
Co; Jim Anstis FATA, Archiincturc:' 4
1300 53td StreIt. West Palm Beach, Flor:.da 3340'7-228U
FAX 561-848-87:15
PI~(: f :.
Greene. Quintus
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bressner, Kurt
Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:59 AM
Greene, Quintus
Livergood, Jeffrey
FW: St. Marks Church
Importance:
High
Not aware that Nancy was off today. Your call w/Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Bressner, Kurt
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:45 AM
To: Livergood, Jeffrey; Byrne, Nancy
Cc: Costello, Joyce
Subject: FW: St. Marks Church
Importance: High
Nancy and Jeff,
I asked Jim A. the architect to respond to the e-mail discussion. He has, as noted below,
and is not very pleased with how the staff coordination on this project has progressed.
From my vantage point, I'm perfectly willing to have this office mediate (Comm. Weiland's
request) or have you two sit down with Jim and review the issues to resolve. The size of
the parish is huge and there are a lot of members who live in Boynton Beach. I prefer to
see "we've resolved our issues with the City" announced from the pulpit than the other
possibilities. We had a very good experience with the First Baptist Church which
reflected well on the City. My gut reaction on this one is that some junior people on
staff need a lesson on follow-through and communication. Nuff said. My office or yours?
Kurt
-----Original Message-----
From: James Anstis [mailto:anstis@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:19 AM
To: Bressner, Kurt
Subject: Re: St. Marks Church
Jim Anstis anstis@bellsouth.net
> Jim,
>
> Ron Weiland tells me that there are problems with the permits for the
> Church. Give me a call at 561-742-6019 and advise me of the issues. Here
> is a copy of an e-mail I received from Nancy Byrne this AM when I made an
> inquiry:
>
> Kurt,
>
> I just met with Laurinda. Unfortunately, she had drafted a letter back to
> the site engineer prior to her extended leave, which was never mailed. I
> gave her a copy of Ken Hall's comments and she will be calling the engineer
> personally to clarify which comments he truly needs to address. (mainly site
> drainage calculations required by Utilities.)
>
> The only other noticeable comment was one generated by Planning & Zoning.
> They met with Ed Breese back in July for a minor mod approval, but when the
> elevation drawings came in, they had removed substantially more that what
> was discussed in that meeting. Ed is still willing to grant the minor mod,
> but staff requested some compromise in retaining some of the architectural
1
> details approved on the s~_e plan. P&Z has requested a rev~~ed elevation in
> line with that request. (The approved minor mod changed the orientation of
> one building and removed some clearstory windows along with soffit
> outlookers. Staff requested that the outlookers be retained to keep some
> level of architectural detail along that side wall.)
>
> I will keep in touch with Laurinda to assure that the engineering comments
> are resolved.
>
> Nancy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bressner, Kurt
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:52 AM
> To: Byrne, Nancy
> Cc: Livergood, Jeffrey; Costello, Joyce; Roberts, Christine
> Subject: St. Marks Permit Issues
> Importance: High
>
> Nancy,
>
> Comm. Weiland told me yesterday there were "issues" with the permit
> for the church that has delayed issuance of permits. I don't know if the
> issue is in Building or Engineering. Could you please check and advise me
> with a quick status report by 12:30 PM today. That is when I meet with
> Comm. Weiland.
>
> Thanks,
> Kurt
Kurt: There is, of course, another side to the matter. As to the
architectural design question the matter appears to relate to an
interpretation of Chapter 4, Site Plan review, Section 9 A & C and
specifically paragraph C, 5. The issue is are we as the Architect's and the
Owner allowed to make design judgements as we develop from early design, the
point at which the Minor Site Plan Revision was approved, through to final
Contract Documents; in a manner that is consistent with carrying out the
programmatic requirements of the Owner and meeting the budget constraints
placed by the Owner. There were changes that we made pursuant to meeting
those obligations to our client. Those changes resulted in the elimination
of over $200,000 in costs that placed us well above our budget limitation.
Those changes involved the elimination of clerestory windows over the
transepts and the deletion of the wood out-lookers under the overhang. We
also, as a result of programmatic directive from the Diocese altered the
Adoration Chapel which changed the West Elevation. The West Elevation is
only seen from the interior if the site since the existing Rectory is the to
the West of the Church itself.
.' 1/
,f-
The important point here is that we did indeed further develop the design of
the church beyond that image that was submitted with the Minor Site Plan
Revision. We should be permitted to take such steps since they are normal in
the design of any such building or facility. The early designs are almost
always modified as the project design matures to completion. The same thing
happened with the design of St. Mark Church. I submit that the differences
are quite minor and that the present appearance of the building is
substantially the same as the original design. The substance is there!
When Ed Breese and I discussed the matter he agreed that we could add back
the out-lookers and that a letter from the Contractor
accomplish that adjustment. A letter was submitted by
.t.hiJL.J;2LOCedure_was~~..ts!Q J)y~other'pers'onnel.. I had
when the change in the City positIon became knoWn.
would suffice to
the Contractor but
departedf~r vacation'
-,
(
The problem with adding the out-lookers is that we will have to find the
$50,000 + to install them. We were willing to try to find those dollars and
meet our agreement. The City changed the agreement.
2
As to the Engineering there are several issues that my Civil ~ngineer has
been addressing. They also involve shifts in the City position after we had
agreements. Further it seems strange to us that when one City staff person
gets ill that the entire process is halted awaiting return of that
individual. That is, in fact, where we found ourselves.
I'll telephone you shortly to discuss the matter further.
-Thanks !!!!! Jim Anstis-
3
-
.
..,
The City of Boynton Beach
Po. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
PUBLIC WORKS DEPART1.'vfENT
FAX' (561) 742-6285
www.boynton-beach.org
1
May 29, 2003
1\"'/29 "
i ! --.-l
\ l_,-----.. '
L---.~\:,_if~'::...:._. ~,L
J
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Ronald E. Bucina, P.E.
Keshavarz & Associates, Inc.
711 North Dixie Highway, Suite 201
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
RE: Stormwater Discharge into City System & Pre-Treatment
St. Mark's Church (NWSP 02-033)
Dear Mr. Bucina:
We are in receipt of your correspondence regarding discharge of stormwater into the City's storm
sewer system and the pre-treatment required prior to discharge.
You are requesting relief from the City of Boynton Beach and South Florida Water Management
District standards regarding detention of the first one-half inch of rainfall, for water quality pre-
treatment, prior to discharge into Mangrove Walk at the Marina pond. As justification you state
three things: first that there is no net increase in impervious area, second that there is no increase
in the total area that flows to the City's storm sewer system, and third that the existing SFWMD
permit (#50-04166-P) does not require it.
To the first item please provide the calculations showing pre- and post-development pervious and
impervious areas, and the square footage of the impervious area that will be directed to the pond.
This latter square footage will be used to determine the "fee-in-lieu of capital improvements" charge
for obtaining water quality treatment and disposal through the City's regional stormwater system.
Second, although the overall site area is not changing you are proposing a significant change to
the existing overland flow conditions. Currently the site generally slopes from the north and south
to the center of the property and then flows from west to east. The proposed plans redirect flow on
the south half of the property to flow from north to the south (NE 4th Avenue), increasing the volume
of run-off entering the Mangrove Walk at the Marina pond.
Third the proposed work is well beyond simple renovations to the building, including building
addition (9861 SF), added parking, utility construction, landscaping, etc. in addition to the proposed
storm sewer work. Accordingly the work constitutes redevelopment and the SFWMD permit
requirements shall be met.
America s Gateway to the Gulfstream
Keshavarz & Associates, Inc., Attention: Ronald E. Bucina, P.E.
Re: St. Mark's Church, Stormwater Discharge into City System & Pre-Treatment
May 29,2003
Page 2
It is not necessary to provide detention/retention of the first 1 inch of total area or 2 Y:z inches of
impervious area, whichever is greater (water quality treatment) because that is being accomplished
at Mangrove Walk at the Marina Pond; however you are required to provide pre-treatment of run-
off of the first Y:z inch of stormwater prior to entering the City's system on its way to Mangrove Walk
at the Marina pond as required by the SFWMD.
If you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (561) 742-
6482
Sincerely,
(' ,
i C\.lvt lUl{~" _ ~.i--._-----
Laurinda 1L0gan, ~E.
Senior En91R~~. J
LUck
Xc: Jeffrey R. Livergood, P.E., Director, Public Works (via e-mail)
Peter V. Mazzella, Deputy Utility Director, Utilities
Michael W. Rumpf, Director, Planning & Zoning
H. David Kelley, Jr., P.E.lP.S.M., City Engineer, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail)
Ken Hall, Engineering Plans Analyst, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail)
File
. --
a
ARCHIT~TURE 4
AAOOO2348
225 Southern Boulevard,
West Palm Beach. Florida
Email: janstis@aoLcom
Phone (561) 655-9327
AAOOO2347
Suite 101
33405-2768
Fax (561) 655-9341
JAMES H. ANSTIS, FAIA. AR0004829
Mike Rumpf
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, A 33425-0310
August 6, 2002
,\ I"
"" ;
"
! T
AUf.; 7
Re: St. Mark Catholic Church
643 NE Fourth A venue
MMSP 02-033
Dear Mr. Rumpf:
On behalf of St. Mark Catholic Church I am again resubmitting our Minor Site
Revision incorporating and/or responding to comments made by city staff
pursuant to our second submission, I have included a set of responses to each
comment in the order in which they are listed on the staff comment sheet. We
have also again included a preliminary Landscape Plan, which will be refined as
the Contract Documents are completed and prior to submitting for permit.
To restate a point made previously St. Mark Catholic Church believes that it has
an important, if not critical, role to play in the redevelopment and the future of
Boynton Beach downtown, When completed the new St.-Mark Church will form
the terminus of the view across your new water feature to the North and become
the architectural definition of that north end of the new downtown redevelopment
area. This development will provide the City of Boynton Beach with a very
important architectural feature, which should be a source of pride to all.
Enclosed you will find the following:
Survey
Architectural Site Plan
CiviTErigineenng SIte Plan
Landscape Plan
Existing Landscape Plan
Exterior Elevation
Drainage Statement
(Included for ease of reference)
SheetA 101
Sheetl
Sheet. LA 1
Sheet LA 2
Sheet A 30]
Attached to the front of the submittal
Architecture' Construction Consulting' Interior Design · Forensics
MEMBERS OFTHE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
...
Page Two
Mike Rumpf
August 6, 2002
The above documents are specifically included because they cover the response to
the concerns stated in the last set of comments from the city. The other documents
submitted previously and about which no comments were- made in the last set of
comments still are applicable and accordingly have not been resubmitted. The
effort is to have this submittal address the specific concerns stated in the last set
of comments.
Comment responses in numerical order of the comment sheet of 7/19/02:
1. This calculation has been provided on the Civil Site Plan
2. The Engineer's certification is attached to the front of the submittal
3. To restate a previous point about the comments related to driveways
crossing sidewalks: THERE ARE NO STDEW AILKS ON N.E. 6lh
STREET! The Survey clearly shows this. There is no sidewalk to continue
across the driveway. Therefore the comment does not seem applicable. We
are happy to accommodate where it can be understood that your
regulations direct that we do so. We will even work with the city on
interpretations_ We need to communicate on this matter. This is an
asphalt-to-asphalt tie-in just like the present driveway and street
intersections, The only sidewalks adjacent to the subject property are those
on N.E. 6th Avenue. St. Mark has two existing driveways at that side of
the property and there is no work contemplated with this project at those
locations. I have tried repeatedly over the last several days dating back to
last week to call Engineering to discuss this matter and could never get
through. 1 got either no answer or a busy signal every time I called.
4. The sight triangles (we have called them view triangles) are shown on all
site and landscape plans.
5, The traffic controls are located on all site plans as well as the Landscape
plans.
"
Page Three
Mike Rumpf
August 6, 2002
6. Written and graphic scales are provided on all sheets.
7. The City Standard Drawing B-980001 has been referenced on the Civil
Site Plan.
8. Working drawings will be signed and sealed as required by law at the time
of permit review.
9. The project does involve the removal of existing plant material and we
will be happy to enter into discussion with the City
Forester/Envirorimentalist at the appropriate time.
10, The elevations now have colors matching the previously submitted Color
Board designated on them.
11. The required note preventing the use of Cypress mulch has been placed on
the Site and Landscape Plans.
12. All new above ground mechanical equipment will be screened and/or
painted to match - the walls. The Equipment Yard and its enclosing fence
are shown on the Site Plan and the East Elevation,
All of the information provided to you in my original letter remains applicable as
to parking and other considerations. We are pleased to discuss this project with
you or your staff if you have any questions. Should you require any further
information or assistance please do not hesitate to call upon me.
Respec~wtt!~
Ja es H. Anstis, FAIA
AR HITHer AR(J(X)4829
We have provided four copies of the following: Survey, Architectural Site Plan, Civil Engineering
Site Plan,- Landscape Plan, E"tisting Landscape Plan, Architectural Elevations, Response to City
Comments along with a copy of the City comments.
f_i t,. J L ~tJU. 1: ,,'_)
.d_\l j t '.Ii 1 ; 1
bU, i ~ I Ln ~ JA_t \' -,I t I
1\ I,
" . I
~. ~onditions of Approval
Mf lor Modification to Site Plan
Project name: Sl. Marks Catholic Churcl~
File number: MMSP 02033 I
Reference: 2nd reVIew ~Ians identifjed as '\1inor ModificatIOn with an July 16. 2002 PlanOlnll: and Zonlnll: DevlUtmcll.1
date :stamp ~l:iiJ:lg.
DEPA ]i{TMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
-. --
._..~-_._---_. PUBLIC W ~ IRKS - General
~- -
COrIlmctllS' NONE i
!
PUBLIC ~ I JRKS - Trame
Comments: NONE
UT I.JTIES
Comments: NONE
,
~,;RE
Comments: NONE
pO: ,ICE
Comments: NONE
ENGINEER :~G DIVISION
--~,-----~- I
Comments.
I. Show that the proposed char ; es do not result in a net Increase In
impermeable area and that the r I to meets the requirements specified in the
LDR. Chapter 4. SCClion 7.F ane :hapter 6, Ankle IV. SectIOn 5.
---~-
2. Provide an engineer's cenlficatit'l on the dramage plan as specified In LUR,
Chaptor 4, Sccllon 7.FI
I
--.--- -------
3 At the new driveway on NE h St. the sidewalks shall be continuous
through the driveway and shall I f 6 Inches thick within the driveway (LOR.
Chapter 23, Article D, SectIOn '). Provide typIcal sections indicating the
new driveway and sidewalk m2 ,:rials and lhickne,;s which mp~t Ihp LOR
and City Standards.
-_..~
4 Show the site tnangles on the SIt md landscape plans.
-,
5 011 the site and CIVil plan/;, show I, nd Identify all necessary traffiC contlOl
deVIces such as stop bars. stop 51 IS, double yellow lane separators striping.
drrectlonaJ arrows and "Do Not I i1ter" slgoage, etc. Additional stopmg may
be r(':qullCu allJlc tinll: of pClllllll ~ 'e,
--.- j
,
I
II iI j '/ .'1111. J .': , '_,
'_}i_l.l j (':J~_,."I_I'J
j 'U if J I 1_ 'i, 1.',[,1\',' i t
! I \: It I I .. ~
COil
07119/02
2
-. , .- --
DEPtl : tTJ\-lENTS INCLUDE REJECT
-- -.-- -.
6 Please provide written and gra I'IC scales on all sheets.
7, SpeCify Rnd detail the handicap larking and 5 foot X. 5 foot handicap
pavem~nl symbol (Clly SlandaJ (i Drawln~ B-98oo1).
---- BUILDI '; DIVISION
-
ConJlIlt'lJ[s:
-----,. --.-. ---
8. Al tJme of perllUl review, subm 1 sIgned and sealed working drawings of tJle
proPosed constrUClIon.
-- --, PARKS ANl RECREA nON
1- H_
Comments: NONE
FORESTERlEN ~ IRONMENTALlS'f
-- ----.1 -- ----..-- -_._-~
Conunenu;; NONE I
!
PLANNIN,\ND ~ONING
Co=~"" t
9. If the scope of lhe project dema , s removal of planl matenaJ then the new
plant matenalls subject to reVle 'and approval of the City Forester /
Environmentalist
i----. __ u_ _ _ _ _
10. The elevluions shall include the ),anufacturer's name and color code for all
pamt and ex.terior finishes. mclu ~ ng the roofing malenal (Chapter 4.
SeclJon 7.D.1.). The approved c J:; 'ors are as follows; Wall Color- Sherwm
Williams #2:\26, Trim Colof- Sh ' WJn Williams # 1910. Brick Color- to
match existmg, Roof Color- Eve i lades Moss #815-0-361.
---------.
II. Place a note on the site plan indi .lting that mulch olher than Cypress shall
be used and maintamed for lands( ape purposes (Chapter 7,5, Article II.
I
Secllon 5,C8,)_ 1-
--
12, All new nbovp uound mechanicjl equipm~nt such as exterior utility boxes,
lrJet\\l"s. and transformers shltlllJ 'Isually licrecncd (Chapter 9, SectIOn
1O.C.4.). EqUipment placed on t : walls of the building shall be painted to
match the building color_
MWR/sc
S'IPI:lnning\sHAAEOIWP\pnOJEcTS\S\ Mnrk Catholic :hurchlCOAdoc
a
ARCHITttTURE 4
AAOOO2348
225 Southern Boulevard,
West Palm Beach. Florida
Email: janstis@aol.com
Phone (561) 655-9327
AAOOO2347
Suite 10 I
33405-2768
Fax (561) 655-9341
JAMES H. ANSTIS, FAIA, AR0004829
Mike Rumpf
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, A 33425-0310
July 15, 2002
Re: St. Mark Catholic Church
643 NE Fourth A venUe
MMSP 02-033
Dear Mr, Rumpf:
On behalf of Sf. Mark Catholic Church I am resubmitting our Minor Site Revision
incorporating and/or responding to comments made by city staff pursuant to our
original submission. I have included a set of responses to each comment in the
oroer in which they are listed on the staff comment sheet. We have also included a
preliminary Landscape Plan, which will be refined as the Contract Documents are
completed and prior to submitting for pennit.
To restate a point made previously St. Mark Catholic Church believes that it has
an important, if not critical, role to play in the redevelopment and the future of
Boynton Beach downtown, When completed the new St.-Mark Church will form
the tenninus of the view across your new water feature to the North and become
the architectural definition of that north end of the new downtown redevelopment
area. This development will provide the City of Boynton Beach with a very
important architectural feature which should be a source of pride to all.
We have also provided one copy of a color board of the proposed exterior
finishes. It is important to note that the color selections are based upon
compatibility with the existing facilities present on the site, The present church
has a considerable amount of brick as does the Rectory. Therefore, brick will be
used as one element of the exterior of the new church- as it is reconfigured, The
balance of the surfaces will be stucco on concrete masonry. The selection of the
roof materials is based upon the need to provide a high wind and impact resistant
roofing system to conform to the requirements of the Ronda Building Code.
Architecture. Construction Consulting. Interior Design. Forensics
MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
Page Two
Mike Rumpf
July 15,2002
All of the information provided to you in my original letter remains applicable as
to parking and other considerations. We are pleased to discuss this project with
you or your staff if there are any questions.
Should you require any further information or assistance please fell do not
hesitate to call upon me.
Respectfully Suomitted:
WCL,~
H. Anstis, F AlA
BeT AR()(J()4829
We have four provided copies of the following: Survey, Architectural Site Plan, Civil Engineering
Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Overall Roor Plan, Architectural Elevations, Response to City
Comments along with a copy of the City comments.
We have also provided one copy of the Color Board
-
-
RESPONSE TO CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
1st REVEW COMMENTS
MINORMODIFlc-~TO SITE PLAN
ST. MARK CATHOLIC CHURCH
File Number: MMSP 02-033
DATE:
JULY 11, 2002
ALL COMMENTS ARE LISTED IN THE SAME ORDER AS THEY APPEAR ON
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH REVIEW COMMENTS AND AS LISTED BY
DEPARTMENT. REFER TO ATTACHED COPY OF CITY COMMENTS.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
1. The requested general note has been added to the Civil Engineering Site
Plan in the lower left hand corner as General Note: #1
2. The Survey has been updated
3. All landscaped areas will be protected with either curbs or wheel stops
('parking blocks') as is appropriate to their specific location.
4. The percentage of impermeable area is shown at the left center of the
Civil Engineering Site Plan. There actually will be a reduction in the
impervious area of the site by 0.30 acres with the implementation of the
new plan.
5. The fully complete Site Drainage Plan and the certification required by
LDR Chapter 4, Section 7,F,2 will be provided at the time of the Building
Permit application. Ms. Pat Lawson of Keshavarz & Associates will work
very closely with the City of Boynton Beach Engineering Department as
well as the South Florida Water Management District to design and
subsequently permit the site drainage.
6. There are no sidewalks at N.E. 6th Street therefore it appears Note #6 may
not be applicable at this time.
7. The site triangles are well understood and have been added to the
Landscape Plan.
PAGE THREE
ST.-MARK CA THOLlC CHURCH
File Number: MMSP 02-033
15. The number of handicapped spaces required by FBC at 11-4.1.2 (5) (a)
for 244 parking spaces is seven (7). Seven (7) spaces have been provided
and they are "disbursed and located closest to the accessible entrances."
per FBC 11-4.6.2. Symbols have been shown on the Civil Engineering
Site Plan and the Architectural Site Plan. The location of all seven (7)
handicapped spaces are clearly shown on those Site Plans as follows:
· Four spaces are located on the east side of the Church in a paved
area. The pathways lead to the northeast, southeast and the south
entrances to the church. They will be level with the sidewalk at the
handicapped spaces.
· One space is located at the south side of the existing School Building
with an accessible pathway leading to the North toward the School
Building and South to the Church.
· One space is located to the Northwest of the Church to provide an
accessible space near the new chapel at the northwest side of the
newly reconfigured Church and lead to the northwest entrance to the
church.
· One space is located to the South of the present Rectory as a parallel
parking space off of N.E. 4th Avenue to serve the Rectory via the
existing ramp located on the south side of the Rectory.
· The site will be graded to meet the slope requirements of FACBC and
ADA.
· Appropriate handicapped parking signage will be provided at each
handicapped parking space. Those signs will be mounted at 84" to the
bottom and will contain the required penalty message.
16. As stated above all routes to the Church from the handicapped parking
spaces will be accessible therefore there is no requirement to designate
an accessible route. The final site and grading plans, which will be
submitted at the time of permit application, will provide full information as
to the grades to accomplish those accessible routes. Please refer to the
response to comment #11 above for a statement regarding the
commitment of the design team and the Diocese of Palm Beach to
accessible design.
PAGE FOUR
ST, MARK CATHOLIC CHURCH
File Number: MMSP 02-033
17. The finish floor elevation is shown on both the Civil Engineering Site Plan
and the Architectural Site Plan. The FIRM Map designates this site as
Flood Zone A5 with a base floor elevation of 7.00 feet. The floor elevation
exceeds that minimum elevation as is noted on the Civil Engineering Site
Plan and the Architectural Site Plan. Additionally a statement has been
added at the left center of the Civil Engineering Site Plan. As to the
comment regarding FBC Section 3107, 11 3107.1.2, such certification
should not be required. Section 3107 is titled "STRUCTURES SEAWARD
OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE." St. Mark Church
is well landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line therefore
3107.1.2 doesn't appear to be applicable.
18. The property line has been emphasized for clarity.
19. The floor plan is beyond "conceptual" since both St. Mark Church and the
Diocese of Palm Beach have approved it. It is not however, at this stage, a
completed plan for permit purposes. The permit documents will provide for
the plan as it is currently configured and in conformity with the
requirements of the Florida Building Code. Refer to #13 & #14 above
regarding accessible entrances.
20. The elevation drawings have been modified to show the building height as
a dimension rather than as an elevation height above the finished floor.
The height of the Church measured from the grade to the top of the cupola
or belvedere will be as shown on the elevation as 39'-8", which is less
than the maximum permitted height provided in the CBD Zone of 45'-0".
21.According to the Surveyor and the Civil Engineer, Keshavarz &
Associates, there are no known documented easements. Therefore none
have been shown.
22. Wall openings and wall construction will conform to the requirements of
the Florida Building Code Table 600 for Type IV construction,
unprotected. The facility will be fully sprinkled and will also comply with
Table 500 for the same construction and a single story Small Assembly
(A-2) Occupancy. These design requirements have been given full
consideration as will be evident in the permit documents when they are
submitted. Since the reconfigured church building exceeds the minimum
30 feet from either the property line or assumed property line and is non-
combustible construction there is no limit to the percent of walls that are
permitted to be open per Table 600.
PAGE FIVE
ST. MARK CATHOLIC CHURCH
File Number: ' MMSPlJ2-033
Notethatthe northern portion of the existing building is being retained in
the reconfigured church building. It is Type V construction, unprotected
and will be fully sprinkled when completed. As such it is governed by the
same requirements of Tables 500 and 600 as is the balance of the
facility.
23. The footprint and the height of all buildings have been shown on both the
Architectural Site Plan and the Civil Engineering Site Plan. There are no
mezzanines or levels above the first floor except for the step-up at the
altar area (Sanctuary). The altar area or Sanctuary is accessible via a
ramp shown on the Floor Plan at the left side of the Sanctuary. Refer to
#20 above for information about the building height.
24. The number of stories is indicated on the plan area of each building
located on the site.
25. The City of Boynton Beach Zoning Code, Sec. 6 E, 1f 3 sets forth the
requirements of the CBD Zone where the St. Mark Church is located. The
CBD has no requirements for setbacks other than a rear yard setback of
20 feet. In the case of St. Mark Church, that is to the North. The setback
of the reconstructed and expanded church building has been clearly
shown as requested and the rear yard exceeds 20 feet by a considerable
distance.
26. See # 25 above for information about the setbacks. The overhangs and
the dimension of the loggia on the south side of the church have been
dimensioned on the Architectural Site Plan.
27. At the. time of permit application the documents will be properly signed
and sealed as required by law.
28. The facility has had an address assigned to it since about 1954. The
address is 643 N.E. 4th Avenue. Should an additional addressing plan be
required please inform us as to the procedure.
29. The proposed limits of construction have been added to the Architectural
Site Plan.
PAGE SIX
ST. MARK CATHOLIC CHURCH
File Number. . MMSPlJ2-033
30. A' unisex ~ accessible toilet meeting the requirements of the Florida
Plumbing Code 11 403.7 and 11 403.7.1.1, has been provided and was
shown previously, but not clearly designated. The room is sized to be
sufficiently large to provide the maneuvering space as illustrated on
FACBC Chapter 11 Figure 28 page 11.75. It is located off the space #007
Servers and Brides as Toilet #009. Please refer to Sheet A201 the
Overall Floor Plan and on the right side of the plan for the location of this
space.
31. The structure as proposed will be a one story, Type IV Construction,
unprotected and fully sprinkled. It is an A-2 Occupancy without a
proscenium stage. Table 500 allows an A-2 Occupancy, Type IV,
unprotected struCture which is fully sprinkled with no stage proscenium to
be a maximum height of 55 feet (the structure is 39'-8" high) and at one
story to be up to 24,000 SF in area. The reconfigured St. Mark Church
will contain 17,361 SF which is less than the 24,000 SF allowed by Table
500. The present facility is not sprinkled.
32. The Site Plan tabular data now states the existing and the proposed floor
areas. The present church is 7,500 SF and the addition is 9,861 SF for a
total 17,361 SF in the new configuration of the church building itself. The
areas of the other buildings on the site have also been shown in the
tabular data.
33. The areas where the existing parking will be retained in essentially their
present configuration have been delineated. Re-striping of the existing
parking spaces will occur after the existing paving is resurfaced. The
other areas are either new parking or a reconfiguration of the existing
parking.
34. The parking configurations along N.E. 4th Avenue now match on both the
Civil Engineering Site Plan and the Architectural Site Plan.
35. As stated in #20 above, the dimension from the grade has been shown
as 39'-8".
36. There are no new wall signs proposed at this time. Should a new wall
sign be desired it would be submitted for appropriate review and
permitting.
PAGE SEVEN
ST. MARK CATHOLIC CHURCH
File Number: MMSP 02-033
37. There has been provided a Landscape Plan, which illustrates the existing
landscape material and its location as well as illustrating the new material
diagrammatically as to location and type. The approach has been to
emphasize the use of Florida native materials as much as possible.
38. Some existing plant materials will be removed due to the reconfiguration
of the paving and parking areas. The existing materials have been
retained to the greatest extent possible.
39. A color photograph of a rendering of the new building was submitted with
the original application. Additional copies have been included with this
response. The brick color matches the existing brick on the Rectory and
the wall and roof colors currently selected are as shown on the enclosed
color board. The walls will be painted stucco and brick. The roof will be
metal roofing system meeting the requirements of the Florida Building
Code for the 140 Mile Per Hour Wind Zone as well as the wind borne
debris impact requirements of the Florida Building Code.
40. The use of Cypress as a mulch material will not be permitted as is
stipulated in Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5, C, 8. A note to that effect
has been placed on the Landscape plan.
41. All mechanical and utility equipment has been placed within a fenced
mechanical yard located at the northeast corner of the church building.
This fenced area will also be landscaped with a hedge along the outside
of the wall. These steps will effectively screen the equipment.
A COPY OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE CITY OF BOYNTON
BEACH FOLLOW THIS PAGE
Department of Engineering
and Public Works
P.O. Box 21229
West Palm Beach. FL 33416-1229
(561) 684-4000
wwwpbcgov,com
.
Palm Beach County
Board of County
Commissioners
Warren H, Newell. Chairman
Carol A. Roberts, Vice Chair
Karen T Marcus
Mary McCarty
Burt Aaronson
Tony MasHotti
Addie L. Greene
County Administrator
Robert Weisman
. An Equal Opportunity
Affirmative Action Employer"
@ printed on recycled paper
....
April 24, 2002
~. Luu2 J LJ I
J
rrr~rn~:~ENT OF DEVElOPM_EN 'J
t.
l___
Mr. Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning & Zoning
Department of Development
City of Boynton Beach
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 34425-0310
RI::.
L..
St M;?rk Catholic Church
TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS REVIEW
Dear Michael:
The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the traffic statement for the
expansion project entitled; Sf. Mark Catholic Church, pursuant to the Traffic Performance
Standards in Article 15 of the Palm Beach County Land Development Code. The project
is summarized as follows:
Location:
Municipality:
Existing Uses:
Proposed Uses:
New Daily Trips:
Build-out:
Northeast quadrant of N.E, 4th Avenue / N.E. 6th Street intersection
Boynton Beach
Expansion of Existing 7,500 SF Church
9,861 SF Church Expansion
92
2003
Based on our review, the Traffic Division has determined that the expansion project
meets the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County.
Sincerely,
If you have any questions regarding this determination, please contact me at 684-4030.
OFFy/CE OF .E COUNTY H1GIf\!EF.R
/ )
/ '
Masoud Atefi, MS
Sr. Engineer - Tra
cc: MTP Group
File: General - TPS - Mun - Traffic Study Review
F:\TRAFFIC\ma\Admin\Approvals\020419.doc
Rug 16 02 08:51a KESHRVRRZ
) ,
~
133~lS H19 '3'N
5616897476
p.2
I
,
I
~ [B] I
~
0 ~i I
0
~
. ....
I ~V)- . .
~~ .... Jij
~l~
.... '.
. 0 -=IE
I-f 0
~~ - l"') ; !....
I/') -
. (J) If
. ....
~~
~~
~~
~t-
(/)
f20 .-
~ ~
~~ ....
..J
~
~o ;
....
~~ ....
I
(J) ....
....I
~ .~ ~
'01 "
~~ ...-
~ 1
I,()
~8 ~ "
"
I
-
Conditions of Approval
Minor Modification to Site Plan
Project name: St. Marks Catholic Church
File number: MMSP 02-033
Reference: 2nd review revised plans identified as Minor Modification with an August 7, 2002 Planning and Zoning
Department date stamp marking.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments: NONE
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments: NONE
UTILITIES
Comments: NONE
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
1. Provide typical sections indicating the new driveway and sidewalk materials
and thickness which meet the LDR and City Standards.
2. The handicap parking spaces shall be installed in accordance with City
Standard Drawing B-98001.
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments:
3. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the
proposed construction.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Coa
08/13/02
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
4. If the scope of the project demands removal of plant material then the new
plant material is subject to review and approval of the City Forester /
Environmentalist
5. The elevations shall include the manufacturer's name and color code for all
paint and exterior finishes, including the roofing material (Chapter 4,
Section 7.D.1.). The approved colors are as follows: Wall Color- Sherwin
Williams #2326, Trim Color- Sherwin Williams #1910, Brick Color- to
match existing, Roof Color- Everglades Moss #815-G-361.
6. Place a note on the site plan indicating that mulch other than Cypress shall
be used and maintained for landscape purposes (Chapter 7.5, Article II,
Section 5.C.8.).
MWR/sc
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\St Mark Catholic Church\COA.doc
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 02-174
TO:
FROM:
Eric L. Johnson, Planner, Planning and Zoning
Laurinda Logan, P.E., Senior Engineer t~---
August 9, 2002 ~
Review Comments
St. Mark's Catholic Church
Minor Modification
Fourth Review
File No. MMSP 02-033
DATE:
RE:
Eric,
Per your request I've made a review of the revised plans for the above project. The following
comments remain and will require the noted action:
3. At tho new drivmv~y on NE 6th St. the sidew~lks sh~1I be continuous through tho drivow~y
~nd sh~1I be 6 in. thick within tho drive'.\'3Y (LOR, Ch~pter 23, Articlo II, Section P). Provide
typical sections indicating the new driveway and sidewalk materials and thicknesses which
meet the LOR and City Standards. Typical sections are still required to show that City
Standards are being adhered to.
Please note that my memo to you, dated 7/18/02, deleted the remark regarding sidewalk and
sidewalk thickness. The Engineer has not yet addressed the second half of the comment.
Additionally you may want to check with him and make sure he has the correct phone extension
for my desk. I was in all last week and had no voice mails from him. If he has any additional
questions regarding the remaining comment I am, as always, available to assist.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding my comments or if I can be of further
assistance. I can be reached at x 6482.
LUck
Cc: Jeff Livergood, P.E., Director, Public Works (via e-mail)
Mike Rumpf, Director, Planning & Zoning
Lusia Galav, Principal Planner, Planning & Zoning
H. David Kelley, Jr., P.E./ P.S.M., City Engineer, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail)
Ken Hall, Engineering Plans Analyst, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail)
File
C:\My Documents\St. Mark's Catholic Church 4th Review.doc
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 02-158
TO:
Eric L. Johnson, Planner, Planning and Zoning
DATE:
July 18, 2002
(
\
"-
"
\ .
I..
FROM:
Laurinda Logan, P.E., Senior Engineer
RE:
Review Comments
St. Mark's Catholic Church
Minor Modification
File No. MMSP 02-033
Eric,
Per your request I've made a review of the revised plans for the above project. The following
comments require the noted action.
4. Show that the proposed changes do not result in a net increase in impermeable area and
that the plan meets the requirements specified in the LOR, Chapter 4, Section 7.F and
Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 5. The response states that the required information is
contained in a table on the Civil plan. The information only states the total impervious
area for the site. The request is for calculations showing the pre- and post-
development pervious and impervious areas and their affect on the existing drainage
system. The existing drainage system must shown to be able to handle increased
flows, if any.
5. Provide an engineer's certification on the Drainage Plan as specified in LOR, Chapter 4,
Section 7.F.2. The requested information is due at this stage of the Planning & Zoning
process, not at the time of permitting. The requested certification must be submitted
with the minor modification for approval by the Engineering Division.
6. At tho netA' dri\'evJ~Y on NE 6th St. tho sidow~lks sh~1I bo continuous through tho drivev./~Y
~nd sh~1I bo 6 in. thick within tho drivm\'~y (LOR, Chaptor 23, ,^.rticlo II, Section P). Provide
typical sections indicating the new driveway and sidewalk materials and thicknesses which
meet the LOR and City Standards. Typical sections are still required to show that City
Standards are being adhered to.
7. ,A.dd ~ note to the L~ndsc~pe PI~n that v.'ithin tho sight trianglos thero shall bo ~n
unobstructod cross visibility ~t ~ level between 2.5' ~nd 6' ~bo'.'e the p~vement (LOR,
Ch~pter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.H). Show the site triangles on the Site and Landscape
plans. Site triangles shall be shown on both the Site and Landscape plans.
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division
Re: St. Mark's Catholic Church - Minor Modification
July 18, 2002
Page 2
8. On the Site and Civil plans, show and identify all necessary traffic control devices such as
stop bars, stop signs, double yellow lane separators striping, directional arrows and "Do Not
Enter" signage, etc. Additional striping may be required at the time of permitting.
10. Please provide written and graphic scales on all sheets. Graphic and written scale
requested on ALL sheets.
12. Specify and detail the handicap parking and 5' x 5' handicap pavement symbol (City
Standard Drawing 8-98001). The provided handicap parking detail should provide the
information shown in City Standard Drawing 8-98001. The plans may specify that
Standard in lieu of a separate detail. Additionally, the provided detail shows a 10' Typ.
Ramp. However, the response to comment #11 states that "All handicap parking
spaces are located where the paving and the sidewalks are flush with one another".
Please correct this discrepancy.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding my comments or if I can be of further
assistance. I can be reached at x 6482.
LUkd
Cc: Jeff Livergood, P.E., Director, Public Works (via e-mail)
Lusia Galav, Principal Planner, Planning & Zoning
H. David Kelley, Jr., P.E./ P.S.M., City Engineer, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail)
Ken Hall, Engineering Plans Analyst, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail)
File
S:\Engineering\Dostal\ENGINEERING\St. Marks 3rd Review Memo #02-158.doc
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 02-107
TO:
Michael W. Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning
FROM:
Laurinda Logan, P.E., Civil Engineer
DATE:
May 29, 2002
RE:
Review Comments
St. Mark's Catholic Church - Minor Modification
File No. MMSP 02-033
The above referenced minor modification plans were received by this office on 5/16/02. They
were reviewed against the Code of Ordinances and Land Development Regulations (available
on-line at www.ci.bovnton-beach.fl.us). Following are the comments with the appropriate
references.
ENGINEERING
Code Requirements
1. Add a general note to the Site Plan that all plans submitted for specific permits shall meet
the City's Code requirements at time of application. These permits include, but are not
limited to, the following: paving, drainage, curbing, site lighting, landscaping and irrigation.
Permits required from other permitting agencies such as Florida Department of
Transportation (FOOT), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Lake Worth
Drainage District (LWDD), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Palm
Beach County Health Department (PBCHD), Palm Beach County Engineering Department
(PBCED), Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resource Management
(PBCDERM) and any others, shall be included with the permit request.
2. The survey provided is out of date. The LOR, Chapter 4, Section 7.A. and Chapter 23,
Article I, Section 5.B.2. requires a sealed survey, not older than six (6) months be provided.
3. Substantial changes have been made to the parking layout and landscaped areas. The LOR
requires all landscaped areas to be protected from vehicular encroachment by a continuous,
raised curb (LOR, Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.A. and Chapter 22, Article II, Section E).
Indicate on the plans the use of parking blocks or curb to fulfill this requirement.
4. Show that the proposed changes do not result in a net increase in impermeable area and
that the plan meets the requirements specified in the LOR, Chapter 4, Section 7.F and
Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 5.
5. Provide an engineer's certification on the Drainage Plan as specified in LOR, Chapter 4,
Section 7.F.2.
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division Memo # 02-107
Re: St. Mark's Catholic Church - Minor Modification
May 28,2002
Page 2
6. At the new driveway on NE 6th St. the sidewalks shall be continuous through the driveway
and shall be 6 in. thick within the driveway (LOR, Chapter 23, Article II, Section P). Provide
typical sections indicating the new driveway and sidewalk materials and thicknesses which
meet the LOR and City Standards.
7. Add a note to the Landscape Plan that within the sight triangles there shall be an
unobstructed cross-visibility at a level between 2.5' and 6' above the pavement (LOR,
Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.H). Show the site triangles on the Site and Landscape
plans.
On the Site and Civil plans, show and identify all necessary traffic control devices such as
stop bars, stop signs, double yellow lane separators striping, directional arrows and "Do Not
Enter" signage, etc.
Recommendations/Corrections
1. Indicate to what standard(s) the project is to be constructed; if the FOOT Standard
Specifications for Road & Bridge Construction and Standard Index are to be used - the 2000
Specifications are recommended since they contain both English and Metric units.
2. Please provide written and graphic scales on all sheets.
3. Show compliance with the FL Accessibility Code 4.6.3 by providing elevations at all sets of
Handicap Stalls showing the sidewalk at the same elevation as the parking lot or with details.
4. Specify and detail the handicap parking and 5' x 5' handicap pavement symbol (City
Standard Drawing B-98001).
xc: Jeff Livergood, P.E., Director, Public Works
Pete Mazzella, Assistant to Director, Utilities
H. David Kelley, Jr., P.E./ P.S.M., Utility Engineer, Engineering
Glenda Hall, Maintenance Supervisor, Parks
Ken Hall, Engineering Plans Analyst, Engineering (via e-mail)
File
J:\SHRDATA\Engineering\Dostal\ENGINEERING\St. Mark's Catholic Curch-Minor Mod.doc
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 02-121
TO:
FROM:
Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Zoning
Timothy K. Large, Building Code Administrat~
DATE:
May 29,2002
SUBJECT:
St. Mark's Catholic Church
File No. MMSP 02-033
Employee Research and Preparation Time
The following dates and time allotment are documented for my Administrative
Clerk and me in order to prepare the requested documentation:
T th K L
Imo IY arge:
Date Time Hours Description
5/28/02 9:00 - 10:3 AM 1.5 Plan review
TOTAL 1.5
B F II
etty u erton:
Date Time Hours Description
5/28/02 3:30 - 4:00 PM .25 Typed memo
5/29/02 3:00 - 3:15 PM .50 Made copies & distributed
TOTAL 0.75
TKUbf
Xc: Don Johnson
S:\Development\Building Code Administrator\Memos\Employee Research & Prep Time 02-121
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 02-117
FROM:
Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning and Zoning
Timothy K. Large ~
TRC Member/Building Division
TO:
DATE:
May 28, 2002
SUBJECT:
Project - St. Mark's Catholic Church
File No. - MMSP 02-033
We have reviewed the subject plans and recommend that the request be forwarded for Board
review with the understanding that all remaining comments will be shown in compliance on the
working drawings submitted for permits.
BuildinQ Division (Site Specific and Permit Comments) - Timothv K. LarQe (561) 742-
6352
1. Add to the building that is depicted on the drawing titled site plan a labeled symbol that
identifies the location of the handicap accessible entrance doors to the building. Florida
Accessibility Code for Building Construction, Section 4.1.2, 4.3.
2. On the floor plan drawings, add a labeled symbol that identifies the location of the
handicap accessible entrance doors to the building. The location of the doors shall match
the location of the accessible entrance doors that are depicted on the site plan drawing.
Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction, Section 4.1.2, 4.3.
3. Add a labeled symbol to the site plan drawing that identifies the location of the handicap
accessible parking spaces. The quantity of the spaces shall be consistent with the
regulations specified in the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction. The
accessible parking spaces that serve a use shall be located on the shortest safely
accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible entrance. The Florida
Accessibility Code for Building Construction states that buildings with multiple accessible
entrances shall have accessible parking spaces dispersed and located closest to the
accessible entrance. Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction, Section
4.1.2(5), 4.3, 4.6. The total number of spaces required for handicap compliance is seven
(7).
4. Add a labeled symbol to the site plan drawing that represents and delineates the path of
travel for the accessible route that is required between the accessible parking spaces and
the accessible entrance doors to the building. The symbol, required to be installed along
the path, shall start at the accessible parking spaces and terminate at the accessible
S/DevelopmenVBuilding Code Administrator/TRC/02St Mark's Catholic Church
Page 1 of 3
entrance doors to the building. The symbol shall represent the location of the path of
travel, not the location of the detectable warning or other pavement markings. The
location of the accessible path shall not compel the user to travel in a drive/lane area that
is located behind parked vehicles. Identify on the plan the width of the accessible route.
(Note: The minimum width required by the code is forty-four (44) inches). Add text to the
drawing that would indicate that the symbol represents the accessible route and the route
is designed in compliance with Section 4.3 (Accessible Route) and 4.6 (Parking and
Passenger Loading Zones) of the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction.
Please note that at time of permit review, the applicant shall provide detailed
documentation on the plans that will verify that the accessible route is in compliance with
the regulations specified in the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction. This
documentation shall include, but not be limited to, providing finish grade elevations along
the path of travel.
5. Identify within the site data the finish floor elevation (lowest floor elevation) that is
proposed for the building(s). Verify that the proposed elevation is in compliance with
regulations of the code by adding specifications to the site data that address the following
issues [Section 3107.1.2, Chapter 31 of the 2001 Florida Building Code]:
a) The design professional-of-record for the project shall add the following text to the site
data. "The proposed finish floor elevation _' _ NGVD is above the highest 100-
year base flood elevation applicable to the building site, as determined by the South
Florida Water Management District's surface water management construction
development regulations."
b) From the FIRM map, identify in the site data the title of the flood zone that the building
is located within. Where applicable, specify the base flood elevation. If there is no
base flood elevation, indicate that on the plans.
c) Identify the floor elevation that the design professional has established for the building
within the footprint of the building that is shown on the drawings titled site plan, floor
plan and paving/ drainage (civil plans).
6. On the drawing titled site plan, identify and label the symbol that represents the property
line.
7. The building plans are not being reviewed for compliance with the applicable building
codes. Therefore, add the words "Floor plan layout is conceptual" below the drawing titled
Floor Plan found on sheet A-201. However, add to the floor plan drawing a labeled
symbol that identifies the location of the handicap accessible entrance doors to the
building. The location of the doors shall match the location of the accessible entrance
doors that are depicted on the site plan drawing.
8. As required by Chapter 4, section 7 of the Land Development Regulations, submit
elevation view drawings of the building. Dimension on the drawing the overall height of
the building(s). The overall height of a building shall be measured from finish grade
to the highest point of the roof or parapet wall. The overall height of the building shall
not exceed the height limitations of the Boynton Beach Zoning Code and 2001 Florida
Building Code
9. Add to the site plan drawing all existing easements that are shown on the survey. Also,
add all proposed easements. The location, type and size of the easements shall be
S/Development/Building Code Administrator/TRC/02St Mark's Catholic Church
Page 2 of 3
shown and identified on the site plan. Where applicable, amend the plans so that
structures do not encroach into an easement.
10. Place a note on the elevation view drawings indicating that the wall openings and wall
construction comply with Table 600 of the 2001 Florida Building Code.
11. On the site plan, indicate within the footprint of the buildings the number of stories that
are in the building including, where applicable, mezzanines. Indicate the overall height of
the building within the site data. The overall height of the building shall not exceed the
height limitations of the Boynton Beach Zoning Code and 2001 Florida Building Code.
12. On all floor plan drawings, indicate within the footprint of the building the number of
stories that are in the building including, where applicable, mezzanines.
13. Identify on the site plan drawing the actual distance that the building is set back from the
north, east, south and west property lines. Please note that overhangs, covered
walkways, canopies, awnings or other appurtenances that are attached to the building
shall be considered when identifying building setbacks. Therefore, identify the width of the
proposed overhangs, covered walkways, canopies, awnings, and/or other roofed areas
that extend out beyond the main walls of the building. The building setbacks shall comply
with setback regulations specified in the Boynton Beach Zoning Code.
14. To verify that the proposed building is in compliance with the applicable building setbacks,
show and dimension on the site plan the width of the building overhang. Also, identify the
size or width of the covered walkways, awnings, canopies and/or other roofed areas that
extend out beyond the main walls of the building.
15. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the proposed
construction.
16. At time of permit review, submit for review an addressing plan for the project.
17. Add to all plan view drawings of the site a labeled symbol that represents the location and
perimeter of the limits of construction proposed with the subject request.
ADDENDUM:
A. A unisex toilet room shall be provided per the 2001 Florida Building Code, Plumbing,
Section 403.7.
B. The allowable building area shall comply with Table 500 of the 2001 Florida Building
Code. Submit information on type of construction of structure (Chapter 6 of the 2001
Florida Building Code), if the existing structure is equipped with an automatic fire
protection system, and all other pertinent information.
bf
S/Development/Building Code AdministratorfTRC/02St Mark's Catholic Church
Page 3 of 3
..
Facsimile
TRANSMITTAL
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD
P.O. BOX 310
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORI DA 33425-0310
FAX: (561) 742-6259
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
To:
Fax #:
Date:
From:
Re:
James H. Anstis, FAIA
561-655-9341
May 30,2002
Sherie Coale
St. Mark's Catholic Church Minor Modification
Pages:
7 including coversheet
The following comments have been generated by the Planning & Zoning
Division in response to the plans submitted on April 30, 2002. Please
review, address the comments and submit 4 revised sets of plans in order
to continue with the review process.
Planning and Zoning Division
City of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425
742-6260
Fax: 742-6259
..
l
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
TIME 05/30/2002 09:57
NAME BOVNTON BEACH P & Z
FAX 5513755259
TEL 5513755250
DATE, TIME
FAX NO./NAME
DURATION
PAGE(S)
RESULT
tvlODE
05/30 09:53
95559341
00:04:01
07
OK
STANDARD
ECM
1 st REVIEW COMMENTS
Minor Modification to Site Plan
Project name: St. Marks Catholic Church
File number: MMSP 02-033
Reference: I slreview plans identified as Minor Modification with an April 30. 2002 Planning and Zoning
Department date stamp marking
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments: NONE
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments: NONE
UTILITIES
Comments: NONE
FIRE
Comments: NONE
POLICE
Comments: NONE
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
1. Add a general note to the site plan that all plans submitted for specific
permits shall meet the City's Code requirements at time of application.
These permits include, but are not limited to, the following: paving,
drainage, curbing, site lighting, landscaping and irrigation. Permits
required from other permitting agencies such as Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT), South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD), Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD), Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Palm Beach County Health
Department (PBCHD), Palm Beach County Engineering Department
(PBCED), Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resource
Management (PBCDERM) and any others, shall be included with the
permit request.
2. The survey provided is out of date. The LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.A.
and Chapter 23, Article I, Section 5.B.2. requires a sealed survey, not
older than six (6) months be provided.
3. Substantial changes have been made to the parking layout and landscaped
areas. The LDR requires all landscaped areas to be protected from
1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS
05/30/02
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
vehicular encroachment by a continuous, raised curb (LDR, Chapter 7.5,
Article II, Section 5.A. and Chapter 22, Article II, Section E). Indicate on
the plans the use of parking blocks or curb to fulfill this requirement.
4. Show that the proposed changes do not result in a net increase in
impermeable area and that the plan meets the requirements specified in
the LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.F and Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 5.
5. Provide an engineer's certification on the drainage plan as specified in
LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.F.2.
6. At the new driveway on NE 6th St. the sidewalks shall be continuous
through the driveway and shall be 6 inches thick within the driveway
(LDR, Chapter 23, Article II, Section P). Provide typical sections
indicating the new driveway and sidewalk materials and thickness which
meet the LDR and City Standards.
7. Add a note to the landscape plan that within the sight triangles there shall
be an unobstructed cross-visibility at a level between 2.5 feet and 6 feet
above the pavement (LDR, Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.H). Show
the site triangles on the site and landscape plans.
8. On the site and civil plans, show and identify all necessary traffic control
devices such as stop bars, stop signs, double yellow lane separators
striping, directional arrows and "Do Not Enter" signage, etc.
9. Indicate to what standard(s) the project is to be constructed; if the FDOT
Standard Specifications for Road & Bridge Construction and Standard
Index are to be used - the 2000 Specifications are recommended since
they contain both English and Metric units.
10. Please provide written and graphic scales on all sheets.
11. Show compliance with the Florida Accessibility Code 4.6.3 by providing
elevations at all sets of handicap stalls showing the sidewalk at the same
elevation as the parking lot or with details.
12. Specify and detail the handicap parking and 5 foot x 5 foot handicap
pavement symbol (City Standard Drawing B-9800 1.
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments:
13. Add to the building that is depicted on the drawing titled site plan a v'
labeled symbol that identifies the location of the handicap accessible
entrance doors to the building. Florida Accessibility Code for Building
Construction, Section 4.1.2, 4.3.
1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS
05/30/02
3
DEPARTMENTS
14. On the floor plan drawings, add a labeled symbol that identifies the
location of the handicap accessible entrance doors to the building. The
location of the doors shall match the location of the accessible entrance
doors that are depicted on the site plan drawing. Florida Accessibility
Code for Building Construction, Section 4.1.2, 4.3.
15. Add a labeled symbol to the site plan drawing that identifies the location
of the handicap accessible parking spaces. The quantity of the spaces
shall be consistent with the regulations specified in the Florida
Accessibility Code for Building Construction. The accessible parking
spaces that serve a use shall be located on the shortest safely accessible
route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible entrance. The
Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction states that buildings
with multiple accessible entrances shall have accessible parking spaces
dispersed and located closest to the accessible entrance. Florida
Accessibility Code for Building Construction, Section 4.1.2(5), 4.3, 4.6.
16. Add a labeled symbol to the site plan drawing that represents and
delineates the path of travel for the accessible route that is required
between the accessible parking spaces and the accessible entrance doors
to the building. The symbol, required to be installed along the path, shall
start at the accessible parking spaces and terminate at the accessible
entrance doors to the building. The symbol shall represent the location of
the path of travel, not the location of the detectable warning or other
pavement markings. The location of the accessible path shall not compel
the user to travel in a drive/lane area that is located behind parked
vehicles. Identify on the plan the width of the accessible route. Identify on
the plan the width of the accessible route. (Note: The minimum width
required by the code is forty-four (44) inches). Add text to the drawing
that would indicate that the symbol represents the accessible route and the
route is designed in compliance with Section 4.3 (Accessible Route) and
4.6 (Parking and Passenger Loading Zones) of the Florida Accessibility
Code for Building Construction. Please note that at time of permit review,
the applicant shall provide detailed documentation on the plans that will
verify that the accessible route is in compliance with the regulations
specified in the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction.
This documentation shall include, but not be limited to, providing finish
grade elevations along the path of travel.
17. Identify within the site data the finish floor elevation (lowest floor
elevation) that is proposed for the building(s). Verify that the proposed
elevation is in compliance with regulations of the code by adding
specifications to the site data that address the following issues [Section
3107.1.2, Chapter 31 of the 2001 Florida Building Code]:
a) The design professional-of-record for the project shall add the
following text to the site data. "The proposed finish floor elevation
_' _ NGVD is above the highest 100-year base flood elevation
applicable to the building site, as determined by the South Florida
Water Manal!ement District's surface water manal!ement construction
INCLUDE REJECT
./
v
v'
//
1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS
05/30/02
4
DEPARTMENTS
development regulations."
b) From the FIRM map, identify in the site data the title of the flood zone
that the building is located within. Where applicable, specify the base
flood elevation. If there is no base flood elevation, indicate that on the
plans.
c) Identify the floor elevation that the design professional has established
for the building within the footprint of the building that is shown on
the drawings titled site plan, floor plan and paving! drainage (civil
plans).
18. On the drawing titled site plan, identify and label the symbol that
represents the property line.
19. The building plans are not being reviewed for compliance with the
applicable building codes. Therefore, add the words "Floor plan layout is
conceptual" below the drawing titled Floor Plan found on sheet A-201.
However, add to the floor plan drawing a labeled symbol that identifies
the location of the handicap accessible entrance doors to the building.
The location of the doors shall match the location of the accessible
entrance doors that are depicted on the site plan drawing.
20. As required by Chapter 4, section 7 of the Land Development
Regulations, submit elevation view drawings of the building. Dimension
on the drawing the overall height of the building(s). The overall height of
a building shall be measured from finish grade to the highest point of the
roof or parapet wall. The overall height of the building shall not exceed
the height limitations of the Boynton Beach Zoning Code and 2001
Florida Building Code
21. Add to the site plan drawing all existing easements that are shown on the
survey. Also, add all proposed easements. The location, type and size of
the easements shall be shown and identified on the site plan. Where
applicable, amend the plans so that structures do not encroach into an
easement.
22. Place a note on the elevation view drawings indicating that the wall
openings and wall construction comply with Table 600 of the 2001
Florida Building Code.
23. On the site plan, indicate within the footprint of the buildings the number
of stories that are m the building including, where applicable,
mezzanines. Indicate the overall height of the building within the site
data. The overall height of the building shall not exceed the height
limitations of the Boynton Beach Zoning Code and 2001 Florida Building
Code.
24. On all floor plan drawings, indicate within the footprint of the building
the number of stories that are in the building including, where applicable,
mezzanmes.
INCLUDE REJECT
v
v
/
/'
~
t/'
/'
v
1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS
05/30/02
5
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
25. Identify on the site plan drawing the actual distance that the building is
set back from the north, east, south and west property lines. Please note
that overhangs, covered walkways, canopIes, awnmgs or other
appurtenances that are attached to the building shall be considered when ~
identifying building setbacks. Therefore, identify the width of the
proposed overhangs, covered walkways, canopies, awnings, and/or other
roofed areas that extend out beyond the main walls of the building. The
building setbacks shall comply with setback regulations specified in the
Boynton Beach Zoning Code.
26. To verify that the proposed building is in compliance with the applicable ~
building setbacks, show and dimension on the site plan the width of the
building overhang. Also, identify the size or width of the covered
walkways, awnings, canopies and/or other roofed areas that extend out
beyond the main walls of the building.
27. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of /
the proposed construction.
28. At time of permit review, submit for review an addressing plan for the ~
proj ect.
29. Add to all plan view drawings of the site a labeled symbol that represents /
the location and perimeter of the limits of construction proposed with the
subject request.
ADDENDUM:
30. A unisex toilet room shall be provided per the 2001 Florida Building ./
Code, Plumbing, Section 403.7.
31. The allowable building area shall comply with Table 500 of the 2001 /
Florida Building Code. Submit information on type of construction of
structure (Chapter 6 of the 2001 Florida Building Code), if the existing
structure is equipped with an automatic fire protection system, and all
other pertinent information.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTERJENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS
05/30/02
6
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments:
32. The site plan tabular data should clearly identify the existing and ~
proposed building areas of the sanctuary.
33. The site plan should clearly identify the new parking stalls. V
34. The configuration of the parking stalls along Northeast 4th Avenue on the /
"Engineering Site" plan labeled Sheet 1 do not match the other plans.
This discrepancy must be rectified.
35. On the elevations, the proposed building height(s) are inaccurately t/
shown.
36. According to the elevations, no new wall signs are proposed. /'
37. A landscape plan will be required for the redeveloped portion of the site. V
38. Ifthe scope of the project demands removal of plant material then the V
new plant material is subject to review and approval of the City Forester /
Environmentalist
39. The elevations shall include the manufacturer's name and color code for V
all paint and exterior finishes, including the roofing material (Chapter 4,
~ Section 7.D.1.).
,-
40. Place a note on the site plan indicating that mulch other than Cypress /
shall be used and maintained for landscape purposes (Chapter 7.5, Article
II, Section 5.C.8.).
41. All new above ground mechanical equipment such as exterior utility /
boxes, meters, and transformers shall be visually screened (Chapter 9,
Section 1O.CA.). Equipment placed on the walls of the building shall be
painted to match the building color.
MWRlsc
S:\Planning\SHARED\\I\iP\PROJECTS\St Mark Catholic Church\1 ST REVIEWCOMMENTS.doc
). \he ('.0 r oj t) OJ { pf r./ {(}fNII
\}J ~j) (I {/J/2
B {l- Ie J{,
T {2:~,
Po~\--
../ .
ft(i2!)I" " ~
I .
\
,.
f:..~
1_ . .. .... .... &<::-
"').'/j~
() l' ..~
,J"U
Keshavarz & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers - Surveyors
August 6, 2002
Project No. 00-722
St. Mark's Church
Drainage Statement
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The existing church site is located north of Boynton Beach Boulevard. east
of US Highway L between NE 4th Ave. and NE 6th Ave..within the
corporate city limits of Boynton Beach. Florida, lying in Section 22.
Township 45 South, Range 43 East.
1.2 The existing site is currently fully developed, variously contoured. and
landscaped with a variety of plantings.
1.3 The existing site currently drains to its southeast corner into a dry detention
area and thence overflows into the mangrove area east of the site on the
west side of the Intracoastal Watcrway
1.4 Main access to the building is from NE 4th Ave. with secondary access
from NE 6th Ave..
1280 N. Congress Avenue, Suite 206. West Palm Beach, FL 33409. 561 689-8600. Fax 561 689-7476. www.keshavarz.com
..
.~'" ~
1>,_ r}~
"';. ~'?
01>rtr
Page Two
Project No. 00-722
HOA.Medical Arts Building
Drainage Statement
2. DRAINAGE CRITERIA
2.1 Drainage for the proposed sanctuary expansion will conform with all rules,
regulations, codes, etc. including, but not limited to the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida Land Development Regulations Chapter 6, Article IV,
Section 5.
2.2 Existing basin storage will be maintained post development by the creation
of compensating storage in proposed landscape areas.
3. DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS
3.1 The proposed site work will be designed to maintain the existing pattern of
drainage.
Certified on this _It;Jday of August, 2002
KESF1AVARZ & ASSOCIATES, INC.
~
Allen T. Green Jr., P.E.
Associate
FL Registration No. 25503
a
''''
ARCHITECTURE 4
AAOOO2348
225 Southern Boulevard,
West Palm Beach, Florida
Email: janstis@aol.com
Phone (561) 655-9327
AAOOO2347
Suite 101
33405-2768
Fax (561) 655-9341
JAMES H, ANSTIS, FAJA, AR0004829
Mike Rumpf
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O, Box 310
Boynton Beach, Fl 33425-0310
May 1,2002
Re: St. Mark Catholic Church
643 NE Fourth A venue
Dear Mr. Rumpf:
On behalf of St. Mark Catholic Church I am requesting your review of the
enclosed documents pursuant to obtaining approval of a Minor Site and
Development Plan revi'sion. The proposed expansion of the church involves only
the existing church building, the site adjacent to the existing church and the site
between the existing church and the existing rectory. Additionally there is a
proposal to connect the present parking lot to N.E. 6th Street at a point
approximately 145 feet South ofN.E. 6th Avenue.
S1.- Mark Catholic Church believes that it has an important, if not critical, role to
play in the redevelopment and the future of Boynton Beach's downtown. When
completed the New St. Mark Church will form the terminus of the view across
your new water feature to the North and become the architectural definition of
that north end of the new downtown redevelopment area. This development will
provide the City of Boynton Beach with a very important architectural feature,
which should be a source of pride to all.
Addressing Chapter 4, Section 9 of the City Code of Boynton Beach and the
considerations stated under ~ 9 (C) 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7), I offer the following
comments, in order of the listing in the code, for your consideration:
Architecture. Construction Consulting. Interior Design. Forensics
MEMBERS OFTHE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
""
Page Two
Mike Rumpf
May 1,2002
1. The modification in the form of the expansion of the existing church
building increases the floor area of the church from 7,500 square-feet to a
total of 17,361 square feet. The total area of all structures presently on the
site is as follows:
· SCHOOL FACILITIES
· RECTORY
· PRESENT CHURCH
TOTAL PRESENT AREA
39,800.0 SF
7,8953 SF
7.500.0 SF
55,193.3 SF
SF ADDED TO THE CHURCH
TOTAL AREA PROPOSED
9.861.0 SF
65,056.3 St'
This computes to a 17.9 % increase in floor area over that which currently exists.
When one considers the fact that at the times when attendance at serviCes is its
heaviest, the current church is at capacity with 500 worshipers and the overflow
of 300 worshipers assembles in the Parish Center located in the School building,
then the increase in seating and corresponding increase in area represented by the
expansion can be easily justified. The current total seating capacity in both
locations is 800. As you can see from the computation below, 790 seats is the
proposed pennanent capacity of the expanded church. The point being that the
intensity of the use of the site will not really change. The expansion will simply
permit all attendees to experience the Mass in the church together rather than
being in the separate facility. Being together in the same space during the service
is a very important consideration to the members of the parish of St. Mark Church
as it is to Catholics everywhere.
2. The modification does not ". ..reduce the number of parking spaces...". In
fact, the number of spaces is increased slightly to conform to the
requirements of your code. There are currently 243 spaces provided on the
site. The parking calculation is as follows:
SEATING CAPACITY OF THE CHURCH PEWS = 790 MAXIMUM
SEATING IRFOLD1NG CHAlRS-@PEAK SERVICES = 72 ~AXIMUM
TOTAL SEATING = 862 MAXIMUM
862 + 4 = 215.5 --216 SPACES REQUIRED
Page Three
Mike Rumpf
May 1, 2002
7 SPACES MUST BE HANDICAPPED - SPACED AROUND THE SITE
USING ~r H (13) p 62 NON-CONCURRENT PEAK USES ON SAME SITE
REQUIRE A 10% BUFFER.
216 XLI = 21.6 --. 22 SPACES ADDITIONAL
216 + 22 = 238 SPACES TOTAL REQUIRED
244 SPACES PROVIDED ON SITE
NOTE: THIS INCLUDbS THE THRbE SPACES IN THE RECrORY GARAGE.
3. "Does -toe m63lficatlon- cause devefopmenTf6-be-be1ow-tfie-development
standards for the zoning district ....". Clearly, we believe that the
proposed development enhances the development standards and makes a
significant contribution to the City of Boynton Beach. It perhaps even
assists the city in setting the precedent for standards in the zoning district
in the future.
4. The modification does not represent an".. . adverse effect on adjacent
property..." nor does it "...reduce physical buffers such as fences, trees,
or fiedges." Virtually all of the existing landscaping remains undisturbed.
The only exception is in the areas at the front of the new church and at the
new drive connection to N.E. 6th Street. Additional landscaping will be
provided around the new church building.
5. Copies of the rendering of the new facility as well as photographs of the
existing church are provided as evidence that the modification does not
"adversely affect or reduce the overall design of the structure below the
standards stated in the community design plan." In fact it enhances the
facilities significantly.
Page Four
Mike Rumpf
May 1,2002
6. We understand that the concurrency threshold for traffic under your
Comprehensive Plan will only come -into consideration if the increase in
traffic exceeds 200 vehicle trips per day. Based upon discussions with Mr.
Masoud Atefi, of the Palm Beach Traffic Engineering Division, the
increase in traffic computed on the increased square footage is 93 vehicle
trips per day. This is well below the 200 vehicle trips per day threshold. A
traffic statement letter from Mr. Atefi has been requested and when
received will be forwarded to you.
7. The modification does not".. . alter the site layout so that the modified site
plan does not resemble the approved site plan." The new site plan takes
advantage of opportunities presented in the approved site plan as it exists
to provide green space between the church and the rectory as well as to
improve traffic circulation in the parking areas. The additional parking
provided by the new site plan is located around the present site and
adjacent to existing paving.
The Zoning is CBD. Additionally other data that may be relevant are as follows:
USEABLE UPLAND SITE AREA =
BUILDING COVERAGE =
OTHER IMPERVIOUS AREAS (PARKING, WALKS Ere.)
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA =
TOTAL PERVIOUS AREA =
6.38 ACRES
1.11 ACRES = 17.4 %
2.72 ACRES = 43.0 %
3.84 ACRES = 60.4 %
2.55 ACRES = 39.6 %
Should you require any further information or assistance please fell free to call
upon me.
Respectfully Submitted:
JQ(~
es H. Anstis, F AlA
IIITECf AROOO4829
We nave providecnlie following: Survey, Architectural Site Plan, Civil Engineering Site Plan,
Ovcrall Aoor Plan, Archil.ccluml Elcvalions, Copy of rcndcring wI kcy, Pholograph of soulh
elevation of existing church
a
"
ARCHITECTURE 4
AAOOO2348
225 Southern Boulevard,
West Palm Beach, Florida
Email: janstis@aol.com
Phone (561) 655-9327
AAOOO2347
Suite 101
33405.2768
Fax (561) 655.9341
JAMES H. ANSTIS, FAIA, AR0004829
....~
.y~-
/A' Cl'
Vj "- ~
Mike Rumpf
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FI 33425-0310
May 1, 2002
Re: St. Mark Catholic Church
643 NE Fo'urth Avenue
Parking and Site Lighting
Dear Mike:
fn' response to the questions that were asked about the parking and the site
lighting at St. Mark Church, there are several factors which should be taken into
consideration. Most of the parking and site lighting exists now and will be
retained in its present configuration and at the present dimensions in our final
plan. We have added information onto our Site Plan to assist your staff in
distinguishing the new parking areas from the existing.
The lighting levels currently provided will be measured and if necessary the
fixture heads will be changed to provide the minimum of 1 Foot Candle (1 Fc)
illumination level around the site. At the new parking spaces, which are located
around the perimeter of the present parking, we will place new parking lot lighting
to supply the minimum 1 Fc 6f illumination.
We have also reconfigured the parking along N.E. 4th Avenue to be parallel
parking along the north side of the street. The backup space dimension has been
shown for those areas where new parking is being provided to illustrate that we
have 24'-0" or more in the plan.
Should you require any further information or assistance please fell free to
call upon me.
Respectfully Submitted:
:t::~S;~
ARCHITECT AROO04829
Architecture. Construction Consulting · Interior Design. Forensics
MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
a
ARCHIT~TURE 4
AAOOO2348
225 Southern Boulevard,
West Palm Beach. Florida
Email: janstis@aol.com
Phone (561) 655-9327
AAOOO2347
Suite 101
33405-2768
Fax (561) 655-9341
JAMES H. ANSTIS, FAIA, AR0004829
Mike Rumpf
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, A 33425-0310
April 30, 2002
!~\---~\w
L ...~
Re: St. Mark Catholic Church
643 NE Fourth A. venue
-.----
------..
Dear Mr. Rumpf:
On behalf of St. Mark Catholic Church I am requesting your review of the
enclosed documents pursuant to obtaining approval of a Minor Site and
Development Plan revfsion. The proposed expansion of the church involves only
the existing church building, the site adjacent to the existing church and the site
between the existing church and the existing rectory. Additionally there is a
proposal to connect the present parking lot to N.E. 6th Street at a point
approximately 145 feet South of N.E. 6 th Avenue. The required $100.00 review
fee will be provided to you as soon as St, Mark Church can produce a check in
that amount.
St. Mark Catholic Church believes that it has an important if not critical role to
play in the redevelopment and the future of Boynton Beach's downtown. When
completed the New St Mark Church will form the terminus of the view across
your new water feature to the North and become the architectural definition of
that north end of the new downtown redevelopment area. This development will
provide the City of Boynton Beach with a very important architectural feature,
which should be a source of pride to alL
Addressing Chapter 4 Sectfon 9 of the City Code of Boynton Beach and the
considerations stated under ~ 9 (C) (1,2,3,4,5,6,&7) I offer the following
comments, in order of the listing in the code, for your consideration:
p~N 07) -1 3 .t{.~ 2- z. 07" u60 {iu 7(
Architecture · Construction Consulting. Interior Design. Forensics
MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
Page Two
Mike Rumpf
April 30, 2002
L The modification in the form of the expansion of the existing church
building increases the floor area of the church from 7500 square feet to a
total or-n, 361 square feet. The total area of all structures presently on the
site is as follows;
· SCHOOL FACILITIES
· RECTORY
· PRESENT CHURCH
TOTAL PRESENT AREA
39,800.0 SF
7,895.3 SF
7.500.0 SF
55,193.3 SF
SF ADDED TO THE CHURCH
TOTAL AREA PROPOSED
9.861.0 SF
65,056.3 SF
This computes to a 17.9 % increase in floor area over that which currently exists.
When one considers the fact that at the times when attendance at services is its
heaviest the current church is at capacity and the overflow assembles in the Parish
Center located in the School building, then the increase in seating and
corresponding increase in area represented by the expansion can be -easily
justified. The point being that the intensity of the use of the site will not really
change. The expansion will simply permit all attendees to experience the mass in
the church rather than being in the separate facility. Being together in the same
space during the service is a very important consideration to the members of the
parish of St. Mark Church as to Catholics everywhere.
2. The modification does not" .. .reduce the number of parking spaces...". In
fact. the number of spaces is increased to conform to the requirements of
your code. There are currently 243 spaces provided on the site. The
parking calculation is as foIIows;
SEATING CAPACITY OF THE CHURCH PEWS = 790 MAXIMUM
SFAJ'ING rnrOCD1NG CHA1RS-@-PEAK SERVICES = 72 ~AXIMUM
TOTAL SEATING = 862 MAXIMUM
862 + 4 = 215.5 --216 SPACES REQUIRED
Page Three
Mike Rumpf
April 30, 2002
7 SPACES MUST BE HANDICAPPED - SPACE THEM AROUND THE SITE
USING ~r H (13) p 62 NON-CONCURRENT PEAK USES ON SAME -SITE
REQUIRE A 10% BUFFER.
216 XI.I = 21.6 -+ 22 SPACES ADDITIONAL
216 + 22 = 238 SPACES TOTAL REQIDRED
244 SPACES PROVIDED ON SITE
NOTE: TillS INCLUDES THE THREE SPACES IN THE RECfORY
GARAGE.
3. "Does the modification cause development to be below the development
standards for the zoning district "..", Clearly, we believe that the
proposed development enhances the development standards and makes a
significant contribution to the City of Boynton Beach. It perhaps even
assists the city in setting the precedent for standards in the zoning district
in the future.
4. The-modification does not represent an"...adverse effect on adjacent
property..." nor does it "...reduce physical buffers such as fences, trees,
or hedges." Virtually all of the existing landscaping remains undisturbed.
The only exception is in the areas at the front onhe- new church and at the
new drive connection to N.E. 6th Street. Additional landscaping will be
provided around the new church building.
5. Copies of the rendering of the new facility as well as photographs of the
existing church are provided as evidence that the modification does not
"adversely affect or reduce the overall design of the structure below the
standards stated in the community design plan." In fact it enhances the
facilities significantly.
Page Four
Mike Rumpf
April 30, 2002
6. We understand that the concurrency threshold for traffic under your
Comprehensi ve Plan will only come into consideration if the increase in
traffic exceeds 200 vehicle trips per day. Based upon discussions with Mr.
Masoud Atefi, of the Palm Beach Traffic Engineering Division. the
increase in traffic computed on the increased square footage is 93 vehicle
trips per day. This is well below the 200 vehicle trips per day threshold. A
traffic statement letter from Mr. Atefi has been requested and when
received will be forwarded to you.
7. The modification does not".. : alter the site layout so that the modified site
plan does not resemble the approved site plan." The new site plan takes
advantage of opportunities presented in the approved site plan as it exists
to proviae greeri space between the church arid the rectory as well as to
improve traffic circulation in the parking areas. The additional parking
provided by the new site plan is located around the present site and
adjacent to existing paving.
Should you require any further information or assistance please fell free to call
upon me.
ectfully (TctJn
Ja s H. Anstis, FAIA
ARCHlTECl' AR~29
Enclosed arc Lhc following:
Survcy
Architectural Site Plan
Civil Erigineenng Site-Plan
Overall Floor Plan
Copy ot~rena:enrigwJ key
Photograph of south elcvation of cxisting church
Time and Date of Meeting W~'<' 3,ho
Those attending meet~: -J
'_ r ir\ 1/-'1- tf 14 LL L-- Mv$
/o-fl#1'JJ .
PRE-APPLICATION CONTACT QUESTIONS
./
Applicant's Name:
~j~ ~t1-<J-ko
Phone: )Jfl;& ~.{( - /3 L 7
1.
HAVE XOU SPOKEN TO ANY STAFF MEMBER ABOUT THE PROJECT?
Yes V No
(IF YES, HAVE THOSE STAFF MEMBERS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THE PRE-
APPLICATION MEETING? .
STAFF MEMBERS NAME: ~;~
LOCATION OF PROPERTY (CROSS STREETS/INTERSECTIONS)
-u ~3 /)I L '-f/A
2.
- II UP-r ffi-~/A.; c-c.)
3.
'WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO?
NEW PROJECT
BUILDING EXPANSION OR MODIFICATION.
CHANGE IN PRIOR USE?
IS THE STRUCTURE CURRENTLY VACANT?
VARIANCE TYPE:
POOL OR SCREEN ENCLOSURE
CONn0ERCU\LPROPERTY?
RESIDENTU\L PROPERTY?
ll{DUSTRlALPROPERTY?
DO YOU KNOW THE ZONING CODE DESIGNATION?
/
~
,
/-.-1 ~-tL~-t/T'-
.-:#-
I:
4.
<C'
TIME AND DATE PREFERRED Jj;g to ~
HO'vV MANY PEOPLE WILL BE AT THE PRE-APP MEETING?
5.
Note: Tell the person that someone from the Department will call them to confirm the meeting.
..................................................................................
. Pre-application meetings should be scheduled for a minimum of one (1) hour time module, and should be scheduled
no less than two (2) days prior to date/time of meeting. If urgency is sensed, discuss with Mike or Lusia.
. Meetine:s may be scheduled:
Monday afternoons
Tuesday all day
Wednesday all day
Thursday mornings
Note: Lusia is not available for Tuesday a.m. meetings,
and Mike is not available on Mondays between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.
s: \P I ann ing\Plann ing\Pre-appl icationcon tactquestions.doc
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING LOG
IHEETING DATE:
I TIME:
/D\OO'- / roo
ATTENDING STAFF:
ATTENDING AS APPLIC
FA](:
PROPOSED TYPE OF USEIOCCUPAl';'CY:
DATE SUBMITTAL RECEIVED: DATE DEl'UED:
COI\11\1ENTS: ID ac (<pt.; o.f ~t hJ..-. c.lurc~\ 1
Gl1 Lot r. h
k.'!> T
. )
pAil ~tb SpA Lc-r
i\ IF\J r
J:\SHRDATA\PI3nning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\PRE APPLICATIO:'iS MEETL'G LOGS\Pre-.-\.pplic:llion ;\[ectin;:: Log.doc
.' ,
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING
SIGN IN SHEET
PLEASE PRINT
1\1EETING DATE:
TIME:
ATTENDING FOR APPLICANT:
NOTICE: The purpose of this conference shall be for the staff and applicant to discuss overall
community goals, objectives, policies and codes ass related to the proposed development and to
discuss site plan review procedures. Opinions express at the pre-application conference are not
binding for formal review purposes. Additional staff comments may be forth coming based on actual
1 b' t d f
D. ans su nut e or reVIew.
City of Boynton Beach Attending for Applicant
Attending Staff
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,
J:\SHRDA T A\PL.-\;''iNL''G\SHARED\ WP\FOR.\IS\PRE-APPL l\IEETf."G-SIGN f.'; SHEET.DOC
....
ARCHITECTURE 4
AAI~~12 QX
:!25 Southern Bouk\"ard.
\\'csl Pall11 Beach. HpJida
Email: jans(I';(n';\lII.cnm
Phone 15(1) 655-9.127
AAI~~ILQ 7
'i"ile 1111
11.1II5.276X
Fa.' 15(1) /)55-9.141
JAMES II. ANSTIS. FAIA. ARIXXl4X2'l
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
MARCH 20, 2002
FATHER MARK SZANYI
PA TRICK MOLAMPHY
JIM ANSTIS ~ ~~~<
ST. MARK CATHOLIC CHURCH
SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS IN CITY OF BOYNTON
BEACH
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Russ Forester and I met this morning with the Site Plan Review Committee of the
City of Boynton Beach. The following city staff persons were in attendance:
Tim Large-
Eric Johnson -
Maxime Ducoste-Amedee -
Nancy Byrne -
Ken Hall
Building Division
Planning & Zoning
Planning & Zoning
Assistant Director of Development
The following points were determined:
1. Since there has been previous development on the site we will be
considered as having obtained previous Site Plan approval.
2. S1. Mark Church is within the Central Business District (CBD)
3. St. Mark Church is not within the Development of Regional Impact (DRI)
4. The Site Plan Review will require a Traffic Statement. We will be required
to supply counts of current parking as well as new parking requirements,
requirements for all facilities on the site excluding the church and must
detail the impact of existing facilities and the added impact of the new
church using the Institute of Traffic Engineering (ITE) procedures. NOTE:
THIS REQUIRES APPROVAL OF ADDlnONAL SERVICES FOR THIS
SERVICE. I AM OBTAINING A PROPOSAL FROM TRAFFIC
ENGINEER PINDER - TROUTMAN FOR PROVIDING THIS SERVICE.
5. The parking directly off N.E. 4th Ave. south of the Rectory, appears to be
possible but will require special approval, which can occur simultaneously
with the Site Plan Review process
6. The loop drive for student drop-off at the Early Child Learning center and
connecting to S.E. 6th Street is possible. S.E. 6th Street is essentially an
alley.
Archill'L'lurl' . Conslruction COllsulting . 11l1l'rior Dl'sign . FOll'll.,ic"
ME~IIlERS OFTIII.. AMERICAN INSTITI ITE OF ARCIIITITTS
Page Two
Fr. Mark
Pat Molamphy
March 20, 2002
7. The Site Plan Application will require signature by an authorized
representative of the Diocese of Palm Beach
8. This application will be considered as a Major Site Plan modification and
must included details regarding paving, drainage, site development, site
lighting and landscaping.
9. The process will be review by the Development Department staff followed
by a hearing at the CRA Committee followed by the Boynton Beach City
Commission
10. The earliest possible schedule is for a submission date of May 1 with final
Commission action July 16. This is contingent upon completion of the
traffic statement by the last week in April for inclusion in the application,
which means we need approval of the additional services for traffic
statement ASAP. As soon as I have the proposal I will forward it to Pat
Molamphy.
11. Filing fees will be $750.00 for the Site Plan Review application.
12. We can obtain a Pre-Review of the plans by the Building Division during
the Site Plan Review process for a non-refundable fee of $250.00. This
fee is also not applicable to the final permit fee. This should prepare the
project for a smoother processing for issuance of the Building Permit.
Application for the permit cannot occur prior to final action by the
Commission on the Site Plan Review process.
13. The city staff wishes to have us review with them the architectural design
as well as the site lighting in the near future.
By copies of this memo, I am distributing these notes to the city staff who were in
attendance. Should there be any exceptions taken or revisions required please
contact the writer at 561-655-9327 or by notation sent via fax at 561-655-9341 by
March 29, 2002. If no exceptions are taken then these notes represent the
actions that will be pursued.
Should anyone have questions please call the writer at 561-655-9327.
cc:
;
Tim Large -
Eric Johnson -
Maxime Ducoste-Amedee -
Nancy Byrne -
Ken Hall
Maziar Keshavarz
Kahart Pinder
Building Division
Planning & Zoning
Planning & Zoning
Assistant Director of Development
PARKING CALCULATION
FROM THE BOYNTON BEACH ZONING CODE
SEATING CAPACITY OF THE CHURCH PEWS
SEATING IN FOLDING CHAIRS @ PEAK SERVICES
TOTAL SEATING
= 790 MAXIMUM
= 72 MAXIMUM
= 862 MAXIMUM
862 + 4 = 215.5 - 216 SPACES REQUIRED
7 SPACES MUST BE HANDICAPPED - SPACE THEM AROUND THE SITE
USING 11 H (13) P 62 NON-CONCURRENT PEAK USES ON SAME SITE
REQUIRE A 10% BUFFER.
216 X 1.1 = 21.6 - 22 SPACES ADDITIONAL
216 + 22 = 238 SPACES TOTAL REQUIRED
239 SPACES PROVIDED
NOTE: THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE THREE SPACES IN THE RECTORY
GARAGE.
239 + 3 = 242 ACTUAL SPACES AVAILABLE
Rumpf, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bressner, Kurt
Thursday, April 18, 2002 12:09 PM
Rumpf, Michael
Greene, Quintus; Byrne, Nancy; Sugerman, Dale; Livergood, Jeffrey
St. Marks Church Remodeling
/
/
Mike,
This morning Quintus and I met with Jim Anstis, architect for St. Marks. By way of background, I asked to have the
meeting with Mr. Anstis to be briefed on the project at the request of a member of the City Commission. This way any
issues possibly involving the City Commission could be anticipated and dealt with to keep the Church on schedule.
"/
(
I understand that there has been one TRC meeting on the church project. Mr. Anstis felt the session was very helpful.
Here are some issues that were raised at our meeting this morning that mayor may not have been addressed at TRC:
Stormwater Management: Mr. Anstis advised that preliminary discussions with the consulting engineer for Pond B
indicated that the western half of the approximate 8.3 acre parcel could not use the pond. This may be because of pre-
existing drainage patterns that would require the storm water to drain directly NE or East rather than into the basin. If so,
this is too bad because the Church would have to construct the grit chambers and other appurtenance to drain half their
property instead of taking advantage of facilities already in place in Pond B. As I understand it, the western half of the
8.3 acre parcel has historically drained to the South and would be allowed to continue. Mr. Anstis is having his
engineering consultant calculate the amount of impervious surface at present and proposed in both stormwater basin.
This will then give them and us the ability to calculate the amount of fee in lieu of onsite detention for the western portion
of the property and the eastern portion (if allowed to drain to Pond B.) I would appreciate Engineering working on this
closely with Utilities.
Sanitary Sewer Under the School: It is my understanding that there is a sanitary sewer that exists under the school
building. This was shown on lhe site plan. How and when it nappened is not of concern to me. Unless tile line is in a
sleeve, it should be re-Iocated (at our cost) and placed in a safe location. Mr. Anstis said the Church would cooperate in
granting the necessary easements for the relocated line. As long as the site is torn up, this is a good opportunity to
correct a problem. Utilities will need to coordinate this.
Parking and Traffic Issues -- The traffic patterns on the property will change. I need to know if Engineering/PW has
reviewed and approved. One problem we saw with the layout was the inclusion of four or five perpendicular parking
spaces off of 4th Avenue. The Church is eliminating the existing parking lot between the Church and the Rectory and is
replacing the area with green space. As such, visitor parking for the Rectory is being relocated to the perpendicular
arrangement. We do not typically allow this type of parking off of a public street. One possible option would be for the
City to vacate 4th Avenue from Sixth St (or Federal Highway) with an ingress/egress easement for the park and the
shopping center. This is something that Jeff and Quintus will need to review. Also there is a proposed curb cut on Sixth
Street that is new.
My hope is that the site issues related to this project can be resolved administratively except for possible City
Commission action on the street vacation issues. If so, the Church would be able to get started on their project sooner
than planned.
Please review this report with your staff, coordinate comments regarding the issues I've raised (plus any others the TRC
needs to have addressed) and advise me if you feel this project can proceed administratively.
Thanks,
Kurt
1
s {- fVI~((.c;
~f, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bressner, Kurt
Tuesday, April 23, 2002 7:52 AM
Sugerman, Dale
Rumpf, Michael
RE: St. Marks Church Remodeling
OK. Please let me know and keep Mike R. in the information loop as well, please.
-----Original Messagem--
From: Sugerman, Dale
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 1:42 PM
To: Bressner, Kurt
Subject: RE: St. Marks Church Remodeling
Kurt-
The Utilities Department will be televising that line this week, and we should have a fairly good
assessment on it to make a decision. Our initial reaction is to use the Insituform method of
rehabilitation for the line, rather than going to the tremendous expense (and time) associated with
relocation.
I'll keep you posting on our televising results.
Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: Bressner, Kurt
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 12:09 PM
To: Rumpf, Michael
Cc: Greene, Quintus; Byrne, Nancy; Sugerman, Dale; Livergood, Jeffrey
Subject: St. Marks Church Remodeling
Mike,
This morning Quintus and I met with Jim Anstis, architect for St. Marks. By way of background, I asked to have
the meeting with Mr. Anstis to be briefed on the project at the request of a member of the City Commission. This
way any issues possibly involving the City Commission could be anticipated and dealt with to keep the Church on
schedule.
I understand that there has been one TRC meeting on the church project. Mr. Anstis felt the session was very
helpful.
Here are some issues that were raised at our meeting this morning that mayor may not have been addressed at
TRC:
Stormwater Management: Mr. Anstis advised that preliminary discussions with the consulting engineer for Pond
B indicated that the western half of the approximate 8.3 acre parcel could not use the pond. This may be
because of pre-existing drainage patterns that would require the storm water to drain directly NE or East rather
than into the basin. If so, this is too bad because the Church would have to construct the grit chambers and
other appurtenance to drain half their property instead of taking advantage of facilities already in place in Pond B.
As I understand it, the western half of the 8.3 acre parcel has historically drained to the South and would be
allowed to continue. Mr. Anstis is having his engineering consultant calculate the amount of impervious surface
at present and proposed in both stormwater basin. This will then give them and us the ability to calculate the
amount of fee in lieu of onsite detention for the western portion of the property and the eastern portion (if allowed
to drain to Pond B.) I would appreciate Engineering working on this closely with Utilities.
1
Sanitary Sewer Under the St... .001: It is my understanding that there is a sCi1"'litary sewer that exists under the
school building. This was shown on the site plan. How and when it happened is not of concern to me. Unless
the line is in a sleeve, it should be re-Iocated (at our cost) and placed in a safe location. Mr. Anstis said the
Church would cooperate in granting the necessary easements for the relocated line. As long as the site is torn
up, this is a good opportunity to correct a problem. Utilities will need to coordinate this.
Parking and Traffic Issues -- The traffic patterns on the property will change. I need to know if Engineering/PW
has reviewed and approved. One problem we saw with the layout was the inclusion of four or five perpendicular
parking spaces off of 4th Avenue. The Church is eliminating the existing parking lot between the Church and the
Rectory and is replacing the area with green space. As such, visitor parking for the Rectory is being relocated to
the perpendicular arrangement. We do not typically allow this type of parking off of a public street. One possible
option would be for the City to vacate 4th Avenue from Sixth St (or Federal Highway) with an ingress/egress
easement for the park and the shopping center. This is something that Jeff and Quintus will need to review.
Also there is a proposed curb cut on Sixth Street that is new.
My hope is that the site issues related to this project can be resolved administratively except for possible City
Commission action on the street vacation issues. If so, the Church would be able to get started on their project
sooner than planned.
Please review this report with your staff, coordinate comments regarding the issues I've raised (plus any others
the TRC needs to have addressed) and advise me if you feel this project can proceed administratively.
Thanks,
Kurt
2
.~
/-
~
.'
IHEETING DATE:
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING LOG
I rtd..J~ \
.:.-t- :;,c - <..:. 2. ~'\'vV2- ~ .
I TIl\1E:
ID[t?O- Iro
\
\
ATTENDING STAFF:
ATTENDING AS APPLIC
iJl-- C~~
FAX:
PROPOSED TYPE OF USE/OCCUPAl'iCY:
DATE SUBMITTAL RECEIVED: DATE DE~lED:
COl'vIMENTS: to ac.R.~ of ~Q rl-~ c.hurv~ t
Gl1 t.t r. h
~"T
rAit~~6 SpA- ~
i\~r ,?
)
~
\.
J:\SHRDATA\Pl:lnning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\PRE APPLICATIO:-;S ~IEETL"G LOGS\Pre-Applic:Hion ~[cc:in;; Log.doc
J
~ ~~
~ ~
I:l".~': 't
!J
I"
,) t ~
f'... \
u .~ ~
\~ '{ "t"
( ....... .....1
d - - \ \
"Z \) '\
".i -l(
~ \j ~
\w~
\!)~
~o-r~",. pr<-- /f/~-cc'~~'\ _/ />, d;'J; PJ
/1~c--r~,'/F" - ;? -
u !.'/;c /.
, r:2
~'''' ,A - " 7
~~ -I: ,~(' Of Y ~~r>-.'7'~/ G/ r~::</:::l~_
D-5~~k~,yL/.-'~;"'_-fo,! I rdk-s]A:l s4'~4 /be- ei
~~~(~~ f"7~ef;'; "'kc.,., d.-~ '. <'h'":>.s f'
.J.j n~ ri!"v" e-, LA.-- _ /' /,,>' L) '\c ~./t'""...L A. # /' _ /'
rp/(ad
PROJECT NAME: St. M~th Catholic Church ,
LOCATION: 643 NE 4th Avenue
PCN: 08-43-45-22-05-000-0070
I FILE NO.: MMSP 02-033 II TYPE OF APPLICATION: I
AGENT/CONTACT PERSON: OWNER:
James H. Anstis, F AlA PHONE:
PHONE: 561-655-9327 FAX:
FAX: 561-655-9341 ADDRESS:
ADDRESS: 225 Southern Blvd.
Suite 101
West Palm Beach, FL. 33405
Date of submittal/Proiected meetin2 dates:
SUBMITTAL / RESUBMITT AL 4/30/02
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 N/A
MEETING:
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT N/A
AGENCY BOARD
CITY COMMISSION MEETING: N/A
COMMENTS: Increase square footage of church from 7,500 to 17,361.
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\St Mark Catholic Church\2002 PROJECT TRACKING INFO.doc
o
o
-..,.,1or
". -:;-'
e
e
tJ)
7:
J (.\l
~ ~
z
gl
\J\
(j):J ()
Z~ t"""
--<
~ ~l: r
~ ")(t;- ~
::> W\{\
:r.
\J
. ,
~ .
~
I
~
\!'
~ e
o ·
~ ~
f
.'.~ iU
.~
u.
t
~
~
tj)~
zL\L
~~
-~
~~
I
~r--r- I
"'. :E~ w..J ~O<')
<') - r-
'" l&.l-en ""~";' I
o .... :;,u.
~\C - en ~ 8-~
OZz ~;;; z ~
Q.I ~ 0<(<( w:E: <;:J~
<r/.l~
~~ It:Gfij :E >0 cz=
bhll'l <( <(11j ~
... .... a: j!: CD '23 I ~
~ co WolJ :J
~ :E ..J ~z E-l 52C2
..J .0 ~o
~ ~1- U UJ~
Zz ~ ....J .
Z ~f:) ;:J:I:
~ E-l ou
co<
CD ~ zUJ
~co
W == ~~~
:E:
U) U ~;:Jll.
C) cz= 8~!;;
z -< ~~~
t= :I:
en a
~)( 0
OW 0::
-:E:
. o::~ :J
10<( :I:
:E
~ 0
0
-
..J II
0
:I: C
~ ~ 0::
C") <(
N ('1)<(
en 0
:E ('1)0
<( ~ ]
0::::; Nm
o::f 0:: 00::
-'~ <(
o. 0..0
oz :E
::f~ UJ..J
. :Eo
<cw ~ :Eo 'I II
;:~ t/)
L
I J