Loading...
CORRESPONDENCE . 02/12/2004 11:29 561689~rS9 WINSTON LEE ASS~ PAGE 01 I ~insto 11 ee . SSOCla tes, InC. Mrzr IA>/ kl/l9. ~ M1 '1/to/~4. 5T'OFF ~ Wt11i- TJJ€. SlAU'r4 ~ <HIt; 15 $/~ ~~ 17,U A.tmE. I'" 71K Hdt. ~ ,u...,.... # ~~ l-.....v Ah17Fi~. li~ laM3cape Awbitee Jre Land Planning F.S.I. #LC CI16 ~ FAX MEl\ lORANDUM DATE: Febn 12,2004 TO: Ed Bree e cc: Law inda Logan Larr ' Quinn Dav d Schopp Kev 11 Carroll JuaIJ Riesco FROM: Jor i Brinkman RE: Boyntoll Commerce Center OW" FiI. No. 02-930 No. of Pages ( Deluding cover): 54 Pursuant to ou telephone conversation, attached please find our propolICld revision to the site plan to accommoda e concerns from Lally Quinn in regard to servicing the dumpsters. As you will IllJte, the revisi )lIS consist of 'flipping' the dumpster and one parlcing space with the location of four parking SJ aces to the east. This revision has no impact on the number of parking spaces, greenspare are lor perviousrnnpervious calculations. In effect. all tabular information on the site plan remains U lCbanged. Due to the mir I)r nature of this revision, I am requesting that the plans be allowed to be revised in response to a ( ()I1lIIlent issued during plan review and resubmitted directly to the Building Department. 1 he building pennit would then be allowed to be issued. Both Lany Quinn and Laurinda Logs 1 would again be reviewing the revised submittal fur permit. SublIcquent to pennit approval, are< ord set of the plans am be provided to the Zoning Division for their files. l53Z Qld Okeechobee Road, Sulte 106, West Palm Beach, l'L 33409-5270 561-689-4670 . Fa.-d61-689-5559 .02/12/2004 11:29 56168%~'9 WINSTON LEE ASSQ PAGE 02 Mr. Ed Breese February 12,20<<4 Page 2 I appreciate Y01 r consideration in this matter. The applicant was not anticipating this issue to arise as the plm s had already been reviewed by the various deparlments during the site plan review process, Being required to proceed through a minor modification to the site plan for this minor revision lVould have a detrimental affect on the building schedule of the developer. Please feel free to call if you want to discuss further or require any additional information. I will await your l'eSJ: :mse in this matter. 02/12/2004 11:29 5616895~~9 Wedneoday. Feb "''Y 11,20041:15 WINSTON LEE ASSO RIe;co Ar<:hl1acts 954-832-9313 PAGE 03 p.01 .. To: JoIli Brinkman J.i'n>m: Jwm Ri<ooo COIIIpIIIly WINSTON LEE & ASSOCIATI:S Om: I1~Feb-M Projl!et: BoyDIal1700 Shdl. Building RcaanUa&: IJonnpster Fa: 561.689.5559 ......W...I.:, C~ 3 O~ [!] F...)'OUr review o Plcoac Commcot 0 ll.<p\y ASAP 0R1ESCO ARCHITECTS SOO SE 1Sd1 Streel Suite 118 Ft. LauderdaJe, Florida 33316 9S4.lI3Z.902ll Fax: 954.1I32.9313 ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . CIII-,", See 8lIll :!lelI copy of 1?'''I'UlIOlI dompstft-Iccalion cIIaIJae .m..."'llCld willi Lany Qufuo this IIDnlDg. Also -- is lbc orIgioIlIloo:aUoo cumIllIy 081bc pcnnit &\:IS All')'OUr ..ofu.l:IIl:l;, Pt.-review aad IIM5e if1hls is ~ This ilI:m is lbc<!llly UIII<OOlvo.d. .-. m:1nlm die City ODd is .....'"""'8lbc........... oflho: b iJdiug permit. I.ct me Imow what is the quid<c:lt way to ~ 1hIs revisIM "" _ """ begin ~ lion. "5 DII'ri I Scbow-SIwpe PrQiecr C(XlStrw:rioo K.M ClllMll-l..eYill~ Laur Ida Logan. Cil.y o(1loynloo ~~n~ ,,'ur r......., Quinn- Cil.y ofBoynlon Beach Si 7+\.- '1.l/ - ......,.,.. . ~- '.... -... --. ..- ........ .02/12/2004 11:29 5616895""9 Wednesday. Feb JOry 11, ;10041:15 WINSTON LEE ASSO Riesco A_ 954-832.9313 PAGE 04 P,02 , " '......::.............. . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --.._, ~ '~f-.. - I I --.1- I I "I_ I I I I I II I I II I I I' I I I I I 02/12/2004 11:29 5616895'~9 WedJlO$day, Fe!) "'fl' 11, 2004 1:15 WINSTON LEE ASSD Riosco Atchiblds lJ54.l\32-9313 PAGE 05 p.re I --.J _J --1 I ~ I ~---.. ~ ---- -.. ~ ~ t-~ , I~ {) .. ~ Ii ii) ;;; ... Department of Engineering and Public Works EO. Box 21229 West Palm Beach. FL 33416~ 1229 (561) 684.4000 www.pbcgov.com . Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners Karen T. Marcus, Chair Tony Masilotti. Vice Chairman Jeff Koons Warren H. Newell Mary McCarty Burt Aaronson Addie L. Greene County Administrator Robert Weisman ~An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer~ @ printed on recycled paper -") October 21, 2003 Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Director of Planning & Zoning Department of Development City of Boynton Beach P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 34425-0310 RE: Boynton Beach Commerce Center - Lot 3B - Revised TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS REVIEW Dear Mr. Rumpf: The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the traffic study for the previously approved project entitled; Boynton Beach Commerce Center- Lot 3B, pursuant to the Traffic Performance Standards in Article 15 of the Palm Beach County Land Development Code. This project is summarized as follows: Location: Municipality: Existing Uses: Prevo Approval: Proposed Uses: On Corporate Drive, South of Woolbright Road Boynton Beach Vacant 249,600 SF General Office and 149,900 SF Light Industrial 120,682 SF General Office, 57,524 SF Light Industrial, 81,420 SF Manufacturing, 270,638 SF Warehouse and 14,0000 SF General Reta!1 713 Trip Reduction (84) AM Peak Hour, (4) PM Peak Hour 2005 New Daily Trips: New PH Trips: Build-out Year: Based on our review, the Traffic Division has determined that the ievised project generates less trips than previously approved, and therefore, meets the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. No building permits are to be issued by the town, after the build-out date, specified above. The County traffic concurrency approval is subject to the Project Aggregation Rules set forth in the Traffic Performance St8ndz:HJ6 ;..J;"jit'iuiiGe. If you have any questions regarding this determination, please contact me at 684-4030. Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENG NEER //1 /" I e Masoud Atefi, Sr. Engineer- ~,~fr2~_ trL~ frI I, po. cc: Yvonne liel Traffic Consultants Inc File: General - TPS - MU!1 . II affic Study Review J ._...i F'\TRAFFIC\nld\Admin\Arprovals'D3'1 011 ,doc I ) . - -) , I " .-'. i/Vinston '.1, '\e '1 . '(; ..'. :'~sociates, lnc, f .' ) ,r August I, 2003 Mr. Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Zoning Planning & Zoning Division City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 RE: Boynton Commerce Center Planned Industrial Development Letter of Commitment resulting from July 31,2003 Meeting with Staff Our File No. 02-030 Dear Mr. Rumpf: Thank you for the time you and your staff gave my client and our development team yesterday. My understanding of the consensus from that meeting is that the site plan petition will remain on the consent agenda for Tuesday night's, August 5, 2003 City Commission meeting and that this letter will serve as a commitment for the developer to take the following action. The approved site plan will return for minor modifications to adjust some of the parking spaces, where feasible, to increase the backup space dimensions where abutting the access easement on the north side of the structure. Likewise the client's engineer shall prepare a traffic calming program targeted to slowing down the inbound service trucks speed as they approach the auto parking spaces which back into the ingress/egress easement. Additionally the developer commits to making sure all existing utilities will be provided adequate easements. I trust this letter of commitment is satisfactory to your office and will allow us to proceed on the consent agenda. Iffor any reason we will not be on the consent agenda, or if you should have any questions, then please call me immediately. 1', -:;~ I )Id (lh.'_l',liid"_l l('I~id '-liil" 1:,';1 \\.......,1 Il;ll:n ik:l,'h. ]"]; 14(ll1 52"'() 11.:1 ':':p! (I'\<)-fl.-!' . 1,\\ "1,,1 ,~'.; ::~o;') . i" 1'i.lll \\ill".llll1\\L:".I.lld ('I!111 Mr. Michael Rumpf August 1, 2003 Page 2 I Lx Since ely, inston Lee, ASLA, AICP President cc: Seth Wise, Levitt Commercial Kevin Carroll, Levitt Commercial I }Vinston Lee '\ssociates, Inc. Mr. Michael W. Rumpf City of Boynton Beach Dept. of Development Planning & Zoning Division 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33425 1:\; Iii ~ " ./: ~ ! i\ ~ , U'J L---- , ;'1 ~ '," , , , ,ii ,0 j July 1,2003 RE: Boynton Commerce Center - NWSP 03-009 Our File No. 02-030 Dear Mr. Rumpf, Attached please find 10 sets of plans for the above referenced project, revised pursuant to the TRC comments. I have addressed each individual comment as follows. PUBLIC WORKS - General 1. Comment: Prior to permit application, contact the Public Works Department (561-742- 6200) regarding the storage and handling of refuse. Response: Project architect has coordinated with Larry Quinn at Public Works regarding same. Mr. Quinn has approved the proposed dumpster layout, quantity and locations indicated on the site plan (Sheet A-l)- 2. Comment: Indicate by note that the site dumpster enclosure shall he constructed in accordance with City Standard Drawing G-4. Response: Added note to dumpster enclosure. Refer to detailS, Sheet A-5. 3. Comment: The dumpster gate opening shall he a minimum of 10 feet in width. (LDR, Chapter 7.5, Article II, Scction 5.1. and Article III, Section 9.A.9.a.) Adjust "Dumpster Plan" detail accordingly. Response: Revised dumpster plan - refer to detailS, Sheet A-5. 4. Comment: The required gates for the dumpster shall contain long steel rods to drop into the pavement in order to secure the gates in the open and closed positions. Drilled holes (for concrete) or metal sleeves (for asphalt) shall he provided for the locking rods. Response: Revised dumpster elevation - refer to detail 6, Sheet A-5. 1':;,~2 ()Id (JkL"'l'hllhL:<-- }\ll~kL \ui1c 10h \\'l':\r I'dlm lk,h'h. F! 3-:(..lOQ 527() 1:.:1 >ll1~(),-.;')-_lh~li 9 l-~~\ -\(,I_U.,l) ::-:55l) . L nUll \\llhl(11l\\la.l,lt11.cllln Mr. Michael Rumpf July I, 2003 Page 2 5. Comment: The dumpster enclosures shown on the site plan (Sheet A-I) do not match the enclosures shown on the Civil and Landscape drawings (Sheets 1-2 and LI-L3). Enclosures on the first sheet are double enclosures and the remaining are single enclosurcs. Please correct. Response: The site plan (sheet A-I), civil plans and landscape plans are now consistent with regard to the dumpster enclosures. 6. Comment: There appears to be a conflict between the first dumpster enclosure west of Corporate Drive (south of the proposed building) and storm sewer inlet. Please adjust. Response: Catch basin has been removed - see civil plans. 7. Comment: Adjust placement of proposed dumpster enclosures to match existing enclosures. Response: The two dumpster enclosures have been strategically located to service the east and west halves of the building. The east enclosure contains two (2) dumpsters, which in turn serves both halves of the east side of the building. The west enclosure is similar. Relocation would inconvcnience some of the tenants. PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic 8. Comment: Provide a traffic analysis and notice of concurrency (Traffic Performance Standards Review) from Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering. Response: A sign otfletter from the Palm Beach Traffic Division has been provided to both Engineering and Zoning. 9. Comment: 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. Delineate and stripe the "Loading Area" (LDR, Chapter 2, Section I I.J.); include a pavement message in yellow indicating "No-Parking - Loading Zone". See City Standard Drawings "K" Series for striping details. Response: Traffic signage has been added to the site plan (Sheet A-I) and civil plans. Refer to civil drawings for details, 10. Comment: The fire lane signage and markings shall conform to LDR Chapter 23, Article n, Sections B. & M. The 3-foot heigh "Firc Lane" words shall be placed along both lanes and staggered. Response: Civil plans have been revised, Signage depicted indicating 'No Parking - Fire Lane' and area striped. Mr. Michael Rumpf July I, 2003 Pagc 3 UTILITIES II. Comment: All utility easements shall be shown on the site plan and landscape drawings (as wcll as the Water and Sewer Plans Sheet) so that we may detennine which trees may interfere with utilities. In general, palm trees will be the only trees allowed within utility easements. Canopy trees may be planted outside of the easement so that roots and branches will not impact those utilities within the ea~ement in the foreseeable future. The LOR, Chapter 7.5, Article I, Section 18.1 gives public utilities the authority to remove any trees that interfere with utility services, either in utility easements or public rights-of-way. Response: The utility easements are shown on the site plan (Sheet A-I), landscape plan and civil plans. As a result of an additional easement (BellSouth) the canopy trees on the western third of the existing access road have been revised to Royal palms. 12. Comment: Palm Beach County Health Department permits will be required for the water and sewer systems serving this project (CODE, Section 26-12). Response: A Palm Beach County Health Department permit will be applied for as part of the building permit process. 13. Comment: Fire flow calculations will be required demonstrating the City Code requirement of 1,500 gpm as stated in the LOR., Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 16, or the requirement imposed by insurance underwriters, whichever is greater (see CODE, Section 26-16(b)). Response: Attached please find a copy of the required ISO fire flow calculations. 14. Comment: The CODE, Section 26-34(E) requires that a capacity reservation fee be paid for this project either upon the request for the Department's signature on the Health Department application forms or within 30 days of site plan approval, whichever occurs first. This fee will be detennined based upon final meter size, or expected demand. Response: Applicant acknowledges this comment and will make payment as required. 15. Comment: Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.C.3.4. requires the conservation of potable water. City water may not, therefore, be used for irrigation where other sources are readily available. Response: The irrigation source for this project will be a well and pump system, to be located in the landscape island at the south-west corner of the building. 16. Comment: Water and sewer lines to be owned and operated by the City shall be included within utility easements. Please show all proposed easements on the engineering drawings, using a minimum width of 12 feet. The easements shall be dedicated via separate instrument to thc City as stated in the CODE, Section 26-33(a). Response: All proposed water and sewer easements are indicated on the civil plans. Mr. Michael Rumpf July 1,2003 Page 4 17. Comment: This office will not require surety for installation of the water and sewer utilities, on condition that the systems be fully completed, and given to the City Utilities Department before the first permanent meter is set. Note that setting of a permanent water meter is a prerequisite to obtaining the Certificate of Occupancy. Response: Applicant acknowledges comment. 18. Comment: Appropriate backflow preventers will be required on the domestic water service to the building, and the fire sprinkler line if there is one, in accordance with the CODE, Section 26-207. Response: Backflow preventers for potable water, as well as double detector check assembly for fire water are indicated on the site plan (sheet A-I) and civil plans. ENGINEERING DIVISION 19. Comment: On the Site Plan, add a general note 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 FDOT, SFWMD, L WDD, FDEP, BCHD, PBCHD, PBCED, PBCDERM and any others, shall be included with the permit request. Response: Added general note I to site plan sheet A-I. 20. Comment: All comments requiring changes and/or corrections to the plan~ shall be reflected on all appropriate shccts. Response: Applicant acknowledges this comment. 21. Comment: Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate additional comments. Acceptance ofthese plans during the TRC process does not ensurc that additional comments may not be generated by the Commission and at permit review. Response: Applicant acknowledges this comment. 22. Comment: Provide written and graphic scales on all sheets. Response: Written and graphic scales have been added to plans. 23. Comment: Indicate to what standard 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. Response: A note indicating the standard the parking and drainage is designed to has been added to the preliminary paving and drainage plan. 24. Comment: Please orient all sheets the same. Sheet A-I is oriented with north down. Mr. Michael Rumpf July I, 2003 Page 5 remaining sheets are oriented with north up - north up is preferred. Response: Site plan (sheet A-I) has been reoriented with north up. 25. Comment: Show proposed site lighting on the Site and Landscape plans (LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7 .B.4.). The lighting design shall provide a minimum average light level of one foot- candle. On the Lighting Plan, speciry that the light poles shall withstand a 140 MPH wind load (LDR, Chapter 23, Article II, Section A. La. and Florida Building Code). Provide a note that the fixtures shall be operated by photo-electrical control and to remain on until 2:00 a.m. (LDR, Chapter 23, Article II, Section A.I.a.) Include pole wind loading and pole details in confonnance with the LDR, Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 11, Chapter 23, Article I, Section 5.B. 7. and Chapter 23, Article II, Section A on the Lighting Plan. Glare which is readily perceptible at any point at or beyond the property line of the property on which the use is prohibited (LDR, Chapter 2, Section 4.N.7). Lighting shall be directed away from any residential uses (LDR, Chapter 2, Section 4.N.7). Lighting shall not be used as a form of advertising in a manner that draws more attention to the building or grounds at night than in the day (LDR, Chapter 9, Section 10.F.5.). Provide photometrics as part of the TRC plan submittals. Response: The site lighting is now indicated on plans. See also lighting plan (sheet E 1.1.). 26. Comment: Show sight triangles on the landscape plans (LDR, Chapter 7.5., Article II, Section 5.H.). Response: Sight triangle has been indicated on all landscape plans. 27. Comment: Please show landscaping on the overall landscape plan (Sheet Ll) so that it can be checked for conflicts between landscaping and easements and utilities. Response: The landscape plans (Shects L-2 & L-3) have been revised to indicate all easements. 28. Comment: It may be necessary to replace or relocate large canopy trees adjacent to light fixtures to eliminate future shadowing on the parking surfuce (LDR, Chapter 23, Article II, Section A. I. b.). Response: All of the canopy trees have been relocated away from site lighting fixtures to minimize the potential of shadowing the parking lot. 29. Comment: Indicate, by note on the landscape plan, that within the sight triangles there shall be an unobstructed cross-visibility at a level between 2.5 feet and 6 fuet above the pavement (LDR, Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.H). Response: Sight triangle note has been added to the landscape plans. 30. Comment: The Live Oak trees at the east end ofthe access road could be a potential line of sight problem. Specuy seven (7) feet of clear trunk for the Livc Oaks. Response: The Live Oak trees on the east end ofthe access road are not in a sight triangle Mr. Michael Rumpf July I, 2003 Page 6 area. 31. Comment: Place Live Oaks a minimum of five (5) feet off the sidewalks to minimize the potential for damage to the sidewalks at the tree's maturity. Response: All canopy trees (Livc Oaks) shall be planted at a minimum of 5 ft. off the sidewalks. 32. Comment: Sidewalks adjacent to parking lots shall be continuous through all driveways and shall be 6 in. thick within driveways (LDR, Chapter 23, Art. II, Section P.). Sidewalk is to be continued through the pavement at the driveway opening into the new parking area on the west side of Corporate Drive. Response: Sidewalks which run through driveway connections are noted to be 6" thick. However, the Phase Two Future Parking Area is not part of this site plan approval and will be formally reviewed at a later date. 33. Comment: Maximum width of driveways is thirty-six (36) feet measured at the right of way line (LDR, Chapter 23, Article II.H.I.). The proposed driveway on the west side of Corporate Drive scalesoffat thirty-eight (38) feet. A variance (not an administrative waiver) will be required if thirty-eight (38) feet is desired. Response: The applicant acknowledges this comment. However, the driveway opening referred to has been constructed and currently exists in that configuration on site. Again, no revisions to that parking area are included in the scope of this site plan review. Applicant assumes this driveway opening is non-conforming and, as such, should be allowed to remain without obtaining an variance, 34. Comment: Full drainage plans in accordance with the LOR, Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 5 will be required at the time of permitting. Response: Applicant acknowledges this requirement and full drainage plans will be submitted at the time of permitting. 35. Comment: All engineering construction details shall be in accordance with the applicable City of Boynton Beach Standard Drawings and will be reviewed for constructability at the time of construction permit application. Response: All engineering construction details shall be in accordance with the applicable Boynton Beach Standard Drawings at the time of permit application. 36. Comment: Correct the curb detail on Sheet A-5 to reflect FOOT (and City of Boynton Beach) standards which call for an overall depth dimension of 18 (eighteen) inches for Type "D" curb or it may be deleted since there is another correct detail on Sheet 1. Response: Deleted detail 4/ A-5. Refer to civil drawings for curb detail. Mr. Michael Rumpf July I, 2003 Page 7 37. Comment: Provide surfacing materials and dimensions for Section "B-B" on Sheet 1. Response: Materials and dimensions indicated on Sheet 1 of civil drawings, 38. Comment: Provide copies of cross-access agreements between the proposed project and adjacent properties. Response: Cross access between Parcel3B and the adjacent properties are covered under the existing and proposed to be modified ingress/egress easements dedicated via plat and modified by subsequent instruments. Comment: Provide copies of agreements with adjacent property owner(s) for work which is to be done off-site (e.g. additional parking west of Corporate Drive). Response: The new parking area depicted west of Corporate drive is for infonnational purposes only and not a part ofthis site plan approval. Staffhas indicated that construction of that parking area in the future is contingent upon a revised site plan application in conjunction with a master plan amendment. BUILDING DIVISION: 40. Comment: Buildings, structures and parts thereof shall be designed to withstand the minimum wind loads of 140 mph. Wind forces on every building or structure shall be determined by the provisions of Chapter 6 of ASCE 7, and the provisions of Section 1606 (Wind Loads) of the 2001 FBC. Calculations that are signed and sealed by a design professional registered in the state of Florida shall be submitted for review at the time of permit application. Response: Added general note 2 to site plan (Sheet A-I). 41. Comment: Every building and structure shall be of sufficient strength to support the loads and forces encountered per the 2001 FBC, Section 1601.2.1 and Table 1604.1 Indicate the live load (psI) on the plans for the building design and the mezzanine areas. Response: Added general note 3 to site plan (Sheet A-I). 42. Comment: Add to each building that is depicted on the drawing titled site plan and floor plan a labeled symbol that identifies the location of the handicap accessible entrance doors to the building. Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction, Section 11-4.1.2,11-4.3. Response: Added handicap accessible symbols to entrance doors on the floor plan (Sheet A- 2). Symbols are shown on site plan (Sheet A-I). 43. Comment: Identity on the plan the width of the accessible route. (Note: The minimum width required by the code is 44 inches). Please note that a time ofperrnit of review, the applicant shall provide detailed documentation on the plans that will verity that the accessible route is in compliance with the regulations specified in the 2001 FBe. This documentation shall Mr. Michael Rumpf July I, 2003 Page 8 include, but not be limited to, providing finish grade elevations along the path oftravel. Response: Added accessible route width to site plan (Sheet A-I). 44. Comment: IdentifY within the site data the finish floor elevation (lowest floor elevation) that is proposed for the/each building(s). VerifY that the proposed elevation is in compliance with regulation.~ 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]: I. 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 surfuce water management construction development regulations." Response: Note has been added to the site tabular data chart. 2. 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. Response: The flood zone and base flood zone elevation has been identified in the site plan tabular data chart. 3. 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). Response: The finish floor elevation has been added to the site plan, floor plans, and stormwater management plan. 45. Comment: Vertical accessibility to the second floor/mezzanine area shall be required per the 2001 FBC, Sections 11-4.1.2,11-4.1.3.(5) for New Construction and Section 11-4.1.6. for Alteration.~. Response: Vertical accessibility is not required to the mezzanine ifused for "storage purposes that are not designed for human occupancy". Ifthe mezzanine is used for office purposes, a limit of five people or 500 s.t: is acceptable. Vertical accessibility must be provided if the future tenant exceeds 500 s.t: on the mezzanine level. 46. Comment: At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the proposed construction. Response: Applicant acknowledges this comment. 47. Comment: Add to the drawing the calculations that were used to identifY the minimum number of required handicap accessible parking spaces. Also, state the code section that is applicable to the computations. Response: Added handicap accessible parking space calculation to the project data. Refer to site plan (Sheet A-I). Mr. Michael Rumpf July I, 2003 Page 9 48. Comment: 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. Response: Limits of construction for the project are the property lines for Parcel3B. Refer to site plan (Sheet A-I). 49. Comment: According to the CBBCPP 3C3.4, the City shall continue to encourage the use of non-potable water for landscape irrigation. An alternate water source other than City water shall be utilized for the irrigation system. Response: The irrigation source for this project will be a well and pump system, to be located in the landscape island at the south-west comer of the building. 50. Comment: A water-use permit for the irrigation system is required from the SFWMD. A copy of the permit shall be submitted at the time of permit application, F.S. 373.216. Response: Applicant acknowledges this comment and agrees to comply. 51. Comment: Clearly indicate on the plan the construction and phasing limits of Phase 1 and Phase 2. Response: Phase 2 tabular data has been deleted. See comment 48 for limits of construction. 52. Comment: Submit structural details and floor plan of the optional mezzanine areas. Response: Structural details and floor plan for the mezzanine level will be submitted with the construction documents for permit review. 53. Comment: The height and area for buildings or structures of the different types of construction shall be governed by the intended use or occupancy of the building and shall not exceed the limits set forth in Table 500 and Section 503 of the 2001 FBC. General area modifications to the buildings shall be in accordance with Sections 503.3, 503.2, and 503.3 ofthe 2001 FBC. Provide calculations verifYing compliance with the above code sections and Table 500. Response: Added note for height and area modification in project data. Refer to site plan (Sheet A-I) "unlimited area provision". PARKS & RECREATION No Comments PLANNING & ZONING: 54. Comment: The subject property lies within a Wellfield Protection Zone. All future uses are subject to both Section 9.3 of the Unified Land Development Code and the Wellfield Protection Ordinance of Palm Beach County. Mr. Michael Rumpf July 1, 2003 Page 10 Response: The applicant acknowledges that all future uses must adhere to the above referenced code and ordinance. 55. Comment: If required by the Engineering Division of Public Works, any necessary abandonment and rededication of easement(s) must be processed and recorded prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Response: Applicant acknowledges this comment. There are four (4) abandonment applications which were submitted concurrently with the site plan review request. 56. Comment: Please submit ten (10) copies ofthe Boynton Commerce Center Master Plan and indicate "For Infonnation Only" Staff acknowledges that this request for new site plan approval will not necessitate a master plan modification such as long as the scope of this project does not exceed the developmental limits that are already established for the PID. Response: Ten copies of the latest master plan located in the City files has been submitted. This plan also includes a certified count of existing parking spaces within the PID prepared by the surveyor of record. The plan is indicated as "For Infonnation Only". 57. Comment: All plans must indicate the scale and north arrow. Response: Plans have been revised 58. Comment: A cross parking/cross-access agreement shall be secured prior to the issuance of a certificate 0 f occupancy. Response: Parcel3H, as laid out and described on the Plat of Boynton Commerce Center, recorded in Plat Book 46, Page 126, was dedicated via plat for parking, streets and drainage. Parcel3H includes Corporate Drive, as well a~ the common area parking on the west side of Corporate Drive. Therefore, it is the applicant's opinion that cross parking and cross access across any portion ofParcel3H by the development proposed to be constructed on Lot 3B is allowed via the recorded plat and additional cross parking and/or cross access agreement(s) are not requircd. 59. Comment: On the site plan tabular data (Sheet A-I), ensure that the proposed uses and their respective building areas correctly add up to 71,547 s.t: This figure in the tabular data should match the graphic illustration. Response: Revised building square footages on project data (Shcct A-I). 60. Comment: On the site plan tabular data (Sheet A-I), it indicates that Parcel3B will contain 170 parking spaces but when counted only 168 spaces are provided. This discrepancy between the two must be corrected. Response: Corrected parking quantities in project data and site plan (Sheet A-I). 61. Comment: Eliminate the "Project Data (Phase Two)" tabular infonnation on the site plan Mr. Michael Rumpf July I, 2003 Page II (Sheet A-I). That portion of the plan is not considered as part of this review and within the scope of work of this application. Response: Phase 2 project data has been deleted (Sheet A-I). 62. Comment: On the site plan (Sheet A-I), the proposed Phase Two (Parking Lot) may be shown as "Future: Not included within the scope of this project". Response: Revised Phase 2 parking lot indicates "Future, not included within this scope of work" (Sheet A-I). 63. Comment: On floor plan (Sheet A-2), show the retail area proposed within each bay. Response: The amount of retail area within each bay is a function ofleasing and market demand and cannot be determined at this time. The proposed revisions to the use list limit the amount to a maximum of 49% of the ground floor area, however, at this point in time it is not possible to determine the amount that will uhimately be utilized. 64. Comment: Provide paint swatches for the elevations (Chapter 4, Section 7.D.). Response: Paint swatches are provided. 65. Comment: Include a color rendering of all four (4) elevations at the Technical Review Committee meeting (Chapter 4, Section 7.D.). Response: Four color elevations are provided. 66. Comment: All elevations must indicate the proposed colors, including the paint, manufacturer's name and color code (Chapter 4, Section 7.D.). Staff also recommends using a color schedule for all major exterior finishes. The elevation drawings and color schedule would include the paint manufacturer's name and color code. Staff also recommends using the same colors as the existing buildings within the PID. Response: A color schedule is provided. Color selections are consistent with the Lowes project. 67. Comment: The drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division (Chapter 4, Section 7.F.). Response: A paving and drainage plan will be submitted for to the Engineering Divi~ion for review and approval prior to permitting. 68. Comment: Provide a detail of a typical parking lot interior landscape island. Response: Added typical parking lot interior island detail. Refer to 4/A-5. 69. Comment: On the landscape plan (Sheet L-J) separate and indicate the proposed plant material into the following categories: Shade Trees, Palm Trees, Shrubs/Hedges and Groundcover. Mr. Michael Rumpf July I, 2003 Page 12 Response: The material schedule has been categorized, per the request. 70. Comment: All trees are required to be at least 12 feet overall height at the time of installation (Chapter 7.5., Article II, Section 5.C.2.). Response: All trees have been specified at 12 ft. o.a. 71. Comment: All shrubs and hedges are required to be at a minimum 24 inches in height, 24 inches in spread, and planted with tip-to-tip spaced measured immediately after planting to adequately cover the planted areas on the site (Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.C.4.). Response: All required shrubs have been specified at 2 x 2 ft. @ 2 ft. O.c. 72. Comment: Place a note on the landscape plan indicating that mulch other than Cypress shall be used and maintained for landscape purposes (Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.C.8.). Response: Our specifications require that no cypress mulch be utilized for any project, see Landscape Note #7. 73. Comment: On the landscape plan, ensure that the plant quantities match between the tabular data and the graphic illustration. Response: The landscape plan and the quantities provided on the material schedule match. 74. Comment: Fifty percent (50%) of the site landscape materials must be native species. Indicate the amount of native material in the plant list of the landscape plan (Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.P.). On the landscape plant list, separate the trees from the groundcover/shrubs. Indicate by asterisk, the native species and ensure that at least 50% of landscape material is native. Response: The native plant materials were indicated on the original submittal, and on the revised submittal, with an asterisk. The 50% native requirements have been met. We have 54% native, or highly drought tolerant materials, per SFWMD "Xeriscape Manual". 75. Comment: A signature tree (such as a Yellow Elder, Tibouchina Granulsola, or Bougainvillea) is required at both sides of each project entrance/exit. The signature trees must have 6 feet of clear trunk if placed within the safe-sight triangle (Chapter 7.5., Article 2, Section 5.N.). Alternative plant material may be substituted if the above referenced plant material is not available or undesired. Any substitution of plant material (for the signature tree requirement) will be subject to the City Landscaper/Environmentalist review and approval. Response: The "signature trees"have been added to each side of the project entrance/exists. 76. Comment: All dumpsters should be placed on a concrete pad ten (10) feet wide with an appropriate depth and be screened on three (3) sides as described in Chapter 9, Section 1 O.C.3. On the landscape plan, provide accent shrubs along the screen walls ofthe dumpster Mr. Michael Rumpf July I, 2003 Page 13 enclosure (Chapter 7.5., Article II, Section 5.J.). Response: Dumpster size was revised and screening added. Refer to detail 5/A-5 and landscape plans. 77. Comment: Unless the lighting fixtures are all wall mounted, provide a typical drawing that includes the height and color/material of all proposed freestanding outdoor lighting poles. The design, style, and illumination level shall be compatible with the building design (height) and shall consider safety, function and aesthetic value (Chapter 9, Section 10.F.1.). Staff recommends utilizing the same outdoor freestanding lighting fixtures for the subject property that are used through the PID. Response: Refer to drawing E 1.1 for site lighting. 78. Comment: Place a note on the site plan that all above ground mechanical equipment such as exterior utility boxes, meters, transformers, and back-flow preventers shall be visually screened (Chapter 9, Section I O.C.4.). Response: A note has been added for the screening of all above ground equipment. 79. Comment: Equipment placed on the walls of the building shall be painted to match the building color (Chapter 9, Section IO.C.4.). Place a note on the site plan indicating this requirement. Response: Added general note 4 to the site plan (Sheet A-I). 80. Comment: Rooftops will be treated as part ofthe building elevation. All rooftop equipment must be completely screened for view at a minimum distance of600 feet (Chapter 9, Section 11.E.). Place this note under the graphic illustration shown on sheet A-4. Response: Added note to sight line section (Sheet A-4). 81. Comment: On the elevations (sheet A-3), indicate the cumulative area of all proposed wall signs. Also, indicate the proposed wall sign's font, colors and sign type. Response: Added sign criteria (Sheet A-3). 82. Comment: The proposed freestanding outdoor monument sign appears to be inconsistent with the existing monument signs found throughout the PID. ClarifY the intent of the proposed monument sign. Response: Revised monument sign. Refer to detail 7/A-5. 83. Comment: The project signage is subject to review and approval of the Planning & Development Board and City Commission. All requests for approval or modification to a sign program shall be filed as part of the site plan process. All applications shall be filed by the sign owner or agent, with the appropriate fee and shall describe and set forth the following: The type and number of signs or sign structures, the area per sign and dimensions of Mr. Michael Rumpf July 1,2003 Page 14 structures, three (3) certified copies ofthe site plan showing sign location, sign elevations, and construction details, such as materials, colors, wind resistence requirements and structural details. In addition, provide one (l) set of colored sign elevations with all copy shown in the type style to be used (Chapter 21, Article IV, Section 7.B.). Response: Review of the zoning files for the Boynton Commerce Center PID, as well as conversations with staff, indicate that there is no approved master signage program associated with the master plan for this PID. Therefore, a request to modifY the sign program is not necessary as it does not currently exist. The applicant understands that signage approval, will be under consideration by both the Planning & Development Board and the City Commission. However, to require the last parcel in an otherwise built out PID to create a master signage program for the entire development seems as to place an undue burden on this last applicant. Therefore, we are requesting to be allowed to meet code requirements regarding signage as defined for industrial zoning districts. 84. Comment: On the detail of the monument sign, staff recommends placing the site address at the top of the monument sign (Chapter 21, Article 4, Section 5.B.). Response: Address has been added to monument sign. 85. Comment: Staff recommends planting clusters of palm trees (single or double trunked and at least 12 feet in height) within the landscape strips along the north, east and west sides of the building in order to break up the great wall expanse. Response: Palm tree clusters, Coconut palms and Carpentaria palms( doubles & triples) were indicated on the original submittal on the north and western building fucades. The eastern facade abuts the FEC right of way and is not visible from any adjacent right of way or properties. 86. Comment: Is no landscape material proposed at the rear (south) of the building? Response: Landscaping has been added to the dumpster areas. 87. Comment: Staffrecommends that the appearance of the overhead bay doors ofthe proposed building be made of the same material and color of overhead bay doors found throughout the PID. Response: Overhead doors will be consistent with other doors in the PlD. FORESTERlENVIRONMENT ALIST: 88. Comment: The applicant should indicate on the landscape plan the existing trees that will be preserved, relocated or removed/replaced on the site. A separate symbol should be used on the landscape plan to identifY the replacement trees. (Environmental Regulation Chapter 7.5, Article II, Sec. 7.C.). Response: There are no existing trees on the site according to the survey provided by the Mr. Michael Rumpf July 1, 2003 Page 15 owner. 89. Comment: The existing landscape buffer west of Corporate Drive along the Lake Worth Drainage District E-4 Canal must be designed by the removal of exotic nuisance trees/vegetation and replacement with native trees/vegetation. This plan should be shown in detail on the landscape buffer. (Environmental Regulations, Chapter 7.5, Article II, Sec. 7.C.). Response: This area is included in a future phase and not part of this approval. However, a note has been added for the removal of all exotics. 90. Comment: All trees on the Plant List must (including signature tree) be listed in the specifications as a minimum 12 feet - 14 feet height, 3 inch caliper at DBH (4.5 feet off the ground), and Florida #1 (Florida Grades & Standards Manual)(Environmental Regulation, Chapter 7.5, Article II, Sec. 5.C.2.). Response: All trees have been specified at a minimum height of 12 ft. o.a. A note have been added for the caliper requirements. 91. Comment: Trees listed in Palm Beach County "invasive plant species" and "invasive non- native plant listing" should not be included in the landscape design. (Environmental Regulation, Chapter 7.5, Article 1, Sec. 19.A.5.). Response: No "invasive plant species" have been utilized on this project. 92. Comment: The applicant should indicate a minimum of50% native species calculation on all landscape materials throughout the site. (Environmental Regulations, Chapter 7.5., Article II, Sec. 5.C.3.N.). Response: The plans exceed the 50% native requirements. 93. Comment: The Corporate Drive right of way must receive sod and irrigation coverage. (Environmental Regulations, Chapter 7.5., Article II, Sec. 5.C.2.) Response: Corporate Drive right of way shall receive sod and irrigation (sec plans). 94. Comment: There is no irrigation system design included with the site plans. (Environmental Regulations, Chapter 7.5., Article II, Sec. SA) Response: See irrigation plans, included in this submittal. 95. Comment: Turfand landscape (bedding plants) area~ shouW be designed on separate zones and time duration for water conservation. (Environmental Regulations, Chapter 7.5, Article II, Sec. 5.C.2.) Response: Turf and shrub areas have been separated on thc irrigation plans. Mr. Michael Rumpf July I, 2003 Page 16 In addition to responding to the above listed comments, I would like to clarifY that the retail sales portion of this site plan request is accompanied with a concurrent request to revise the approved use list for the PID. Once the use list revisions have been approved, we would like to add the following notes to the site plan. · Retail sales, of up to 100% of sales, are allowed on Lot 3B for goods listed under the sections as specified in the approved use list for the Boynton Commerce Center. Maximum square footage allowed for these retails sales shall not exceed 49% of the gross ground floor area of the building. Parking shall be provided at a rate of I parking space for every 200 square feet of retail space. · The parking area labeled as 'Future' is a 2nd Phase of the project and will be approved at a later date contingent upon a master plan amendment. The site plan modification associated with this 2nd phase shall be processed as a minor modification to an approved site plan. In as such, we would like to add these comments to the site plan as part of the process for rectifYing the plans for building permits and are hereby requesting your approval of same. If necessary, please include them in the comments that will be included in the approval for the project. Please call me to discuss if you have any questions in regard to this request. I believe these responses and the corresponding revisions to the plans address the Technical Review comments. We respectfully request to be seheduled for the July 22, 2003, Planning & Development Board meeting. Sincerely, 1d!U-&~ Joni Brinkman, AICP Project Planner cc: Kevin Carroll, Levitt Commercial Barbara Hansen, Levitt Commercial Jose Arenal, Sharpe Project Development Juan Rieseo, Rieseo Architects Mike Gai, Sun-Tech Engineering Daniel Carter, Landscape Architect , FIRE FLOW WORK SHEET I.S.O. METHOD CALCULATED BY:~.,.ecIl ENC.INl!I!LJ~ lwe. ADDRESS: eo-,NTON CcM.ME.f.CECe"nEL 1>AlZ.CE.L 36 . OWNER: l€VITT CoMME~CJ.4I.. OCCUPANCY TYPE: FAt'RC.'i ht.JDuc."';'IAl. CONSTRUCTION TYPE:"NF'e '" VNPI'llTB:.n;;D NUMBER Of STORIES: Z. TAKE AI WHICH IS 100% sa.FT. OF 1ST FLOOR PlUS THII FOLLOWINQ PERCENTAGI! SliP 1 0" THIl TOTAL AReA OF THE OTHER FLOORS. AND FIND ITS SOUARE ROOT: 1ST FL 51,1\~ sa. FT. 0 100% BUILDINGS CLASSIFIED AS CONSTRUCTION CLASSES 1,4: 50% OF ALL OTHER FLOORS. BUILDINGS CLASSIFIED AS CONTRUCTION CLASS 5 OR 8: - Flre Reol.sUve . IF ALL VERTICAL OPENINGS ARE PROTECTED. 25% OF THE AREA NOT EXCEEDING THE TWO OTHER lAIIGEST FLOORS. IF ONE OR MORE VERTICAL OPENINGS IN THE BUILDING ARE UNPROTECTED 50% OF THE AREA OF NOT EXCEEDING 8 OTHER FLOORS TOTAL (A, ~i~O Sa.FT. FOR FIRE FLOW = Ai (find ,quare root of "TOTAL SO.FT.' for lire f10wl ",'-I, ~~O SO.FT. = '2S3.v3i AI TAKE SQUARE ROOT OF AI AND MULTIPLY BY "F' STEP 2 ICOEFFlCENT FOR CONSTRUCTION TYPE): sac F = COEFFICIENT RELATED TO THE CLASS OF CONSTA. TYPE F = 1.6 FOR CONSTR. CLASS 1 (FRAME) VI F = 1.0 FOR CONSTR, CLASS 2 IJOtSTED MASONRy) V F = 0.8 FOR CONSTR. CLASS 3 INON.COMBUSTIBLE) IV & CONSTR. CLASS 4 (MASONRY NON.COMB) III F = 0.8 FOR CONSTR. CLASS 5 IMODIFIED FIRE RESIS) 11 & CONSTA. CLASS lllFIRE RESISTIVE) I sa.RT. 253.<'>'3 XF 0/0 = Z~.q STEP 3 MUl TIfL Y REBUL T Of STEP 2 ,.bo..l by 18: 2.02.9 X 18 = 3l1S<..'3 GPM MULTIPLY RESULT OF ROUNDED OFF QPM'X FROM /I 5 BELOW 8Y THE STEP 4 01 (OCCUPANCY FACTORl OCC.FACT c., INoN-CoMel CLAY, alOCK STORAGE ETC. 0.75 C.2 IlIMITED COMBI APlS. OFFICE. CHURCH, ETC. 0.85 C.:) ICOMBI MERCANTILE, RESTAURANTS, ETC. 1.00 C.4 IFREE BURNINGI MIXED STG, COMB & FLAM 1.15 C.5 (RAPID BURNINGl .XPLOSIVES. vApORS, ETC. 1.25 ROUNDED GPM '?>~ X OJ l.l5 . 4oz5 GPM STEP 5 ROUND OFF TO NlARESl150 GPM IROUND UP OR DOWNI up to 2250 & to 500 for 25001 500 TO e25 - 500 Q~M 187. TO 2125 - 2000 Or-Nt . !. .be". 'I 62 e TO 875 - 750 GPM 2126 TO 2375 _ 2250 GPM . ! 878 TO 1125 - 1000 OPM 2376 TO 21&8 - 2500 GPM , I 1128 TO 1375 e 1250 GPM 21St TO 3249 _ 3000 GPM i 1376 TO 1625 - 1500 GPM 3250 TO 37~O _ J51lQ'OPM 1626 TO 1875 . 1750 GP!'! 3751 TC ~249 _ 4000, GPM \ FlOUNOED OFF TO THE NEAREST 250 GPM or SuO apm... GPM Formul. c: - 1 ijF IAIl 0.5 THE. b.>1....OI~G;'~ '"~ CAU!.\JLA'nON. sP2:\Mn.E:.O, 'T'm:2.~Foi.E. ~% CUOl. \~ G..\\lEJ-l :1b FlU FLOW & '2011..5 '"'PI"' Department of Engineering and Public Works po. Box 21229 West Palm Beach, FL 33416~ 1229 (561) 684-4000 www.pbcgov.com . Palm Beach County Board of County commissioners Karen 1. Marcus, Chair Tony MasHotti, Vice Chairman Jeff Koons Warren H. Newell Mary McCarty Burt Aaronson Addie L. Greene County Administrator Robert Weisman ~An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer~ @ printed on recycled paper June 9, 2003 Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Director of Planning & Zoning Department of Development City of Boynton Beach P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 34425-0310 RE: Boynton Beach Commerce Center - Lot 3B TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS REVIEW Dear Mr. Rumpf: The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the traffic study for the previously approved project entitled; Boynton Beach Commerce Center- Lot 3B, pursuant to the Traffic Performance Standards in Article 15 of the Palm Beach County Land Development Code. This project is summarized as follows: Location: Municipality: Existing Uses: Proposed Uses: New Daily Trips: New PH Trips: Build-out Year: On Corporate Drive, South of Woolbright Road Boynton Beach Vacant 72,174 SF Light Industrial 478 @ 5% Paas-by 67 - PM Peak Hour 2004 Based on our review, the Traffic Division has determined that the project generates less trips than previously approved, and therefore, meets the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. If you have any questions regarding this determination, please contact me at 684-4030. Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEF.R ,/Y!. Masoud Ate!' Sr. Engineer ," cc: Yvonne Ziel Traffic Consultants Inc. File: General- TPS - Mun - Trafic Study Review F'ITRAFFIClmalAdminlApprovalsl030606.dOC I I l___'_. _ ~s YVONNE ZIEL TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS, INC. 11440 86th St. North, West Palm Beach, Florida 33412 Telephone (561) 624.7262. Facsimile (561) 624,9578 May 20, 2003 -"" Mr. Michael W. Rumpf City of Boynton Beach 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33425 , j i L.._ RE: Boynton Commerce Center - Lot 3B Dear Mr. Rumpf: Yvonne Ziel Traffic Consultants, Inc. was retained to prepare a trip generation analysis for a proposed site plan for Lot 3B within the Boynton Commerce Center project located along Corporate Drive south of Woolbright Road. The project is vested with 249,600 square feet (SF) of office and 149,990 SF of light industrial uses. The uses site planned to date are: 120,682 SF of office, 81,420 SF of manufacturing and 270,636 SF of warehouse. The applicant is proposing to add 72,174 SF oflight industrial. Tables I through 3 provide the trip generation rates and trip generation for the vested uses. Table 4 and 5 provide the trip generation calculation for the uses with site plan approvals and the proposed Lot 3B. Trip generation indicates that the trips from the cumulative approvals do not exceed those vested (87 less AM peak trips and 67 less PM peak trips than vested). Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, YVONNE ZIEL !~:2Fl:IC- ONSULTANTS, INC. Lt '- - .- vonne Ziel, P.E.-- - President Enclosure Traffic Engineering and Planning I- ~~;1;~ I- "'''' '" I- ..,.'" .... I-X X 0'" '" X "'''' ~ "'~ ..,. "'~ ..,. ZW W W W ua:: l"--N co v (I) a:: "'''' ~ a:: 0.... .... a::W ...-.......C'1N o..w <O~ '" W <O~ .... WI- -l- I- o..Z a::Z Z W I-W W '" mcov..... <..J "'.... '" :;;..J '" <o:tcnr--.1O W< "'0 ~c:icici 0..1- ......,. u:; W< "'..,. '" ::;;0 "'~ ZI- "'~ ..,. '" 0 0..1- ;:j I- 0.. OC ..J 0.. I- "'<0 I- ~ ::;; X ~ '" 0 o..>-w ;:j~ I- "?a:: "'~ ~~ (l)W (1)1- <Z 0.. o..w ..J "'.... NNMCO ........ '" < ~ I- ..........C\l..... I- ..,.~ <0 I- I-X X 0 ZW W I- W I- "'<0 <0 Ua:: COCOf'--N a:: "'~ ..,. X ..,.~ a::W co OJ 1"'-0 CO (l)W ..,.'" <0 W wI- 0..1- "'~ ..,. o..Z -Z a:: ~W "'''' 0 W W "'~ ..,. CON C'1 10 ",..J I- "'~ ..,. anO)r--.v <~ "'''' .... Z "";000 I- "'''' '" I- W 0 Wo "'~ '" U < I- 0..1- W :;;..J O~ 0 ...., W< U U ::;; 0 ....'" 0.. CD a::~ < ZI- "'~ '" a:: OC ..J 0.. a:: a:: '" 0 W I- < WO wo.. < I- 1-(1) I- >i I-a:: 1-0 0 W ZW '" 0.. Zo.. Zw 0.. I- "'~ WI- ;:j~ I- Wo WI- X U~ Z U(I) ::;; 0..1- 0 Uw WW <>-W W ::;;~ ;:: wI- CD UZ U(I) U> . a:: ~a::O < 15 "'a::W "'a:: , (l)W ....<0 WW- W WW> wW(I) (1)1- ~ ..J::;;~ :r: ..J::;;, ..J::;;o.. <Z CD::;; ...."'<0 I- CD::;;Z "'''' ..,. CD::;;OC o..w ~OW "''''''' <00 ~Ol- Vc.c:ic<:i~ <0 I-Uj:: ......,. '" ..J UZ <00 .... U:;; < "'.... ZW Z N"': ..; ~ '" 0 Z~ ZW I- oCJ <0 0 ..; ~ Ow oz I-ll, 1-(1) 1-0 I- I-~ + I-Z Za:: X Zw oll, Zz "'''' '" >-1- 01- Z W 5CJ <a:: >-< :;; ..,.'" '" 0 <~ ..J Z I- 0>- "'.'" '" CD . W CD 0.. CD CD W ..; '" '" 0.. <0 CJ OC ch Z OC ": 0.. I- (I) " l- I- OC ~ >- Z l- I- CD ..,.'" "'''' ..J en 0 ch ~ < 0000 a:: (I) ..........'<;f1O W 00 0 < r- ..... ..... ..- 0'" '" 0.. W W <D'" '" W ;!; N O'J~oi 0;- >-1- "'''' 0 CJ ii5 ..,...,. '" CDZ WO Z "'~ '" ,W t:U W (l)U (I) a:: Z <W 0 0..0.. ~ a:: 0 0.. (I) Z CJ ~ ~ CJ ~ I- ~ u.. ::1; u.. 0 u.. u.. (I) (I) (I) I- W l- I- I- :r:CJ ::> :r: :r: S2;!;CJ I- CJ CJ -rCk:Z ;:: =t =t ...J=:l(i5 (I) ..J ..J ::;; W LLc;(I-::> ;!; W u..< W u..< "'0.. ~C2Uo (1)- (I) W (I) (1)- (I) _a:: 90 _a:: ::> Wl-~I U ::> wI- .:..; ::> wI- .:..; "'''' U(I) '" .. 0 UU>::>LU a:: 0 U(I) ~ 0 -::> < ::;;~ Z -::>Za:: ::> -::> Z u..o I- ttO<(<( Z u..o a,~ :5 0 :5 u..z 0 :5 u..z 0 ~O O;!;::;;:;; (I) 0_ I- 0_ I- f- mNCOLO '" f- NO>(()O t'--f'--O X V(OMQ '" X ~ ~ '" 'l:tlOMO "'~CO W W ~ ~ "'..,.- (/)0:: T'"O)NM ~ 0:: 0)Cl)T'""T'"" 0,,"'" ,,-W '" N'" W N N'" O>,,"~ -f- f- O::z Z f-W W '" <(-' Q'l"'""OCO 0> 3:-, (0(");::::- W<( COf'--(QM ..,. W<( "'-1'--1"--'1"'"" ,,-f- ~ ~ ..,. t'--<DLOC"') NO>CO ;:EO ",Zf- ..,...,.- ,,-f- <( 0 W f- "- f- f'--MNLO ~>-ii1 "10:: NO"--N ClJW (/)f- <(Z "-w -' O>V(,,)I"- f- (")COVN co ~ N ~N co X 0 W f- 0:: f- NCOM,.... ..,.~", I.OCOLOO 0> X N ~N coco (/)W COLOVO co W ,,-f- ~ ~ '" -Z 0:: coo ~W t--.I.OMLO W LOLOVO) "'..,.0> ",-, a:>comN '" f- f- ~ "'..,.- <(<( C:OCOLON '" U Z Wf- ~ ~ ..,. W W f- U ,,-0 -, 3:-, V.....t:' ;:Ef- 0 O)M(QCO W 0:: W<( ,.....(OLO...... ~oco -, <( Zf- ~ ~ ..,. "'- 0::0 0::"- '" 0 Wo:: WO <( f- f-,,- f-W W Zo ZCIJ "- f- .....0.......... Ww WO ;:E X U(/) u"- <(>-W WO wO U"- uo:: CO '0:: ""0::0 ""0::"- (/)W CO("'JNLO WWo:: WW , ClJf- -';:E,,- -';:E(/) <(Z CO;:E, M(f')T'"N 0> CO;:E"- "-w <(OZ MO'l"'""V co <(00:: f-UO ~LO C"') M. co f-Uf- -' O)MMCO <( zi= ",' z3: f- 0<( f-(/) Ow 0 f-O:: f-Z f- ZW O!!, Zo vco~ >-Z <(0:: >-z COaJLOl.O Ow f- ~<( 3: LOt'--m,..... 0"'''' CO (9 V_VC\l"'.. "''''- W riri "- >- Z ~ 0:: CO f- rh (/) >- <( f- CO t--LOCOr-- "- 0 , """('.1,....(0 <( (/) NVO<O N (/) <( aJl"--NM ~ "- W (O'l"'"""i;f(o 0> N o"NT"'"-ci ... >-f- LOLOLOl.O iii Nl"--CO""" ;]I; ~ N coZ ,W ClJU ClJO:: <(W "-"- (9 (9 ~ ~ .cu- lL lL CIJ CIJ f-(/) f- f- U<( Ww I(9 I(9 -'0:: S?~(9 S?~(9 Ou -rn::z -ra:::z O::w ...J::)U5 ...,J:Jti) "-0 lL<(f-::l u.<(I--:J 0"'" W ClJO::UO W ClJO::UO WW (/) (/) (/)CIJ ::l uu- ~ I .:..; ::l Wl-~I .:..;0;5 UW.:JW ()(/):JW 0 -:JzO:: ~ 0 u:::JZC:: <("-0:: Z tto<(<( Z lLO<(<( f-OU ~ OZ;:E3: 0 ~ OZ;:E3: OO::Z f- f-"-_ Sun-Tech Engineering, Inc. 1600 West OaklanJ Park Boulevard Fort LUlJerJalc, FL 33311 (954) 777-3IZ3/Fax (954) 777-3114 E~mail: suntech@suntechengincering.cnm Engineers 0 Planners 0 Surveyors Bovnton Commerce Center En~lineer's Certification The drainage system as shown on Stormwater Management Plan for the Boynton Commerce Center project, located at the southwest corner of 1-95 and Woolbright Road, has been designed in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD) and City of Boynton Beach codes and standard criteria. Once the site plan is approved, final engineering plans will be completed and processed through the SFWMD, LWDD and the City of Boynton Beach. The project is located within an approved conceptual permitted area and the existing permit will be modified for construction of this project. One-half inch of runoff will be retained in exfiltration trench prior to outfall into the existing on-site lake. The perimeter and finished floor elevations will be set at the 25 year and 100 year - 3 day storm events respectively. The overall project has a control structure which outfalls into the L-1 canal owned and maintained by the LWDD. This connection to the canal provides legal positive outfall. All structures which outfall into the lake will have pollution retardent baffles which will prevent the oils and greases from entering into the lake. Based on the above, I hereby certify that the design of the surface water management system is in substantial conformance with the SFWMD, LWDD and City of Boynton Beach codes and standards and I hereby affix my seal this 21st day May, 2003. --JL~hL-- William M. Fenno, P.E. #43934 05/15/2003 08:28 5616895559 WINSTON LEE ASSO PACil: E::. ; r(~Y \1' ,I '\ ~ , , POSI-11" Fax Note To 7371 DateS'IS'O?, )~~e5~J~:::~~ F..... $",- i3,-i" 0n:!11 Co. lit I u:~;;;~~ ~w,~_..__ Ph.""',, 'l'i, ,,.,, 7~:.___.u__ Fax' rC;.555'''1 1..____.-- The City of Boynton Beach ('\ P'honel P.O.lk>x 810 J/Qmtca BeJJ.ch. F1orid. 334015-0810 PUEUC WOR((SDEPA1I7.j,fENT FAX' (561) 74$-6$86 ..........bo)'Dtcn-bes.cb.ol'g Fex' 142. -(".;jS OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER May 12, 2003 W:nston Lee & Associates, Inc. 15.32 Old Okeechobee Road - Suile 106 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409-5270 VIA F.AX: 689-5559 At1;e:ution: Jom Brinkman Re: Request for Plat W siver 1700 Building - Parcel 313 Boynton Commerce Center Dear Ms. Brinkman: This office is jn receipt of the requested information following tho pre-application meeting th.t w", held in the Planning & Zoning DivisiOll' s conference room on April 14, 2003. Please be advi,ed tb t this office has analyzed this request for 3, variety of issues pursuant to the request. Afi;er careful analysis, the office will not require are-plat of that portion ofPE.rce!3B, subject ;0 tht: lo11owing provisos: L Modification ofthose,poltion(s) on the 65-foot ingress, egress & utility easeme().ts aI: noted on the survey that will require realignment at the westerly end connectior to Corporate Drive, specific:lIly: O.R.B. 12784, Page 1722 et ai, P.B.C.R. O.R.B, 12299, Page 1725 et al, P.B.C.R. O.R.B. 12312, Page 23 et al, P.B.C.R. 2. The deletion of that portion of the 12-foot FP&L easem.ent ext'mding into the S<lUthW'lst comer of the property (as shown to be in ORB. 4228, Page 65 et al, P.B.C.R.) sinc~ their major transmission line has been relocated to the west along the L WDD E.4 C'na! right-of-way. AmBrrCs'S Gatew.ay tI) th~ GttllStl'9Ilm 05/15/2003 08:28 5616895'i59 WINSTON LEE Assn PA(E C: Winston Lee & Associates, Inc. - Attention: Joni Briokwan Re: Request for Plat Waiver, Boynton Commerce Center May 12, 2003 Page 2 ffyou have any questions regarding this detenmnation, please advise rhis office, Sincerely, , "- \ ,l.E'/ ~. \ l4iJ /..1) tCd;.1::"1\:~ H. David Kelley, Jr., PFx4 \\.. City Engineer '1 ""- t. .......... HDK/ck xc: Laurinda Logan, PE, Sr. Engineer Michael Rumpf, Du. P & Z Division Eric Johnson, Planer, P & Z Division File I ~" . , Hlston .lee . L . SSOCIates, Inc. \, :,.\ "I" :'11';' MAY - 8 ~ -~-I May 7, 2003 Mr. Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Zoning Planning & Zoning Division City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 RE: Boynton Commerce Center Planned Industrial Development Pre-Application Meeting on April 14, 2003 Our File No. 02-030 Dear Mr. Rumpf: In follow up to our pre-application meeting on April 14, 2003, I would like to request confIrmation to items discussed and agreed upon, and subsequent revisions to those items since relayed to us by the Engineering Department. The main items to be addressed are as follows: 1. Retail Uses - Retail sales are allowed in industrial uses, as long as they remain below 50% in sales as compared to the amount of wholesale sales. Staffwill support a revision to the approved use list for the PID to allow the building proposed for Parcel 3B to consist of industrial uses making up at least 50% of the ground floor square footage and retail uses making up less than 50% of the ground floor square footage ofthe building. We are proposing to locate the retail square footage in the western portion of the building. It is understood that this area of the building may contain 100% retail uses in these bays. This will project the image of the "Lowes" type retail uses extending to the portion of the building visible when approaching the site from Lowes. 2. Office as Ancillary Use to Industrial Uses: As previously approved in another similar project (High Ridge Commerce Center II), the City allows ancillary office use to an allowed industrial use, not to exceed 30% of the gross square footage (see attached December 6, 2002 letter). 1':;~~ (lId ()kC\..Tllldil'l' K.t)<ld. "!lIt!.: 1111, \\r"t P.lim f-kaiJL 1-"1 ~~-l()q_':;~"7(J Ie!. :"(1\ -1)~q--1.()-:11 . 1;1' '\Il]-i),.;\i-,:;,:;,:q . I ill:l:i \\it1-.;hlll\\la'd:l\'!.l'lHll Mr. Michael Rumpf May 7, 2003 Page 2 3. Parking Backing into IngresslEgress Easement: Parking is allowed to back into the ingress/egress easements located to the north and south ofthe parcel, as previously allowed in the approved master plan. 4. Amount of Drive Openings into the Northern 'Parking Tract': Laurinda Logan has contacted this office since the pre-application meeting and verified that only two drive openings will be allowed into the parking area. The elimination of which drive aisle will be e1iminated is at the discretion of the applicant. 5. Replatting: A proposed site plan and survey has been forwarded to David Kelly. To date we have not received a response to the platting issue. However, as the City has previously processed an abandonment application (ABAN 01-001, submitted by Nayrot Realty) which abandoned and replaced the ingress/egress easement south of our parcel without re- platting, it would stand to reason we would be allowed to do so also. Therefore, this office will proceed with the preparation of the necessary requests for easement abandonments. 6. Parking Spaces/Drive Aisle Dimensions: At the pre-application meeting it was represented that the new site plan will be required to meet the increased parking space size per current code. Since that time, Laurinda Logan and David Kelley conducted a site visit and determined that we should utilize the previous code requirements (9'xI8 parking spaces and 27' drive aisles) to remain consistent with the remainder of the master plan. As discussed at the meeting the justification for as to why a revised master plan will not be required in conjunction with the development of this last lot has been submitted under separate cover. Please call me immediately if you feel there are any discrepancies in the items listed above. Otherwise, I look forward to receiving your letter of confirmation. Sincerely, ~ i3~tril:_tra^ v Jom Brinkman, AICP Project Planner cc: Seth Wise, Levitt Commercial Kevin Carroll, Levitt Commercial I \Vinston y,"- ~ ,e'e ~I'.~I \ssociates, Inc. I" , --.,Iii: am ill!) i --' , ___...J II (;11" ,f ',':i (r~~,~i'" May I, 2003 Mr. Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Zoning Planning & Zoning Division City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 RE: Boynton Commerce Center Planned Industrial Development Our File No. 02-030 Dear Mr. Rumpf: As discussed at our pre-application meeting on April 14, 2003, and via telephone this morning, I would like to outline how we will handle 'updating' the master plan for the above referenced PID, in conjunction with the proposed site plan for the remaining Lot 3B. This is the last vacant lot within the master plan and, rather than do an application for a major modification to the approved site plan on the lot and a modification to the master plan, we are requesting the site plan approval alone be allowed to suffice. As previously discussed, the square footage as shown on our proposed site plan for Lot 3B will be reduced by 6,931 square feet to 72,174 square feet, from the last approval of79, I 05 square feet. No lot lines as shown on the current master plan will be effected in conjunction with the site plan. A final 'accounting' of the built out PID will be accomplished as follows: . Once the final site plan for Lot 3B has been approved, a tabular breakdown similar to the preliminary one attached, will be allowed to be submitted, approved by staff, and included as part of the master plan file for the Boynton Commerce Center. The final tabular data, in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 3B will be the final 'snapshot' of the approvals associated with the master plan. I have attached a preliminary parking space analysis which outlines the existing buildings within the master plan and the required parking for same. The existing uses on site currently utilize 65 spaces from the common area parking pool to meet their required parking. Our proposal is consistent with same. i':; ~2 ()Ill (lkI'Cl:11l1h.'c PI ,It I. ';l!lk li)(), \\cc.:t Palm Beach. H ", ~-+()'-!-52'11 1,,'1 -"hi (1,\11 .1(1~IJ ' 1.1:, :;[') ).;';') :;"':;ll ~ ) rn~lll. \\in',l,lll\\I,I(, a'.l! ('lill Mr. Michael Rumpf May 1, 2003 Page 2 Based on revisions we will be proposing to the approved use list, and previous letters and interpretations from staff, Lot 3B will utilize 72 parking spaces from the unallocated portion of the existing common area parking, leaving 56 spaces unallocated in the common area parking pool. The site plan which will be submitted for Lot 3B depicts an additional parlcing lot to be constructed on Parcel3H, which will be purchased fee simple by the applicant. However, these spaces are being constructed for convenience purposes only and are not necessary to meet required parking. The required parking for the proposed building consists of parking on Lot 3B and unallocated existing common area parking. Please reply in writing with your confirmation that the above process, of submitting fmal tabular data for the master plan file in conjunction with the site plan approval for Lot 3B, is acceptable to the City. Please feel free to call with any questions. Sincerely, ~...~ "/, ',' '~ Joni Brinkman, AICP Project Planner cc: Seth Wise, Levitt Commercial Kevin Carroll, Levitt Commercial Juan Riesco, Riesco Architects Required ParkinS!: Bldg. 1800 - 79,533 Sq. ft. 30% Office 23,8 59.97300 - 80 20% Manufacturing 15,906.67500 = 32 50% Warehouse 39,766.5 : 800 - 50 Required Building 1800 162 Bldgs. 1900,2000.2100, 3G - 244.215 Sq. ft. 30% Office 73,264.5 7 300 = 245 20% Manufacturing 48,843.07500 = 98 50% Warehouse 122,107.57800 - 153 Required 1900/2000/2100/3G 496 Total Parking Spaces Required for Existing Buildings 657 Total Provided (not including common area parking) 592 Required Parking to be Deducted from (65) existing common area parking Total Existing Common Area Parking Spaces 193 Less Deduction for Shortage of Required Parking - 65 Unallocated Common Area Parking 128 Proposed Building Square Footage for Parcel3B - 72,174 49% Retail of Ground Floor 28,2937200 = 142 Remainder of Ground Floor (51 %) 29,447 ~ 500 = 59 Mezzanine (25% of Ground Floor 14,4357800) ..l.!!. Required Bldg. 3B 219 Proposed on 3B 147 Required Parking to be Deducted from existing unallocated common area parking (72) Unallocated Common Area Parking 128 Less Deduction for Parcel3B - 72 Remaining Un allocated Common Area Parking +56 Proposed Additional Common Area Parking to be Constructed on 39 22 Total Un allocated Common Area 78 Parking Pool Remaining