REVIEW COMMENTS
1st REVIEW COMMENTS
Maior Site Plan Modification
Project name: Woolbright Plaza
File number: MSPM 04-001
Reference: 1 streview plans identified as a Major Site Plan Modification with a March 12, 2004Planning and
Zoning Department date stamp marking
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments: None
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
1. All comments requiring changes and/or corrections to the plans shall be
reflected on all appropriate sheets.
2. Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate additional
comments. Acceptance of these plans during the TRC process does not
ensure that additional comments may not be generated by the Commission
and at permit review.
3. Provide written and graphic scales on all sheets.
4. The Gumbo Limbo proposed adjacent to the dumpster enclosure may need to
be relocated to provide vertical clearance for Solid Waste pickup.
5. It is recommended that the ten mahoganies proposed along the west buffer
wall be placed the maximum feasible distance from the wall to prevent
heaving of the wall and to allow for maintenance, or substitute clusters of
palm trees which provide equivalent canopy to the shade trees.
6. It is recommended that the four mahoganies proposed along the south
property line be located in such a manner as not to conflict with the existing
black olives to the south.
7. It may be necessary to replace or relocate large canopy trees adjacent to light
fixtures to eliminate future shadowing on the parking surface (LDR, Chapter
23, Article II, Section A.l.b).
UTILITIES
Comments:
8. All utility easements shall be shown on the site plan and landscape plans (as
1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS
04/07/04
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
well as the Water and Sewer Plans) so that we may determine which
appurtenances, trees or shrubbery may interfere with utilities. In general,
palm trees will be the only tree species 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 easement in the foreseeable
future. The LDR, 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.
9. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.C.3.4. requires the conservation of potable
water. As other sources are readily available City water shall not be allowed
for irrigation.
FIRE
Comments: None
POLICE
Comments: None
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments:
10. Add to the submittal a partial elevation view drawing of the proposed
perimeter wall. Identify the type of wall material and the type of material that
supports the wall, including the typical distance between supports. Also,
provide a typical section view drawing of the wall that includes the depth that
the wall supports are below finish grade and the height that the wall is above
finish grade. The location and height of the wall shall comply with the wall
regulations specified in the Zoning Code.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments:
11. Original condition #4S,initiated by the City Commission, was intended to
increase the size and quantity of the trees and landscape materials along the
west property line. These larger trees and vegetation would create a visual
buffer between the proposed one and four story buildings and the existing
residential neighborhood west of this commercial project site, similar to the
screening provided by the mature canopy trees existing between this same
residential neighborhood and the existing office project to the south. Staff
1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS
04/07/04
3
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
recommends that he applicant work with the city forester during permitting
and installation to ensure that the drive-thru operation, lighting and signage
is adequately screened with landscape material.
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
12. This major site plan modification request is to amend condition of approval
#45 from COUS 01-007. Condition of approval #45 states, "Along the west
landscape buffer within the utility easement, the applicant shall replace the
proposed Sabal Palm trees with Royal Palm trees (at same specifications).
In addition, the Areca Palm trees and appropriate shrub material shall be
installed at a height that will function as a significant lower-to-midlevel
visual buffer. The landscape material proposed in said west landscape
buffer shall be continued to the southwest corner of the subject site. The
West Indies Mahogany trees proposed on the west landscape buffer shall be
installed at a more "mature" height and will be planted tip-to-tip. A
mixture of "mature" Royal Palm trees and "mature" Live Oak trees shall
be installed along the north and east property lines". The remaining 44
conditions of approval would still be applicable.
13. As with any request for major site plan modification, a new signed and
sealed survey (within 6 months) is required. Copies not permitted.
14. The proposed survey shows a new property line that separates Parcel "A"
from Parcel "B". Staff does not recognize this line because the original
survey (that was submitted with COUS 01-007) showed the subject property
as one (1) parcel. Approval of the proposed survey submitted with this
request for major site plan modification implies that the project meets
setbacks, parking, lot coverage, cross-parking, cross-access, etc. More
information would be required for staff to make this determination.
15. The landscape plan that was last reviewed and approved by the City
Commission was dated November 11, 2002. These are the officially
recognized plans despite any changes that have been made during the
permitting process. Therefore, the proposed landscape plan (dated March 9,
2004) will be compared with the ones approved by the City Commission.
16. The buffer wall shall not abridge any easement rights unless specifically
approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works. The wall shall be
setback at least two (2) feet from the adjoining property line (Chapter 2,
Section 4.L.).
17. The intent of the buffer wall is to function as a "barrier" as defined by
Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 2.B.3 of the Land Development Regulations.
The wall shall be no less than six (6) feet in height and combined with a
1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS
04/07/04
4
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
continuous hedge or a minimum of two hedge plants within a "pod" placed
on the outside of the wall and spaced every 10 lineal feet.
18. Provide a detail of the proposed buffer wall. The detail should include the
dimensions, materials used, and color(s). The wall should resemble, with
respect to color and materials, the design of the principal buildings and be
integrated with other site elements (Chapter 9, Section lO.E.3.).
19. On the landscape plan, ensure that the plant quantities match between the
tabular data and the graphic illustration.
20. All trees, if proposed as trees, must be at least 12 feet in height and three (3)
caliper inches at the time of their installation (Chapter 7.5, Article II,
Section S.C.2.). This would apply to the Silver Buttonwood, Japanese Fern
Palm, and Glacous Cassia trees.
21. According to Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section S.D. of the Land Development
Regulations, trees cannot be spaced more than 30 feet apart if planted within
landscape buffers that are adjacent to rights-of-way (i.e. Congress Avenue
and Woolbright Road). Clustering of trees is permitted, however, the
proposed plan shows large gaps between the clusters and this does not meet
the intent of the code. Add more trees to "fill in the gaps".
22. Staff recommends that the parking lot pole lights west of the building be
reduced in height from the proposed 30 foot height, which can be easily
screened from the residential property to the west by the proposed
landscaping, or that landscaping height and spactng improved to
appropriately screen these 30 foot taIllight fixtures.
MWR/elj
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Woolbright Plaza\MSPM 04-001\1ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 04-097
TO: Ed Breese
Principal Planner
FROM: Timothy K. Large ~
TRC Member/Building Divisio~
DATE: April 28, 2004
SUBJECT: Project - Woolbright Plaza
File No. - MSPM 04-001
The Building Division has no issues with these site plan modifications.
tkl:bf
S:IDevelopmentlBuildingl TRCI TRC 20041Woolbright Plaza
Page 1 of 1
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Plannin2: Memorandum: Forester / Environmentalist
Ed Breese, Principal Planner
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester / Environmentalist
Woolbright Plaza Tract B
Major Site Plan Modification- I st Review
MSPM 04-001
March 29,2004
Kjh
File
I recommend that Condition of Approval Number 45 remain (unmodified) as originally
required by the City Commission.
This condition, initiated by the City Commission, is to increase the quantity and size of
the trees and landscape materials along the West property line. These larger trees and
vegetation will create a visual barrier between the proposed two & four story buildings
and the existing residential neighborhood West of this commercial project site.
/
.""
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 04-052
TO:
Michael W. Rumpf, Director, Planning and Zoning
FROM:
Laurinda Logan, P.E., Senior Engineer
March 24, 2004 ( \
Review Comments .:~
Major Site Plan Modification - 1 st Review
Woolbright Plaza
File No. MSPM 04-001
DATE:
RE:
The above referenced Site Plans, received on March 16, 2004, was reviewed for Public Works,
Engineering, and Utilities against the requirements outlined in the City of Boynton Beach Code of
Ordinances. Following are our comments with the appropriate Code and Land Development Regulations
(LOR) referenced.
ENGINEERING
1. All comments requiring changes and/or corrections to the plans shall be reflected on all appropriate
sheets.
2. Please note that changes or revIsions to these plans may generate additional comments.
Acceptance of these plans during the TRC process does not ensure that additional comments may
not be generated by the Commission and at permit review.
3. Provide written and graphic scales on all sheets.
4. The Gumbo Limbo proposed adjacent to the dumpster enclosure may need to be relocated to
provide vertical clearance for Solid Waste pickup.
5. It is recommended that the ten mahoganies proposed along the west buffer wall be placed a
minimum of 10ft. from the wall to prevent heaving of the wall and to allow for maintenance.
6. It is recommended that the four mahoganies proposed along the west property line be relocated
away from the existing black olives to the south.
7. It may be necessary to replace or relocate large canopy trees adjacent to light fixtures to eliminate
future shadowing on the parking surface (LOR, Chapter 23, Article II, Section A.1.b).
UTILITIES
8. All utility easements shall be shown on the site plan and landscape plans (as well as the Water and
Sewer Plans) so that we may determine which appurtenances, trees or shrubbery may interfere with
utilities. In general, palm trees will be the only tree species 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 easement 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.
Dept. of Public Works, Engineering Division Memo No. 04-052
RE: Woolbright Plaza, Major Site Plan Modification -1st Review, MSPM 04-001
March 24, 2004
Page 2
9. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.C.3.4. requires the conservation of potable water. As other sources
are readily available City water shall not be allowed for irrigation.
LL/aa
Cc: Jeffrey R. Livergood, P.E., Director, Public Works (via e-mail)
Peter V. Mazzella, Deputy Utility Director, Utilities
H. David Kelley, Jr., P.E./ P.S.M., City Engineer, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail)
Glenda Hall, Maintenance Supervisor, Public Works/Forestry & Grounds Division
Larry Quinn, Solid Waste Manager, Public Works/Solid Waste
Kenneth Hall, Engineering Plans Analyst, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail)
File
S:\Engineering\Office Associates File\Logan\04-052 - Rumpf - Woolbright Plaza.doc
FROM: Timothy K. Large
TRC Member/Build
Li5, df Acronvms/Abbreviations:
ASCE - American Society of Civil
Engineers
BBA - Boynton Beach Amendments
CBB - City of Boynton Beach
CBBCO - City of Boynton Beach
Code of Ordinances
CBBCPP - City of Boynton Beach
Comprehensive Plan Policy
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
EPA - Environment Protection Agency
FBC - Florida Building Code
FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map
F.S. - Florida Statutes
LOR - Land Development Regulations
NEC - National Electric Code
NFPA - National Fire Prevention Assn
NGVD - National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929
SFWMD - South Florida Water
Management District
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 04-060
TO: Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning and Z
DATE: March 25, 2004
SUBJECT: Project - Woolbright Plaza Tract B
File No. - MSPM 04-001 - 1st review
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.
Buildina Division (Site Specific and Permit Comments) - Timothv K. Larae (561) 742-6352
1 Add to the submittal a partial elevation view drawing of the proposed perimeter wall.
Identify the type of wall material and the type of material that supports the wall, including
the typical distance between supports. Also, provide a typical section view drawing of the
wall that includes the depth that the wall supports are below finish grade and the height that
the wall is above finish grade. The location and height of the wall shall comply with the wall
regulations specified in the Zoning Code.
bf
S:\Development\Bui/ding\ TRC\ TRC 2004\Woolbright Plaza Tract B
Page 1 of 1
_/'
clfY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
Michael W. Rumpf DATE:
Dir. of Planning & Zoning
3/18/04
FILE: MSPM 04-00 I
FROM:
Off. John Huntington
Police Department
CPTED Practitioner
SUBJECT: W oolbrighr Plaza Tract B
REFERENCES: Site Plan
ENCLOSURES:
I have viewed the above building plans and have the following comments:
No Comments
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
Fire and Life Safety Division
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
For review of:
MSPM 04-001 1st review
.~
Woolbriqht Plaza
1609 S. Conqress Ave.
~ Rodqer Kemmer, Fire Protection Enqineer
Project Name and Address:
Reviewed by:
Department:
Fire and Life Safety
Phone:
(561) 742-6753
Comments to:
Sherie Coale bv email on 3/22/04
_AC'~
SC+"")
V~ p "lL1
/
esign documents shall demonstrate compliance with LDR Chapter 6,
S tion 16, which provides requirements for hydrants. Hydrants in. lv.J rZ . /'
com rcial applications shall be no more than 300 ft. apart and the r.."
remote art of any structure shall be no more than 200 ft. from a
hydrant. nnections shall be to mains no less than 6 inches in diameter.
In addition to omestic requirements at a residual pressure of not less
than 20 psi, a fi flow of at least 1500 gpm is required. (No civil plans
were provided)
Design documents wher nderground water mains and hydrants are to
be provided, must demonstr e that they will be installed, completed, and
in service prior to construction rk per the Florida Fire Prevention Code,
(2000) Section 29-2.3.2.
Emergency access shall be provided a e start of a project and be
maintained throughout construction per th lorida Fire Prevention Code,
Section 3-5, and NFPA 241, (1996) Safeguali . g Construction, Alteration,
and Demolition Operations, Section 5-4.3. Eme ency access roadways
must be firm and unyielding, having a bearing valu f not less than 40
(i.e. LBR 40), compacted to 98% of the maximum den 'ty as determined
by AASHTO T180, in accordance with the FDOT Standa Specifications
for Road and Bridge Construction (2000) Division II, Sectio 160,
STABILIZING. A copy of the test results shall be provided an accepted
prior to above grade construction. Testing frequency shall not b ess
than that speCifi~the FDOT Sampling. Testing and Reporting Guide,
or as required by the ~ Marshal. The roadway shall be maintained free
from ruts, depressions, a~mage, and at the required bearing value for
the duration of it's intended us~
City Ordi~Section 9-6, 3. /7-11 requires approved automatic fire
sprinkler .~y~t;~ oughout all buildings or structures regardless of the
type of construction tti re in excess of 12,000 square feet per floor.
cc: Steve Gale
Bob Borden
f
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
PROJECT NAME/NO:
REQUEST:
. ,"~' ,
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 04-079
,~ ..;
L (/
/ '\
..../'
!
, 't"'.... .~' "
~ '
v
, . .'''" " ~. '
~J"" \.
j
" .;"'\:
I
, I
(~ /
( c
STAFF REPORT
!
{J. ", , t J
l
Mayor and City Commission
Michael Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
Eric Lee Johnson, AICP
Planner
April 21, 2004
Woolbright Plaza / MSPM 04-001
Major Site Plan Modification
Property Owner:
Applicant:
Agent:
Location:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
R.S.B. Ventures, Incorporated
Mr. H.P. Tomkins, Jr. / H.P.T. Consultants, Inc.
Mr. H.P. Tomkins, Jr. / H.P.T. Consultants, Inc.
Southwest corner of Woolbright Road and Congress Avenue
(see Exhibit "A" - Location Map)
Existing Land Use/Zoning:
Local Retail Commercial (LRC) / Community Commercial
(C-3)
Proposed Land Use/Zoning:
No change proposed
Proposed Use:
Acreage:
Adjacent Uses:
North:
South:
14,490 square foot drug store with drive-through facility,
4800 square feet of retail / commercial, and 40,000 square
feet of office / retail
215,393 square feet (4.945 acres)
Right-of-way of Woolbright Road, then property classified Local Retail Commercial
(LRC), zoned Community Commercial (C-3), and developed with a Mobil service
station;
Developed property classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC), zoned Community
Commercial (C-3) and occupied by Woolbright Corporate Center;
Staff Report - Woolbright Plaza (MSPM 04-001)
Memorandum No PZ 04-079)
Page 2
J .
/yf^.c'..'
" -"j
l~/ /. '"
rv' t L.! ,
.f~-'
,.. '") f
--'
'.'< ,( ,. .....' <" 1',
,.
^ .
,. ,
rc
I J' '. 1("
East:
Right-of-way of Congress Avenue, then property classified Local Retail Commercial
(LRC), zoned Community Commercial (C-3) developed with an Amoco service
station, farther southeast is property classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC),
zoned Planned Commercial Development (PCD) developed as Boynton Shoppes;
and
West:
Quail Run water detention area, farther west is developed property classified Low
Density Residential (LDR), zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and occupied by
Quail Run Villas.
BACKGROUND
Proposal:
The Walgreen conditional use / major site plan modification (COUS 01-007) known
as Woolbright Plaza was approved by the City Commission on March 5, 2002. The
project intent was to raze a vacant 5,645 square foot bank and replace it with two
(2) new buildings, namely, a one-story and a four-story building. The developer
has already demolished the vacant bank building that once stood in the center of
the parcel and is now in the process of constructing the one (1) story drug store /
commercial building totaling 19,290 square feet. It will consist of a Walgreen's
Drug Store (14,490 square feet) and 4,800 square feet of commercial/retail area.
The conditional use review and approval was required for the Walgreen's Drug
Store drive-through feature. The four-story building was approved for a total of
40,000 square feet in area. The first floor (10,000 square feet) will have
commercial/retail uses while floors two through four (30,000 square feet) will be
used solely for offices purposes.
According to the previous staff report (COUS 01-007), the entire project is to be
built throughout three (3) phases; however, all infrastructure, including
landscaping, parking, etc. will be completed by the end of the first phase prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Also, a buffer wall is required on the
subject property because it is zoned commercial and directly abuts residentially-
zoned property to the west. The wall would be placed within the west landscape
buffer. This west landscape buffer coincides with a utility easement creating an
obstacle for proper placement of the required wall. According to Chapter 2, Section
4.L. of the Land Development Regulations, a buffer wall cannot abridge or be
constructed over existing utilities. The Utilities Division commented as follows:
"The Utilities Department does not approve of a CBS screen wall or continuous heavy
landscape visual screen barrier within its utility easement along the west property line of this
project. Palm tree c1uster(s), staggered on either side of the existing water main may be
planted to satisfy the screening intent. However, the Utilities Department will field locate
the water main at the time of landscape planting to ensure that no trees are installed that
would be detrimental to the existing water main. Low shrubbery is permissible provided
that the applicant executes a "Hold Harmless" agreement in the event the Department is
required to excavate any portion of the utility easement to repair and / or replace any
portion of the existing water main that would damage and / or destroy said palm tree
clustering or said low shrubbery".
"
.
Staff Report - Woolbright Plaza (MSPM 04-001)
Memorandum No PZ 04-079)
Page 3
At that time, staff would not allow a buffer wall within the utility easement resulting
in the request for a variance (ZNCV 02-009) to omit the wall with a commitment to
enhance the landscaping within the landscape buffer / utility easement. Staff
reviewed the request and recommended approval with the following conditions:
"With respect to consistency, this variance approval is contingent upon the proposed west
buffer detail as shown in Exhibit "D", This buffer shall include but not be limited to planting
material such as Areca Palm, Sabal Palmetto, and Cocoplum hedge"; and
"The planting material such as trees (Areca Palms and Sabal Palmetto) shall be a minimum
of twenty (20) feet in height. The proposed Cocoplum hedge shall be a minimum of four
(4) feet in height at time of installation".
On August 27,2002, the Planning & Development Board reviewed the request and
voted 6 to 1 to recommend denial. Initially, the variance request was scheduled for
the September 2, 2002 City Commission public hearing. However, the applicant
postponed the hearing until the September 17, 2002 meeting. At that meeting,
there was much discussion regarding the case (ZNCV 02-009) and the City
Commission implored the applicant to continue to work with staff on a resolution,
by possibly relocating the wall outside the easement area and preferably without
the loss of parking spaces. The City Commission also remanded the variance
request to the Planning & Development Board. The applicant withdrew the
variance request when all parties found an acceptable location for the wall along
the easement. However, when the conditional use (COUS 01-007) application was
originally reviewed and approved two (2) years ago (prior to the variance request),
the City Commission made the following comment regarding the landscape buffer:
"Condition of Approval #45: Along the west landscape buffer within the utility easement, I
the applicant shall replace the proposed Sabal Palm trees with Royal Palm trees (at same
specifications). In~addition, the Areca Palm trees and appropriate shrub material shall be cZ
installed at a height that will function as a significant lower-to-midlevel visual buffer. The
landscape material proposed in said west landscape buffer shall be continued to the
southwest corner of the subject site. The Vjest Indies Mahogany trees proposed on the
west landscape buffer shall be installed at a more "mature" height and will be planted tip-to- 3
~ A mixture of "mature" Royal Palm trees and "mature" Live Oak trees shall be installed
along the north and east property lines".
Assuming that this condition was warranted in lieu of a buffer wall, the applicant
therefore, justifies this request to omit this condition and reduce the landscaping to
the minimum required by code now that the wall would be erected. Therefore, this
major site plan modification (MSPM 04-001) represents the applicant's request to
officially remove Condition of Approval #45, to incorporate a wall into the design of
the west landscape buffer, and to revise the landscape plan accordingly. Staff's
analysis of the new design and proposed plant material is outlined in the
"landscaping" section of this staff report.
Site Characteristic: The subject property is one (1) vacant lot totaling 4.95 acres. This large
irregularly-shaped parcel does not contain any vegetation or species of special
concern. The survey shows that Tract "B" would be separate from the remaining
portion of the property. Staff does not recognize this property as two (2) separate
parcels. Although the property owner may want to subdivide the property in the
,-
Staff Report - Woolbright Plaza (MSPM 04-001)
Memorandum No PZ 04-079)
Page 4
future, a subdivision of this nature would require a replat. Only during the
replatting process, would staff have the opportunity to review the subdivision for
compliance with the C-3 zoning district requirements and subsequent implicit
limitations such as parking, setbacks, and landscaping.
ANALYSIS
Concurrency:
Traffic: The proposed change has no impact on traffic concurrency.
Drainage: Conceptual drainage information was provided for the City's review when the
project was reviewed and approved in 2002. The Engineering Division
recommended the review of specific drainage solutions be deferred until time of
permit review. The proposed change has no impact on drainage.
School: The proposed change has no impact on school concurrency.
Driveways: No change is proposed to any driveways with this modification.
Parking Facility: No change is proposed to the parking areas with this modification.
Landscaping: Currently, the site is only partially developed. The proposed pervious or
"landscaped" area would equal 1.59 acres or 32% of the total site. The change in
landscaped area between this plan and the last approved plan would be
insignificant.
The original landscape plan was approved with 103 shade trees, 82 palm trees, and
2,891 shrub and groundcover plants. The plant list of the proposed plan indicates a
total of 96 shade trees, 90 palm trees, and over 2,881 shrub and groundcover
plants. The tabulations show that 80% of the trees and 60% of the shrubs would
be native, therefore, in compliance with the City's 50% native plants requirement.
In addition to the continuous row of Redtip Cocoplum hedges, the west landscape
buffer originally contained the following: 13 Sabal palm, 15 Areca palm'D
Montgomery palm, 1 Purple Glory tree, 8 Sweet Mahogany, 1 Live Oak, 2 Gumbo
Limbo, 30 Sword Fern, 22 Stokes Dwarf, 55 Saw palmetto, and 28 King's Mant
plants. However, the proposed landscape plan shows that a six (6) foot high buffer
wall would run along the entire length of the west property line. In addition to the
Redtip Cocoplum proposed on the inside of the wall for one-half of the west
property line, it shows 10 Sweet Mahogany, 18 Sabal palm, 122 Dwarf Firebush71
and 35 Fakahatchee Grass plants. Although less plant material is proposed with~
the west landscape buffer, it would still meet minimum code requirements in
conjunction with the buffer wall. However, the landscape plan also indicates
changes to the plant species, quantities, and tree spacing within the north and east
landscape buffers, adjacent to the rights-of-way. The plan does not meet code in
this respect and would have to be modified to comply (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions
of Approval). A cluster of Royal Palm trees is also shown at the northeast corner of
the subject property. The City Commission recommended approval of the original
~
Staff Report - Woolbright Plaza (MSPM 04-001)
Memorandum No PZ 04-079)
Page 5
project with condition #45 also requiring that a mixture of mature Royal Palm and
Live Oak trees be installed along the north and east property lines, not just
exclusively at the northeast corner of the property as currently proposed by this
plan. Therefore, in this respect, staff feels that the proposed landscape plan does
not meet the intent of the City Commission's original (#45) condition of approval.
The applicant has not provided justification for the changes made to these other
two buffers, or the reason for partial compliance with this aspect of the original
condition (#45) that is unrelated to the west landscape buffer.
Buildings and Site: No changes to the buildings or site are proposed with this modification other than
what is already described in the "landscaping section" of this staff report.
Design:
No change to the design of the site is proposed with this modification.
Signage:
No change to the project signage is proposed with this modification.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds the proposed revisions to be the minimum to both comply with code standards, and provide
appropriate screening to the adjacent residences, when all conditions listed in Exhibit "c" are met. Any
additional conditions recommended by the City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the
Conditions of Approval.
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECfS\Woolbright Plaza\MSPM 04-001 \Staff Report.doc
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 04-068
TO:
Ed Breese, Principal Planner, Planning and Zoning
FROM:
Laurinda Logan, P.E., Senior Engineer
/-\/-JH 20 :,lllfH
DATE:
April 20, 2004
RE:
Review Comments
Major Site Plan Modification - 2nd Review
Woolbright Plaza
File No. MSPM 04-001
The above referenced revised plan, received on April 19, 2004, was reviewed against the 1 sl
Review comments provided in Memorandum 04-052. The following revised comments remain
to be addressed:
1. All comments requiring changes and/or corrections to the plans shall be reflected on all
appropriate sheets.
2. Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate additional comments.
Acceptance of these plans during the TRC process does not ensure that additional
comments may not be generated by the Commission and at permit review.
3. The Gumbo Limbo proposed adjacent to the dumpster enclosure may need to be relocated
to provide vertical clearance for Solid Waste pickup. This may be addressed during the
permit process.
4. It is recommended that the four mahoganies proposed along the west property line be
relocated away from the existing black olives to the south. This may be addressed during
the permit process.
5. It may be necessary to replace or relocate large canopy trees adjacent to light fixtures to
eliminate future shadowing on the parking surface (LOR, Chapter 23, Article II, Section
A.1.b).
Please note to the applicant that there is limited space between the proposed wall and west
property line. This may cause problems with maintenance of the mahoganies in the future.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or require additional information regarding
my response.
LL:jam
Cc: Jeffrey R. Livergood, P.E., Director, Public Works (via e-mail)
Peter V. Mazzella, Deputy Utility Director, Utilities
H. David Kelley, Jr., P.E./ P.S.M., City Engineer, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail)
Glenda Hall, Maintenance Supervisor, Public Works/Forestry & Grounds Division
Larry Quinn, Solid Waste Manager, Public Works/Solid Waste
Kenneth Hall, Engineering Plans Analyst, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail)
File
S:\Engineering\Office Associates File\Logan\04-068 MSPM Woolbright Plaza - 2nd Review.doc
,.
1 st REVIEW COMMENTS
Maior Site Plan Modification
Project name: Woolbright Plaza
File number: MSPM 04-001
Reference: 1 streview plans identified as a Maior Site Plan Modification with a March 12, 2004Planning and
Zoning Department date stamp marking.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments: None
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
1. All comments requiring changes and/or corrections to the plans shall be /
,
reflected on all appropriate sheets. Plans revised as per comments
2. Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate additional /
comments. Acceptance of these plans during the TRC process does not
ensure that additional comments may not be generated by the Commission
and at permit review. Acknowledge comment.
3. Provide written and graphic scales on all sheets. Provided. V
(9 The Gumbo Limbo proposed adjacent to the dumpster enclosure may need to /
be relocated to provide vertical clearance for Solid Waste pickup. N fA does
not pertain to the west property line landscaping.
S. It is recommended that the ten mahoganies proposed along the west buffer /
wall be placed the maximum feasible distance from the wall to prevent
heaving of the wall and to allow for maintenance, or substitute clusters of
palm trees which provide equivalent canopy to the shade trees. These trees
have been relocated the maximum feasible distance from the wall.
@) It is recommended that the four mahoganies proposed along the south /
property line be located in such a manner as not to conflict with the existing
black olives to the south. N fA does not pertain to the west property line
landscaping.
(j) It may be necessary to replace or relocate large canopy trees adjacent to light /
fixtures to eliminate future shadowing on the parking surface (LDR, Chapter
23, Article II, Section A.1.b). N fA does not pertain to the west property line
landscaping.
UTILITIES
~
1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS 1
04/19/04
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments:
8. All utility easements shall be shown on the site plan and landscape plans (as
well as the Water and Sewer Plans) so that we may determine which
appurtenances, trees or shrubbery may interfere with utilities. In general,
palm trees will be the only tree species 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 easement in the foreseeable
future. The LDR, 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. I:asements are now shown on the
landscape plan.
9. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.C.3.4. requires the conservation of potable
water. As other sources are readily available City water shall not be allowed
for irrigation. Inigation will be by a well or water from the adjacent lake.
FIRE
Comments: None
POLICE
Comments: None
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments:
10. Add to the submittal a partial elevation view drawing of the proposed j
perimeter wall. Identify the type of wall material and the type of material that
supports the wall, including the typical distance between supports. Also,
provide a typical section view drawing of the wall that includes the depth that
the wall supports are below finish grade and the height that the wall is above
finish grade. The location and height of the wall shall comply with the wall
regulations specified in the Zoning Code. The details of the wall were
previously submitted and there are no changes being made to the wall.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments:
d/ ~ 11. Original condition #4S,initiated by the City Commission, was intended to
ff/
..
1ST REVIEW COMMENTS 1
04/19/04
3
DEPARTMENTS
increase the size and quantity of the trees and landscape materials along the
west property line. These larger trees and v.~~ would create a visual
buffer between the proposed one and ~i8trlIY. uildings and the existing
residential neighborhood west ofthisfbmm cial project site, similar to the
screening provided by the m~j1:~o ees existing between this same
residential neighborhood and~ . tng office project to the south. Staff
recommends that he applicant with the city forester during permitting
and installation to ensure tha e drive-thru operation, lighting and signage
is ade uatel screened with landsca e material. Acknowled Je comment.
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
12. This major site plan modification request is to amend condition of approval
#45 from COUS 01-007. Condition of approval #45 states, "Along the west
landscape buffer within the utility easement, the applicant shall replace the
proposed Sabal Palm trees with Royal Palm trees (at same specifications).
In addition, the Areca Palm trees and appropriate shrub material shall be
installed at a height that will function as a significant lower-to-midlevel
visual buffer. The landscape material proposed in said west landscape
buffer shall be continued to the southwest corner of the subject site. The
West Indies Mahogany trees proposed on the west landscape buffer shall be
installed at a more "mature" height and will be planted tip-to-tip. A
mixture of "mature" Royal Palm trees and "mature" Live Oak trees shall
be installed along the north and east property lines". The remaining 44
conditions of approval would still be applicable. Acknowledge comment.
13. As with any request for major site plan modification, a new signed and
sealed survey (within 6 months) is required. Copies not permitted. Updated
surve s have been re uested from the surve or.
14. The proposed survey shows a new property line that separates Parcel "A"
from Parcel "B". Staff does not recognize this line because the original
survey (that was submitted with COUS 01-007) showed the subject property
as one (1) parcel. Approval of the proposed survey submitted with this
request for major site plan modification implies that the project meets
setbacks, parking, lot coverage, cross-parking, cross-access, etc. More
information would be required for staff to make this determination. The
parcel designations are for leasing purposes only. There will not be any
conve ance of the arcels to an other arties.
15. The landscape plan that was last reviewed and approved by the City
Commission was dated November 11, 2002. These are the officially
recognized plans despite any changes that have been made during the
permitting process. Therefore, the proposed landscape plan (dated March 9,
2004) will be com ared with the ones a roved b the City Commission.
INCLUDE REJECT
I
~V\{t. ~
J-ck'~
.
DEPARTMENTS
INCLUDE REJECT
Acknowledge comment.
The buffer wall shall not abridge any easement rights unless specifically
approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works. The wall shall be
setback at least two (2) feet from the adjoining property line (Chapter 2,
Section 4.L.). The location of the wall was previously approved by the
Uti lit De t.
17. The intent of the buffer wall is to functio a "barrier" as defined by
Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 2.B.3 of and Development Regulations.
The wall shall be no less than six feet in height and combined with a
continuous hedge or a minimu f two hedge plants within a "pod" placed
on the outside of the wall a spaced every 10 lineal feet. Plans revi sed to
com 1 with this conditi
Provide a detail of the proposed buffer wall. The detail should include the
dimensions, materials used, and color(s). The wall should resemble, with
respect to color and materials, the design of the principal buildings and be
integrated with other site elements (Chapter 9, Section lO.E.3.). The wall
was reviousl a roved and there are no chan ~es bein made to the wall.
19. On the landscape plan, ensure that the plant quantities match between the
tabular data and the a hie illustration. Quantities are in a rreement.
20. All trees, ifproposed as trees, must be at least 12 feet in height and three (3)
caliper inches at the time of their installation (Chapter 7.5, Article II,
Section S.C.2.). This would apply to the Silver Buttonwood, Japanese Fern
Palm, and Glacous Cassia trees. Plans revised to com I with the comment.
/2 If,
/ /
Zy
21 According to Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section S.D. of the Land Development
Regulations, trees cannot be spaced more than 30 feet apart if planted within
landscape buffers that are adjacent to rights-of-way (i.e. Congress Avenue
and Woolbright Road). Clustering of trees is permitted, however, the
proposed plan shows large gaps between the clusters and this does not meet
the intent of the code. Add more trees to "fill in the gaps". N / A does not
ertain to the west ro ert line landsca in~.
Staff recommends that the parking lot pole lights west of the building be
reduced in height from the proposed 30 foot height, which can be easily
screened from the residential property to the west ~ ~ proposed
landscaping, or that landscaping heigh and f~~iFlg '''~mproved to
appropriately screen these 30 foot tallligh lxtures. N / A does not pertain
to the west property line landscapin
(i.e.... -t(~e clus-(~r-s fo.l\jij -9--.. .;2C:; ~ .30')
MWRlelj
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Woolbright Plaza\MSPM 04-001\1ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
...
,
April 16, 2004
Michael Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Dept.
City of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach, FL
r;:'~~"7
\ \ '
. "
I, j
fiPR \ 6 ?0rJ!1
Re: Woolbright Plaza
Mr. Rumpf,
This is a brief narrative of the changes made to the above referenced plan
following comments made by staff on April 7 2004.
1. # 3 Engineering - Provided written and graphic scales.
2. # 5 Engineering - Added a root barrier for the ten mahoganies at the
south portion of western wall. Also, moved these trees to the outside of
the wall to prevent heaving of asphalt parking areas
3. # 17 Planning and Zoning - Replaced Hamelia clusters with continuous
Hamelia hedge
Thank You,
~~~~
Susan Heyen
A.Grant Thornbrough and Assoc.
" --
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 04-068
TO:
TRC MEMBERS
Rudyer Kemmer, Fire ProteCTIon Ellylneer
Kevin Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist
~oRn Huntingtoo, P-oliceDepartmeffi---.,
---t'1.1Javl~.lr. Util~htision
, Timothy K. Large, Building DIvIsion
John Wildner, Parks Division
--Lauril.da Logan, Engineer~ SepaRment
Maxime Ducoste-Amedee, Planning Department
Eric JORI"ISOII, Pldlll.illg DepC:lI Llller.t
FROM:
Ed Breese
Principal Planner
DATE:
March 15, 2004
RE:
SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES
15T Review - Major Site Plan Modification
Project Woolbright Plaza Tract B
Location - 1609 S. Congress Avenue
Agent H.P.Tompkins
File No. - MSPM 04-001
Find attached for your review the plans and exhibits for the above-referenced project. Please review the
plans and exhibits and transmit formal written comments. Comments should be made available
via e-mail to Sherie Coale and I no later than 5:00 P.M. on Mondav. March 29. 2004. When
preparing your comments, please separate them into two categories; code deficiencies with code
sections referenced and recommendations that you believe will enhance the project.
Adhering to the following review guidelines will promote a comprehensive review and enable the
applicant to efficiently obtain Technical Review Committee approval:
1. Use the review standards specified in Part IV, Land Development Regulations, Site Plan Review
and the applicable code sections of the Code of Ordinances to review and formulate comments.
2. The documents submitted for the project were determined to be substantially complete with the
exception of traffic data, however, if the data provided to meet the submittal requirements is
insufficient to properly evaluate and process the project based on the review standards or the
documents show code deficiencies, additional data and/or corrections should be requested by the
reviewer by contacting Eric Johnson, or myself.
3. Each comment shall reference the section of the code that is incorrectly depicted on the
documents.
4. When a TRC Member finds a code deficiency that is outside of his/her review responsibility, the
comment and the specific code section may be included in their review comments with the name of
the appropriate TRC Member that is responsible for the review specified.
t - .
Page 2
5. If a TRC member finds the plans acceptable, he/she shall forward a memorandum, within the time
frame stated above, to me. The memorandum shall state that the plans are approved and that they
do not have any comments on the plans submitted for review and that they recommend the project
be forwarded through the approval process.
All comments shall be typed, addressed and transmitted or e-mailed to Sherie Coale and I for distribution
to the applicant. Please include the name and phone number of the reviewer on this memorandum or e-
mail. First review comments will be transmitted to the applicant along with a list of Technical Review
Committee (TRC) members.
EB:sc
Attachment
XC: Steve Gale, Fire Marshal
Bob Borden, Deputy Fire Marshal
Marshall Gage, Police Department
Pete Mazzella, Assistant Dir. Of Utilities
Jeffrey Livergood. Public Works Director
Don Johnson, Building Division
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Woolbright Plaza\MSPM 04-001\TRC Memo for 1st Plans Review .doc
Revised 1/14/02
Johnson, Eric
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Johnson, Eric
Friday, January 30, 2004 3:35 PM
Greene, Quintus
Rumpf, Michael; Ducoste-Amedee, Maxime
Woolbright Plaza buffer wall
Quintus,
The Walgreens conditional use / new site plan (COUS 01-007) project known as Woolbright Plaza was
approved by the City Commission on March 5, 2002. A buffer wall is required along the west property line
because the subject property (zoned C-3) abuts residential property. The problem is that an existing utility
easement runs most of the entire length of the western property line, that area where the wall is required.
The following conditions of approval pertained directly to this issue:
# 4. Utilities Department. The Utilities Department does not approve of a CBS screen wall or continuous heavy
landscape visual screen barrier within its utility easement along the west property line of this project. Palm tree cluster(s)
and staggered on either side of the existing water main may be planted to satisfy the screening intent. However, the
Utilities Department will field locate the water main at the time of landscape planting to ensure that no trees are installed
that would be detrimental to the existing water main. Low shrubbery is permissible provided that the applicant executes a
"Hold Harmless" agreement in the event the Department is required to excavate any portion of the utility easement to
repair and/or replace any portion of the existing water main that would damage and/or destroy said palm tree clustering or
said low shrubbery. The aspects of this condition relative to the density of landscaping materials are superseded by
Commission Condition #45.
# 38. Planning & Zoning. A buffer wall is required along the west perimeter buffer where the subject property abuts a
residential district. The buffer wall shall not abridge any easement rights or be constructed over any existing utilities in
any easement area and shall be setback at least two (2) feet from adjoining property lines (Chapter 2, Section 4.L.). The
existing easements may preclude the placement of the buffer wall along the west property line. The applicant will be
required to either obtain a variance to omit the wall or to erect the wall outside the easement area (see Utilities
conditions).
# 39. Planning & Zoning. Staff recommends that in the southwest corner of the site along the west perimeter landscape
buffer where there is no utility easement, the West Indies Mahogany trees shall be spaced closer than 30 feet apart as
currently proposed. See Commission condition #45 relative to spacing of mahogany trees.
#45. City Commission. Along the west landscape buffer within the utility easement, the applicant shall replace the
proposed Sabal Palm trees with Royal Palm trees (at same specifications). In addition, the Areca Palm trees and
appropriate shrub material shall be installed at a height that will function as a significant lower- to-midlevel visual buffer.
The landscape material proposed in said west landscape buffer shall be continued to the southwest corner of the subject
site. The West Indies Mahogany trees proposed on the west landscape buffer shall be installed at a more "mature" height
and will be planted tip-to-tip. A mixture of "mature" Royal Palm trees and "mature" Live Oak trees shall be installed
along the north and east property lines.
As you can see from COA #38, the applicant will be required to either obtain a variance to omit the wall or to
erect the wall outside the easement area (see Utilities conditions). In May 2002, the applicant, Mr. Press
Tomkins, submitted a variance request (ZNCV 02-009) to allow a landscape buffer along the north 276 feet of
the western property line in lieu of the required six (6) foot high stucco masonry wall to separate a
commercial district from the abutting residential district. Staff reviewed Mr. Tomkins request and
recommended approval of it with the following conditions:
# 2 Planning & Zoning. With respect to consistency this variance approval is contingent upon the proposed west buffer
detail as shown as Exhibit "D". This buffer shall include but not be limited to planting material such as Areca Palm,
1
Sabal Palmetto and Cocoplum hedge.
# 3. Planning & Zoning. The planting material such as trees (Areca Palms and Sabal Palmetto) shall be a minimum of
twenty (20) feet in height. The proposed Cocoplum hedge shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in height at time of
installation.
The variance request was scheduled for the September 2, 2002 City Commission meeting. However, the
applicant requested to postpone the item until the September 17, 2002 meeting. At that meeting, the City
Commission never voted on the item but instructed the applicant and staff to work together to come up with a
solution to the problem (without the loss of required parking spaces) and redirected the project back to the
Planning & Development Board. As far as I know, the City Commission never approved the variance request
and the project never was re-reviewed by the P&D ever again. The Engineering Division (which originally did
not want the wall located within their utility easement) may have eventually budged on their position and
allowed the wall in the utility easement. However, I would have to ask Dave Kelley about that. In my
opinion, regardless of whether Engineering allowed it or did not allow it within their easement, a buffer wall is
required along the west property line. That is all I know of its status. Thanks,
Eric Johnson
2
COMMISSION APPROVl::LJ
.~
II III
I Ii !
l
I
'I' 'II
jl I ql
~I
!1:IIHIII~;
IIIII II
'1
'~'I I
!IIi i'
1~1'11
1fJn.illi
,II i'II..1I1
II IL"
llll~
'1 .
I
~~0
~000:
"0
. .11
I "III
I: I
'Ii
I,
I
I
t
~:
lUlU
q
n II ~
~
~
~
~ a
~ I
2 ;u ,
~ ~ ft
r
Q~I
CDN~I?[$S A\.'[
i I I . i ~ I ~ ~ ~ i V 6 iI' E t ~
e~*!.;!1 .'i"lt--rrr
,r'lifi.iliJ'lir~"il'fif;i9' ;fni1j"f
fl' ~ 't1~ d~t~~f;1r2Jhh I ' ~~
Jntlt~f lIU!f~ tl!limlf },U jfJI
~8.r.. i-h J ~~J:J "1 11 Ii ~,
~mj [il( Ii tf I ref f fi~ if
I ( i i ~"f (-ft -, "f
f I [ ! If Ii".
~ ~ i
~
~EB
~.
~
..:}..~<'b
~{jJJ
,.'
"0'
J
EXHf'
U III . ;
II lill , 'I
.l! !! !illl
i I~
~
~ . r
J'
~~
E:: !.
= "
Fl
=0
'""
~ ~
-<
'"" /.
= ~,
:I>
= "
~~ Ii Gi i ~Ii :lil
II HI .i I ~i! il;
U,i Iii I,~! iI'
'~III i,1
PI'I'u, i. i!
i II IHl
~ 1 I fl' ! . , t I ~ 8 II ~ I~
".IlI..~a""'a:...,,!~c
~
;1;I~f~r{r~f{(wrmfn{l{r ~
~{I~~ldnHjlil~fdJf~IU I
ijii1~ljfU!f t iWf fur I
nH f Hid J II , i i
n' II" l
di 51 ~ ~
Hlf i, i! ~ II!IIl
ni, 19 a"J_
~XHIBIT "B"
PROF~~En
iji!;:
jlll\j
,
,
,
,
,
,
~
!
~ J
~.~
" 'II llli
........ "1 I'
" ..... I
" .....
....
'10
nb0
. 1108
'10
'11.1,
I, !j'l
'II
"
(.1" ~
1""'''''1 " .
i I"!!i'i!:. I,ll!,
'il'II.I'II' ,'II!
'I h,',I!tli: liGiI
!,Il''I liP
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
....-......
.-"'--
,
,
: ~
\..1 /1
/r::~
( ~
\L-I
...----.....
,
1,\-----
"",...--
,
I
\""'--'-
,
,
,
,
,
"
~!
~~~
II
~
I
CONGRESS AVE.
H I~~~~ m i~
~;. ~~ ~~2 ~~~ ~o
~~ m1m;m ill ~i
u ~m ~~! !s~ m;
i~ ~~ ~:~ ;s1 h
; . : I~
~ i i
~ .
- ~
,. g" ~"> " U. ~j5/i
i~ Ii iei hih !~
~~ Hija HO.. ~
~~ U~I ulg Ii
E ~I ~P!l HQl ~i!
() ih i ~ ~.i 1
~ () f: I~ ~I~ I ii I~
~ / 53;- t~ a;- ~ ~I ;1
~~~ ~ II!; ;1 ~ ~g i!
I ~~~ 1:: & ~~ ~& 8 ~~ h
II ~ ~ -l ~ ~ m
II P 10
il ~ ()
I 1>
~I D
:I~
I
%Z%%:% %:. %
111'!r'J~tl.m r~!lnt Iflemll '; ~ ~ l ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ij j ~ , ; I ~ ~ i 5 ~ ~ i! K t ! j . i ~ a ~ Q B a i ~ I;J!
,t ~,ri!ih 1I11n _l'W'1 s ~ ~ ~
~jt!liJJjfl1 IUI~; l'l"',lf: ~ l ~ $ Ii . , S 9 I f ~,~. ~ Ii . . r ;I ~ . . . .. . . ~ · . . . · . · . · · ~ s ~
fn~":11flrf IU' lill !t' '" ~ -<
'n~dlidlmt iini} ill" HI! i~i iji ~;PFIWPPDiii~;f~vmim;l~moi mFm;FIU;IWlmr:f~:~;J;i ~
ti 1!lln1! jilltti1 ~!~ hiillillu~ ~~ Ii d~l~i{n~!~I~UHr~fHmi~iriUi~inil i mk~~il~WHMI{liiWHliiit ~
U in Iln ~imU lUg ~(! I fIB! il 111 P ~l~-~i1 f pl!l~ ~ ~ i~~hf- ! l~~ (i~1 n · iflTiJpnl!,IPl i!IJt !JtUH i
Ii ~tt ~.tlt IUtU~ Ij!fi ~!li III D h Iii J i I 'g ~~ ~ ~!11 i . if II ~ ] ] i fd~1 ! J i~ i!. t I
r lill n j! rJ(! 1i1p t'll Jtl~ J t If- ~ ~ Iff f! ~ 1 ' ~ l 2 "J j {~ I ~ l
I 11'11' [- " ;. t f- ! - i
I~ l.i I" ~ ~ I ~
~ ~ S ~
I r
~ 1';
{) 2 ~ ~ ~ ~I ~6'!
' ;; Ii ~ is EB
nn i i I n !!1 " if
n m ~ .., t ~. >'"
,2 -< ~ mr ~~ ~~>
niB ~ I '" '
r ;n ~ ~~., ~elc>
Q-'-~ ~ ~~n h ~"'$1
~ ,. c>,.
r :c...
~
PlANT SHAll BE REIIO\tD fllOII
lXlNTAlNER SO AS NOT TO IRAIC
) OR llIS1I.IlB ROOT IlIU.
i. IIOOND EARTH TO roow WATERING SAUCER.
Fml CIWl[ AROONO 1IllIlK SHAll BE
. llI' SAME AS NURStRY awl[.
~. fll 2/3 litH N'PRO\OI PlANTIlG
;,~ SGl.. THEN WATER TIlllROU<H. Y.
ctIIPl[lE BACI<fll AfTER WA1ERING.
4' CQlPAC'1[D TQ'SQl BASE.
- ccmAINER SI-lRU6S .
I
I
I
FROVID~T BARRIER
ALONG. SIDE OF WALL
FOR EA TREE
(BIO/RRIER OR EQUA )
LZ7..
- YtJItU.-t1(. f.fXU"'W XUft~ -
Tf/fE5. USE NIPtI IE/lGTHS TO
AllOW rOR ru1URE AD~lJ.(HTS.
lIES SlIAll BE 5[1 SO AS
NOT TO IIWR[ IlRAHOIING NAIIIT.
-1I0UN0 EARTH TO ralll WA lERlHG SAtJcrR.
FINAl. CIWl[ AROUND TRUNK SlIAll BE
!HE ~ AS NURSERY 0lADE.
U 2/3 NTH APPtlO'rtD PlANltlG
at.. TII:N WATER THOROOCHt. Y.
lIotPl{TE BAO<fU KrER WA1ERIHG.
. Ca.tPACTED TOPSOl BASE.
'I:TAIL - TO 6' CAL.
a-e\c-
~ '" e..
~~<.Y
- ~ -< ~e-- ><F> <1
~ QR9' (Y ~S'
cfil.. _..,'x t.~ 00
'" ~ '\.C/ o~.
~./)~ ~\ F ~ ..l-.r-'
~ \ ~ '00 ~ '
~ ~l> '#
~~~ \>-~
~
}
i
..j
."x6O- BOARDS 0. ~M. A
MlER ENlS. SET
RUS N'NlT
~'XI2' ~AH
NO EARTH TO rlllU WA1ERING SAUCOl.
l QlAD[ AROUND TRUNIC SlIAll BE
SAllE AS NlMlSERY QlAD[.
iEE IlETAIl. A AIl(M
ONE STORY
4800 SF
COMMERCIAL
(flU liTH w:AN SOIl OR
) NIl) WATER 1HllROUQI.Y.
EJ
'I:TAIL - PALM&
I
I
1- - -- .J
c::
)
8
=
If I/A T\IRE PlANT SfREAD
SOO NIl)!OR PA\lNC
LCIIIX 2' N'PRO'rtD PlANTING SOlI.
;~; 11TH Ta> s' a- OIS1lNG SOIl
- ROOTED CUTllfCS OR
4- POTS
::lI.lNDCOYI:RS
q;fJJ1~
BS L
6'HIGH VIALL:
I.
I
Ji" 20
. A
~5 r7\
-?- ~ wt OIDIa<: In un.....
/
>...
..p