Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Minutes 07-18-17
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY JULY 18, 2017, AT 6:30 P.M. IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Steven B. Grant, Mayor Justin Katz. Vice Mayor Mack McCray, Commissioner Christina Romelus, Commissioner Joe Casello, Commissioner 1. OPENINGS A. Call to Order - Mayor Steven B. Grant Mayor Grant called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Invocation Former Mayor Jerry Taylor gave the invocation. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Lori LaVerriere, City Manager James Cherof, City Attorney Judith A. Pyle, City Clerk Commissioner McCray led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL Judith Pyle, City Clerk, called the roll. A quorum was present. Agenda Approval: 1. Additions, Deletions, Corrections Commissioner Romelus pulled item 6F from Consent Agenda. Add to Future Agenda Power by the Hour. Request staff to provide an update on Medical Marijuana. Commissioner McCray Pulled agenda item 6C, 6G, 9A & B. Vice Mayor Katz requested to amend future agenda item D, to include equability rules as part of the attendance discussion. Pulled items 9A and 913. Mayor Grant requested to move item 14G after the consent agenda. 2. Adoption Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida Motion July 18, 2017 Mayor Grant moved to approve the agenda as amended. The motion was duly seconded and unanimously passed. 2. OTHER A. Informational items by Members of the City Commission Commissioner Casello attended a ribbon cutting at Secret Gardens. He said that the food was very good and fresh. He indicated that the program allowed small companies to use the kitchen facility to get their products out to sell. He stated that this was a great program. Commissioner Romelus announced she was recently appointed to the Florida League of City, Transportation Intergovernmental Policy Committee. She wanted to be on the board because of her passion for affordable housing. She informed the Commission that the league decided they were going to concentrate on Home Rule. On the 20th Mayor Grant visited the City of Boynton Beach Sister City in Rauma, Finland. A presentation has been scheduled for November 2017, at the Seacrest Library. Thanked everyone that helped with the preparation for his trip to Finland. July 13th attended the Business Development Bureau, Cities on the Rise with the Mayor of Lake Worth and the City Manager of Lake Worth; talked about why was it a good place to live and build. He indicated this was a productive meeting. July 14th attended the Legislative Policy Committee meeting. Mayor Grant announced that he was on the Land Use Economics Committee. The City was dealing with some issues concerning the CRA. July 17th the City of Boynton Beach will be featured in the magazine where to retire, by Allen March. He continued that the City has been invited to do the 2017 Mayor Challenge. He encourages everyone to let him know about innovated solutions for today most pressing problems. Mayor Grant announced that the Friends of the Library have flyers regarding subscriptions. Boynton Beach Community High School 1St Annual Campus Beautification day being held Saturday, July 22 2017 from 7a.m. to 3 p.m. The Heart of Boynton Unity celebration was scheduled for July 29, 2017 from 1 p.m. 5 p.m. Commissioner McCray stated that he would pass. Vice Mayor Katz announced he spoke with George Markey in reference to the Cortina/Town Square in the Renaissance Commons area. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMUNITY & SPECIAL EVENTS & PRESENTATIONS A. Representative Al Jacquet will provide an update on the recent legislative sessions. 2 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Representative Jacquet announced that it was an honor to be in the City of Boynton Beach. He introduced his assistant Mr. Kesnel Theus. He stated he had the honor to serve on the Ways and Means Committee. Funds have been allocated for environmental projects. This year's funding was for $167 million. These funds were being allocated for Everglades, the Herbert Hoover Dike, and Lake Okeechobee. There were many tax cuts. Representative Jacquet announced that there would be an additional homestead exemption of $25,000. He noted that an enhanced marijuana law was passed. He explained that there were going to be additional growers, for a total of 11 growers. He indicated there would be some litigation regarding some of the language in the Bill. There was an Education bill; he explained this was a comprehensive bill everything was thrown into this bill. The Charter Schools for public tax dollars was included in the Education Bill, as well as the vote by mail. He wanted to take the time to inform the City of Boynton Beach that body cameras were a hot topic. He indicated that 93% of complaints against officers were dropped when the complainant was informed a body camera was being worn. Residential evaluators the outside door, a simple fix that bill passed. If there are any questions Representative Jacquet stated that he was here to listen to the residents of Boynton Beach. Mayor Grant asked about Enterprise Florida, what was the change. He requested an explanation on how Boynton Beach could benefit from this change. Representative Jacquet stated that Enterprise Florida was a public private partnership, that the government put together to attract business from out of state. The idea was when a business relocates it creates jobs and stimulates the economy. A deal was made to fund both Visit Florida as well as Enterprise Florida. What has happened was that the private piece of the legislation now comes under governmental purview. Commissioner Romelus noted that home rule was under attack. She stated that their representatives need to step up and stand beside the local municipalities. Representative Jacquet said that there are millions of dollars in tax cuts, but not many for the residents or the small businesses. Representative Jacquet said that this year the only tax break being given was the $25,000 tax exemption. He continued to say every year big businesses receive some type of tax cut. He said that local municipalities say that they cannot survive with another tax break for the residents. Representative Jacquet asked who was footing the bills. He said let's tax everyone fairly. The City needs to make sure that the Police and Fire services are maintained at high quality levels. Commissioner McCray agreed with Representative Jacquet regarding the $25,000 homestead exemption. 3 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 B. Announce the Breaking Barrier's exhibit and reception featuring Artists With Autism by Debby Coles-Dobay, Public Arts Manager Debby Coles-Dobay, Public Art Manager, wanted to invite everyone to the Breaking Barrier exhibit and reception, Saturday, July 29, 2017 from 10:00 am till noon. This would be at the Civic Center. The mission of Artist with Autism was to educate aspiring artist on the autism spectrum about business and social skills through the arts. This event would allow the artists to share their ideas about their work and techniques. The exhibit runs through Sept. 5. C. Announce upcoming Town Square Public Input Meetings and Town Square Job Fair. Mayor Grant announced the upcoming Town Square Public Input Meetings and Town Square Job Fair. Ms. Lori LaVerriere, City Manager, announced the City of Boynton Beach has progressed through our Town Square meetings. The City intends to hold several workshops. The first workshop will focus on the playground, on Aug 10, 2017, from 5:30 pm to 7:30. August 17, 2017, architectural styles would be reviewed, the construction of the City Hall, the renovation of the library. The 3`d workshop was scheduled for August 24, 2017, this would be for the opportunity to hear about the open space and how it would be used. Ms. LaVerriere indicated that the most exciting aspect of the building wealth initiative was creating jobs for the local community. The first phase of construction would begin with the old high school. Construction should be starting in the next 30 to 40 days. Ms. LaVerriere said that a job fair has been scheduled at the Carolyn Sims Center, on August 22, 2017. Ms. LaVerriere explained that the residents of Boynton Beach would have an opportunity to share their skills; hopefully there would be some direct hiring accomplished. Ms. LaVerriere stated that the City anticipates more job fairs. The goal was to hire local residents. Ms. LaVerriere indicated that the job fair begins at 9 a.m. at the Carolyn Sims Center. Commissioner McCray asked for clarification, are we constructing or refurbishing. Ms. LaVerriere replied that the City was redeveloping, adaptive reuse to house many of the cultural and recreation programs that the City currently uses. D. Presentation by John McNally, Director of Information Technology Services, highlighting IT operations for the City. 10 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 John McNally, Director of Information Technology Services, indicated that he would provide a brief overview regarding the Information Technology Department. The team consists of a Director, Assistant (part time), Network Manager, Computer Support Specialist, Network Administrator, System Administrator and Support Manager. Mr. McNally stated that his department was a service driven department. His department streamlines processes and implements best practices for the City customers to optimize performance and productivity. The Enterprise Nurture was a business friendly environment that provides the Information Technology and infrastructure which enable the City customers to excel. Implement technology for the entire City, making sure that the technology solves a business need. The IT Department help desk provides services from 8 am - 5 pm. Mr. McNally's department also oversees the management of the City webpage. The IT Department keeps the information flowing. The IT department supports the Naviline Enterprise -wide Software System. Also provides support for the Laser fiche Enterprise Content management. The second tier of support was for connectivity between City Hall and other departments. The City has a layered security system. This system assures the implementation of the right level of security for the employee's job type. He continued to say it would protect and monitor the City internal systems, monitoring the perimeter, security event notifications, emails and texts. The City goal was to keep the bad guys out and the internal resources information safe. Mr. McNally stated that security was a job for all employees. Cyber security issues are at an all-time high. He said that human behavior continues to be the primary source of costly cybersecurity issues and data breaches, and transparency doesn't help this situation. Awareness and training, was the best method to prevent attacks. The City provided a before and after training analysis of employees. The City of Boynton Beach security company sent out 651 emails that were potential hackers, about 17% was acted upon. At that point the IT department decided to deployed software to train employees. Mr. McNally explained that all devices should have a password. He continued to say keep passwords strong and secure, don't share them, change them often; especially if you think they have been compromised. Protect personal information. He stated that on the horizon, the City will begin to upgrade and/ or replacement of aging technology infrastructures. Currently underway was the consolidation of billing printing. Electronic Plan submittal review system, the evaluation of Naviline Enterprise system, is anticipated early 2018: Commissioner McCray asked if there were records being stored at the Fire Station. 9 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Mr. McNally stated that he could not confirm or deny if any records are stored at the Fire Station. 4. PUBLIC AUDIENCE INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTE PRESENTATIONS (at the discretion of the Chair, this 3 minute allowance may need to be adjusted depending on the level of business coming before the City Commission) Mark KaraGeroge 240 Main Boulevard said he was happy that the City was not going to have a referendum. Not having a referendum insures that the City gets what they want. Susan Oyer, 140 SE 27th Way, announced on July 26, 2017 her neighbor would be featured on the Discovery Channel. No one else coming forward, Public Audience was closed. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE A. Appoint eligible members of the community to serve in vacant positions on City advisory boards. The following Regular (Reg) and Alternate (Alt) Student (Stu) and Nonvoting Stu (NN Stu) openings exist: Arts Commission; 1 Atl and 1 Reg Building Board of Adjustments & Appeals: 3 Regs and 2 Alts Community Redev Agcy Adv. Bd 1 Reg Library Bd: 2 Alt Recreation & Parks Bd: 1 Alt Senior Advisory Bd:. 2Alts. Motion Commissioner Casello nominated Clovis Moodie as a Regular on the Arts Commission. Commissioner McCray seconded the motion. Vote The motion unanimously passed. X Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida Motion July 18, 2017 Commissioner Casello nominated Cindy Falco-DiCorrado as a regular on the Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory board. Commissioner McCray seconded the motion. Vote The motion unanimously passed. Motion Commissioner Casello nominated Robyn Boucard as a regular on the Library Board. Commissioner McCray seconded the motion. Vote The motion unanimously passed. Motion Commissioner Romelus nominated Jennifer Gomez as a regular member of the Senior Advisory board. Commissioner McCray seconded the motion. Vote The motion unanimously passed. B. Authorize Commissioner Romelus to travel to Orlando for Florida League of Cities Committee Meetings through September 30, 2017. Commissioner McCray wanted to know how many meetings were remaining for the upcoming session. Mayor Grant responded there was a meeting in August and one in September. Commissioner McCray requested staff to provide the balance for the Commission travel budget for both the current year and upcoming year. Commissioner McCray stated that the travel form was from 2008. He indicated the form needed to be updated. Commissioner Romelus indicated she wants to be the first to the table when it comes to affordable housing. The request was for millage reimbursement. Vice Mayor Katz noted that if the Commissioner was going for work related activities, the City of Boynton Beach should pay for that expense. 7 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Commissioner McCray stated that each time the Commissioner goes to Orlando the cost was about $460. Ms. LaVerriere indicated that all requests for travel must be approved prior to travel, as a routine. Motion Mayor Grant moved to approve. The motion was duly seconded. Vote The motion unanimously passed. 6. CONSENT AGENDA Matters in this section of the Agenda are proposed and recommended by the City Manager for "Consent Agenda" approval of the action indicated in each item, with all of the accompanying material to become a part of the Public Record and subject to staff comments A. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. R17-062 - Assess the cost of nuisance abatement on properties within the City of Boynton Beach. B. Approve an increase to blanket purchase order to Sunbelt Hydraulic and Equipment from $30,000 to $50,000 as a sole source vendor. C. Authorize the City manager to sign a "Letter of No Objection" for the abandonment of specific existing utility easement within the Flavor Pict Townhomes Plat as recorded in Plat Book 121 Pages 193 - 201. The Owner/developer intends to re -plat this section of the development. The developer will re -dedicate City of Boynton Beach Utility easements associated with the re -platting of this Townhome Development. Commissioner McCray said the reason why this item was pulled was to receive clarification on why the Commission was asked to sign a letter of no objection. He wanted to make sure that the City of Boynton Beach was covered with language in the responding letter. Colin Groff, Assistant City Manager, indicated this was actually the first time that the County has asked for a letter of no objection. The parcel was located in the County not in city. The utility easement was not needed; the new plat would require a new easement. Mayor Grants asked if this was outside of the Utility District. 0 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Mr. Groff replied that it was inside the utility service area, but it was outside the city limits. Commissioner McCray requested in future if the City was abandoning or giving property, the Commission should be given detailed information. He stated that he wanted to make sure that the City was protected from any type of litigation. Mr. Groff responded the City was protected. If the County wants service, an easement must be provided, service would not be provided unless the City receives an easement. Motion Mayor Grant moved to approve. Commissioner Casello seconded the motion. Vote Unanimously passed. D. Legal Expenses - June 2017 - Information at the request of the City Commission. No action required. E. Accept the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Budget Status Report of the General Fund and the Utilities Fund for the eight (8) month period ended May 31, 2017. F. Approve the one-year extension for RFPs/Bids and/ or piggy -backs for the procurement of services and/or commodities as described in the written report for July 18, 2017 - "Request for Extensions and/or Piggybacks" Commissioner Romelus stated that she had no objections. She wanted to make sure the City was moving forward with the "Building Wealth in the Community" program. She indicated this program provides local and minority business first preference, when it comes to the bid process. She wants staff to begin to redirect jobs to local companies. Tim Howard, Assistant City Manager, responded the language would be provided in the new RFP's. He wanted to clarify; these are requests for extension and/or piggyback projects. Motion Commissioner Romelus moved to approve. Commissioner McCray seconded the motion. Vote Unanimously passed �7 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 G. Approve the one-year extension for RFPs/Bids and / or piggybacks for the procurement of services and /or commodities as described in the written report for July 18, 2017 — "Request for Extensions and /or Piggybacks" Commissioner McCray stated that he was concerned with how the City was conducting business with vendors. He noted that there was a bid for Palm Beach Aluminum for $24,889.95. He would like for staff to respond. Mr. Howard explained the report that's being presented, was for purchases over $10,000. According to the Code, purchases between $10,000 up to $25,000 must come before the Commission. The backup shows there were three written quotes. He said this request was for hurricane shutters for the Utilities Department. When a bid comes in under $25,000 staff decides whether or not it should go out for formal bid. Commissioner McCray requested an explanation for the Company Tribute Direct. Mr. Howard indicated this was for the printing and mailing of the annual water quality report. He indicated this request was based on three written quotes. Commissioner McCray asked for an explanation for Compressed Air Supplies and Equipment. Mr. Howard replied three written quotes were received. This was for the conversion of the air compressors. at Fire stations 4 and 5. Commissioner McCray asked about Mako Pools. He also wanted to know if there was a maintenance program in place for the John Denson Pool. Mr. Groff replied that the City does have a maintenance contract for the pool. This was for a pool filter that was not replaced in the last rehabilitation. Commissioner McCray asked does the City have a maintenance program. Mr. Groff replied yes. Commissioner McCray requested additional information for AMJ Company. Mr. Howard responded that was a utility purchase. This was for replacement of pumps for the sodium and caustic feed system. This purchase was based on a sole source supplier. The last one was Bennet Fire Products. He explained this request was for purchasing of uniforms for the Fire Department. The City was able to piggy back on a Lake County contract. Mr. Howard indicated normally, the City requires three written quotes. There was also a provision for an emergency purchases. The Mako filter was considered an emergency. 10 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Both the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager signed as an emergency purchase. Commissioner McCray stated that when there is an emergency, the Commission should be notified. Motion Commissioner McCray moved to approve. Commissioner Romelus seconded the motion. Vote Unanimously passed. H. Accept the written report to the Commission for purchases over $10,000 for the month of June 2017 I. Approved the minutes from the Special City Commission meeting held on June 12, 2017 and Regular City Commission meeting held on June 20, 2017 Motion Mayor Grant moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Romelus seconded the motion. Vote Unanimously passed. Mayor Grant entertained a presentation from the Florida Textile Recycling. 12. D New Business (moved) Vice -Mayor Katz requested a presentation by Florida Textile Recycling, LLC., provides automated clothing recycling as a non-profit corporation and provides funding to agencies for other non-profit uses Mark Douglas, Chairman of Florida Textile Recycling LLC., explained his company approached the Town of Davie about 3 years ago, about a textile recycling program. He indicated that nationwide 85% of all textiles end up in the landfill. He continued to say that even with every single nonprofit charity and for profit entity, only 15% of textile was recycled. By volume textiles take up more space than any other recyclable. Since partnering with the Town of Davie; Florida Textile has paid the Town of Davie in excess of $250,000. In addition more than 2.3 million lbs. of textile are out of the local landfills. 11 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Mr. Douglas noted that the Town of Davie also receives $5,000 in vouchers. The vouchers are provided to local residents to use at the local Goodwill or other thrift stores. He stated that there was also a coupon program. The Company solicits local businesses for coupons and discounts, at no cost to the businesses. He stated this does two things, it provides some foot traffic to the store as well as help the customer. There is a sensor in each bin, which automatically emails information to the main office. In addition to the sensors, a representative goes around and checks the bins for items placed around the bins. Mr. Douglas indicated that Florida Textile Recycling helps the local municipality as well as the environment. The company in partnership with the Town of Davie provides a convenient way for people to dispose of unwanted items, while also keeping these unwanted items out of the local landfills. Additionally, the textile recycling programs provide a source of used clothes, shoes and other household textile items to less fortunate people in local communities and all over the world. Mayor Grant asked what would be needed in order for the City to participate. Mr. Douglas replied the company was looking to partner with the City, to give them the opportunity to place bins on Commercial and City owned property. All of the locations for the bins would be preapproved by City staff. Once approved Florida Textile will go to the local businesses to ask for written permission to place a bin at the store location. The City would be paid $2,000 per year for each bin. Commissioner McCray asked if there was any effect on local charities, such as Goodwill, local churches. Salvation Army, and Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Douglas stated that Goodwill had a trailer in Davie, they went to inline. He stated people give to charities for two reasons; they believe in their cause and they want the tax receipt. As a for profit company they do not give tax receipts. This would be a revenue generating program for the City. Commissioner McCray how does the City get the word out, about the tax receipt. Mr. Douglas replied there was a disclaimer on all of the bins which states that items placed in bins are not tax deductible. He also informed the Commission that there was a regular maintenance program. Commissioner McCray asked if anyone has ever burned any of bins. Mr. Douglas replied that his company has not had that problem. Commissioner Casello asked for clarification regarding how the textiles are recycled. 12 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Mr. Douglas responded that 100% of the textiles received are reused, recycled or repurposed. The company sells everything by the pound. They sell to local thrift stores, second hand stores, flea market type buyers, and local wholesalers. The revenue generated by the sale of those goods allow for the company to share some of that revenue with the municipality. Commissioner Casello asked if useable items in the bins, are sorted out. Mr. Douglas replied that contents of the bins are sold as is. Commissioner McCray asked if there was a pilot program available. Mr. Douglas replied that the company does not have a pilot program. He explained that there was a substantial investment with all of the equipment. He encouraged the City to contact the Town of Davie, Marion County and recently added Duval County School Board. Mayor Grant asked the Commission for a consensus if they want to move forward. Commissioner Casello asked if anyone spoken with any of the staff regarding this project. I Ms. LaVerriere replied this type of business was currently not allowed. She has not had the opportunity to sit down and speak with the company. Ms. LaVerriere would like for staff to take a look at the zoning aspect and come back with a recommendation. Mayor Grant stated he wanted to get a consensus from the Commission. Commissioner Romelus asked about the ramification of having this type of business within the City. She suggested having staff come back with the recommendations. 7. BIDS AND PURCHASES OVER $100,000 - None 8. COMMUNITY STARDARDS AND LEGAL SETTLEMENTS A. Modify the Code Compliance Magistrate's Lien Modification Order in Case #11-2475 signed June 21, 2017 reducing the fines in case from $56,734.12 to $2,230.15 Mayor Grant read the title into the record. Commissioner McCray asked for an explanation on this case. Mark Woods, Director of Community Standards, indicated that this happens when there are competing governmental agencies acting on the same property at the same time. 13 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 There was a sale on the court house steps, the person purchased as a tax deed. The City made a claim on the deed, for $58,000. The new owner came into the City and requested a lien reduction. The City would not allow a lien reduction while there was a tax deed sale pending. Unfortunately this one slipped through the cracks. He was requesting the Commission either remand the original order that the magistrate signed; which is within the Commission power, or to modify that original order. Mayor Grant stated he does not know which choice; whatever that was remaining in the tax deed surplus, and make sure that it was up to Code compliance. It was ok for a settlement and a remand. Mr. Woods replied that in order for the client to come before the Magistrate, the property must be in compliance. If this goes forward, we stand to lose a large portion of those surplus funds. It would be cleaner to rescind the order. Motion Commissioner Romelus motion to rescind the Magistrate order. Commissioner McCray seconded the motion. Vote Unanimously passed. 9. PUBLIC HEARING 7 P.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE AGENDA PERMITS The City Commission will conduct these public hearings in its dual capacity as Local Planning Agency and City Commission. A. Approve request for Modification to the Boynton Village & Town Center Master Plan to amend the previous approvals for SMU Parcels 1, 2 & 3 within Boynton Village & Town Center from 643 condominiums, 350 apartments and 115 single-family homes to 674 apartments and 115 single-family homes, on 106.499 -acres located at the NE corner of Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road. Applicant: Jeffrey Bartel, Berger Singerman LLP. Mayor Grant read the Proposed Ordinance No. 17-010 by title only on First Reading. Attorney Cherof administered an oath to all those intending to testify. Commissioner McCray asked whether this had come before the City of Boynton Beach. 14 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Ed Breese, Principle Planner, replied yes. This item was tabled, and the old application was withdrawn. The applicant came back with a new application. Mayor Grant asked if this was a new application, not the tabled one. Mr. Breese stated that was correct. Jeffrey Bartel, Berger Singerman LLP, representing the applicant, recognizes that the Commission has a very busy agenda. He would like to make an abbreviated presentation. There may be members of the public that would like to speak, allow for staff, from a legal perspective there may be a need to cross examine one or more of those people. He advised that there are two items before the Commission, in the interest of time to speak about item 9a and 9b factually together. Mayor Grant stated that he has no objections in having items 9a and 9b presented simultaneously. As for the abbreviated presentation, he stated this was their opportunity to inform the Commission. Mr. Bartel, stated he may find the need to cross examination the witnesses. He explained what was being presented to the Commission were two requests, a Master Plan Modification and a Site Plan Modification. The first item was for the Master Plan Modification, which began in 2005. The property in question, the Boynton Beach Village and Town Center, was rezoned. Was zoned commercial and the remaining area was rezoned for was SMU (Single Family Multiple Unit). At the time of the initial approval, there were 1120 dwelling units approved. Over the past 12 years that Master Plan has been modified by other developers. Last year his client purchased a small portion of the Master Plan. The developers are requesting to reduce the number of multifamily residences from 643 to 324. This Commission approved a site plane that allows for 643 condominium units. The request tonight, was to be able to build 324 apartment units. When reviewing the applications, staff looks at adverse effects. What type of impact would the project have on traffic and public services? What the Commission has before them was what was approved and what the client could build as of today. There are two six story building. This was previously approved, and can be built subject to permits. Visually there was a huge difference, in what can be built tomorrow and what was being reduced by 48%. Secondary, issues of traffic, was brought up by the neighbors. He was not sure what information that the neighbors are relying on. The traffic would be reduced by 48%. if we were denied tonight there would be 2000 more trips being generated. On an hourly basis that works out to about 100 trips. Mr. Bartel noted that his team has over 200 years of experience combined in South Florida. The projects architect Beatriz Hernandez with MSA Architect, over twenty years of experience. Andrea Troutman, Professional Engineer also the Traffic Engineer, over 30 years experience. Isabel Aloria over 25 years of experience, also a License 15 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 landscape architect, Mike Cavelli with 40 years of experience, member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Mr. Bartel stated that they are very proud of the plan. The buildings have slopped roofs; they have a park on site, resort type pool. He continued to say that the records that the Commission have before them was clear and undeniable. All conditions from the City have been met. With respect, staff considers the modification to the approved Master Plan to be non -substantial. The client, it was fair to say, in one aspect, if the market provides the opportunity, convert from an apartment to a condo. The City of Boynton Beach does not distinguish between the apartments and or condominium. Mr. Bartel requested that Ms. Hernandez approach the dais and give her name and address. Ms. Beatriz Hernandez, 8950 SW 74 Court 1513, Miami Florida, Register Architect. Mr. Bartel asked if she could describe some of the architectural components of this project. Also, what she consider to be some of the issues that may distinguish this project from other projects that she has worked on, and what she was most proud of. Ms. Hernandez noted that some of the planning decision that were made in working with staff. She wanted to make it a pedestrian experience at the Renaissance Common area. What was unique about this site was that it was split in two. This allows for two entrances into the community. The club house was placed along the spine road. Mr. Bartel stated in a forthright and candid manner, some of the concerns that were raised by neighbors, one of the questions that were brought up was about traffic. The number of trips has been reduced. The number of units being built was being reduced by 48%. There are some ingress and access features on this property. It makes sure that there was an alternative that would impact Renaissance Commons. Ms. Hernandez stated that there are basically two options to come into this site. This property can be accessed through Renaissance Commons as well as Congress Avenue. Mr. Bartel asked how she would consider this project in terms of quality, facilities and services. Ms. Hernandez stated that she designed it. She believes that this project was equal to or better. The location of the project, the Master Plan provides a lake, Dog Park and the commercial development that surrounds the property. She stated this was not the first iteration that was brought before staff. 16 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Mr. Bartel stated as far as the quality, the building would focus on one, two and three bedroom apartments. There would be 622 parking spaces. He said this exceed what was required by code. All of the Code requirements are either met or exceeded. These apartments are being marketed to people whose income averages $100,000. The average income in the City of Boynton Beach was $66,000 based on the Metro One housing study. Commissioner Casello asked about the price point of the 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartments. Ms. Bartel stated the price was $1,400 for a one bedroom upward to $2,400 for a three bedroom. Mr. Bartel requested Ms. Troutman to state her name and address for the record. Andrea Troutman, 2005 Vista Parkway, Suite 111, West Palm Beach, Register Professional Engineer. Mr. Bartel said addressing the staff report that she has, expressly acknowledges the following, "with the reduction in the number of dwelling units, and the corresponding reduction in the number of vehicle trips, it is anticipated an approval will be granted", that was a quote from the City Staff reports. Do you agree with that statement, with the reduction of dwelling units there will be a reduction in vehicle trips. Ms. Troutman stated she agrees with the City of Boynton Beach staff regarding the vehicle trips. Mr. Bartel asked from her perspective on the corresponding number of trips would be 2000, which would be permitted by right. Ms. Troutman replied that it would actually be 2155 vehicle trips. Mr. Bartel requested the basis for this analysis. Ms. Troutman stated this was based on the adopted rates of Palm Beach County, for multifamily units. Mr. Bartel said that her analysis was based on Palm Beach County analysis, which was what was used for the City of Boynton Beach. Ms. Troutman replied that was correct. Mr. Bartel asked with respect for parking, the impact would be reduced with the number of dwelling units. Ms. Troutman replied that was correct. Mr. Bartel indicated that another issue that was brought up by neighbors was public safety. A concern was that higher levels of home ownership were associated with the lower rate of crime. He said that the very source that was being relied upon does not arrive at a conclusion. It questions whether, homeowners seeks out areas where there was lower crime or whether lower crime exists where there was home ownership. He also submits that the data was incontrovertible. He had a conversation regarding camera with the Boynton Beach Police Department. The project would add 12 additional cameras, in response to the Police department recommendations. 17 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 The last issue which has nothing to do with their application was the 115 units to be built in the future, from another developer. When the property was purchased last year, the property was intended to be multifamily property. The City of Boynton Beach Code does not distinguish between condominiums and apartments. There has not been any type of controversy at any time. At the last Planning and Development meeting, the reason that they voted against the application, was that they thought there were too many conditions being placed on the application. The record before the Commission was clear and convincing. There would be a lower impact on traffic and schools. This would improve the neighborhood. Commissioner Casello asked about the interior of the apartment, as well as the amenities of the apartment. Ms. Hernandez said that with respect to the internal finishes in the apartment, the developer was looking at stainless steel appliances, granite or corian type of tops, lament flooring, and tile in the bathrooms. The level of finish is the highest level. The amenities that are being provided in these luxury apartment rentals are more than in a condominium. This was being done to draw this type of renter. She continued to say the project would have a clubhouse over 7000 square feet. There was a fitness center, yoga area, pool area, not only the interior but the exterior as well. Mr. Bartel asked if the term luxury apartment would identify the units that are being considered for approval. Ms. Hernandez said that she agreed. Mr. Bartel asked if the apartment has been designed in a way that would be easy to convert to condominiums. Ms. Hernandez stated this project would be perfect to convert to a condominium. Commissioner McCray said the reason the client went from condominium to apartments was because of the market. He was glad to know that something will be built in that area. He asked whether there was going to be a management team onsite. Mr. Bartel advised there would there be a management team on site. Commissioner McCray asked about the management team regarding security. Ms. Hernandez said there would be onsite leasing, such as leasing agents, assistant manager, as well as maintenance. The complex does not have 24 hour security. She stated that additional security cameras were being installed. Commissioner McCray asked if the management team would be responsible for the activities of the clubhouse. Mr. Bartel replied that was correct. Ms. Bartel stated that one issue that had been brought up with the difference between apartments and condominiums, which was done by Metro Study that was completed this year. The report made an assumption that was incorrect. The City of Boynton Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Beach housing report, January 2017, on page 7 of that study, they are off by a factor of 2. Meaning their study was fundamentally flawed, the data that they used was off by 319 units. Commissioner McCray asked, when that study was done, were you looking for 643 units. Mr. Bartel stated that they were never looking at 643 units. In the beginning of the process , there was a request for 318 units but changed to 324 units. He just wanted to make sure that the Commission was aware that again, in good faith, there was some data in the report that was excellent. He said that the study was fundamentally flawed. Mr. Bartel stated that he reached out to Metro Study to speak with them regarding this study. He stated that he was only bringing this up because the neighbors relied upon a study that was incorrect. He wanted to make sure that this was the type of apartment the neighbor was happy to have. These apartments would have annual leases, luxury apartments, which exceed the average income of the Boynton Beach area. Commissioner McCray stated he was glad that there would be a management team on site. Commissioner Romelus said just because a portion of the study was incorrect does not make the entire study fundamentally flawed. Please do not put words where they do not belong, this does not make the entire study as a whole flawed. Mr. Bartel said that the study that was conducted was for affordability, not for luxury apartments. The types of clients that his client was trying to attract have incomes of $100,000 or more. Commissioner Romelus stated that was great for the City. She wanted to state that the City was looking for affordability as well. Mr. Bartel stated that the good news was that the study does an excellent job with providing information regarding affordable housing. Commissioner Romelus asked if the project would include any affordable rental within the units. Mr. Bartel replied that this property would not have any units designated as affordable housing. Vice Mayor Katz said the revisions were happening in his district. He stated that not a single unit in the 1100 unit was slated to be affordable or workforce housing. The affordable and workforce component was never part of these plans. Commissioner Romelus stated that this might have made this project more amenable. . 19 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Attorney Cherof reminded the Commission that they were in a quasi-judicial proceeding. The applicant has the floor at this particular moment. The procedures will be followed for the quasi-judicial proceedings. The Commission gets to raise a point of comment. Mayor Grant asked Mr. Bartel to continue, and then he would allow the Public to speak. Mr. Bartel stated he was done, subject to cross examination of potential witnesses. Mayor Grant opened up to public comment. Attorney Cherof noted that the public were permitted to ask questions as well as make comments since this was a quasi-judicial proceeding. Attorney Cherof administered oath to all those intending to testify. Susan Oyer 140 SE 27 Way, stated she sits on the Planning and Development Board; it was actually for the lack of parking. Not because of whatever was implied. She double checked with another member. Attorney Cherof indicated that the record for the Planning and Development Board was made a part of the City Commission meeting if it was a quasi-judicial proceeding. It comes in automatically because of the City of Boynton Beach Code. Robert Lewis 350 North Federal Highway, #510, Boynton Beach, he wanted to advise that he was in favor of a conditional approval of the change over from the condo to the apartments. Which were discussed? He used the word conditional, he used it deliberately. Because he thinks this was the perfect opportunity now to request cooperation from the developer to set aside some percentage of the units for workforce housing. It was about time, other communities in South Florida, having done that, and it was time Boynton Beach does that. He said that it was in the newspaper every day; the City of Boynton Beach has a critical housing shortage. Prices are too high; he stated that the City has approved 100 apartments within the 2 to 3 years. He picks up the newspaper, asks himself, who can afford these prices. Mayor Grant closed public comment seeing no one further. Vice Mayor Katz noted that he feels as though there was constant discussion about traffic and density. The applicant was requesting to build 50% less units. Which seemly would be a good thing, and most people that attend these meeting would be jumping for joy. The reduction in density was a good thing. He does not have conclusive evidence that apartment living was better than homeownership. He shared that he has grown up in a time where homeownership was not necessarily feasible. He indicated there are affordable housings being offered in his district. He continued to say the applicant was asking for a revision. If the applicant was coming in asking for an increase, that would be a prime opportunity to squeeze the developer. He feels that this item has been high 20 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 jacked, which was never intended. The spin of the augment was the developer needs to do things that were not in the application; workforce housing. Commissioner McCray stated that he believes that it was up to the applicant to set pricing for the units. He said that he wished them all the best. He was in favor of it. Mayor Grant asked if there was any case law regarding, denial of changes of condos to apartments. Mr. Bartel stated that he was not aware of any case law, if the City of Boynton Beach denied the request for his client, he would then research case law. Mayor Grant advised that his issue was that the developer was reducing the property value. The City would get a reduction in property taxes. The other aspect, there was a park fee per unit. There was a reduction in the units means that there was a reduction in the park fee, there would be no public art, as with the newer developments. There would be one of the few places that would not require the art fee. The color samples, if the Commission could get'a sample of the color swatches. Mr. Bartel asked if this was a condition of approval. Mayor Grant said it was more of a request. It was not a conditional use or a permitted use. That was why he did not want to make anything conditional. He did notice that there was a cut through traffic light. What types of speed reduction are being proposed? Mr. Bartel stated whatever would satisfy whatever the Police and or Public Works. Mayor Grant said as to the second point, he wanted to address the reduction in property value. Mayor Grant said that there was no art fee, there was a new dog park, and hopefully you will work with the Cortina. He said some complaints about the grass had been received. He stated that a lot of people in the high-end apartments, he would like to see solar canopies. Commissioner Romelus asked for an explanation and the rational from going from 643 condos to 324 apartments. Usually it was because the client was trying to make more money. Mr. Bartel replied that at the time that his client purchased the property, the market did not provide the opportunity for condominiums. The client needed to have a product that was marketable to residents. The client looked at the number of units they could design for this project and meet their quality expectations. The client did the analysis, condominiums versus apartments. The client wants to build a product that they could be proud of, and what this neighborhood wants to have. At this point the property was driving the building of the 324 units. It was not an issue of profitability. 21 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Commissioner Romelus so then you have the 643 condo and 350 apartments Mr. Bartel stated that this was for the entire master plan. The 350 units are not a part of his client's plans. Commissioner Romelus asked if his client owns the property that would potential build 643 units. Mr. Bartel stated, that he has nothing to do with the 115 or the 350 units from the original Master Plan. Commissioner Casello announced this was the first time a developer has stepped up to the podium and used the word luxury apartments. He said there are plenty of units for the workforce housing built into the Renaissance Commons. Having this complex would help the Renaissance Common Commercial District; these people are going to have disposal income. He was happy the word luxury was used for the first time. Mayor Grant asked for any type of taxing information, the estimated tax that was coming into the City. Mr. Bartel stated that the City would need to get with the Tax Collector for that information. He stated that there are some posts hearing deliverables, he would be happy to provide. Commissioner Romelus asked if there were any amenities that would be available created at any level for workforce housing. Mayor Grant asked for a motion Motion Vice Mayor Katz moved to approve. Commissioner McCray seconded the motion. Vote Judith Pyle, City Clerk called roll 4-1 (Dissenting Commissioner Romelus) B. Approve request to construct 324 apartments and related site improvements on SMU Parcel 3 of the Boynton Village & Town Center Master Planned development, located on a 10.246 -acre vacant tract on the west side of Renaissance Commons Boulevard, immediately south of the Boynton (C- 16) Canal, in the SMU (Suburban Mixed Use) zoning district. Applicant: Jeffrey Bartel of Berger Singerman LLP. 22 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Motion Commissioner Casello moved to approve. Commissioner McCray seconded the motion. Vote Judith Pyle, City Clerk called roll The vote was 4-1. (Dissenting Commissioner Romelus) Mr. Bartel wanted to thank the staff for a quick turnaround, it was rare to see that type of responsiveness. 12 E. Town Center and Boynton Villages. John Markey JK Developers — Discussion on Cortina 115 Single Units. Vice Mayor Katz asked for Mr. John Markey, JK developers to be, present at this meeting so that the Commission could have a conversation regarding the 115 single family units. Vice Mayor Katz explained everything to the South of the pond behind the dog park was what is being discussed. Some potential changes to the single family units. John Markey, JK Developers, Boca Raton Florida he stated that he has, regarding Cortina, stated that he has been here since 1996. He had a conversation with Commissioner Katz and Mayor Grant. He asked what does this do for the City. He stated that if he goes back to the beginning of the project. It was a broken down hay field, with homeless camps. JK Developers has spent $16 million on road improvement, widened Gateway, traffic lights on Gateway, widened old Boynton road, everyone on the dais helped to get a traffic light. For those changes they received 4 million for roadway credits, they still have $1.2 million. Since 2010 this developer was the largest single taxpayer in the City of Boynton Beach. He said that his company would like to go ahead and recapture some of that density. He stated that his company has done at least 15 conceptual plans. What was being called Cortina 3, the area was being zoned; they cannot make it work. He said they wanted to make the single family work there. It has been two years that they have been trying to make it work. He stated at the end of the day, the market dictates what can be built. Commissioner Romelus indicated she had no objection to making the project feasible, to change the zoning to multifamily housing. She stated as she granted the ability to change the concept, you grant the citizen the ability to work and play. She continued to say if the developer could create some component of the workforce housing, they can change it around as much as needed. 491 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Mr. Markey stated the Commissioner and he share a passion and understanding. He has researched and written about workforce housing. He has always asserted it must be market based finance. If you think about the HUD, VA loan, those loans have placed millions of people in homes. He would love to find a financial answer for workforce housing. He said deed restrictions do not work. It has to be something portable. He agrees with the Commissioner. Commissioner Romelus state the City of Boynton Beach needs to have workforce housing. Need to have a partnership for the private sector. To find good ideas, to create a future that was obtainable and sustainable. Mr. Markey indicated that he would love to be a part of that. Commissioner McCray said that Mr. Markey called the area a hay field. He recalls it as an agricultural area; the kids from the Community called it a nice fishing hole. Mr. Markey accepted the correction. Vice Mayor Katz said he achieved the mission of bringing this up. This was the original 115 units. Mr. Markey wanted to know what would be acceptable to the Commission. It was going from 115 single family unit to any combination of townhouses, apartment condos. He wanted to get thoughts on what would be tolerated in that area. Mayor Grant stated that his comment was that homeownership was what he was looking for, not affordable housing but reasonable housing. Commissioner Casello asked what the concept was. Mr. Markey replied there was no concept at this time; this has been a very flexible endeavor. As he stands there this evening there was not one concept. Commissioner Casello asked what price point would make this community feasible. Mr. Markey stated that it was a simple equation. The number of units on one hand and the cost on the other. As density goes up the cost goes down to pay for the cost of the construction and the cost of the land. At this point, since he does not know what the density would be, he could not give an answer. Commissioner Casello said that the changes from the 115 units to whatever, he would encourage him to move forward with staff. He was in favor of that. Commissioner McCray stated that he was in favor of what was market driven. Mr. Markey said he did give the Commission a lake. Commission Casello indicated this was the first time that the Commission has ever had a pre discussion. He thinks that this would make it a lot easier in the future. He commended both Vice Mayor Katz and Mr. Markey. Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Mr. Markey said this would be a real public private partnership. C. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 17-014 - SECOND READING - PUBLIC HEARING - Approve amendments to the CODE OF ORDINANCES, Chapter 13. Licensing, and the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapter 1. Article II. Definitions, Chapter 3. Article IV. Use Regulations, and Chapter 4. Article V. Minimum Off -Street Parking Requirements that provide necessary updates and new standards and justifications for the accommodation and regulation of group homes, and parking requirements for single- and two-family dwelling units. Attorney Cherof read proposed Ordinance17-014 by title only on second reading. Mayor Grant requested that Public Comment first. Jil Labod, 701 NE 7 Avenue, said he has been patiently waiting. He asked whether this vote, was to minimize that distance between group homes and sober homes. He asked was there a difference between the two. Mayor Grant requested staff to answer the question. Mr. Labod asked if the group homes were going to be changed from 1000 feet to 300 feet. Mr. Labod asked if there was a distinction between group homes and sober homes. Attorney Cherof stated that he may have staff reintroduced the ordinance. Staff would readdress. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, replied that this was a very easy question. One of the goals was to be neutral in the City regulation. The only reason that there would differentiate between the types would be who license and certifies the homes. They are equally defined, stated it was more of an issue of capacity and intensity of the group home, not who the residents were. Mr. Labod said that the City was saying that there was no distinction. Mr. Rumpf replied that was correct. Mr. Labod said that he does not begrudge anyone from getting clean. But he does have an issue with living next door to a sober home for more than three years. The residents are there short term. First of all the things that would happen was to drive property values down. This would hurt the community. He said he was the Director of Mangrove Walk. He was a part of INCA that has over 600 members. He indicated the majority of the residents are out of town. He asked the Commission to table this item. Allow for the residents to come back. He asked the Commission to bring the item back in the fall. 25 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Vice Mayor Katz, replied that this was not how government works. With respect to the request, that was not how the government operates. Mr. Labod contended the Commission was not listening to the people. Vice Mayor Katz indicated he was listening, but it was not practical. This was his personal opinion. The practice of tabling important matter was not practical for the sake of governance. Mr. Labod stated that he did not agree with the Vice Mayor's personal opinion. He said to table it until full houses of the Boynton Beach residence are sitting in this chamber. Commissioner McCray said that he understands the concern. He represents INCA. This was something that has gotten out of hand. Commissioner McCray agrees that property values have decreased. He does not know how to get it back together. Mr. Labod said that he has complained, he has spoken to members of the Commission, and was told that the City does not have the funds to run Code Enforcement and inspect these sober homes. He was told that there was not enough money in the budget. The inspections only happen every two years. Mr. Labod said that the City wants to minimize the distance between the sober homes. The City cannot control the sober and or group homes that are presently in the City. Now the City would have 3 group homes within a thousand feet instead of 1 home. Please explain how the City was going to control the group homes. Vice Mayor Katz stated that the purpose of this ordinance was to put in force more controls that hold individuals that operate these facilities to a higher standard. Mr. Labod said he was not against sober homes or group homes. The City wants to reduce the distance from 1000 feet to 300 feet. The City has difficulty regulating and inspecting the sober and group homes that the City has now. Vice Mayor Katz replied that the implementation of this ordinance would have controls. This reduces the amount of group homes allowed. Mayor Grant stated that staff would make a presentation. Mr. Labod said he thought that he had already presented. Commissioner Casello wanted the attorney to speak to this issue. Attorney Cherof advised there is no legal justification to support the distance requirements. Until such time that the laws change to support a distance requirement or the facts that would support that justification. An ordinance would be extremely difficult to defend in the court of law. Mr. Labod asked if the City of Boynton Beach have a law on the book. 26 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Attorney Cherof said that he believes he was speaking of structure. He was talking about people who have civil rights Mr. Labod said that he was fighting with the City to have regulation, or to inspect these homes. He asked for the City to contact Palm Beach County to impose the bed tax. Attorney Cherof said this ordinance takes steps towards what he was requesting. With respect to other types of regulations, the City would have hoped that the State legislature would have dealt with the issues that the City must now deal with. He hoped that the Federal regulations would deal with that, but they have not done so. He said the City was bound by the law. The City must follow the law. The regulation that staff has been proposing was a step in the right direction. Mr. Labod asked when the group home has a meeting, there are thirty cars on the street, are you saying that there is nothing that could be done. Attorney Cherof asked if Mr. Labod was having a party and there were thirty cars, it would be the same as the meeting at the sober home. Mayor Grant indicated that the City was dealing with a new ordinance. He wanted Mr. Rumpf to go through the presentation. Mike Rumpf, replied as a preface, he has personally visited some of the sober homes. On the other end of the spectrum, he understands the system that must be worked within. Mayor Grant replied that he wanted Mr. Rumpf to start from the beginning. Mr. Rumpf stated there is an epidemic involving drug addiction. The City back in January 2017, took a stand to address a comprehensive study. The City placed a temporary hold on applications for any new sober homes. There were reasonable accommodation options opened to those who wanted to pursue the application for such homes. The objective and challenge, was evaluation of existing regulations and processes. He stated that the City cannot discriminate. The Courts are very sensitive based on facts, not fears or speculation or unjustified concerns. Some cities have learned the hard way. To over regulate, the City of Delray Beach and Boca Raton through litigation have regulations that were based on community concerns, rather than factual concerns. There are many topics regarding the regulations of group home operations. He believes that a lot of the problems that may be associated with the group home were based on proper regulation, properly run homes. He stated that he did look into the concentration, the majority was coming from an oversize home, was operating more like a spa. What the City was speaking of was implementing regulation and review process. 27 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 In connection with State action, increases in penalty, changes in the standards, more certification. What will be seen would be a better system. An overview of affiliated arrests revealed Opioid overdoses were up 314%. When addressing over concentration the standards must be neutral. The City does not have a distance separation for sober homes. Staff originally proposed a 300 feet versus 1000 feet distance separation. The law does not have a distance separation requirement. The City would review the homes on a case-by-case basis. He said sober homes were intended to be an extension of the single family home. Mr. Rumpf suggested increasing parking requirement for all single family and duplexes, within the City. Mayor Grant asked if Mr. Rumpf could clarify what was meant by parking. If there were three bedrooms, if there were two spaces on the drive way would that comply. Mr. Rumpf replied no. Three bedrooms home would require 3 car parking spaces. He continued to say the City does not want the entire front yard paved. Attributes to the amendments, the City would be partnering with the State of Florida with a certification process which supports transition housings. Mr. Labod said how was this going to be inspected. Mr. Rumpf said the City would continue to process the certificate of use. The City was adding a second level. The State requires background checks on all home operators. Mr. Labod said at one point there were 9 people living in the home. This home has had visits form the Police Department. He stated he has called on several occasions to file a report. Mr. Rumpf stressed all businesses operations are subjected to the new ordinance. Mr. Labod said it is a continued issue, when the City does decide it was time to close down the group home. Mr. Rumpf said maybe this was done prior to the adoption of the new ordinance. Mr. Labod asked who would inspect these homes? Mayor Grant replied that is currently the City will inspect the homes every two years. The State agency has a different type of certification. (Commissioner Romelus exited the dais 9:40 p.m. and returned 9:49 p.m.) Commissioner McCray said thank you for not calling him at 2:30 am. The City does need to get a handle on the group homes. Barbara Ready 329 SW 13 Avenue, asked has the City built in any measurables any guidelines, when the property becomes a nuisance. Commissioner McCray asked if there was some kind of noise nuisance. He wanted to know when the police were going to say enough was enough. Ms. Ready asked what it was going to take for the City to make a stand. She asked if ii would be overdoses or neighbors calling in. Mayor Grant asked if there was a 24-hour KM Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Community Standards number. Ms. LaVerriere said to call a non -emergency Police number. Mayor Grant said to call the non -emergency Police number if it was after hours. This would help with the collection of data. Ms. Ready asked what the City would be able to do about it. Mayor Grant said because of the new ordinance. the City will contact the owner of the property and enter into a contract. If the contract does not work, the City would proceed with it with the magistrate process. The Community Standards Department would issue a non -ad valorem tax lien on the property. Ms. Ready asked if staff was working on some measurables. Mayor Grant stated that the ordinance has only been in effect for a few months. Ms. Ready stated if there are not measurables, how the homes can be closed down. Mayor Grant stated that there are measurables, when there are complaints they are logged and staff was creating a database to track the nuisance calls. Commissioner McCray stated he has a call into Community Standards. He was still waiting on a reply. He was hoping that they contacted the owner before the weekend. Ms. Ready said they need to get the people who live near those type of homes to contact the Police Department to begin making complaints. Attorney Cherof said that the citizen plays a very importation role. The City was trying to find solutions to the problems. This does not happen overnight, but over time it should work effectively. Ms. Ready said the City needs to have a 24 hour telephone line. Michael Cartage 708 NE 7 Avenue, lives across the street from a sober home. He has been living on the same street for 16 years. Everyone in the INCA neighborhood worked very hard to get the neighborhood cleaned up. The person that manages the sober home has threatened him. He has called the Boynton Beach Police Department; they came out and spoke with him. Since then there has not been a problem. Commissioner McCray asked for the address of the sober home. Mr. Catage believed the address to be 705 NE 7 Avenue. Neill Timmons 615 NW 4 street, stated that he was a FARR certified recovery resident owner and a recovering heroin addict. He spoke with a gentleman who voiced some concerns. He agrees that if these places are run effectively and if there was supervision in the homes there should not be a problem with the home. He said what FARR does was to control what goes on at the sober home. He stated he has been doing this for more than 4 years. He asked about the distance separations. He knew that he has a couple of recovery homes that are 300 feet or less. He asked would there be some type of grandfathering in. Mr. Rumpf said staff was proposing to strike the distance separation from the proposed standards. Mayor Grant asked what happens if someone wants to have 4 homes on 29 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 the same street? Mike Rumpf indicated they would be reviewed on a case by case basis. The City would monitor the locations. They would have records of complaints. The department would look for possible characteristics, which may be pushing a certain area. Mayor Grant stated that there was no justification to deny because of another group home. Asked for an explanation, how does the area make a difference? Mr. Rumpf said that if there are multiple homes in an area there would be some impacts on traffic. Commissioner Casello asked how many sober homes the City has. Mr. Rumpf said about 60. Commissioner Casello asked if the City knows where all of these homes are located. Mr. Rumpf said that they do not know where all are located because they may not have registered as a group or sober home. The group homes should be operated like a regular family home. When there was a problem that was how the City was made aware that there was a group home. Commissioner Romelus stated it was great to know that there are good operators and people that are doing it to help other recover. This would let people know that there are good operators. John Lehman President of FARR, noted FARR certification was require by the State of Florida, in Statue 397.487. In order for a sober home like Mr. Timmons runs to be eligible to received referrals for health care providers, there was new legislation that has been signed by the Governor in HB 807, which extends the authority that FARR has to apply the national standards to that process. He pointed out that the City of Boynton Beach may have 60 group homes in the City of Boynton Beach; the City has 14 FARR certified homes. Either they have not applied or have applied and have been declined. He said he will not change their standards in order to accommodate the capacity. He wanted to share with the neighbors, they have the same concerns. He stated that no one can join FARR. They are a credentialing body. FARR standards, will allow 5 adults to one bathroom. There are other items that must be adhered to. The individual that run the sober home are required to have a set of competencies. Mayor Grant understood that someone that was recovering was also the manager. Asked if there were different certifications for people such as a nurse or is it the same for all managers. Mr. Lehman said no clinical or medical services are permitted to be delivered in a recovery residence. However, the state requires that the Florida certification board, the certification was issued to certified recovery residence administrators. Mayor Grant asked are the fees reasonable. Mr. Lehman replied that they are reasonable. Explained that they are a nonprofit organization, and there are caps in the statute that apply to the fee. This was one of the challenges, and this was an unfunded mandate by the State of Florida. They have held the cost at $300 per location; the cost 01 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 was about $600 per location. FARR did receive an allocation for $100,000 from the State. Commissioner McCray inquired if you have a group home which is not certified was there anything that the City can do legally. Mr. Lehman said it was a Code enforcement issue. Mayor Grant asked if they had any distance spacing. Mr. Leman stated that they put in a 660 distance restriction; he believes that will be challenged. There are attorney at the national level that has already waited on an opinion. Commissioner Romelus asked for clarification what was meant by attorney at the national level. Mr. Lehman stated that the lead attorney, there was a lot of case law to apply a distance requirements, must be evaluated by a case by case basis, that evaluation must be by a case by case basis. Commissioner Casello asked how many employee are employed by FARR. How many people actually go out to field inspections? Mr. Lehman said about 7 employees. He said that it was very difficult to inspect all the properties. Commissioner Casello said that the homes would need to be FARR certified to receive referrals. Mr. Lehman said that was correct. He also added with the wide sweeping enhancement through HB 807, that escalates a 20 counts of patient brokering to .5 million in fines and 30 years in prison. The problems will begin to diminish. Commissioner McCray asked for any additional information. Mr. Lehman stated he has given the information to Mike Rumpf. Mr. Rumpf asked about grievances, are patients the only ones that are allowed to file a grievance. Mr. Lehman replied no. he stated any individual can file a grievance. When a grievance is filed, if triggers a response from FARR. FARR immediately contact the City and let them know that they.are not certified. No one else coming forward, public comments closed. Attorney asked the Mayor Grant to approve as amended Motion Motion to approve as amended Second reading revision, Vice Mayor Katz seconded. Vote City Clerk Pyle called the roll The vote was 5-0 31 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Attorney Cherof stated this was an extreme challenge drafting this Ordinance. Mayor Grant asked when this was effective. Attorney Cherof stated that it was effective now. Commissioner McCray asked for a copy of the City of Delray Beach Ordinance. D. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 17-015 - SECOND READING - PUBLIC HEARING - Approve amendments to the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapters 2, 3 and 4 to continue the implementation of the Community Redevelopment Plan with the establishment of the new Cultural District Overlay Zone regulating site development, uses, and urban design. Motion Commissioner McCray motioned to table. Seconded by Commissioner Romelus Vote Unanimously passed. E. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 17- 016 - SECOND READING - PUBLIC HEARING - Approve amendments to the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapters 2 and 3 to continue the implementation of the Community Redevelopment Plan with the establishment of the new Boynton Beach Boulevard Overlay Zone regulating site development standards, uses, and urban design. Motion Commissioner McCray motioned to table. Seconded by Commissioner Romelus Vote Unanimously passed. 10. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT - None 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None 12. NEW BUSINESS A. Vice Mayor Katz requested discussion on possible disposition of City -owned land east of Boynton Beach LeisureVille. Vice Mayor Katz stated that he was approached by a resident to discuss this property. The residents had some concerns. 32 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Mayor Grant stated that this was 3.62 acres. He did not see a problem with it being low density residential. Mayor Grant stated the parcel would have reduced sale value, in order for the land to have workforce housing. Commissioner Casello noted that Leisureville offered about $25,000 for the parcel. He has no problem selling the property. He mentioned that Workforce Housing would be great. Commissioner Romelus said that because it is in the middle of Leisureville, she would lean towards affordable housing. Commissioner Casello stated that whatever the Commission says, there would be some push back. Commissioner Romelus asked Vice Mayor Katz if someone was expressing an interest in the property. Vice Mayor Katz replied that a resident approached him. The resident was concerned about what may be built in the area. If there was a way to dispose of the property and make sure that there is consistency in the area. Leisureville is not in the situation to purchase the property. The next best option would be to have some single family units. Mr. Colin Groff indicated if the consensus was to move forward, staff would bring a recommendation back to the Commission. Ms. LaVarrere indicated that the City has been contacted by Habitat for Humanity regarding the property. She stated that a meeting had been scheduled to discuss the property with Habitat. Mr. Groff stated that it was zoned for single family residence. This was compatible for Leisureville and Boynton Estates. B. Vice Mayor Katz requested to discuss possible uses of the area owned by the City and known as Girl Scout Park. It is "deed restricted". Commissioner McCray asked what does it means to be deed restricted. Mr. Colin Groff, Assistant City Manager, replied that the land can only be used for public use. Mr. Groff said this was County property that was deeded to the City for parks. The land can only be used as a park. It borders the E4 Canal; located on the west end. The property was a triangle piece of land next to the canal. Parks and Recreation has looked at the property, there was a potential entrance at Mission Hill. He stated that this was a good site for a park: The problem was that the City does not have any funds for parks; there has been some resistance from the neighborhood regarding a park in this area. But he stated that he believes that if it was the right type of park with the right layout he believes that it could be done. He said that if the Commission was interested in moving ��3 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 forward, he suggested allowing the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to review and let them work it out; there may be a public private partnership. The City would have a private entity come in, fund and run the park, which would be ideal for the City. That was a mechanism that cities are using to fund parks outside of the general budget. Commissioner Romelus asked what would be the benefit for the private entity. Mr. Groff replied that the corporation that may want to fund the park could place their name on the Park. Commissioner Romelus stated that whatever the City decides to do, the City would need to get input from the residents, and especially in the past they have stated that there was strong objection to the park. She said that she does not want to move forward. Mr. Groff stated that the recommendation was to send it to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, have them go through the process, which includes engaging the neighborhood, to see if something happens. It would not be taxing on staff, if there is consensus on moving in that direction. Commissioner McCray indicated he did mind for Parks and Recreation Department gathering information. He does not want to get the neighborhood excited about the development of a park. Commissioner Casello said that the City was offered a parcel of land by the County and the Commission voted that down because of the pushback of the neighbors. Mr. Groff replied this park was to the North of that parcel that the County was trying to give the City; he suggested that if the Commission was interested, the City could reach out to the neighbors to see what their thoughts are. Commissioner Casello stated that he does not think that it would hurt to give it to the Parks and Recreation Advisory board. Mayor Grant said that he can go for another year. Mr. Groff replied whatever the Commission wants to do. Mayor Grant asked if there was a 3 to 2 consensus. Vice Mayor Katz indicated that he just brought it up, because he was requested to. He said he has no opinion either way. Commissioner Casello said that was why the City has the Parks Advisory Board. Mr. Groff replied that they may come up with something anyway. Right now this was not a priority. This was not anything that is being recommended. He said the City has 34 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 their hands full. Mayor Grant noted that the City hands are full; he was not in favor of moving forward. Mr. Groff thanked the Commission. Commissioner Casello stated the City could always use another park. C. Mayor Grant* requested discussion on the use and placement of a traveling sauna in the City of Boynton Beach. Ms. LaVerriere, asked if this was a request for funding. Mayor Grant asked Ms. Heavilin to approach to answer a few questions. Jeanne Heavilin, President, Greater Boynton Beach Sister Cities. Mayor Grant stated that there was a request to do the traveling sauna on Saturday November 18, 2017. Ms. Heavilin stated that it was to be held on Saturday November 18, 2017. This was to be held at Intracoastal Park. She informed the Commission she has been in communication with Mr. Wally Mayors and Mr. Jeff Livergood regarding the water and drainage issue. Mayor Grant added this was to help show one of the Finnish culture of having a sauna. Ms. Heavilin indicated this was part of a year long celebration of Finland's Centennial. She announced at last count the sauna would be hosted by 56 locations across the Country. It gives the City of Boynton Beach the chance to allow the residents to experience some of the Finnish culture. She stated that she had been in touch with the President of Finland House and they will host the sauna on Sunday, November 19, 2017. Commissioner Casello asked why the City of Boynton Beach would have a sauna. He understands that the City was being supportive of the Finnish Culture. He asked if there would be a charge to use the sauna. Ms. Heavilin indicated that the traveling sauna people would set up the reservation. The cost would be from $5 to $15. Commissioner Casello said that he wished them the best of luck. He asked why anyone would want to have a sauna in South Florida, in the middle of the summer, was strange. Mayor Grant said that he would like to give his support. He would like to use his Community Support funds. Ms. LaVerriere replied that there should be money in the Sister City account. She explained that they were given $1,500 last year. 1617 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Vice Mayor Katz asked why was the sauna being located at the Intracoastal Clubhouse Wally Majors, Parks and Recreation Director, replied based on the requirement for the sauna, staff determined that the ideal location was on the east side of the pavilion. Vice Mayor Katz wanted to get as many people as possible. Asked if it was possible to have it at the Old School Museum. He indicated if it was going to happen, the sauna may not be a draw. Maybe this should be placed in the middle of town. Commissioner Romelus said that she agreed with Vice Mayor Katz about the location of the sauna. Mr. Mayors stated that there was a need for water, drainage and electric. Commissioner McCray said that on Sunday the traveling sauna was schedule to be in Hypoluxo. Vice Mayor Katz stated that he supports this item. He said that he would not be supportive if the fund was coming out of City funds. Mayor Grant stated that there was a consensus 13. LEGAL A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.17-011 - SECOND READING - Approve amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element (CPTA 17-001) and related Future Land Use Map Amendments (LUAR 17-004). City - initiated. Attorney Cherof read proposed Ordinance17-011 by title only on second reading. Mayor Grant asked if this was in response by the Department of Economic Opportunity (D.E.O.) Mr. Groff stated in the affirmative. 17,=.- Commissioner McCray moved to approve. Seconded by Commissioner Romelus. Vote City Clerk Pyle called the roll. The vote was 5-0 KZ:1 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 B. Pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes, the City Attorney is requesting a private attorney-client session of the City Commission to discuss pending litigation in the following case: BENNIE ROBINSON, Plaintiff, vs. JUSTIN HARRIS, individually, and the CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, A Florida Municipal Corporation, Defendants. — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA - Case No. 9:16-cv-81572- AReOVA MAI VZT-ATILVA r_I09:1WiTA•ra0i Attorney Cherof requested 45 minutes for a private attorney-client session with the City Commission to discuss pending litigation. Commissioner Casello asked if the attorney was at liberty to say what was the case concerning. Attorney Cherof responded the case involved Police enforcement action. Mayor Grant provided a date of August 1, 2017, at 5:30 pm, prior to the regular Commission meeting. C. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 17-017 - SECOND READING - Approve the abandonment of an existing 12 ft. utility easement within the former Verzaal (landscape) Nursery Parcel located on Flavor Pict Road west of Military Trail. Attorney Cherof read proposed Ordinance17-017 by title only on second reading. Motion Commissioner Romelus moved to approve. Seconded by Commissioner McCray. Vote City Clerk Pyle called the roll. The vote was 5-0 D. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 17-018 - SECOND READING - Approve the abandonment of existing utility easement rights within a Residential Access Roadway - Tract R-5, within the Flavor Pict Townhomes Plat as recorded in Plat Book 121 Pages 193 - 201. Motion Commissioner Romelus moved to approve. Seconded by Commissioner McCray. 37 Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2017 Vote City Clerk Pyle called the roll The vote was 5-0 E. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. R17-063 - Approve rescinding Resolution R16- 150 and Resolution R17-051 in their entirety and revoking the moratorium regarding wireless communications facilities. Attorney Cherof read proposed Resolution R17-063 by title. Mayor Grant asked if there was something that could be done. Attorney Cherof stated that there are some things that could be done, but nothing that warrant further continuation of the moratorium. Motion Commissioner McCray moved to approve. Seconded by Commissioner Casello Vote City Clerk Pyle called the roll The vote was 4-1 (Commissioner Romelus dissenting) 14. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS A. Monthly Departmental Presentations: Public Works - August, 2017 A. Discuss impact of recently passed legislation on proposed Medical Cannabis Dispensary ordinance - August 1, 2017 B. Discussion relating to the future of the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals — TBD D. Discussion of number of boards people are allowed to serve on at one time, attendance policies - TBD E. Draft workforce housing ordinance - August 2017 F. First Commission meeting in September has been changed from Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 6:30 pm to Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 6:30 pm to K%j Meeting Minutes City Commission Meeting Boynton Beach, Florida ATTEST �C JucjlfK A. Pyle, CMC City Clerk ueenester Nieves, Deputy City Clerk W July 18, 2017 CITY OF BOY ON r - Mayor - Steven B. Grant z5w7;z-- Commissio'n-w - Mac M-cCrg cssioner - C istina Romelus Commissioner - Joe Casello Representative Al Jacquet Welcome to District 88! To learn more about District 88, visit Rep. Jacquet's page at http://www.myfloridahouse.gov Here is information about our office, staff and examples of issues and information about which we can help you. Office: 314 11th, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-650-6846 Staff: KesnelTheus,Kesn el.Theus@myfloridahouse.gov Jervonte Edmonds, Jervonte.Edmonds@myfloridahouse.gov How We Can Help You: * Any questions about the Legislative Session, which begins January 9, 2018 * Medicaid, Medicare and Long Term Care * Non -Criminal Legal Aid * Department of Children & Families * Elder Care and Guardianship * Affordable Housing * Notary Public * Connecting you with your federal and/or other state representatives Social Media: Facebook @State Representative Al Jacquet @Al Jacquet DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Boynton Village & Town Center (MPMD 17 -004) APPLICANT'S AGENT: Jeffrey Bartel, Berger Singerman LLP AGENT'S ADDRESS: 1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900, Miami, FL 33131 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: July 18, 2017 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Master Plan Modification to the Boynton Village & Town Center development to amend the previous approvals for SMU Parcels 1, 2 & 3 within Boynton Village & Town Center from 643 condominiums, 350 apartments and 115 single - family homes to 674 apartments and 115 single - family homes. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: NE corner of Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicpt >1/ HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "D" with notation "Included ". 4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon' issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other � N 6 / 7 DATED: /"'� f / / R / / City Clerk S: \Planning \SHARED \WP \PROJECTS \Boynton Village & Town Center \Master Plans \MPMD 17- 004 \DO.doc EXHIBIT " C " Conditions of Approval Project Name: Boynton Village & Town Center File number: MPMD 17 -004 Reference: 1 st review plans identified as a Master Plan Modification with a June 14, 2017 Planninq and Zoning Department date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ENGINEERING / PUBLIC WORKS / FORESTRY / UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the application requests are publicly advertised in accordance with Ordinance 04- 007 and Ordinance 05 -004 and an affidavit provided to the City Clerk. X 2. Any changes to the Major Site Plan Modification drawings which impact the Master Plan shall be reflected on these pages as well. X COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Comments: N/A Boynton Village & Town Center (MPMD 17 -004) Conditions of Approval On 7 of 7 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: None CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. U S: \Planning \SHARED \WP \PROJECTS \Boynton Village & Town Center \Master Plan \MPMD 17- 004 \COA.doc DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 17 -030 STAFF REPORT TO: Chair and Members Planning and Development Board and City Commission THRU: Michael Rumpf Director of Planning and Zoning FROM: Ed Breese Principal Planner DATE: June 15, 2017 PROJECT NAME /NO: Boynton Village & Town Center (MPMD 17 -004) REQUEST: Master Plan Modification to the Boynton Village & Town Center development to amend the previous approvals for SMU Parcels 1, 2 & 3 within Boynton Village & Town Center from 643 condominiums, 350 apartments and 115 single - family homes to 674 apartments and 115 single - family homes. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant: BR Cortina Acquisitions, LLC Agent: Jeffrey Bartel, Berger Singerman LLP Location: NE corner of Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road (see "Exhibit A" — Location Map) Existing Land Use: MX -S (Mixed Use Suburban) Existing Zoning: SMU (Suburban Mixed Use) Proposed Land Use: No change proposed Proposed Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Use: Master Plan Modification of the Boynton Village & Town Center development, and more specifically the Cortina portion of the project, to amend the development designated for SMU Parcels 1, 2 & 3 to 674 apartments and 115 single - family homes. Acreage: 106.499 -acres Boynton Village & Town Center MPMD 17 -004 Staff Report Memorandum No. 17 -030 Page 2 Adjacent Uses: North: Right -of -way for the Boynton Canal (C -16), then farther north is the Renaissance Commons mixed use development, zoned SMU (Suburban Mixed Use); South: Right -of -way for Old .Boynton Road, then farther south is a mix of multi- family and single - family residential, zoned R -3 and R1 -AA and commercial development (Oakwood Square shopping center), zoned C -3 (Community Commercial); East: Right -of -way for the Lake Worth Drainage District (E -4) Canal, then farther east is single - family residential (Sky Lake), zoned R1 -AA (Single- Family Residential); and West: Right -of -way for Congress Avenue, then farther west are developed commercial properties, zoned C -3 (Community Commercial). BACKGROUND Mr. Jeffrey Bartel, Esq., of Berger Singerman LLP, is requesting a Master Plan Modification to the Boynton Village & Town Center Master Plan, and more specifically the Cortina portion of the master plan, to amend the development designated for SMU Parcels 1, 2 & 3 to 674 apartments and 115 single - family homes from the previous approval of 643 condominiums, 350 apartments and 115 single - family homes (see "Exhibit A" — Location Map). The Planning & Development Board heard a request from Berger Singerman for Master Plan Modification and Major Site Plan Modification (MPMD 17 -003 and MSPM 17 -002) at their May 23 2017 meeting. The applica withdrew their applications in order to re- examine their development plan. After consideration and a slight re- design the agent submitted this new application for Master Plan Modification (MPMD 17 -004) and companion application for Major Site Plan Modification (MSPM 17 -006), which essentially adds six (6) more apartment units to SMU Parcel 3 (an increase from 318 to 324) and provides for additional parking. The property is a former dairy farm that received land use amendment and rezoning approval in 2005. The portion of the property containing the Target and Best Buy stores was zoned C -3, Community Commercial, and the balance of the site was zoned SMU, Suburban Mixed Use, and approved with a corresponding master plan for development. Staff requested a master plan for the entire site, as the interconnectivity and shared amenities warranted a comprehensive review of the 106 acres. The original master plan depicted 405,328 square feet of commercial space (retail, restaurant, & office) plus 1,120 dwelling units. A Master Plan Modification request (MPMD 12 -003) was approved on July 17, 2012 to redesign the Cortina portion of the site (which at that time did not include the condominium sites) from 458 townhomes to 34 townhomes, 348 apartments and 80 single - family detached homes, including the relocation and re- sizing of the park land dedication. Subsequently a Master Plan Modification (MPMD 15 -001) was submitted to amend a 0.42 -acre portion of SMU Parcel 5 from 16 townhomes to a four (4) story, 24,000 square foot mixed use building with medical uses on the first two (2) floors and four (4) dwelling units on each of the next two (2) floors. The Master Plan was then modified (MPMD 15 -002) to designate the remaining vacant tracts within Boynton Village & Town Center for 643 condominiums, 350 apartments and 115 single - family homes. Master Plan Modification 16 -001 added 240 square feet of office space to SMU Parcel 5 administratively through the Boynton Village & Town Center -MPMD 17 -004 Staff Report Memorandum No. 17 -030 Page 3 Minor Master Plan Modification process. Lastly, Master Plan Modification 17 -001 added electric vehicle charging stations to Parcel 2, resulting in the loss of one (1) parking space. This modification was also deemed minor by staff and approved administratively. Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2. D. 6., Master Plans, of the Land Development Regulations states that major changes in planned developments shall be processed through the Planning and Development Board and the City Commission. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to to amend the development designated for SMU Parcels 1, 2 & 3 to 674 apartments and 115 single - family homes, through the redesignation of the previously proposed 643 condominium units on Parcel 3 to 324 apartments. The original Master Plan approval was subject to a CRALLS (Constrained Roadway At Lower Level of Service) designation for the Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road intersection. A CRALLS designation is a tool utilized by Palm Beach County under their Traffic Performance Standards (TPS) review of projects, when there is not adequate right -of -way for intersection expansion to accommodate additional turn lanes and /or longer vehicle stacking for those turn lanes., The County required other on and off -site improvements to assist with improved vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian movement facilitation, including the construction of the 3 and 5 lane segments of Old Boynton Road from Congress Avenue to Boynton Beach Boulevard, the continuation of Renaissance Commons Boulevard across the C -16 Canal and connecting with Old Boynton Road, the widening of Gateway Boulevard from Congress to High Ridge Road to 6 lanes, and the construction of the greenway path along the E -4 and C -16 canals. All of these improvements have been completed. The applicant submitted an updated traffic study to Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering. At the time of preparation of this staff report, staff has not received an approval letter from the County. With the reduction in the number of dwelling unit and corresponding reduction in the number of vehicle trips, it is anticipated an approval will be granted. As a condition of approval of this Master Plan Modification and companion Major Site Plan Modification request (MSPM 17 -006) for Alta at Cortina for 324 apartments, no building permits shall be issued until such time as the approval letter is received. The CRALLS designation established a maximum threshold of 1,120 dwelling units within the Master Plan. This proposed Master Plan Modification request allocates 797 of those units (115 single - family homes proposed for SMU Parcel 1, 350 apartments currently under construction on SMU Parcel 2, 324 apartments proposed for SMU Parcel 3, and 8 apartments currently under construction on SMU Parcel 5 as part of a mixed use building), resulting in a balance of 323 undesignated dwelling units below the cap amount- of 1,120. There are no changes proposed to the commercial portion of the master plan associated with this request. Staff considers the modifications to the approved master plan to be non - substantial. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Division recommends that this request for Master Plan Modification be considered non - substantial, and approved subject to the comments included in "Exhibit C" - Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or required by the City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval. S: \Planning \SHARED \WP \PROJECrS \Boynton Village & Town Center\ Master Plan \MPMD 17- 004 \Staff Report MPMD 17- 004.doc EXHIBIT A BOYNTON VILLAGE AND TOWN CENTER (MPMD) N 062.525 250 375 500 Feet Legend Existing Buildings SI TE Congross Ave, Site Location Map N bo c-4 z O z 111M.-I CS z 0 t- z la pov " RENAISSANCE co woll . El Ing _ VB South lt(FjT.Ay 13ding' t59 d. tory parking hp CONGRESSAVENUE L L L J it Z p z 0 0 3 so 100 200 I --j GRAPHIC SCALE Mill ti , 0 0 . C W, . . ......... M 0 IL i (D to > 2 C: co P 0 8' ca m c ;c M aster Pla °velli esign Boynton Village SMU & C3 /associates Boynton Beach Florida Urban Plennir . Landscape achilcoan. d^ SITE coBare•a Ave. Site L 10.246 A, Tact B•1 0.253u.) low-] NONE E RMMK� I BO�M —E PMCELS 2.3 (& 4). S 8 P-� PMCSLS 24.713 19.59 .�n IF I x, IM SIM Pm1dad Uaabla OW Spam 5.619m %L I SMU - P..l 6 � -INUI 1.414 1.5V tp v v s V 1, Co 0 C:L 0 U) 7) (L . (L) > :5 1 0 cu Imosi L— - Boynton Beac EWE M T Gateway EiNd. .9f ji I I 1 W111 11 i ; W! R! cn 2M 7 Jill 9f , , I 11 - Boynton Beac EWE M T Master Plan ov Ili Master Site Data ign Boynton Village SMU & C3 � se ssociates Inc. Boynton Beach Florida I I I U,I,en Planning . landscape A hitic .9f ji I I 1 W111 11 i ; W! R! ; l x - - - Iffly, uie Jill 9f , , I 11 3 HHUH 99199019 it gi Emu imuui. li.ii glut 4 hx wd�. im i, 'i I t Master Plan ov Ili Master Site Data ign Boynton Village SMU & C3 � se ssociates Inc. Boynton Beach Florida I I I U,I,en Planning . landscape A hitic DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Boynton Village &Town Center (MSPM 17-006) APPLICANT'S AGENT: Jeffrey Bartel, Berger Singerman LLP AGENT'S ADDRESS: 1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900, Miami, FL 33131 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: July 18, 2017 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Major Site Plan Modification approval of the Alta at Cortina parcel to construct 324 apartments and related site improvements on a 10.246 acre parcel, zoned SMU (Suburban Mixed Use). LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Boynton Village & Town Center— SMU Parcel 3, the vacant tract located on the west side of Renaissance Commons Boulevard, immediately south of the C-16 Boynton Canal. DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B"ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant /,'HAS HAS NOT established.by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit"D"with notation "Included". 4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms , and conditions of this order. 7. Other nrk2' DATED: 7//0 7 i City Clerk S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Village&Town Center\ aster Plans\MPMD 17-004\MSPM 17-006\DO.doc - _ EXHIBIT "C" Conditions of Approval Project Name: Alta Cortina at Boynton Village File number: MSPM 17-006 Reference: 1st review plans identified as a Master Plan Modification with a June 14, 2017 Planning and Zoning Department date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS/ FORESTRY/ UTILITIES Comments: 1. Please provide a copy of the notice of concurrency to the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. (NOTE: If notice of concurrency is a condition of DART approval applicant will be X required to comply with any recommendations outlined in concurrency approval deemed necessary by the City and will be at the City's sole discretion). No building permits will be issued prior to receipt of the County's approval letter. 2. Please show the turning radii at all exits on the site plan. X 3. For water and sewer permitting, Boynton Beach Utilities is no longer accepting hard copy set of plans to review. The reviewing process is now done via E-Builder using electronic files. We will provide E- builder access to the Engineer of record, and we will train him on X how to use the system. Once the review is completed, two signed and sealed sets should be submitted to our office for field inspection. Also, for Palm Beach County Health Department submittal, five signed and sealed sets shall be submitted to our office along with the applications. FIRE Comments: None, all previous comments satisfied at DART meeting. POLICE Comments: None, all previous comments satisfied at DART meeting. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None, all previous comments satisfied at DART meeting. PARKS AND RECREATION Alta Cortina at Boynton Village (MSPM 17-006) Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 3 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT Comments: 4. Per City Ordinance, the Park Impact Fee is based upon a factor of $595 per unit for multi-family dwellings. Based upon the proposed X 324 units, the fee will be $192,780 (324 X$595). PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 5. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the application requests are publicly advertised in accordance with Ordinance 04- X 007 and Ordinance 05-004 and an affidavit provided to the City Clerk. 6. Please provide a copy of Palm Beach County School District concurrency approval letter. No building permits will be issued prior X to receipt of the District's approval letter. 7. Any proposed signage shall conform to the Sign Program adopted for Boynton Village &Town Center. X 8. Please note that approval of the Major Site Plan Modification application is subject to approval of the companion application for X Master Plan Modification. 9. Applicants who wish to utilize City electronic media equipment for recommended PowerPoint presentations at the public hearings must notify the project manager in Planning and Zoning and submit a CD X of the presentation at least one week prior to the scheduled meeting. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Comments: N/A PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: 10. The applicant shall work with staff to determine potential opportunities, mutually agreeable to both parties, where proposed X palm trees could be replaced with oak trees. 11. The two (2) proposed EV charging stations shall be placed in the parking area immediately around the clubhouse. X CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Alta Cortina at Boynton Village (MSPM 17-006) Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 3 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT Comments: To be determined. 4 S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Village&Town Center\Master Plan\MPMD 17-004\MSPM 17-006\COA post P&D.doc EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP 1'`- :.5!;47•1?-1 *-;'.f '‘;•.'41 1 - : c . d 7 +"�'' _.-..] ''.,,,-,";.'*.74.i.11;•1;.4.-;47':'''' t-�8 vw ;t„ '''' r,- iv • r a r5' ?,',7'p,' �y. ;'• ` Ali,) c ; v#* era � - erg 4 '47,,,,,.71.,v,-7,,k-1'.`"77--C...;'' ,x svi „,../,..,• ,:.,,,--'-� �) f 4 a..¢*;.',•'te ••- 0 "1`� � �' #x .» rgn iMin :s'1, . j rt,i I • - j• iikil 'H ;.,,Fain r ,,- ; �.��:������ :,. ;f� ��� "”` ... '. �� m �?'r�- ' a✓�,�°s's Y,a �, � ;r Lra d- 'ora 9 �r�Psar �.&�+[ 5, '�'i`.;✓ �r�"4d::"�7 � �rv�+a ��, rri j i I - f{" 't 's ,T; ," ;:••• 1r 7 $ ',V:wa,i« -; -•^•-•'-,.."-'.. v ;�� " a d •' r,44•:.;.1,'',1. s f ..'.0 �* '•:14:','"':.:.;.:•,- ,;'''...: 14:', � ,� a udilli Cortina Bivd, ,Cortina ''''''''''' ,,,,.,,g.„,'‘..!: ;u , rr d r ail • 1 X11_, c7 L• ,sj^,"i,• 'Fas'., . ''•a,> I.. ^4 u) �s t S 1t .‘.%1..,„..',.: ,:,• , „„'-,,0..,*,..,:v•,;(1,.,,.,.",:.,;.,"''. :, ,,„-,,,...:..., -•'-'• --,,4 4•• ,•,4,•,',•,•'"•,,.. ''. ,'•,',••••, •'.•,,'•,"'..`':- 04 ,I in.. ':•wil.*:'• -3;7••' ',.-trL':azttdkr,,.*;A•'''' ! .'11(k' •4.'7F4 '7D, , t',.. --' ' ---A'---4.••,,,-e-,- ,,i4•‘.,. '''.'k Y' . • '7 ' • ' 0.4 01E' '- " •• : ; "' oaf z � i, �lD�t ean 'W' r&; t�" .4 33 - �i 4. �� • i', •7 '. • t d ,,, d, 1011'.::: a 1. r '' .'a •;,;(,;;, ;.Q 4 `,' :Sagrada Ave1 -' ' w N 4 dy k o w , ,i +om• '''. ' y a C i` , r l( y 6,. S',t1�' 0,St''may ata f • • —,,,..,:::„.&..,-.:...,„b1' 11 rS'ii 1) IL-,may" "'k" sCibk 's? •, kJ ,:; hi .`1. 4 y • d t�t4 '�wc ' M^��"" • ,. ;' -,,,,,Rt Z •' .. r�� r,i•- 1. t� ,1.1. 4; • . . ' . liiiiS eV REEMINI .7.7.7...7.177177. um Ana .7117,7 v....71.7,7 7r77.,J7.77 FERNagril ------- --- . .1---ET—Mrl 1 -- --- ii ''11 i'' ' — '-7 '" 6 • II ..„_1 - .„.„„,...., ,...,— ,.. ,,,,.. ”. 2,0 ”.... .. - ---1',:--!..:; 11111.1 INIIIN ! .., ....,, „. 7, IIIII 1 ,,. :.,_...m. : L.---LzatzL. ...-- \.1) !:.:317 ..........., ,... .... ,.. . ,, ,..,„ _1 _ ,.., / AS nrs iniibmo ma ml t !oinopo,.,‘,,,A. cil i,::, ,.„, .1 ..:::.ro.,„, VII" — '-' — -"--, •il rt - 1 C14 i n \I.:W' c-.172 ::,:-„,-, i' ”-.......,, • --- ,„,...,-, .-• -,. .,,,„ : - •ERge:::'41 1 '• , ii,ing,, El+NI+H+H+H+11-1-11-141' E",'H,i:idx,,,,,,4,— ‘, s--'.4 \7-7Y':'cii.MEI \ 1: ,..., ,:r1APage• 11 ?. 03.: _, .. ;,,,,c,,ii ..0 .....,. ' \., 1\ \ 1,,,:;i:: ...,:,,,,,_ • 1.r.r,,,,,,,., ,.__ -7.,-...,' H ! •4,r!,,,,,,,,,i;iiii:,!!”•• %..7,-.,s,,,,,„,zetei-__-; ' --7-1--","*,. \ ' r'r °.,•=17- '---'--- '7'-,:,:°:°•!;:!;=;°, '''''''' ' g ''' ; 1- [I 0.22':''''''''''r '''' :4.1 1_ __ 1 1-- ' --- ' .„.2.--L \\\ ,.\\' ,_..:',* 04:E.,- ..,„,„ , 2 I . „,” ,.„.,„,_,:.,„„„,,,,,...„._....,..,,,, ,-,,. .._ ...E....4 , , , , ,, ,„.., „.,..„ ,,.,,„„ „„. .„...,, ,,,,, 1 \' \\\ i,---t-ir. '=„t ,, -- 4 / Ir 01'4'''..'.44'' 4 •44 444,4"t4';':4 ', \\\ ''\\1...VI'""' ...4."'`''''''''' It. 7....Ow 04 271IMP 1.,,aii......,,I.,,,,..,11.M.tlarna•tl.n v ervn 10,w ,l',L,,, _H!,:,,,,uat$ --\ ‘,.., t .,.... ----:" ,,, ,.7177,77..77.71.7m7l171771'Grp,711.717777777:77111717,17.771 n 0777 a:th7777,7,0 teVettim t r t'ZgAl544•1 . ilfi ''' 1___:,:a;i:g'.-4A _AA ,:'''''''.k ,--.: ''''' ..., ,...„,.......*.......---,,,.,...—...-...,-,,,,... i , 4 1 60411,•T74.,;,,,,,,,3!A;..V ,„,,,,,,i'!4.1 ,?:. N,•,,,,, ..,- 1.4- 01:?•:',,:',f'"';;':'!']!i'''::•'-."I''':-,' 1c $ 1Z? ,,,---vazi, .44-';77''' ,n. vr-mmifilin rrrl ,..,• ..„,..,,A,, HO. a ---\__ --I --0 : 1:12-74:,•'- I -----'e • Amki 1, -1_...______' • -__,..i___J--';-1,441__ r • " " ''-1. •*, I 1 77,7,1,71,71117(,-,nia'!jb.'rinitt.",..,: 11124:"R;,:S2,':'''';444'06:1111 \ •,-,;..;*7-,--,, ---''. -9 1 ,E,Aniii',,,..i.:,,,,,T7,,,,,.!..,,,,,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,77,,,,,,,„„ir , • \ ,,,,,,\ r,rwiniatillaWORMIN\, ...\ ,,,\ Clls ;Au '.-'-rPTT"Tr?-71 Oli•.'TI Ttii _...., : ... ..0 . t-:=*11. ...:Lie_i_-.. ---4 '-' 4:'"" $44g\ LIJ i'i r kit- r Mr-. 1 .' • . N . ' .'.1sql')i,-54..•";\iH !;:oai,4i!''''.iiiii,li. T -iiiii • !=-1':-.7!:_i \,\ le lit 't ,‘&404,Afe.t..,,,,,:,A ,o1,,i .... !,,,, -- ,,, .......iNk -...0 n 6 --,. •2171)4414*„.k.$42 i. f 'li ' l--'40.1r,..ccsp,,i ,,\ \a\,.,, ,,,K.„..,,,i,,,§4/..-",,,,,tdo,..A1„, gli,i,r- ., .,.. e, \ V44iitrll, ''' f—!,\04IIIII*FetilIiIir.. -.1\ i glik'4 ' :LI. 1 \\‘‘,\ \ \ tr,;:4",,TAM-:. .. :11',$;itibLe" l'Alk -- w L.i.... - " i ''''''-' \''''1'1‘1:A\ \ ',..,,,,W. ,,,:',N,;',,,,,,,,,,.41 .-------7,f-- *i.... - - .,1,,.\ ..., , , .,IivTrrat , ,, ..k+ :, - ' L • .-.1. ‘I \ 11.01::000.0000,M0 g f ?giV .,..jr.,„: ,t--, \ \\\\ \ 6.Mull,u,-.:*.,4& ' '1.1v,710 ' - ,,,',-,:',4',:'''' .. gai ..',. _,_„___, r-• ,Y.,.'t...-_,,...„, ---1441Ti, _t•,_-- 1, \,,,„\ '.,•irr 1 1,19.4„,.:44,- I -111."- ,. •'1 .- 944;41:. ,,,,,,,,,L,I _,\,.,, '\.'''c'40 1-_%'Isel 1E1 MI \ ME EINE — — _ ,, ' 1 ',,,, \ ''''''''''''C '' *--- — , ,.,.. W. U l__FIJ L \ \ 1 i 1 1!1 ot ACCESSIBLE ROUTE \ \ IN USABLE 0.S DIAGRAM All OP ,.....“.=.. aft OVERALL SITE PLAN I. .1 :, VP WIEV13.10N 2©17-05-00 o, • • mom=D. ..-5017E+77- swimFoRializi 97-' PROPERTY LINE OF TRACE ..—.._.... mrA-K° i „yarn I f o- ''....:14 7�„ ������ *gam-it'll ma,� I I t g Ig °e n1— '.�- I g L n I / J 5 0 25'DRIVE AISLE(ttP.)O -5. Lam` \` - I / _ � tv II 1 - m I / � ' - . --._.�� \� � 54 UNITS 3 "I //8 4 p 4 zs'DR E AISLE(ttP.)® 4 08 II= 1 IL.,4-All.kMIL..,9<7 7 i ! 1 (: 1/ "oh n _ow.... T... a , 1 i ,, ,, , 1 _„..,,,,,, , .., L, ,,- iii 1, / ' ���Ig.\' "Immo,1.. 1 I I ,..III �a Y / o- \\ . - !ate I I " ?9` 49"`¢� / I b 25 DRIVE AISLE(ttP.)5� - \\c\\ .+c _� �. :�,= I. I I I I 1 I ngli' i I \r,\ . Win• I 1 I CO 1 Z,. a. ; � = �?jL\ L II I I I1 I 8a4 lirill B ' ( � 4 8I I I I.1 .• I �- I�• " O =�I E9IFf1 '1 y / YAIs_I'7JlJNnJL!'ll�J.'�A2' S / 6i„< ., k Y///// xi M m�� . M /6 FAMILY PARK �v Y I I K^I '\ - •b t ' \ Its n\ ZS'DRIVE AISLE(Pd. I'.'„ C ,� \\ \ I d \\$\ .s. dab ��� �."� �.,`� 1` I I �\ '\\ �� I • I \�• \ .�.. 030- .�.. /' J ; v \ \ \: 1 - V ` co- ON1 1i , t25DRIVE AISLE( P)� �/ Ly' l ..\.- 1 11 1 al ICU PARTIAL O L SITE PLAN MST e �LE .M� ..T„ s E RACKS.,SP=9.9 REVISION? 201'.-©R-EE 0, ,cars - --®®—®® .4' p\ m C- I I 1 xL 9lRisv Il,kk� ®Br GARAGE •. I •-. r m.'�'llJ�l.'lJJ�I \ �� � kL���,'1 rI.": � • '�, ■ $'1..r• L•,Yw Y�r•Y�•uTi a*' {ple71\ FARairi _4f�i Yid 1 ©+ Z iiiiimisiiiiim SPA ES I - `� y� / FAMILY PARK ,:l., N. 111 J i R.a 1 1" i _.. 8 \Q\ \ 0 25'DRIVE AISLE(TVP.)53 o I fiS t 1111- r. i I \ 1 \ \�' 111111111111111111111• f s ntr, • ` \ \ N I. ....I- 1 1` > I 212 '_ FSI s.'..... ,- *we ..._.....1 1�� r , I I I I I ✓ 5`, , � �f' .� B!-DG.1131 1 1 \� 6°c .a / . .,s BLDG UNIT$ 11`11 - •A,GuwLSRaiso1.1 I • s••�•• - •s•d�►•'••�••a••s••a ••'r / I ••,+!, _ �1 ®• ■•AAa•v r iaLxz SIM v-�.: I • \` o-1 �.,' 11...,-=:-- r,, .�- .�. e ' •�� C W u 2, o- 25 DRIVE AISLE ttP. AO9 I L w4.11111t rt.2.- ` $Wss a g maw, 1 I.^.o ja I J 7:41,.. B - u•m NIS hVA ' Up, \ \ 1 1` ,\ o- f \ � 1 ( Ir-i n `t-; l,r--I r-1. \ l \ 1 Q e BLDe.g5 � .. • ,.��� 11.1111rmo, p 54U ITS n, !;� ���� ��• � ■� �■ ■� /r: Tom .. 1 _..- z '�� I. I \ ,.\ 1 \ \ Y 7 _ /1. 11 � 1•' 1 J S �d II( G �• �WW.r �'a'�) "s'1 .... �.J�^n�aF':.C.. ���� � /r w yii .�J, :-... ,.._m_,,s,0/.. I,I, l4. „._se"a •Ar 4 o- o- I I 25 DRIVE AISLE(s / 1 A BLDan z.. I _ CLUBHOUSE2STH I 25 oRNE AISLE MS./Q b{=�� R -d �> - 54 NI. TYPE s ()z _2STORI § r—.-wE ...° I�� �A �� , �_~ m ®�B m�,��,, \ 1—°� -- 5.062.39 S°.1 FT. ©� •� -"- -.crass ©/ 89 © , INC.LEASING CTR OFFICES rrppirEimi er �� \A xa (SEE_C_T_R Of •: `t i'© y,i © m p % \ I a v /�U// ��%/U/�`a SLL•`µ, LEAS NG ') pp , uc.S 0, .-,_31,, Y -r_. _ CENTER 1 A ' �� ;•/.....;•," i \ I j�. sn (SEE SKI CH . CCC •. fr.,. \ / MAIL Dors ���? I I, � 8> z.����\I��c�tl��fl4 aFl_a..l. � .q•�G •��:. G n4f -n ..- ��a4. �\¢� 1°- = � 1411 II II IN ^�: �• . �1 i Iw 1 ,T III II \ 2 °� u < r r r, i, 1,,,,„,., ,,ff., .1"Mi IMM I. v �, m¢9 � FORa�{�...� req 1 z 1 I � ' n r,—.,,. z�„^' QD \\ ` P e j/f' I =_VIS RE, DM `Y a aUrA uA,fMLNY SUL's°"”‘ w)_•••�p•�•• i>•■• o- y''yk' � •• ••"'•1I� I o 25 DRIVE AISLE(TYP.n• — ' A,w SPq+` \ vin. •••-eO.+••Aa1It - " • I e•p �J-a 25'DRIVE AISLE7.1.77;;;) (7YP. •_ " °r°—,� rvowAss w + xc sxm m-,.s _..,...._ 1 ,,II L- �II1 PARTIAL SITE PLAN doBTH $ KANCMEsoNT:R Aw.Bi,2oo72 . 9P-1. N B E RACAS:s REVISION E017-047-43#3 aF ,,cors ;-E. a•- 0,00 y 1- s i r i / G < ._ I I I � ���;� u�c� - brr -� I L _ .3I ,,, , ti ,i,1 mob., �- § iii..... ..__ ...... �� �� '� �_ . I 'AL-AIR �- I "� J 8 4 t ���' �4 I �, 1.:4-t. l y � Imk �I . D.i. m � 1o • I i a w s �� 3 flB?0 1 - i_ 1 R, i I IliI _v v v v '�s .a:17., .".. - - '`^ pv p..,..„,,,3,,,,,,•.,, i- ?\ i ,o . -\C5 1 ®25'DRIVE AISLE(Tl.) ' / • 1 ,, \ I • .� I Y p O25'DRIVE AISLE(TTP) I » g 3" .W. r.. . r rr_ a ' -Aimmii'll in 07. I STBKB4 I Iu .r H Bn. r ,ii, w 'Y/" Aa — — — J `3 P > mi "1 R^s D m G a - "•.1- G - MZERTY.-INE v ti -.__ I 1 -- _ e ` wm --- ',_. -_ _ -- _.i.— —TV! a - 4I. 7-.. . e � I4 g1 , z _ . I I u v a. 8 s 4 :: 3li I I A gy 1IA -“1) ' ® IIm d; V ® / 3; mo / -0 L\ . R I n$: :r� N/IS/! �zm, .xamx�.lrxi ek ALTA • COWYIPdA s""5$aS'a ARCHITECTS ALTA DEVELOPERSLOWED A, i'2;'0' i.F e BOYNTON BEACH.FLORIDA =ig ARCHITECTURE&PLANNING ��/ , i E• !I e 5,, rt511D, / . /I ,55/555w5;55 I/ ,,,co 55..5. I I '4\455 I, 514 TA' 0 '.4t0"git., g O 1 .. _ Imo"• szse, 1 : ----4-''-'..-(:, .<';4-4••-: '-...-'-'. 000000(0 ,{ ' ( ,i0 , 2,0•-,`,• (100- \ inT '' '''' ' 1 :T4- . • 1 ' - ,..-.- .. ,..__ __- ,..... 1. (....0., " 1 .;- N f•E 4'. l'''. 2E12EI LI53:3',, \ GRAPHIC SCALE WM'? 1 • ,- . , '..: ir'-' YiIi. , \,,.--if i.0 ---.---:------:''.-:1---504't,,,_/ -*.; -,0,,,,,0' =‘,‘ iIIt.-_,?----......--4,„•„,.,•,'IiI-I---II......,'",„2 V-5, " „..—1---I...-5,,,.55, II. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1 .. i i." L;i \ ..-§1 V ''';;" \ 3.',:l ----:'''*--- ...--- I \' \r3F3.%5---2---------'3- ••!"....''. '* ...-'.--tv.. 15 ! IFF2a;RT:E4'6EnEERPEE'DCTE:a:2Fir ., 1, ,?•P J..,,,,0\• 7., ,s'-' , • ''''II"*III ' a \ .IL:14 .1-II---- 8 G1U"' 4 I1 -III ‘..-.k-II--.1 IrEZIHI1/4,fr I•I'IIIIII77.,,,,,.. ....,''\ n i' \ CONT "FioWT.I.O'cOnAW11.3%3TO II1WHGR'N57 ACH I \iVi!..-,-A--- 2,- =•-• -... ... ,,,,,,.„=<<,,. _-`ii--'0'6' -iii,::-.!:-, -,-,j.,,k:,4,.".....-:-L------;.,.---- -- - - -1......e.„..,... infosi...... _ _ NOTES _\; __A---.,f5,-;52•3_-_::::-.3:-,,,,, '"..-.1,0o:.5 i3!)''7_L.5.:•;.... <14„.,522'--.. 25. 5,i;!:;,24 5f," 1 1.REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS SKETCH ARE NOT vALID WITHOUT THE IGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA I'4/4 Li, --compalag.W.F - L 'ICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. \E P-II- '444/OMER.A P C4EIIIII ,6 IVII6 --III\ --I-- I'I m4r.....4 'arli 3 54 3:' 3;93 ',.,, ' I'• ''. 3 2'hniPt-7r8PlUIREVIISTRAirlit,255 -CA- '3' --"*'-W •24,23- . '. ''' ,`,,.4 .553. .1i • .3 ".5, irgICTLIFIWIngt6 AT 1 kOrPIPARE SHOW;GR LISTED„i 3.THE LANDS SHOWN HEREON ARE SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS. I.'"'''''''''—',,-Too 4.4vOue711 iI,,.14,47,4Itm•I'.1.1-1,kire"..ITP;I:72__I_.'''''''''.-_-_-____2...._E---- _........t..6„.--m--; „i......-3 lit± \r---INt. • I7, III7 ,,,,,.. .,_:.:_.,,,,..,_„.,____ _._4...:_._,....,...._______ __.1„... ....,,__________,,.-„, , -,,,, t....-v7.26.1.3 ''v 1::,:ii:,..:-;-• \s.4:j-‘1. .:—.3,.;all" ''''', . ,, Z_,•__I-.- -i_t___5c„, '3,,,/,r RESERVATIONS.RIGHTS-OF-WAY.AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 442 1 1,1 ka km II.ISIWT1=RRENEMPELEIEW"-W.lITER'fa"RE-VR!' 4, lin Id '', i.,____ SECTION OLD BOYNTON ROAD AND CONGRESS AVENUE.ELEVATION ? •°IIIC"XI 611INIF7I_IIII., r_-=-= 6---1-1-- .,',., T„.\ \,4,..1., %,.,0 . III% 5.iHNARINnV2HOZPHEREON ARE BASED ON THE EAST RIGHT-OP- P,4 I P "tv" WAY LINE OF CONGRESS AVENUE.HAVING AN.SW7E0 BEARING 'SS I Igmt----1—,iD4*"",14•PiX"' OF NORTH 0,25105-WEST. 6.FLOOD INFORMATION IS AS FOLLOWS.i.,' t'. i .Z. -179•2°:\.1 \ I ..I,---I 4 ,I• COMOUNITY WUNDER 4 120196 PANEL NUMBER 4 OOPS O D. II.H0 'I'r.,,Inta\ 'III°' \ 6.7,4„. II'P. DATE OF MAP INDEX 4 9-30-82 i•-', ili, ii 5 rTC3 -'' 4-: '.•,.',!i-'r, " * o .2., --r--I I`I'PPIP"PPIIPIP BASE GLOW ELEV. •1 1.0•cas, 7, ?I" \ ....,,,,, a'•'Vii ' , 113'9 tit• y; . ., cl No TITLE INFORMATION r---- L„, ; I SCHEDULE 1,11 OF TITLE COMMITMENT NO.6055972 PREPARED BY CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY I •• 'Y ems '..`,.. \ IIIIi1 I'‘,I EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 18.2016 AT H.00 PM 0 I 44. ,- iIII:EI i 4,7, 1C4'.0, Q.,• 4, 7 DB 118/518 Donal,,,,,,,,-0,.=0, 2 2' \i• = ,,,, i". •3 Ppi NS• :,., . . 118 cr'1 7 MG I/B6 Righlmaf-Wey Map 8 ORB 18288/1218 Cross Access EasemerM YES YES 9 ORB 18981/1687 Env.Resource Permlt YES NO PB 109/196-2D2 Cortina PUD Replof NOIREPLAT,NO i OF2 ‘II,2,I 19IJ Y 0\\ '.. W•14.I., i .!.41-.- - PB 106/144 Plot ORB 28245/460 Resoluf Ion 14E641,1E1 1,7S5 5IIIIILI'I. 74 611, 1 A D4, ,II,4_131640,417g 4,., 1 'm ORB 1955,421 Deoloroflon of Covenants TR :1,,,,, .616. '.`' '.:'' ,,.., ,,,.. ., ,,e..tTai- ,`...• 1 ORB 24135/45 Agreement ORB 28149/1257 Declare/Ion YES NG z 1 E'5 rri . 53 * ''''.\ 3"2 <E5-5053. ; 1 ORB 28197/102 FIrsi Avmndownt YES NO ,IEI1 523 55, 2, io. IS'.ip.",..• . 61., CRB 19580/1008 Development AarOOmon. ,,,e,,,,EkA,,4e, i e... ORB 20845/861 Boynfon V11174,4 COD YES NO'1182 Fi ra \ a 1 1 . SR 332R211i M::',11 1g 4"Zc',1 1::,II: ,M 2 z ,MI• 4' ' ..,\ ORBB 2221812239/0 5 ( 2951887 9 NARamIctenhl.df edtooNf0ue7Este0 B ltm.aPmot.onnOiDfD-isCs DD 1YY2,,EEE1S1S ,NN2,,2Op 's 21992/127 UfIllty Easement D C'ZIMIGe.80.'DOI" I.P4Y Igl II I P88. 2 ORB 22095/1407 Uill Ity Easeomnt YES YES 21 ORD 22010/1E146 Env.Resource Permit YES NO IYES NO 0 471\011 'It ' I I Ni„ EE72;31-1, LE=r4'"""n* YES NO 23 PS 121/80-SC, Plot YES YES i kV' c9raultil-Paw° a.... i I • g EES RIME, ig=7"E=TE;EEI=..=, X 2 26 ORE1 28419/1729 Agreement YES NO • 14 41 .1' Fi • I LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS la. ..ss s 11,464 ow PliEnt1101+ t::' RilietiVHNCE ELE. EAV. &le' I i V: Q..., ...I. i• 1 ,,4,,,- . 13,1 CATCM BASIN CO, EFI:ENTRAL ARO"$ 1 .,.4, • !E • - ,, I ,s-—',V•bIII r-5.,,' O=5=5',/.5,5;3".• VANNISr" P- I?, , 1.1 like2 • 1 • .-§i'.; i•Pc,'Z'l Q,,,,, I Q., NE: C ?.3-. 4 g ' }1.1..'..qt..' IlifilTFERLE DISTRICT 0 -,1", Mi \ .';,- ,t .6 0 HSU ovlic vormou kt,,. i.0e -', •:;•::,,,,c'3-'....„ i \ ‘ uV 2 , 40.,,, .111 _ - ,,Tq 7%4' ._.CRAIN LINK'El. P.O.0 2.,,,,,s r* 111.ril §F,21',.. „ I • ••...,,f, 5". 'Ma:414FM5 5 555555 N01 253.03.12,42,,,',, Rh 4::.,;2;% 2=5 --......„' ',?•2 ......5 •w., mg ' IdEi 5 5,—I •----:-,0•4•09..‹, 5f.„,„'5 .., . -!'.=,'""'"LE F:5.• )3150' 2",,.`‹.4,6 7.,,, .,„.A,334 30' ° \ ,4,' .. 0, NON 2303W7'66901 ......,,,,...:,....."'1, !ii .• ..Dum SIERAL BOK .... ITITLFTITAIEWN1 1 "'-,."F'' . •,',,', 1,i N ,-;,7rx,,,,........:....:::: =Vg;.... %. ,./1 • WATER I•TER ••.1.,1 , ___, 1 :, ......., =a , ' IORB Ms,PO 127, IIL7,,_ 'vT'I'HOL-544II,- '",4'7---F,A..9-'1- ''''' •'2•! ....' •' ntbrwrora TO.cENrsx.A BCD, .• WATER VALVE 1 , •-' I •,. ti„ 1.....A-,F.,0 / IP.8 ISO.PDS.144-1SII I . r2 e: D ''il ... .. . INV -iZZ , . , SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION .0,2Z •;.-, \ qII "PS0,;14 SUILWARCEL NO . 0 I.. : tERNI ML AL \ LOR IDA ADMINISTRATIVE tlorggEENPrEIEMEV=;E:2,11: 1,10R IDA STATUTES.ARO V,1 I,T1 I i '''' / '\ ? IP D.we.KS.44-150... / THAT SAIO SURVEY IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE REST OF MY iE'1 , KNOMAEDGE AND BELIEF AS SURVEYED UNDER MY DIRECTION. AW,I,LELI 2 1 I • I Pg1' 0 g! SIPA-PARCEL , q- h LexE0 USE 5E5. '°"•IRII / . E6Eins!.,%-c,',--- LAST DATE OF FIE.PORK,DECEMBER 0.407' NO. DATE BY COD REVISIONS. ER/PS JOB NO, 0407I' i MI E CI CORTINA PUD REPLAT TWO TRACTS A-1,A-2,R-2 2 SCALEFB/PC ' BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 3 4 DRAWN JSM CHECKED ''. 047 CM1 Moore SURVEYING&MAPPING ,..,, ,, ,,,,,,,,,,ss 5 Pc. Bora Fla:on Sorza...e 7 40000900 07 krthormon 00097004 FAA(0,11,41-016,2 6 VEIL ' SHEET 1 OF 1 Do.s.a { a r r v a a ¢ a r �� "I!, r a, r !43 ;13 8 -T, 41; s: n � 3 O 1 t� '� 'S O m A < a i# < 4' -1,--- rE m " 3 -itv'sr - t gni 1 t D ! 1 1 - s . _�� $ ' k •yt„$ _ 1 3tli i. `.; , L I'M fLu�7 t® '� \:.F } fr i^� C 1 r,C7�N; R C !T o r 11 4 1 sZ.®iE rs,,'d 1 L11 ®I x,-_i r -„,,,„„qp,,,t,,....,-t ,,,,..,"t.t. t.,,t,„itt I mi -t.' a k X,Nto x I ''------.1 ::\''''-ig__IG'' - 1 yilfil. 1 tm-----.:----11.[Epr...,-,-,,. {T.„,EA m 1:ti ,\N-:_:,..:if i _ k F .. ,xj .r.n. �"`ik'f$- i as ! 6 ra �� ti 11 0,1, ® -CO �I \ " i 1 4.vt" . Y t 9 ^i Co")Qi i 1 m r,-.; i ii O 8 i A 1 p n fi Z m �q. � r het '1,m 8 .. , �_m a�l iL! - m z _ ' i. € _ z3 Y Cn i_li m- 'm Fri�0 .R M .y..ANII lQwan.xw,,,, �� e.. ......x ..._..3 -0 !€ R2! 9@ye f rn b‘r4, '•S R LSI jig Sp�P i$�. . �w lit $ int j'a $ s• 1 "*.''''''I",--"'"--',41:::"." k -g a :gel a'Ji �'bo., ! R=te 3 ri'6e e �'� FVISA y t $� �- R f� '"���+'' ptgl ALTA • 6®W4IW7� , ' it x ° ,/ARCHITECTS t 5 ALTAIOCATTP AT: OE4E IXERS G BO YNTON BEAGN FLORIDA tag �� furrc urracrinWN,„. c X rr r s x ��x t} 'Yr e t CA r " m - 1 m "F.dd in 1 ® 33.2�� ��tr� _ 1 -1.„'„ a 1 _Z ,.L `-� 3 ��$k'�, g4 i 117 �=' ,, t; o ,,„?,.pg - , " i 1 _ ,— k4 `' ' ,, Inc�� -t 41113,tr i gam ' � ;;kti i 3 I 1.14.9q IT tla l�F� ��.. kd �� a3d �'�`� `ES9 wi3 tri E7JlisTitr„Lf l' '. r _a'It': x ° d ��.` v. t ( _ $■9 _ � . p1 e2. a QQQ?�; r x ` _ ( ..� th ul 119i' k � 'b t to ,,,,,,,--17.- i.€ \''',.,-,/.➢ } ". - lin'-',4-.1,-'. ,, a ' " ..B kk j -1'44: S r'4i F ,:,;11,17,:••:2Lri, ■� �� 1� � ifirf � 1 It �� , 1 ' i � S ` f�> a, AP -\---'\''-',1-11'-'. . ii:.1.0;li lilti. a,t,'''"kvATEL : -1 > tl -'\- alta $ ! i i L$ , :707.71 0 s ,e 1P r e z ¢ L �„_ •_ ;gyF� R4£ar$ 's" 'F s m 5 j z R ' Y� 3 "..I,33-'1.,:%„ :%q} I� J -,F,. ;R C � m K § I 1 0 _ �" AMS/\H T $' ALTA ■r6®68484�A , i • k a, d I l ' 'I ��T� BEACH FLORIDA T , F B j n R'CHfTCCTUiE&PCRN LING o Nro D {5 EVEIBPER i A9DB 9B 9B AD ., )-,--- �� - AD AB _,.AB �_1_ _ '04`% AB �' 1 _ AB AD- „���H-,. �1��` ' / ADHD 1 _ _ _ ii y�l_ I II I... l/f - H OA 9D 11111f.- �;I �l _ '' --, b44I tie � .:tA It. ®I.►P�— AD.110® L' i I 2I�.---.`� • CIO 1 .._ AD AD 1 1_— , - ` 1 a-7" ►a L. I �1 11`1111 Ilu :!i .c,,,,-,weir �.���m� 1,will! [idol,. 111-1-i Z ''. — 1 4h t u. T l ice... a 4 f�, r "AD AD :�r` ' i ,11�{ i illkagtoktip El 9 - a 148 .... .i !'i 7`�=. � 1 a. 1 .--& 9 1ti3 9P�j ADN,hIj +. 9D AD r •I tat z. , I. ---- BAB la .!, 1�[Ilik Ili', J \ • l t 9B AD AD AD AD AD q i < , I- 9D F AP AD AD 9D A•D 9B AI , ,- ,✓l •�o AB , .ADHD I --- • l I 1 I I kilt 1 - r�i�1;72- • '' t I .I1 I�� ll ill-1-V- Tr.,(011iNOINNOBWANNIMSfsr,,,,,1 i" .11 iiLL,!.1 , 1 i (ii1 s1 . 1 : 1 , ii 9 / � 11)T_ 1`.AD 44- • AD AB 0: 11. i. •, Ail, t HD+AB AD 4444 __ IAD D i � , t , • I , _ lit:: 1 Wi I .-P- illil' 'i : 8 j,41 n i' 1r rr I,NO ' II, soli -,, 1, 1 t pip 1 t, i U. l 1 �iit rui-- ill-14 r-1.41z iPirtillffittip ,! !1 54 4�1*- nOi,Kt t I t ' '7'i It - sib di: --/-/-1, ;,-. 1. ----,.. ,,, .� AD AB 9 AD I.3±,- AD 9 AD 9 9 g -`Ami �0�� 9 9 9 8 8 AD AD AB -'�Dy ornirr-41-zills ao ao Sir 41,,.....•.* <0.14;0" irk „I. �/ , AD.k`-= D ALTA @ CORTINA hS � '�. �. j i , :P,1.$ S k;_ BOYNTON BEACH,FLORIDA 3 �;in 3 eli , 1 �f 6 _ -` PLANTING PLAN ( 9 19 6„;'a '' it A'' ' ) II 1",' 11 1,; '1 i',1 11 1 .....'''''''``1` 7, Tr,'.1 I_i '', \ '',, ,....,!„''''',",!,,, .....,4,, g 7.','.1.---:7:;ii.'W''';I' '''t'‘,‘,, \\ \''''\' ''''''''';_\,k, \ \'f,' '-ki,11.",,,...A.-ff,---;t:4, •i J,- ',,Vtrral. -'-'\ .1,\ . , , , fr,e; 1, .......,1„..,...,;,.' _,N,,-, --.,,,, .....,,aim , . , ,..D:S.:'.1 3..:',,l''''''''\0_11C,,,,.:A: I b b , ,, , \ ( Im L ___ _— I ,,„..--,-,-,-1 I I I NixitHLINE 2/ # ' l !'Da -, � i s ki, WS �j l a.�._ AAAA. .-i-,---4.-,---- T y T _Y F , w 1:...11ap;I _ mmm ` i' - bmm , �'' ,/Cm J ®.rwoli` 0 .1IX —A5.0001k,-"sofg. ...,, ,,,...,,, \ ,11. � um+m f II ..',"%_-.1 �4 _ • _ v mom. �•?�A i ,( wilomu� *f,-4 t,.10._„-- v 0-.1,- Q}gip!1-14,11a3 11 . /• = �o 1 al .t. �`` ®r0 i;riI ^/1,-,,p,,„‘,....,1y � e.... mm 1 _- ©A yii�.a6N% ..-.1 �1�- mom` \`\\ 11 \ 9��'"'� r� _ �1rnes a�' m y°Q Sq'�+�� t'✓� 1%." ® 1. .._.._ Q m vatitiefieggi .9 v� ��m v` _ •IMI, 421'111n b P m �i 4� i ositt N, $. \ \' \ ', • ©.. - �. S m R���r,:ip��/,O>,,..err' v , ,$13 '� �1�U\V�mv. 1 ISI Ca ff� 1 t J v �-m, Y iii :° :I - s§,..4 � Ytji`= 1,� _ to .\feo vegl O fit V! , �'K, __ vm ® i -:m l,,. . .Y mm it > m(N .':•1,11111";17^%7•:14,'_P:, -.� i ` \ O z u'-'sit, n .L z p�idO�Bl! ® 0 � '� � F � 1�.p. ,� �Q l �i� +1\ •"' , s'�t61. y _w ':�+^-.�R1�`.: NM,\, ,\ >,'�„ z m om may" hill -i� /. g !may B:�/S44 L'"' �"�aa' 1��+=ii�, "..e- \ d . �117 � . i,r.sa w o �17i. ^�Ce�SLS &��a-,0, t�/L\-...1-� . � -e xAil I'\\'�`U� m O -� � 'll � J _ !_</., 1' / t/`�• ��a I, '71*� a•�m PAIR.'I ��. vv P7 W `� 0,11,0411;- ! \ ;9- 1� m r Lily ®® 0"4 \ 111 mrs�I ©m Ji., m-� m e:' �� .u�/m:'��� �"`®ntio s� �dm'� e>s :' J�=' ',,,,,7--,.‘, mo o I m v l�vd - �- l7�,����� /.��� Gw.ii v�m �Vl V��� "`�0 ��V�o�� ��\ ♦ `'".:. ®AAAA, ..,,.�o,, m fi r'© s'+..o , m �,--,-, ,o,,- � °,,e. _a� L 4V0 \ ill �� it al YCmllma •Y ©•tm' � f � 8,... .�.. oie•�A� pilipLim m AA3t.*T. IRR .- tai"'3 bi l� ,- �` .v�..M (yYi ..,,.,N v`i '` fS�,\� v'�.. _ 00111 ��-'�`,lY� \ FEBRUARY of 1017 i I I grit! j.,,, i_I= . m` „ q IA ��� --- AAAA--m AAAA.. •-- ..._. -� a^: L,wP,TC.NLl1le LP-I/'LPs - - �� AAAA_ .. - ,. �$ ' "x'.. 1'"'\v- Y•' t;Wl►r► f. .— u; i... ........._ Y—, .i� v 0.4w# \�`: _ .n PERMIT LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE:1"=SO' • b1 I e 1 r 0 AD OD �"OD AD AD AB AD AD I �� AJ � AD AD AD w I/Mk i ,ir ` � 3�fr � f* Haire kA1�1fhiMOs:4 13.E'0,+"w�—`�� 7 ! -I 1 -� I I , ! 111-SAD � I 1 i_ 1 , 1. O' I- -1-; ; A9 i, I I aD AD 9D 9D' 11, • 40-1 _ ° 9D _ : i 90 i • ! I as J tate-d i�( 1 �t*rlit ;. 13i� �. °�? 1-•----1 I �. !!r I j: AD I 1 1 aI1 lio lI ° $ ; 1 .. 8 4 +` 'II--- 8 4 - ti' 8 4 _I I_- 8 4 —.j 8:4 i I `§ tiLL �s � > — ...__ I1;1 USI II �� 11i . -III - IABI — i= .., I Imo._— --gc 1 , dc.i I.I AD it; ' :� _III_ -- t .. I I IT! ,�.i.71/Fb •'_ ,I1 Ic • I 'III . , .----„ 1 . , A.., ,, 1 IJ , ,. p -9D AD _, __ III-- -.. . , 8 4 .177.111 - aD r" I $11-. O e_---..111--- b j 4 -1-1.t)-1,1 9D- pm..• . -- 8 • - -V-.— 8 4 --- I- I 1.1r r..- b 4 -4104M4413,1 t �����1. _ III 4'� 1 ! 1' AD-0i, Ii -4 :1 — — III _-1�i1 1 Rt -- iJ L -' '-- �-. k-,"1"--it ',,,..r..;—___,-._.ligi I.,:6',------ ''''---'''.a----Lf. 9'i � � - � AQ. 'a4 aBAE►- ''j I\ ) 4A + ..7---' 9 D Aa , l_ \ A9AAVD IBC CD $10 aDIDDAD _0 e y a-, aas — 7 I. I „• „ -w/o :'. 411 -10,1.4, '---1`. ---i`-- *- i . - it...1 i /1c • -4 it v 11) '�. y ; ' -- , ,1ma L fair LID I ` 49 t`�: D AD4 s a , a cpIp I 1 4, AD AD AD 6, �I lop AD l ° atailie® o 49I A`w: -90 el , iiD ; 190 9D y ,,,,,,,,,,;„7....;:...,, I,a j I y i !d scia ,9 4*� r at 1 3 kvan. �'Y {A,.rr ,1 «-- a'iiiii......tprei miriiimiiiiigua 7.110 4 ,ira■t►.1_Arascs ,__ , , v� M�il s �!� alt aD o .-.:00 AG(��aka)aD�a0-i a e,a \iiII ., I--r i ..; 4D—90 AD a a0 a t T AD 0 ©D 99 d9 aD 9D rD AD AD aD ,Rx8 ! aD_°,1:11____, D" �� 1�` 3 .;p_ 4r 11 a9 CIO fi.,-.__ r _a I__---yr_ ---__` - ---- e.r tilb 4 J. a ALTA @ CORTINA e, a d ;I W Ijtlfe �at ati11111 BOYNTON BEACH,FLORIDA "?t 3 o , I _ ,ii , _ PLANTING PLAN _ € . 7 ; I 3` "s ¢ i•3Io$°vE 1A; yy g e c „a,p, 4 Fi' i,:0, i IVa:YF,gg, f 1mnimo rrt y/, 1I!t1 !131 'flhui1Jj ip - E 4 lqi E EISai 3 a FF f Fg �7� ��I $�� ��� R A � �L ��6 "� �kt. io a FF tf Ai 8 R Afile gat SN �" S �� L 4 AA i i f liiuli gl A !I 5 5 s 5 e7 ci 40E i d s l -'1'-Ii Ill Sill 111.;-y $1Ie ;A I$ f I 1141 Iii g S9 4V _ `s 3E 1 Sy �e 1,H ' 33,Q:Ili 1`i'ig I 'sie is , i eI $ AA• Egd 5 I 'aS+ i .II. I� �z{ag ae•ij t§gyta � ! �gg s� A 1 2 3� �tl � el !i I II a a �` a s a iIac lilt ifi�y6 {i$ 1 gaaYi (I % a fil ii I i ilk l z i i 3 x 1 i _ Ey s ii il p. Ni $G §gesgii IE::g ° P Cg;•.• : ®20a f/IDO 4 9 i x g $e E Ig 5e g s" > o /III/ # :Pa s t '`1=' i i ° 11 it li id it ' I :o., ,4.:.: is 's g:'" pa ( i IP ( $ 8Pa ,, KK � = I § a . I • ^ x Ii " k uCIFGgl £ 6 , . YP . CR £ 66 A 6,Vi I _D I • 3 s • Y 3 k 5 ` c g 5 g `5 8 g { 555 m 5 g 5 Y a : g i�9 • • c ' Y f • . . . 8 -19F : gxLl 5 `,, Y . , gge G6 t6igs5 • gg24 • .. .. . . . . . _ . c -4 �A • • s . . 8 ^ 8 s S Y a g „ F e E . . 4g • . o y s s xg . . 6 .. . a " . •ri y x( s r F - pt p p g �' gg C ..A L y t I 1ifflI ` ( $;! s ;1�qg �qgqg ' . I;114 ( iiY' t,ga: s> a i ( i, $.I',a,1 I ii t-i%t5s� r ss g¢ yy y Mi i • i Y a: E 5 - S i. 1 PP,-2i f;+ (s`g a g i ii: E .I- �. b a'6:= ' a 3 r - • a x g E a qq S,' b 0, nil i °.i l ALTA @ CORTINA -_ ; 9s d A kW7; 663WE _ ^ BOYNTON BEACH,FLORIDA L.wii I^ o €I`0 I il_ '"' PLANT LIST,CALCULATIONS AND NOTES 1'5`r E Iy atka4s3 1A. R A. 0- y.-0. 11 rA&E SOERS ALAWAS 4 -I' '�7 I UP AWMMM PPE FOR DRAPE IASoSINS 4I I7 I r—�A 6'NLNIHIM LA61tA S1WGMP �' �� If *� GRAPE rni Au slues ''4' �, I5 / '- V .\�I I I I IIf 1 I I�iI 1 _ _ I1v. • p �� A LA2KI SDd4rtPE m7:7:...„"arve 55 SOD • i RKRMbE III IlfI�� � � �..� A' 1 10'-a 1 lag' �. RE '..::.E LAxOM Er."wNwlyv T"'OR FOLK. ®DAY CABANA PLAN VIEW O DAY CABANA ELEVATION :A1HaRwaeADrwsmeiwFeaaR1-1 S:I1E.V]'•I'O' `LKE�N'.I'O' -REHALiAftE CANGfl'FA�El LOd6(-) ' -51BR61A FABRIL GRAPE Id,OR(-) F b �" " -1 \5 t;,y r nureor Hor.H.eA1.Ms ~Q ' :�.� T�vi'.-� 1',-7 DECORATIVE N S y�yC' 11*SSSNSEOAIED OCNP NE MATCHED COLUMN N'CTION 1 I►� y1g, wa W -' 1 }" Y+ U,g✓.,��'-� ONA SO SQ,FT.TII.EO SIGN PANEL CANOPY TREE FCNCESF.Cf10N W Ill } , m 'Iv Tom, j�A' ii''''`', rO,�T' '- *sI c a w ', MMM J� v . r� az r'''r -� Ai hd 1' .",,,.. ,;fC,y,�^.ii�`� ,,a t^A, .,,C.-.,�, L Y'ta".:x2 n ��J @>4't A a,.\ ," M> � g ' a -)'')`''''..1\4',',9-4d, .s')u "V.e 'j "vL C� l bl'"1, L } <h`:,,*scr� } }� ^'`'`I.¢,\1 z a � "'4"' 'r"' g }G" ,?,`41,,,,r.' ?`s4 ,,-t.A.'� ,.° ! t ' i Il;,' s' p a ri-�''- 1'k" i, r - 'I lan �, ' t o Y cti,* +, ' s4- F g NI, e PLAYGROUND/SHADESCAPE STRUCTURE ,.A '7'7 " '� a \ . _ "4'- .. ,,.g ^` pa _ ' _i k � .I hGI•114•li1•rsicc..iI.I• 41•1•1•1o yam1 _ *(.. il\o/ 4\ \ I ',-, V , MillQ Iim m Fimprgign d ■ImurIn.r.,eL . ��. a �64l:i ;cx � s'u. N-11? ` 2` _ : "Pg l .N, . .0„..41 w,,J. .. MIR ,4 ., s� PE1mDnR�'olaon i1L RIGN\VALE la. I Oerrew FV�.ere, FLO\VERINO wCCENF CONCRETE,DLOCK\VALL �*'' B �.i l..'. urwie"n. _ TREE WITIISNCCO FlMSH 1 IU••l�llull•l•liil�iUIUI�i�l�l�lNi•INF ,r'#. Lh 111 :.`x,s`g _� �o zwiRA N�E SIGN WALL CHARACTER ELEVATION 4.., . SHEET b'-O"HT.ALUMINUM PICKET FENCE ELEVATION LH-3 SCALE:3/4.1'-0' PERMIT Statewide Issues Environmental & Agriculture Fracking The House was able to stave off a bill that would have charged Florida utility users for fracking costs that occurred outside of the state. Despite Republicans finally joining a years - long effort by Democrats to ban fracking in Florida, bipartisan legislation to do just that failed to receive a hearing in the House. Lake O Last year Floridians saw toxic algae spread across their lakes, rivers, and beaches, choking off waterways along the Treasure Coast and hurting local economies throughout the area. The algae blooms aren't just eyesores; they're also a public health risk as the blooms can be toxic to humans. This year, the House and Senate were able to come to an agreement to on legislation to convert existing state-owned land into a reservoir south of the lake to clean the water before it reaches the Everglades and put a stop to the algae blooms. Economy Tax Cuts The Florida legislature's approved tax package includes a 3 -day Back to School Tax Holiday, a Veterans Tax Holiday, and the exemption of feminine hygiene products from state sales tax. These tax cuts will help to put money back into the pockets of working Floridians. Homestead Expansion A proposal to create a constitutional amendment that raises the homestead tax exemption another $25,000 has passed in the legislature. While this will decrease taxes paid by homeowners, it will cost local governments hundreds of millions of dollars. This might mean that critical local services might be impacted due to counties receiving less tax revenue. The amendment will appear on the 2018 ballot. Feminine Hygiene Tax Exemption Feminine hygiene products are not tax exempt, meaning that women are taxed for necessary personal care items. This year, Florida has finally ended the tampon tax and feminine hygiene products will be exempt from sales tax. This will put money back in the hands of women across the state. Solar Implementation Implementation language related to Amendment 4 was passed by the Legislature to provide tax breaks to homes and businesses looking to install solar panels. Although not perfect, giving Floridians access to great renewable energy was too important an issue to let drag on. It's time for the Sunshine state to lead the nation in solar energy. 11 Health c& Human Services Hospital Cuts Hospitals, including public and safety net hospitals that serve those most in need of care, are facing over $520 million dollars in cuts from Medicaid reimbursement rates. This means the hospitals that are serving our most vulnerable communities will have fewer resources to save lives. This will hurt Floridians who need access to medical care the most. Opioid Crisis With Governor Scott finally declaring the opioid crisis a Public Health Emergency, Florida can now access additional federal funds to help combat the worsening opioid epidemic. This session, the legislature also approved language that will combat the spread of these dangerous prescription drugs. The legislation will enhance the monitoring programs that doctors who are prescribing opioids use and crack down on sober -living homes that make false marketing statements. Medical Marijuana Floridians passed Amendment 2 last year with over 70% of the vote. However, the legislature could not agree on a bill to implement the amendment, which means that the Department of Health will be given the rule making authority for medical marijuana in Florida. Although there have been talks of a special session to pass an implementing bill, nothing has been decided to this point. PreK-12 Education Recess After an outcry from parents across the state, the legislature approved legislation that would guarantee public elementary school students get 20 minutes of recess a day. Unfortunately, this very good legislation was included in another bill, HB 7069, that contains numerous harmful policies that would be detrimental to Florida's public education system. Per Student Funding Increase The recently passed budget included a .34% rise in the Per Student funding for public schools. This means that our teachers and school districts will only have slightly more resources to do the important job of teaching our students. Florida continues to lag well behind the national average in per -pupil funding and districts are receiving less money per - pupil now than they did in 2007, when accounting for inflation. Charter School Funding This year there was a vast increase in the amount of taxpayer money given to charter school corporations. The legislature approved a "Schools of Hope" plan, which would give charter school operators money to compete with low performing public schools and increased the amount of per -pupil funding available to charter schools. Changes made in how local districts must appropriate local funding for school maintenance and upkeep will also mean more of your tax dollars going to fix up privately owned buildings. Higher Education More Funding for Bright Futures In the budget, there was a $180 million dollar increase for the Bright Futures program. Students with Bright Futures scholarships will receive money to cover the cost of their textbooks and those earning the "Academic Scholars" award will get 100% of their tuition costs covered. Summer classes will now also be covered. This ensures that more hardworking students are given the opportunity to attend college in Florida. Prioritizing Community Colleges The House began to push programs in Florida that would expand the 2+2 College Programs. The 2+2 Program encourages students to pursue their first 2 years in community college before going to a university for their bachelor's degree. More Florida universities are beginning to implement these programs, which will allow better access for students. Waived fees for veterans A bill that would waive college fees for veterans was passed by the legislature this session. The GI bill covers all tuition costs, but it does not include additional fees that students must pay. This bill ensures that student veterans are able to attend Florida colleges at no cost to them. Justice Sanctuary Cities With increasing Federal pressure on immigration enforcement, the House passed a bill that would outlaw sanctuary cities. Cities that have sanctuary policies will be punished, as well as the public officials that approve them. Fortunately, this misguided and probably unconstitutional legislation died in the Senate. Unanimous Death Penalty Florida's death penalty laws were recently declared unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court, who found that the death penalty verdicts must be unanimous. The Legislature fixed the constitutional problem this session, which will allow the death penalty to be used again Vote -By -Mail Fix In the past, voters whose signatures were deemed not to match the one on file with the Division of Elections had their ballots disqualified and their votes went uncounted. Democratic legislation passed this session changed that. Now, voters whose signature is contested will have the opportunity to prove that they signed the ballot and will have their voices heard in the political process. SB 2500: Florida's Budget 95% Q Education 0 Judicial, Corrections 8 Criminal justice 0 Health & Human Services ® Environment & Agriculture ® General Government (Includes Transportation, Military. Econ. Opportunity) Education $24 4 Bitiion Judicial, Criminal Justice & Corrections: $4.9 Billion Health & Human Services: $34.2 Billion Environment (Ag. & Natural Resources): $3.6 Billion General Government: $16.7 Billion iniogr;am. Information Technology Services: City Commission Presentation July 18, 2017 Information Technology Services I.T.S. - What's B.E.S.T. for Boynton Beach Information Technology Services: Who We Are Our Technology Team • Director • Assistant (part time) • Network Manager • Computer Support Specialists (2) • Network Administrators (2) • Systems Administrator (1) • Support Manager • Business Systems Analyst (1) • Web Design Coordinator (1) • Programmer Analyst (1) • Geographic Information Systems (2) Information Technology Services: Brand Promise - to be the BEST Business Partners —Streamline processes and implement best practices for, our Customers to optimize performance and productivity Enterprise— Nurture a business friendly environment that provides the information, technology, and infrastructure enabling our customers to excel Support Service- Utilize knowledgeable technicians to deliver prompt service, a friendly helping hand, and quality technical support for positive and effective outcome Technology —Implement and maintain p innovative and reliable technology solutions through conscientious research and vigilant process analysis Information Technology Services: Services We Provide First Line of Support • Our Help Desk • Computer Diagnostics / Procurement / Break -Fix / Replacement • Software Diagnostics / Procurement / Installation / Configuration • User Account/ Security • `How Do I ...' questions Information Technology Services: Services We Provide (cont.) web & Audio / Video Services • Web Page Creation and Content Management • Audio/Video Presentation Support • Videography • PEG Channel (Comcast Channel 99) 0 Information Technology Services: Services We Provide (cont.) Keep Information Fiowing • Microsoft Exchange Email — now hosted in the `Cloud' • Naviline — Enterprise -wide Software System • Laserfiche — Document Management System • Workflow Evaluation and Optimization Information Technology Services: Services We Provide (cont.) Manage Data, Provide Analytics • GIS Services to support our customers • Land Management Database • ESRI Geographic Mapping • Business Intelligence Reporting • Application Dashboards x Community Standards Cases App city of Boynton Beach GIS :.. ayer List Layer L Hy{� oli.txo t.T X -#, w.. moa Zo• o ® t �a 1 J • r ) ) 4 m. _ rOn► o £q_®q0O O� ,. �, • .Q'•®o®y, I .j �s .;_ • ~o %> J"'� Community Standards Cases o e pm •,i" •" w Y• L...l O� ml a4 o)m O • f � t•� •S •-•.,� � � �O d0 O • i �Y'a1... q � Cad,.. • x :• 10 FY2015 Cases._.. - '4 •moo A"""/ '!� '. .. q. Oo� y �£-.wr..-+-gym.+,-O �w - ♦'E'• g0.f -cyp„ µ�'r / 0 4! •q � ✓, Wim.-e^r 6x� q E 9t ®00 1 £ O qe �,0 •tZS^5 IN COMPLIANCE • •o.Po O �• • 3 CLOSED46CASE R•� b`f rrya 1 a w o r it• !>t MINT ACTIVE O' - �� LIEN SATISFIED 4m • ..- . 1 :, w o dao eo`F- a o o ♦� o C) LIEN • e�s XoOfm ®'c' C:1 INVALID COMPLAINT ®fie ® j �o ;or• jq 56 , CD Calendar Year • .Casesr��.- - ♦q! o rt ao ,,.�'.''tiloq!'� ' u m m �,5t ev µ pp ,.. 2 city Boundary o d F 4 �. - -a �, `.-.Ueirav Garticrts . -,'r •''I � ', '__' .. ?'v�. ..} - Information Technology Services: Services We Provide (cont.) Support the Infrastructure • Second Tier of Support • Support for Connectivity between City Hall, Utilities, and 20+ Remote Locations • Networking Infrastructure • Server Systems • Network Storage Systems • Telecommunication System • Security Systems Information Technology Services: Services We Provide (cont.) Layered Security • User Security Access — the right security level needed to perform their job • Protect and monitor our internal systems (anti-virus software) • Monitoring the perimeter (firewalls) • Security event notifications — emails, texts • Goal: Keep the bad guys out, and internal resources and information safe from malicious activity Information Technology Services: Cybersecurity It's a Blob for All of Us • Cyber security issues at an all-time high • Human behavior — the primary source of costly cybersecurity issues and data breaches • Transparency doesn't help this situation How The Bad Guys Attack A cybercriminal does a deep search for email addresses of your organization on the Internet They find all publicly available email addresses of your employees ,r M, They use these to launch a phishing attack on as many employees as possible Information Technology Services: Cybersecurity (cont.) Awareness and Training • Education is the best method to prevent attacks • Train staff on what to look for, and what to do when receiving suspicious email messages and attachments • Avoid social engineering traps • Good security practices protect information assets from cybercrime at work (and at home) • Goal: "Think before you Click" .�►4.1 i �a;'o; iYix►ro: o 1 Information Technology Services: Cybersecurity (cont.) Trainin:& t Before Af er Phishing Security Tests 1 / 1 / 16 - 711 /17 413 Clicks 0 Replies 142 Attachment Open 0 Macro Enabled 0 Data Entered 5 Reported 20% --- 200 August 23, 2016 A 17.8% Phish-prone °. 651 test messages - 116 failures 15% __ _ 64 people clicked on the link _ _ 150 52 people opened an attachment --1 0 P June 19, 2017 c a 10,b _.__...__ ..__ _ _� .w ._ ... ______ 0.910 Phish-prone 100 LA s 668 test messages - 6 failures D 4 clicked on the link c 2 opened an attachment`` ' 5% _ _ ___ �_______.� _ X50 N ON 096 _,_ _, , ® ® ® ® ®-,---�-,-- - r —_, _�---.---.---, 0 ED Clicks ® Replies Attachment Open Macro Enabled E] Data Entered Reported -0- Phish-Prone % Information Technology Services: Cybersecurity (cont.) Other Areas of Focus • Lock devices when not in use — PCs, tablets, smartphones (all devices should have a password) • Keep passwords strong and secure — don't share them — change them often, especially if you think they've been compromised • Protect personal information Keep Your r - In fa► n►ution LOCKED UP! Information Technology Services: Notable Projects Completed / In the works • Telecommunication System Replaced (Jan. 2016) • Laserfiche Software Upgrade (Mar. 2017) • Microsoft Email Migration to the `Cloud' (Feb. 2017) • ESRI Licenses to `enterprise' level (Summer 2017) • Naviline Software Upgrade (Summer 2017) • City Website Redesign (Winter 2017) 0 Historic Web -Site Enhancements (Fall 2017) Information Technology Services: Notable Projects (cont.) On the Horizon • Upgrade/Replacement of Aging Technology Infrastructure (Ongoing) • Consolidation of Billing/Printing (Currently underway) • Electronic Plan Submittal/Review System (Fall 2017) • Evaluation of Naviline Enterprise System (Early/Mid 2018) • Technical Opportunities for new City Hall (Currently underway) Information Technology Services: Any Questions ? Information Technology Services I.T.S. - What's B.E.S.T. for Boynton Beach AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S FUTURE LAND USE (FLU) ELEMENT CIN -INITIATED CPTA 17-001 LUAR 17-004 FOCUS OF AMENDMENTS: • They implement the 2016 CRA Plan's recommendations pertaining to structure of the future land use categories. They affect both Comprehensive Plan text and FLU map PROPOSED CHANGES TO FLU CATEGORIES: RESIDENTIAL DU Low Density (LDR) 5 Low Density 7.5 Merged into one LDR category; MoDR Moderate Density 7.5 (LDR) eliminated (MoDR) Medium Medium Density increase to Density. 10 Density 11 11 du/acre (MEDR) (MEDR) High 11 High Density increase to Density Density 15 -15 du/acre (HDR) (HDR) CORRESPONDING CHANGES TO FUTURE LAND USE MAP HYPOLUXO RECLASSIFICATIONS FROM "MODR" TO "LDR" Moderate Density Residential ELIMINATED: All properties classified MODR reclassified to LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RECLASSIFICATIONS FROM "HDR" TO "MEDR" Current High Density Residential merged with Medium Density Residential: ALL properties classified HDR reclassified to MEDR "New " HDR (15 du/ac) available for future development PROPOSED CHANGES TO FLU CATEGORIES: MIXED USES s .x . Mixed Uses Mixed Use MXS eliminated, Suburban (IVIXS) 20 low (MXLj 20 replaced by MXL v Mixed.Use 20 iUew.category Low (IVIXL) a a Mixed Use (MX) 40 Mixed Use - 50 New category; MSC Medium eliminated (MXM) `Mixed Use Core £ 80 $ Maxed }Use:: 80, Renamed for Cl W ;High (MXH) :c . onsistency Av I - VIANE Alt o MiCL Lut r K n'9' r s rrttTTTnn� :.: I :MXM' I ,NE 9th Ave E 9t v i NE MII-A l ll� i,--T) h.A e i E E 7thAv, Y J f y NErSt •A 6 t4E'4ib � �`t � a � aihave i�z �r fJ6 dAva � h �qff�+ NE 2nd Ave :_Bo- to B c w ' o. Z m NE stAve a LTA E Ocr� iW1stA XH I _ I ' SE W -.i I I § a N AJ st✓asjt✓l{ ve 4th v Z; i �L11-1.iJ_l1J.JJ 1, �jjw �� Jc J HSE�61'UA i w egend rth SE 7th A e Ave 1_ y Proposed Mixed Use High, 80 du/acre a (renamed Mixed Use Core) ' I-I-f SE 19th Av Proposed Mixed Use Medium, 50 dulacre gth' _ye ' P (new, replaced Mixed Use as a middle 1111 I` sELDt,.classification) r" m,f Proposed Mixed Use Low, 20 du/acre sL-�O� (�s�t11 Iii AW. (new classification) I �lV k 12t Ave _r _r 1, A ® CRA Boundary f ® TCEA Boundary SEE A.ath Av j MXH Downtown T00 District Boundary I i ' RECLASSIFICATIONS OF "MIXED USE"- CLASSIFIED PROPERTIES Mixed Use (MX)and Mixed Use Suburban (MXS) eliminated: Properties classified MX reclassified to Mixed Use Low, Mixed Use Medium, or Mixed Use High per CRA Plan 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles RECLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTIES CLASSIFIED "MIXED-USE SUBURBAN" TO "MIXED USE LOW" I V IWOR0101-110 • JUNE 27, 2017 EVA-, I f I Imil: -61 JULY 18, 2017 BOYNTON VI LAG TOWN C NT R MAST R PIAN DDIFIIIII • 106 Acre Mixed -Use Development • Previous Master Plan: 640 Condos / 350 Apts. / 115 SF ffFfdddddddfdsfa • Proposed Master Plan: 674 Apts / 115 SF • CRALLS (Constrained Roadway at Lower Level of Service) • CRALLS Approval: 1,120 Dwelling Units • No changes to commercial portion • P&D Board recommendation of approval 0 C r r A m Z C7 Q Z n m Z -{ m �o 0 :ejtll Tw-, c 4 1. 1%47'r lnr�,-t Z;- jr4 Ll 4N krill I Q F41 i IrAn ow �l Legend SITE § Cork�alrct Am, Site Location Map ANAL LWotiE4C m �.Wokfflrm-- , M. I 1111 tit-- -ASI I It Cf M .43 f TIT U I n(ITI-re tyuM V.. -ip 4 -14 It! I flips, I L T k J�E 0 oi V. JL COMFMW AMAM a so sm PAaso s 1 r ♦'�\ \ \ \♦ s. \S` \ rx . SAW -Pexcd 1 $'f�`:14 Family - ••�'� • .O� 0 \', �t � iM • ■ •N M 'r yG �!; O • M }O � • � p 101t �O` N !A` Al. ��� SS SITE 70.517At'd 3 cT *rni { t �i O N •A A tl Y tl 741 Y1 O fp, SRI atl r1 diC _ S , ,'.�,�--r'�r '" � Pne1� n � �� �� e r � ♦, r a r � . - �� � � � ' ! , �:.r..� � a Gm!ir•!; s ANt. � SMU - Parcel 2 0 _ - * \A Pan". Site Location Map M04-07• 1 Sim SMU ta t , i 0 - ♦ • xa a , Farcd. ` ♦^... �.-. ♦ • �x >.-.tttxrr \ Phases ` Ck4U .1,04 PW4 A # g« -"".7 tnw tnlf a. { ??.... � ♦ 0.081 At. i Pn4so .. � SAN-PMDAC m ' �.� ,A^^'✓ . � txt tlltit xx �btlOAe tort Z�. ,. - } i�l • I E r t a ��E r�tt�. t1 x" € Q§4p Ota, ft—t—) 3,000 Ac. a NAt$SANCE }; {xlxxrr xr a. r 13., ....-�"•"" Usable Open Space Calculations (SMU Zoning) VIEP&qM APA (at ,}. ;. �� e•'' • t �`� \ � �� � �♦\ '.-� s � '-.'"�' � (r,efllPoral ra :Rd tlmc B )ry amW Ats ,. ` - - .,, Par<n f 5. MMd Usa t5173 6 Lvwj use 1.510 w-d U 12414 {`arcNaO.iM+C Ur 1,tT0 IEI� } f Vi [(I'1�'iiel P004 t —d It, 0M" tax T.mc J ♦ ci- �riPifi�n;{� ta>a PticctsAAR(c Ara.) 7.081 t�*i liill(1(IYl�i `F,s ttt 1tt ' t x {_ i 4 f?R3x` �- _ FOYMON VILLAGE PARCEIL x ADJACENT ,1 �"3♦ �''4" .1 = } -+, ■ = 1„ r ,� s 1 77 - (NOAX ag 40.i.CfxT ciAf" W..40kPOL-Ts a 0 PAPCML I tAE 0. AC. 101 N. 1 R Mix 70512 1.Ogt 72,037 -+d \\ g, KMw_ U%xk op- 14wo.,2WltQ x or 1dv we* o.1to 0 ON 0,706 > h.'`ffiYt Nardacap4 (ARAE. 50!1 3omcn) 3.OJt 0 317 337] 7VWde oM.503er(M. W% of Oct" Swee) Jost 0312 3303 iRoM�eoMrr 6,1131797 737{) ola t s )n,tltxxit r,1L „\. -")" »Zx`� ,\ ?x.._. Prnwantl 74 twRl mn.OR'xr 4Rrc4 1,743 0 4,243 - 3 � ` BOYNiON VILLAGE PARCF.!„4 7. 3 (A a)r 5 a+ry 8 PNtLY&4) PARC. S Pt�n t _""- s - ,`.�• *. i ♦ � a�aaao++o.awursxcs�nwu+�a�ax��,.a 7aa{aa> s. s. t,�ea ryrAt Sd, i/ latm• 19 ♦ ;(t.: 3 , _ t i '�`p. 7+ M 1757 1.13%3 RmtteOs�neoPr.*snx�e4e7o+►d1«ars„a 4057 Jeta as7, 10210 AC. �`` t :f .t. �. ( \�.\\\\ ,� is \'• stuvdt� lRxt+r. t7eT.xe 77, 5 814 ae A070 ac 7737 ae B CONGRESS AVENUE } Iy/ 1 $AnJ . Pm'c4f 8 - StdU Pmt41 T 5Atu - Pmt41'�� wrnti Akrpd UY. Akrrd the AkxM Use 1,170 Ac». 1,41 14 Ac- .. lZ83 AG. tr'f1AAIG RCxC f•»<xYT . COW,RM AVENUE ! 7 I- Avvav" ff SITE Di[AF1tC 5CJV.G ['.2517' V < +.w w MMO.q e.r w•gnq •Wm Site Location Map COW,RM AVENUE ! 7 I- Avvav" 0 [00 200 KO Di[AF1tC 5CJV.G ['.2517' Master Site Plan Parcel Data W [!•♦4N AM •l ♦ A Avvav" V < +.w w MMO.q e.r w•gnq •Wm rt• 1•ro < Iw •t.T . a..•.�.....�o•esw».. 1 1 1 n•w nw r. •Mt�•w• •r•w.•rr •M••••wa ►1•r•�w •r •pa e....... • � •IIr IA rt n < n.. rr nw .a..rM. •w.. ro-..rr..... w.w !. tae •na IM. a nm r •va i�..'i•♦w♦•.r tar. �:s* i. �i'r. •'eo e i ♦ ♦ Mm �< < e[m •[..ro mrc• [wwrtr•w ...++:......r...ro... <.crw•»•w.1♦. i• i im eav Mm � n � y ria' <•• , M •tww • • <aa • 4O <M n Mxra•♦w nn M. T,s 1law 1+ .iJ•O ibwib• • aa•Mwrr .tw• il.r• O n � • • .ee v 1 1.•w trrq•\+.tw ra. • •s w.a Me tF4ws♦ r•rwM • t� .. .•.�.....wor-� •rwM h••s w Iwrl •N •! rp..•••wt•w.r POtiM••r� ••rN ! IA b w e •w.tY� O r ♦was /tev.r e. zaey < 1L_•7.TMu [tb�•wb N �t� /w � A O± N P LpBLLL nrra l •M�! ary e)M♦r •t4Y b•yry t•wr1• .8 tii•V •`u•.w M<Sr+nYTantwr<> NirsMl V•sgl . .t}a fiAttMM<+sl•I1r ••-. rti.�d•4<.r+t[•tNw rM \M \•:. pgHVfs tm •<te r +mom: 181 � •� •x.<�tw•..a �<�♦hrMn , w ami .0 sl:.�i N••H tl..art...♦-a..Aw�...wJ+e.m.m,r�1.s..s.w r.1 enJ. .s. W a� •ro •1•+•wt T.w.l•..w ....w.p•.. cw y... u+w�� w�.t....r 4-•Mrr<IswM.IINv u,W\vw•tnw•..\Obw w.•n wrw•�w.s wls.+rv1•.M wM1sy4nwgl.iv...Iw MMAn•4nw._�t.a:I+rl l.•.ga6d@••1rt••♦w♦•h1. Y.. 4dnti ALTA AT do -No %.... RTINA- MAJOR SITE PLA MODIFICATION1 MSPM 17-006 • SMU Parcel 3: 10.2 Acre Parcel • Located immediately S. of Boynton Canal • 324 Apts. within six 5 -story buildings • 171 1 -BR / 93 2 -BR / 60 3 -BR units • Med Rev building design • P&D Board recommendation of approval • E/V charging stations at clubhouse 9 Replace palms where possible w/ canopy trees MIA aria Wtav�a N1wwrw . •aw...a.w wgamtQ...l a ram. s•.�.r am,�a+wv wnuus u�. s.ra y.,s•.. .w.ry.w. str x a lu.n ar.w .a Fa.w mea m RQ ax • Lw rws.... a cam. w..Q.rw. an te..rw 9n arQlp t a...f.at ap �r.wY i C1 M1w�' IaR W. aa.w.r.rwla aR w.uw wab..RF aY'wY, 1 w'w,.a ty.yna.•r ww r F awn.i R �" •?9.. t}a ro � aza st c. ror F.m rt Ph r4w•y+.4'A p..i�w4�p.Y1 NCWaxesa. Ry F wltr.yw M.FAy IY � Mswrry)<. tF V1.M•.Mr.l wu•.3Mrr nN.xQ au L.+•a.aa1 r.a.a.Fv,.Nrrwvaw.ww..rN[w.w..-a r.er .rpwsrmn..ans...:.m.lwae t .er...Q«w*ww.. vwrvl•w a+r.* Q..rvew�.a.ya..r rrw.+. mr=x... q en..rMnmrr.sAxR..: t.4garMh. aa�..K.}FF Mss rRN.w..MNp.•aNna.�daMarw.w USABLE O.S DIAGRAM Q I. aeriueu.c Wgfw 1. ® ACCESSIBLE ROUTE I it�E}D K}AM •����+ wr�.v�wxa�aaareurrer�w IP�'"43I�aSA33 i9�—[w5—� W.! 4 Mm O1 KEY PLAN ;y BUILDING PLANS M%.0?4 ► 5 5[xtCa 47U -t-0 b. UNIM M-MeCON 2017—M—O3 iU RUM0 0 PLAM L"A 74 L Q-KEY PLAN Kafm �_ BUILDING PLANS rw� . acs n i 2.! x r s! 4 smjC J/ar-r.o S. UlArs Gm'M13 MIT— -0 e}nn�a r+� ww KEY PLAN BUILDING PLANS TfPE n 'Sao%vs Vis, I?/ It N i i d SCMCt J/J2'-}'.y o• uvrs I le=li —ft—t ------------ DAtCC!J- ol 10 1 ttJrr A 4 1 Cm AKA 750-50 sa rt, III UNITS LIAICOW k0JA St !7 M rt. "_r F. -- ------------ <0 o L9 UNIT Bl i cp.m Mm- limen W. r? OALCON'r Ana "17 = M 'UNIT A2 I I UNIT B2 I L-W/WII-) CRM k4 -TA - 94MM, SO rL 171 we AMA xft.la- SQ. R. 24 tFi:Y MCC— -MEA F56.M sq. rt. IIAL=I)r AnA 30,17 SO. M UNIT FLOOR PLANS 'f ncovy M-1—In UNIT 83 21*MN) Vass .au: I'M.OJ sa r:. 113 tarts V IYI1 V 1 tar�r�.wt 6'GSS /•Rf 4'S.JJO3. M rl 23 t"ts «•-a ai-� rr•.v UNIT C2 (M/' -SAM co CSi W.A-1,2a1 2 S0. R M w*M OitcWy IATA-wiG SQ. n, UNIT FLOOR PLANS mYnwc A�� o ac+� ra aW [fS o. 4a o Z, REAR ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION (r.sa7 ELEVATION LEGEND '�► �_ '� t..:li S• tC.! a COLOR 50iEms � ,sem M1w. �'•@y ti a�idB1�IP [in an I ■E to] fill il a® nq no me • s Z, REAR ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION (r.sa7 ELEVATION LEGEND '�► �_ '� t..:li S• tC.! a COLOR 50iEms � ,sem M1w. �'•@y ti a�idB1�IP nq no me Z, REAR ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION (r.sa7 ELEVATION LEGEND tU! t[R�' Cfl6C• f3ntm t..:li S• tC.! ��i s• im# COLOR 50iEms M1w. �'•@y r FRONT ELEVATION (.WR wtw...a.r. •.. rrv......t. a•+q M.i �rM.v... •w�. wr! w�ra.za dM ► t•Kwtrwrt a4 ke�4 ♦ Rwaww wxax.n a M+.+�.a•wwt am. ~ 0 KEY PLAN CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS $Gbis As rmW �CC(��L1UBHOUSE $p— ROOF PLAN 0& 4 +.uC1a;a1 SGi:ii�S"�}. rt. 3CLLE' Ile `�'u+G rrLauL�v R«cs nev.. xxom nem aara9• xic n n. a a/r aLa, taT n. R, CLUBHOUSE — SECOND LEVEL 04= AMA; 7.iia,.T 5�. FT. V --AL i!a- i -A CLUBHOUSE — GROUND LEVEL C4pSS 1Rl:A: •,6ia.31 !"L. SLULr/e�� .: =C tig°i[f ASK.: MSDO . f'I. p KEY PLAN %Ioq;H CLUBHOUSE FLOOR PLANS WA r. Ifs' - t'- MIem MMT -oz -aa I Wal W, WN 111111 71 A fl— _J I I(- "I FRONT & REAR ELEVATION -i- it - A —0, rim -------- ------- RIGHT ELEVATION ROOF PLAN stat r7 T S, 41, STAAL P- STA. L 413 ST 012 511lt Al STA -it r., S1 s -mL ft STS f7 17 ST #A Si t- Jk 4 i Wtk tr FLOOR PLAN ricl- -Wk. �%Omoo SO. n, SCAM Ile --t•-0• - ----------- -- X STUCCO BAND DETAILS SCAM COLOR SC14.[V[ 0 El I C&JSMPCP4" TYK CARACE '�WE I k rL DETACHED GARAGE ELEVATIONS I I ' `� f � � � �O � -• � �._ �. ,� ...._yK'G�a i � 1 ;-� .L 3; � { O 9��.. # (i ::Yi 9 � ai ; "r=� i .. i � - �. � • ..,�-`�'^t-.,`.-�-1 ✓' -. �% t a� � 3, P f .. ,.i ,- ,,� .di p �4 r- ..,, »* �. r� a;. .w t � �70�; '}f � ,c�' `� '. e",'�Y � •-} � �� � � ''� R � � 'a �'.� �" F. t � �"',Y ,# _rt�raw!r.x ' ' .��. �..�. .�_�...,-......e,-4.• .Y.-....-.,w.- _..�...:._,.-... "-r--g �,... — \2,+ '.www'"` V .: 1. J . �_....at.� , � � � � 1 t � � `�+ a � wart � � � � �� � * 3 � i � � �' i i � R yj�� t "' a � _ � € .... + • �t �.t�v,.,. w � E ..-- g.. ..« - a,. "l.,. .�:: � � v .mss}, ? )$T'] � . `5 � �, Y C - 4d • `t _u"b° �,,. �g £:.� �.�t: � 6.r .�. ,, z # .�+. �{ .. � .. •_.:�,1.� �iE7 iso J "� ea+� I z {' .�C i z<. > +i +!Y � �py�y! •� � � r r � l�l ..._. m i � � (�—"� s s _ � r .:...: om _ � I �� �i 4 i T" i ,� `k 4'a k4 .`".} � � � � `.z �n 5 ;,il y) � �-c .�' x I t...% •,, �.� �-+4t \+int- `` � �..� V �/� t-1......� F •ea .«—._ = _ +{i...--'_„---" 5"."'—' .. E r t �t— metsamRr~ � • a aR Hitt Ccc. G�1R'+:b a mar f smm ma .. .oaxa at. ra�v.e reu +e.rs.m e•a. avian w�+;a r.w :v+�.x na � 4'W. •.+ r69x.0 rte• Yrla+xars. .IV cF �s Ww easm tHri Ur 4 K�aY �' hx..c.� 4fm9 •�P+!N M fay., mausa� YT�.ijjl C%c ffS.b � � �M w.ba +max 4p rr 10 12 1 i ( I cq- 3—e—.e n..-+. i - 4-, PAY CABAMA FLAN N/15N FLA!'GROUND / �HADa--AL-= �ITF V -O' HT. ALUMINUM PICKET FENCE ELEVATION I 6'AV.Wl CAaAKa jl—.X7Je rX MW clk4m.5 IN OIL 40wqw GADI=� CAW -0 1 Y7 4 w .-t rm —Ame _wb ZAY �-ANA ELnLAIML� tuV M.V,� %t% MUM It"AL V.U.% ON, r"10.1cct DRAT U- HT. ILUST.0 AWTAL IX.TTrim CRK A VW. rt. MAD M MV FA TL I7ICOR,STT%T. sulcnm COLMINS Wrm SLIUL C.-Nory Titfrs RtN'r Accr-VT CON'"m Me" WA 1. IREE vkym vTrccn "N'sil ENTIP-4W—E 5104 KALL CHARACTM-ELEVA TIOC` two 'iwWwoloWl"i o"liekof ..... .....,rs.ai V -O' HT. ALUMINUM PICKET FENCE ELEVATION I 6'AV.Wl CAaAKa jl—.X7Je rX MW clk4m.5 IN OIL 40wqw GADI=� CAW -0 1 Y7 4 w .-t rm —Ame _wb ZAY �-ANA ELnLAIML� tuV M.V,� %t% MUM It"AL V.U.% ON, r"10.1cct DRAT U- HT. ILUST.0 AWTAL IX.TTrim CRK A VW. rt. MAD M MV FA TL I7ICOR,STT%T. sulcnm COLMINS Wrm SLIUL C.-Nory Titfrs RtN'r Accr-VT CON'"m Me" WA 1. IREE vkym vTrccn "N'sil ENTIP-4W—E 5104 KALL CHARACTM-ELEVA TIOC` NN SCAIX, moi° en t Ya l .v'�•. L\ r r .._�....�., N..E?LV t••:« PR d •.V i 3e ........... .y..._. ..� P'�e.•} 35 4T.. - ..... .4 � _'tr""'L" •�• .�L— 'L "� `r'- # _ _ (�j. - �- -.za z '�, S � i• �3f'� fi f ��i+.�r ""i� ."."4 "'a` � �'c,• f 'fes'-a j - t, t �': r _t"a"�"'"''A � 1-1��-1 1� � ! I 1 1 ir�+�� l � �� � _ • � - r Etitl�d}+'su, ').�,`s e 1 .h—! r } r:.3. '.✓ i' ,.# �. } .,i�:.. s.'iyw fis'r H� -'^-q� a �,•{( h j}i, P,�d'' ! + it tai 1 t _"R r i (...-T� 4 .47TiP.' ?�.a m44� IL �`� --kA »: i� ,. �..`. I•.. �'7 �. �a.�. � �,�„„ r et 4^^,� _ "' rr O • ..-� �.d..:ja i �^ ., t,rac'..„..� �� e: T.4 'ii •Y e,e€" >"��9 ii.� .0 �.,� '4 t . _ ,:r, .i-: '.z':< .. ; f...'j G�"� � ..t� .'a '•' � _ � ;i' ' ,ks� (,„A. ' i z � •. r ,t...iKi •+t--- •, ! t"� 1�.Y _, 3. ,. ) ' .P,- 1 A`�^ :#'G#% %i_ n "j Ij { [3 `r. T' • C 3. i.._"1 ` r--L Y,— I .--1-_ r j t A 1 t ; Ir""�- �rhss � � '.'moi �y`'t Y 'r,...r }�� � is' 4 �` "F, � t A'w ` 4. } 4�"4" � h' r 1 � '�.• 2'". l '• • 1 a `�, L i. y r.� `�i 1 � '�.v t..."t.. .� !t(tL'.fi i-`ft'+xrr € y�1 • �'t Y tl e — '-•--s 1 / i-^, � i rt) � t t ES"w �:/+ �• ,r j�' j ., .-=�.. ,� t_ G3. r J Tr ILI �'-e S ,s� '--- *— ✓,t• .,.._ i 1 s } r S 1• e- f �. (f 'rA^ 1 r: �. ` f e .:: .: - Y... - L. �'� �.'I» � ; ,� �';�\�...-J s •1-"�'`-- L.i �-r?•-��,.�a--4•—` s� . _ m r c� rho-' it .•.', .....�= a �y `1 1-_ s1- 1'li v'".a •t! r� t O •~L F '1•`.M ( v CH .3,� t �t•i1 t'. "'[ C¢j. � t ! rt1 'Aii� i �gt.i :t1 ,t T .�r t ♦�:- �ltt: �s�;kL �rth��wrIj4._.'... aI 1 ' �,° • •; :. • 1 f ,.Y's,� 1 ' T !4 t ' ,^ :a . "'�.. .?_ rfl� 4 . ii e t s i'.t i , --ten., S 7'w••-,'-k'-•�+"" �P-•—L.^a -+'.� _ -.n •' Lt ` i t `"7 �`ti3""� f .. _ S L • t `�,..A # € � i � d N3�a i ®.A...,,.L�d"€' t.... ...•.�.,`��� { ,Y�., ) ar.� €� 't--^' r.,, .» � �+ �'',""9 C�'s"X 1- sa , � i �p�. _ �.,.. J..:r r-c,- - 4 ICbn .••....� : `� �. t ., "A$�y a �r1 � 1`s ��r ` 7a. t� • 5--r1 z. s.., .. , , .... •r»m in rsr.i r r.•J' `h p � tt� ,� jK . '': ,* �;•,�'4t-*'Fi,",� ' t _ 4� �}-'.'.a7`� �. `1.�.. 5........ Y� � � _G� t � "'e� p ,t ,�w31.-T•'i,»gni � i�{i-}' � 1' j...,�a�a +! r� ''� � e� � .1.'i4 �;J tt`'.•.. .».c-..-.x� _• .t t ,,.1 1 f`"...;1':..:".' 4 "'�"�7 } r `- Y« e_ +-•'�'.."!',..r •ta,, °�'i" 4.$ �#�l,,,'¢ i•.' # . 1 .' •4 "` .t i " " i i} trt • 5.» r•° %*.r✓... ' i . .....».».. • �'-.- ,,J.e I-ael'�`� .t lt; � ] � } r1• a �� Pi r r::l ..--•+r't^" 4 � P .ya�'a � L ; fr ca . "x; � �7 . ^•in, ' � # �' y � � �,.i.. � �- : J. `.-t" �f �Y _ » � i Jt y ."` _. ¢__...... _..... i '.g is - P 3r' �` t..L ry ��a ./• ,`_ � , J����� 7irt i; i+:Jl[{I• iiN: Ci'iT.•_di`4d-TVA7 i ALTA DEVELOPERS, LLC ALTA @ CORTINA PREUMINARY ENGINEERING PLAN-- � YYt R4' Vp v.ay C H O I N C C R I N O C O R I O R f r7 o M 71� SW rTN AVS^.E CORTINA @ BOYNTON BEACH s :STS •'^'_• » ilAV rLOMA 31137 BOYNrov 4£ACH FLORMA �. •v.m. I glwt.. .t!x Critical Objectives and Limitations Objective It is our understanding that the purpose of this study will be to assess the current and future housing needs of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida. Our goal is to provide you with market-based observations and conclusions that assist in your evaluation. Contact Information This report was prepared for City of Boynton Beach by the following Metrostudy consultants: Dirk Neumann, Senior Consultant — 954.304.4003 — dneumann(@Metrostudv.com David Cobb, Regional Director — 239.220.7023 — dcobb(@metrostudv.com Limiting Conditions Every reasonable effort has been exerted in order that the data contained in this study reflect the most accurate and timely information that is possible within practical budget limitations, and is believed to be reliable. However, no responsibility is assumed for errors or inaccuracies. Commissioning this study does not grant the client any right of access to or ownership of any data, computer programs, spreadsheets or any other work product acquired or created by Metrostudy, whether for the preparation of this study or otherwise. No part of this study may be published without the prior consent of Metrostudy, Inc. Definitions Annual Starts: The number of homes started during the last four quarters. Annual Closings: The number of new homes closed during the last four quarters. Closings: A "closing" occurs when a home is moved into and occupied. In the single-family context, Metrostudy tracks move - ins, as they are a better indicator of demand than deed deliveries, but often calls them "closings". Deed records are used to track condominium unit closings. "Closings" will also refer to deed deliveries when discussing MLS data. Finished Vacant: A unit that is completed, but which shows no evidence of occupancy. (in the condo context, no deed has been recorded.) Finished Vacant Months -of -Supply: F/V months of supply is calculated by dividing the number of F/V homes by the current annual closings pace, and then multiplying by twelve to yield months. Future Units: Units that are platted, or otherwise in the pipeline, but are not yet developed. Models: Decorated homes at a sales center. Square Footage: All measures of home size are in terms of air-conditioned space. Starts: A "start" occurs when a slab is poured, or work on the foundation otherwise begins. In the condo context, all the units in a single building are "started" when the foundation work begins. Vacant Developed Lots: Also referred to as "VDL" and "Finished Lots"; a lot served by a road with all underground utilities in place, ready for construction of a new home. Vacant Developed Lots Months -of -Supply: VDL months -of -supply is calculated by dividing the number of VDL by the current annual starts pace, and then multiplying by twelve to yield months. \f1�1ow- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 PALM BEACH COUNTY SOCIOECONOMIC DATA 10 Boynton BEACH SOCIOECONOMIC DATA 19 ZIP CODE 33426 SOCIOECONOMIC DATA 27 ZIP CODE 33436 SOCIOECONOMIC DATA 33 ZIP CODE 33435 SOCIOECONOMIC DATA 39 CENSUS BLOCK SOCIOECONOMIC DATA 45 HOUSING OVERVIEW - PALM BEACH COUNTY 59 HOUSING OVERVIEW - Boynton BEACH 62 HOUSING OVERVIEW - 33426 65 HOUSING OVERVIEW - 33436 68 HOUSING OVERVIEW - 33435 71 CENSUS BLOCK HOUSING DATA 74 NEW HOME SUMMARY DATA 80 DETACHED NEW HOME DATA 89 ATTACHED NON -CONDO NEW HOME DATA 99 CONDO NEW HOME DATA 110 RENTAL APARTMENT DATA 119 RISKS TO FORECAST/ DISCLAIMER 128 CONSULTANT BIOS 131 Executive Summary — Key Findings Boynton Beach has a desirable location as a place to live in Palm Beach County due to its central location and convenient access to the major transportation corridors connecting it to the larger South Florida employment centers. Boynton Beach lacks the economic force provided by a redeveloped and thriving downtown (such as Delray Beach to the south), but has two newer mixed use centers in Renaissance Commons in the west and Marina Village in the east. • Boynton Beach's population is forecast to grow by just under 4,400 people in the next 5 years, a 7.2% increase. The largest numerical increase in the homebuying age ranges comes from the 55-74 age group, with over 1,200 expected in the next 5 years. The 20-34 age group has the slowest growth, with just under 200, but the 35-54 age group (usually defined as the prime home -buying years) is projected to gain over 900 people. • Boynton Beach has an estimated average household income of $66,680 in 2016. Neustar's data projects average household income to grow 1.5% over next 5 years to an average of $67,665. Median income was $47,580 in 2016, and is also projected to grow 1.4% over the next 5 years. It should be noted that Metrostudy believes that Neustar has forecast this figure very conservatively, as our own national household income projections show a 13% growth over the next 5 years. • Of the over 1,800 new households expected to be formed in the City over the next 5 years, the largest number increase is among the Under $50K age group (+779). The $50K -$100K (+507), $100K -$150K (+271) and $150K and Over (+247) income ranges are projected to have good growth as well. • The city's housing stock is 56% occupied by full-time owners and 28% by full-time renters. 16% of the housing units are occupied by either part-time owners or part-time renters. The median owner -occupied housing value is $179,529. • Average new home prices ($346K) were up 13% versus 6% for average resale prices ($193K) in the past year (4Q15 -3Q16). The volume of new home closings (34 units) decreased significantly in the past year (-79%), while regular resale volume (1,862 units) saw a slight decrease last year (-3%). Boynton Beach still has a significant share of distressed transactions (22% Foreclosure & REO). Product is 54% attached and 46% detached. Condos make up 37% of all transactions. • There is little new home activity in Boynton Beach, as the city saw 23 annual starts and 20 annual closings of new detached, attached (non -condo) and condo housing units in subdivisions/projects in 2016, representing a 12% decrease in starts and 84% decrease in closings YOY. This is the lowest level of annual starts in Boynton Beach since 4Q11 and the lowest level of annual closings since Metrostudy began tracking them for this market. Executive Summary — Key Findings • There is a slightly low supply of vacant developed lots within Boynton Beach, which currently stands at only 53, representing a 27.7 month supply at the current rate of starts. When VDL supply is low, it puts upward pressure on land prices. • Many future for -sale units have become rental apartment units in the past few years, leaving the total future for -sale unit supply in Boynton Beach at just 725 units, a 31.5 year supply at the current level of starts, but if starts return to a level somewhere between 100-200 units per year, that number drops to 3.6-7.2 years. It should be noted that 643 of these future units (Cortina) were recently revised to rental units, leaving a severe shortage of future for -sale units in subdivisions. • In 2013, closings under $300,000 made up 77% of the new home market. In the year ending 2015, closings under $300,000 had shrunk to 40% of the new home market. In the year ending 2016, there were no closings under $300,000, and all closings were at $350,000 or higher. • There are currently 24 managed rental apartment communities in the City of Boynton Beach being tracked by ALN Data. These represent 7,490 units, an average of 312 units per property. Average occupancy stood at 92.4% in December 2016. The average unit size is 1,094 sq. ft., with an average rent of $1,493, or $1.36 per square foot. • There 3 Future Rental Apartment Projects currently being tracked by ALN, totaling720 units. Two are under construction and scheduled for completion in 2017. As noted previously, the 643 future units (Cortina) were recently revised from for -sale to rental units, almost doubling the number of future rental units. • Affordability of housing remains a key factor. The average price of the 2071 total closings in 2016 with pricing information available was $195,993, while the median price was $174,000. 46% (959) of all the closings in 2016 could be afforded by a household making the median income of $47,850 (this assumes a down payment of 5% and a total housing payment equal to no more than 30% of median income), representing a price of $165,318 or less. 33% (684) of all closings in 2016 could be afforded by those households making 80% of median income ($38,280), representing a price of $135,300 or lower. 58% (1,196) of all closings in 2016 could be afforded by those households making 120% of median income ($57,240), representing a price of $196,498 or lower. • With an average rent of $1,493, the required income to qualify (assuming the industry standard of income at 3 times the amount of rent) for the average apartment is $53,748, which is higher than the median income of $47,850, but below the average income of $66,680. Executive Summary — Key Recommendations • One of Boynton Beach's biggest challenges has been new housing. Traditional large-scale for -sale development opportunities are extremely limited in Boynton Beach, as most of the areas are significantly built out and future growth is geographically limited by city boundaries on all sides. Even annexation would not help much as the areas immediately to the east, south, west and north are all significantly built out as well. New housing will require rezoning and redevelopment of existing uses. • Just like most of Palm Beach County, population and household growth and the lack of residentially -zoned land has driven up land (and therefore) housing prices. Long-term future development in Boynton Beach will have to focus on redevelopment of existing underused properties such as church properties, golf courses, nurseries, shopping centers, and commercial spaces. The new Tri -Rail Coastal Link, operating on the FEC tracks further east than the current Tri -Rail should open up new opportunities for transit -oriented development. New housing is desirable due to its superior energy efficiency and better hurricane protection. The average age of Boynton resales sold in the 12 months from 4Q15 -3Q16 was 33 years. Monthly energy, insurance and maintenance costs for older homes are a significant portion of a household's monthly budget, that can be offset by the lower property taxes for those who have owned their homes a long time. While buyers could likely save substantial amounts on their utility bills and homeowner's insurance, the higher price of a new home (even at today's still extremely low interest rates) and the higher property taxes associated with the new price offset that savings. Innovative higher density detached and attached housing that still offers usable yard space" can mitigate pricing somewhat. Many parts of the country are already seeing successful detached housing on lots starting at smaller than 2,000 square feet and attached housing on lots smaller than 1,500 sq. ft. Condo living has some major advantages, chief among which is maintenance -free living. Many condo units are smaller, allowing for new condo units to have pricing lower than townhomes and detached homes in similar locations, however high condo fees can be a barrier to entry for many buyers. Rental apartments will need to offer smaller, more efficient units to keep rents at more affordable levels. • The significant increase in the 55+ population combined with their longer life expectancies will require more innovative communities that focus on wellness and allow for aging in place as they transition from independent to different levels of assisted living. Millennials (20-34) have started to transition into homeownership. There is not a one -size -fits -all housing solution for this group. Some are preferring the more traditional types of subdivisions they grew up in as they start families, while others are looking for a more urban lifestyle. Cost is an important factor, as they are often carrying significant student loan debt. Unlike many other markets in the U.S, Boynton Beach has very strong projected growth among Generation X (35- 54), which usually represents the prime homebuying years. These are typically move -up buyers looking for larger and more luxurious homes than those they currently own, but are now also often recent renters re-entering homeownership after allowing their credit scores to recover. Executive Summary -- Key Recommendations • Characteristics of homes purchased by first-time/modest income buyers in Boynton Beach vary, but they are almost always consistently older resale homes, both attached and detached, as these are the only homes this buyer can afford. They often require significant work due to deferred maintenance by the previous buyer. Programs to help first-time/modest income buyers fix up their newly purchased homes should be considered. Based on the demographic growth and current/future housing supply, the demand for housing in Boynton Beach will exceed the supply over the next 5 years. Boynton Beach is projected to add 1808 households in the next 5 years, but has less than 800 vacant and future Units on the for -sale side and only 720 future rental units. With the recent revision to Cortina, 643 for - sale units have moved over to the rental side, leaving a significant imbalance between future for -sale and for -rent product, in addition to the overall shortage. Additional opportunities for new housing will be required to accommodate the growth over the next 5 years and beyond. • The strongest household income growth is in the under $50K group, and the second strongest is in the $50K -$100K group. Much of the new housing in Boynton Beach will need to be attainable for these households. • While organizations like the Boynton Beach Faith Based Community Development Corporation, (Boynton Beach CDC) and Habitat for Humanity provide a few first-time/modest income buyers with new homes each and every year (6 and 2 respectively in the 12 months ending 3Q16), almost all of the market -rate new homes are typically out of reach for this buyer in Boynton Beach. The City should seek more to do more opportunities with the Boynton Beach CDC, Habitat, and other organizations like them. In some communities throughout the country, there are new home communities where buyers can trade sweat equity for better pricing by helping to build their homes. Zoning codes will have to allow more creative housing solutions, including more small -lot detached and attached housing with reduced setbacks. Rental housing will continue to play an important role for this buyer profile group as well. They may not be ready to buy right away, so new, safe, and quality rental housing will be in demand as well. Expedited and streamlined approvals can also help lower land costs which result in lower housing costs. Innovative redevelopment of underused properties (both private, and perhaps public when and where available) will also be key. Additional public-private partnerships for housing should be pursued. • Interest rates have already started to rise and will likely continue to do so. This will be particularly impactful for first-time buyers. Lower -interest bond money for mortgages is sometimes available and can help some of these buyers, but keeping pricing for new homes attainable will be even more important for Boynton Beach's future. Palm Beach County Current Map View Palm Beach County COpyHmaoacrO$tud of)j metr study Copyrfqht Metrosurdy v 1 'Yiir+►Y Sates: LBee•2273mq Boynton Beach is a coastal city located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Demographic, economic and housing statistics for Palm Beach County are used throughout this study as a reference in comparison to those for the City of Boynton Beach, Zip Codes 33426, 33435 & 33436, as well as the 42 Census Blocks whose areas are predominantly located in the City of Boynton Beach. Walm Beach County Population Growth Population Summary 1 2010 Census 2016 Qa 1 2021 Q4 1 • Palm Beach County's population is forecast to Pop 1,320,134 1,449,524 1,552,373 grow by almost 103,000 people In the next 5 Annual Pop Growth 2016 Q4 To 2021 Q4 7.1% Annual Pop Growth 2010 Census To 2016 Q4 9.8% years. . Among the prime homebuying age groups, the Population Agecensus �� 2o1s Qa so21 Qa Average Age 42.5 43.3 43.4' largest numerical increase comes from the 55 - Median Age 44 45 44 74 age group, with over 27,000 expected in the Pop Age 0-4 70,852 5.4% 75,891 5.2% 86,197 5.6% Pop Ag 5-9 72,847 5.5% 77,031 5.3% 84,267 5.4%. next 5 years. The 20-34 age group also shows Pop Age 10-14 76,917, 5.8% 79,546' 5.5% 84,442; 5.4%'- strong growth, with over 15,000, and the 35-54 Pop-Age.15-19 79,57081 6.0% ,010 81, 5.6% ._ _ 85,933 _. 5.5%' .__. age group, which Is On the decline In some Pop Age 20-24 74,1051 5.6% 80,771. 5.6%. 86,945' 5.6% parts of the country, Is projected to add over Pop Age 25-29 74,695 5.7% 86,375 6.0% 89,207 5.7%, :Pop Age 30-34 71,999 5.5% 84,740, 5.8% 91,0881 5.9%' 12,000 people. Pop Age 35-39 78,802 6.0% 81,668 5.6% 90,405 5.8% Pop Age 40-44 86,774' 6.6%. 85,667 5.9% 90,1741 5.8% . palm Beach County has long been known for its Pop Age 45119 95 732 7.3 /0 6.4_% 93,233 6.0% -- _ - % .6.9/0 active adult housing, but housing must PO Age 50-54 p g 92,394,. 7.0%. 100,665 100,658' o 99,077; o 6.4/0 Pop Age 55-59 81,829 62%- 99,204 6:8% 102,797 6.6% continue to innovate to allow for longer life - Pop Age 60-64 78,463 5.9%' 89,798: 6.2% 99,7521 6.4% expectancies, aging in place, and various levels !Pop 7074 _ _ _ 65 3 _ . _ 75,884' 6.0% 92_,773_ 6 0%! I i of managed care, as the age group of 75+ IS Po Age 59,962; 4.5/0 ° 5.2 . 83,126] 5.4 o Pop Age 75-79 54,879 4.2% 60,941 4.2% 69,201 4.5% projected to grow by almost 21,000. _ Pop Age 80-84 1 _. 50,6441 3.8%' :. 48,061' 3.3%: _. 52,442; 3.4%1 PopAge 5L,205__ _49,205T 3 7% 63,344 4.4% 71,314 4.6% . Housing for the 20-34 age group (the Pop Age 19&Under 300,1$6 22.7% 313;478 21.6% 340,839 22.0% Millennials) offers a challenge in both housing Total Change 13,292 4.4% 27,361 8.7% type and affordability. Many in this group still Pop Age 20-34 220,799 16.7% 251,886 17.4% 267,240 17.2% live with family Or rent, but do still Show a Total Change 31,087 14.1% 15,354 6.1% desire for homeownership. Pop Age 35-54 353,702 26.8% 360,658 24.9% 372,889 24,0% Total Change 6,956 2.0% 12,231 3.4% Pop Age 55-74 290,719 22.0% 351,156 24.2% 378,448 24.4% Total Change 60,437 20.8% 27,292 7.8% Pop Age 75 & Up 154,728 11.7% 172,346 11.9% 192,957 12.4% Total Change 17,618 11.4% 20,611 12.0% Palm Beach County by Race and Households by Age of Householder Race 2010 Census 1 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 2021 Q4 ;Not Hispanic White Alone 1,025,030, 77.6% 1,098,489 75.8% 1,162,876 74.9% Black Alone 233,925 17.7% 275,886 19.0% 304,056 19.6% Native American Alone 8,479! 0.6% 8,819' 0.6% 9,256 0.6% Asian.Alone 32,380 2.5% 39,993 2.8% 45,612 2.9%, Pacific Islander Alone 1,165: 0.1% 1,599 0.1% 1,802 0.1%, Two Or More Races 19,155 1.5% 24,738 1.7% 28,771 1.9% Ethnicity 2010 Census 1 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 ;Not Hispanic 1,069 311 81.0% 1,143,096! 78.9% 1,207,1421 77.8%° Hispanic 250,823 19.0% 306,428 21.1% 345,231 22.2% Head of Household Age 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 HHs Age 15-24 15,353i 2.8%: 18,7301; 3.1%i4 20,180 � 3.2% HHs Age 25-34 60,506 11.1% 71,850 12.1% 74,599 11.7% HHs Age 35-44 85,384i 15.7% 83,8081 14.1%, 90,332 14.2% HHs Age 45-54 106,169 19.5% 101,871 17.1% 102,072 16.0% HHs Age 55-64 93,682; 17.2% 106,077' 17.8%' 113,724 17.8%; j HHs Age 65-74 78,510 14.4% 98,817 16.6% 107,264 16.8% HHS Age 75-84 69,430; 12.8% 72,553; 12.2% 81,432 12.8% HHs Age 85+ 35,193 6.5% 42,495 7.1% 48,177 7.6% Average HH Age 55.9 56.3' 56.8 Median HH Age 56 57 58 • Palm Beach County continues to become more racially diverse through in - and out -migration from other parts of South Florida as well as other parts of the world. Significant growth is projected among Hispanics (+39K) and African- Americans (+28K), as well as the White population (+64K) • The median age of the Householder continues to climb as the 55+ age groups grow faster than the others. • Note the largest increase in number of households and is in the 75-84 age range. Palm Beach County Household and Income Growth Household Summary 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 Households 544,227 596,201 637,780 • HH Growth 2016 Q4 To 2021 Q4 7.0% HH Growth 2010 Census To 2016 Q4 9.6% Total Household Income 1 2010 Census F 201604 2021 Q4 Average HH Income $72,050.00 $83,517.00' $84,951.00 Change $11,467.00! 15.9% $1,434.00 1.7% Median HH Income $49,870.00 $58,675.00 iChange $8,805.001 17.7/° t. Median Income as % of Average Income 69% 70% (HH Income Below 10k 36,519; 6.7% 38,512 6.5% ,HH Income 10k -15k 30,970 5.7% 25,262 4.2% HH Income 15k -20k 29,0321 5.3% 30,3521 5.1% HH Income 20k -25k 31,071 5.7% 31,502 5.3% 'HH Income 25k -30k 28,996! 5.3%, 28,7241 4.8% HH Income 30k -35k 31,788 5.8% 31,560 5.3% HH Income 35k -40k 27,110 5.0% 24,114, 4.0% HH Income 40k -45k 31,589 5.8% 27,600 4.6% HH Income 45k -50k 25,701 4.7% 23,093 3.9% HH Income 50k -60k 40,717 7.5% 43,088 7.2% HH Income 60k -75k 54,056 9.9% 56,187 9.4% HH Income 75k -100k 62,733 11.5% 71,227 11.9% HH Income 100k -125k 38,697 7.1% 50,079 8.4% HH Income 125k -150k 23,675 4.4% 33,016 5.5% HH Income 150k -200k 22,119 4.1% 36,566 6.1% HH Income Above 200k 29,454 5.4% 45,319 7.6% Income Under 50k 272,776 50.1% 260,719 43.7% Total Change -12,057 -4.4% Income 50k -100k 157,506 28.9% 170,502 28.6% Total Change 12,996 8.3% Income 100k -150k 62,372 11.5% 83,095 13.9% Total Change 20,723 33.2% $59,695.00 $1,020.001 1.7% 70%' 41,008, 6.4%i 25,995 4.1% 32,441 5.1%, 33,520 5.3% 30,260, 4.7%i 33,320 5.2% 25,107 3.9%; 28,705 4.5% 24,237 3.8% 45,687 7.2% 59,336 9.3% 76,032 11.9% 54,568, 8.6% 36,319 5.7% 40,965 6.4%. 50,280 7.9% 274,593 43.1% 13,874 5.3% 181,055 28.4% 10,553 6.2% 90,887 14.3% 7,792 9.4% Income 150k and Over 51,573 9.5% 81,885 13.7% 91,245 14.3% Total Change 30,312 58.8% 9,360 11.4% The County has an estimated average household income of $83,517 in 2016. Neustar's data projects average household income to grow 1.7% over next 5 years to an average of $84,951. It should be noted that Metrostudy believes that Neustar has forecast this figure very conservatively, as our own national household income projections show a 13% growth over the next 5 years. Of the almost 42,000 new households expected to be formed in the TMA over the next 5 years, the largest number (almost 14,000) fall into the under $50K income range. There is also strong growth among the $50K -$100K (+10,553), $100K -$150K (+7,792), and $150K and Over (+9,360) income ranges as well. • The under $50K group has the slowest rate of change (5.3%), while the $150K and Over has the fastest rate of change (11.4%). • There is a large disparity between the median and average income in Palm Beach County (indicating that a small group of people have the highest incomes), but it has remained very consistent since 2010, so the gap does not appear to be widening. Balm Beach County Employment & Unemployment Rate 700000 c CU 0 400000 E W W6161•Z.Z11 l0 I'^^• r`_ 1'-. Oq 00 00 t7� Q1 C) O a -i ri a--7 N N N M M M 'cf �Y cP tf1 V'1 t11 tD �D a.Q O C� O 999 O C? O fJ t� O CSI 9998 C? I O G? O I C? O © C� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 { 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I f I I-_ =^dC >1C1C s•Q.0 >^dC >^ OL �CiC ALp1,�.0 ad.0 0- >^QC �,0- TC2i TZZ C T� C Tp C TQ C > Q {vro coC%roro� ra rot%roroL% co%rproNcaro rVcaL%roro�ry ro (�MM�roRNrorotoMco MMtocaCo� �� -- 2 —'� —2 2 —� —2 —2 2 —2 —2 —2 —2 —2 � � 1410 1210 10% 8% e ar 0 6% 4% 2% 0% Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics • The non -seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for Palm Beach County in November 2016 was 4.9%, up 0.2 points YOY, but down significantly from the peak of 11.6% of July & August 2010. The County saw consistent YOY job growth from 2000 to late -2007, and then a period of job losses as a result of local and national economic conditions through the end of 2009. Total employment had peaked at just over 609,000 in December 2006 before falling, but now stands at 679,397, having made up significantly more than all the jobs lost during the recession. November's 2016's YOY job growth was 12,230 and the County has shown positive gains for the past 83 months in a row. NAICS Business Employees Employees o Code Label Count Count Per Business 62 Health Care and Social Assistance 14,975, 120,508, 8; '54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 10,932 59,460; 5 44-45 Retail Trade 9,525; 103,920' 11 81 Other Services (except Public Administration) 8,135, 50,239; 6 ,23 Construction 6,198; 39,081; : 6. 52 Finance and Insurance 6,050 45,072 7' 53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 5,310 36,500' 7 56 Administrative and Support and Waste 3,907. 29,131, 7 72 Accommodation and Food Services 3,640 72,3621 20 42 Wholesale Trade 2,3% 25,594. 11 31-33 Manufacturing 1,717 27,505 16 61 Educational Services 1,427 43,743 31 51 Information 1,423 19,303' 14 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,391 21,253 15 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 1,368 12,243. 9 92 Public Administration 1,147 35,572 31 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 192 2,462 13 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 127 522 4 22 Utilities 49 3,072 63 21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 22 135 6 Tota I 2016 Residential Population Residential Population per Business 2016 Number of Households Households Per Business 79,894 747,677 9 1,449,524 18 596,201 7 Palm Beach County is home to almost 80,000 businesses that employ almost 748,000 people, yielding an average of 9 employees each. • This translates to one business for every 18 people living in Palm Beach County, or one for every 7 households. Healthcare and Social Assistance has the most employees, with almost 121,000, as well as the most businesses with almost 15,000. Palm Beach County Employment Projections Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 6,314 1.0°% 5,582 0.8% -732 -1.5% Mining 75 0.0% 101 0.0°% 26 3.8% Construction 29,963 4.8% 39,133 5.5% 9,170 3.4% Manufacturing 16,478 2.6°% 17,567 2.5% 1,089 0.8% Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 110,239 17.6°% 122,273 17.1% 12,034 1.3% Information 10,465 1.7% 10,537 1.5% 72 0.1% Financial Activities 39,007 6.2% 42,610 6.0% 3,603 1.1% Professional and Business Services 104,138 16.7°% 121,757 17.1% 17,619 2.0% Education and Health Services 91,005 14.6% 110,798 15.5% 19,793 2.5% Leisure and Hospitality 81,809 13.1% 94,236 13.2% 12,427 1.8% Other Services (Except Government) 25,709 4.1% 28,438 4.0% 2,729 1.3% Government 61,307 9.8% 68,399 9.6% 7,092 1.4% Self -Employed and Unpaid Family Workers 48,106 7.7% 52,283 7.3% 4,177 1.0% Tota l 624,615 100.0% 713,714 100.0% 89,099 1.7% Source: labor Market Statistics, Occupational Employment Projections Unit Palm Beach County • Overall employment for Palm Beach County is forecast to grow at a rate of 1.7% through 2023 (projections are based on 2016 employment data), creating almost 90,000 new jobs during that time. • All sectors except Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing/Hunting are showing positive growth, with Construction and Education/Health Services showing the largest annual percentage gains (3.4% and 2.5% respectively) - Mining has the largest percentage gain at 3.8, but makes up a miniscule part of the overall employment base. Education and Health services projects to have the I Palm Beach County School Board 2 Palm Beach County Government 3 Tenet Healthcare Corp 4 NextEra Energy (Florida Power & Light) 5 Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) 6 Florida Atlantic University 7 Bethesda Memorial Hospital 8 Boca Raton Regional Hospital 8 Veterans Health Administration 10 Jupiter Medical Center Government 221000 Government 11,505 Education and Health Services 6,100 Trade, Transportation and Utilities 3,854 Education and Health Services 2,714 Education and Health Services 2,655 Education and Health Services 2,600 Education and Health Services 2,500 Government 2,500 Education and Health Services 2,000 Source: 2015 Palm Beach County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), Principal Employers Palm Beach County • The Palm Beach County School Board and County Government combine to employ more people than the next 8 largest employers combined. • Health Care makes up 4 of the top 10 employers, with the Tenet Health Care Corp. being the largest at 6,100 employees. • Government accounts for 3 of the top 10 employers. • While none of the Top 10 County Employers are located in Boynton Beach, the city's prime location provides convenient access to many of the country's major employment centers via the county's major North-South transportation corridor, 1-95 (as well as Florida's Turnpike to the West). In addition, the city has a centrally located TriRail station, plus will be an integral part of the TriRail Coastal Link, which will be reintroducing passenger rail service to the historic downtowns of South Florida along the Florida East Coast Rail Corridor and become a catalyst for infill development. City of Boynt®n Beach Current Map View City of Boynton Beach Fl j Palen SelachPyla Co. W 80yrrtoa BsoCA (70J7J m et r i1 Q L u (1 y Copyrir�rlr Mahcw�nmy o 0 o V 4v ��AA 1 Sal¢f=t-80UIJ).B8{y r+r+Winwe • Boynton Beach is bordered by Delray Beach to the south, unincorporated Palm Beach County to the west, Hypoluxo, Lantana and unincorporated Palm Beach County (Lake Worth) to the north, and Ocean Ridge, Briny Breezes, Gulf Stream, and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. Demographic, economic and housing statistics for the City of Boynton Beach are used throughout this study as a reference in comparison to those in Palm Beach County, Zip Codes 33426, 33436 & 33435, as well as the 42 Census Blocks whose areas are predominantly located in the City of Boynton Beach. Population Summary --72010 Census 2016 Q42021 Q4 • :Pop 54,6681 60,430' 64,801 :Annual'Po - Growth 2016 04 To 2021 Q4 - 7.26/6 Annual Pop Growth 2010 Census To 2016 Q4 10.5% Iopulation Age 2010 Census 2016 Q4 202104 --- _..__._.._._ IA\erage Age 42.41 I 42.7 42.51 Wedian Age 42 43 43 Ipop Age 0-4 3,1451 5.8%1 3442; 5.7%i 3,807 5.9%1 PopAges9 2,898 53/a 3,371 5.6/0 3,764 5 8 /0. P. Po Age 10-14 2,874 i 5.3%; 32411 5.4%,'3,6561 5.6%' Pop Age 15-19 2,820 5.2% 3,090 5.1% 3,5145.4%-,i ,Pop Age 20-24 3,0521 5.6%1 3,0841 5.1% 3,405' 5.3%1 Pop Age 25-29. 3,706 6.8% 3,646 6.0%, 3,558 5.5%1 Pop Age 30-34 3,5111 6.4%' 3,9481 6.5%' 3,909 6.0%1 Pop Age 35-39 3,602 6.6% 3,887 6.4% 4,134 6.4% 'Pop Age 40-44 3,610' 6.6% 3,889; 6.4% 4,1871 6.5% Pop Age 45-493,711 _ 6.8% 3,917 6.5% 4,181 6.5% Pop Age 50-54 3,705 6.8% 4,082: 6.8% 4,216. 6.5%0; Pop Age 55-59 3,223 5.9% 3,975 6.6% 4,210 6.5% Pop Age 60-64 2,899 5.3% 3,5281 5.8% 3,979i 6.1%; Pop Age _65-69 2,729 5.0% 3,333 5.5% 3,614 5.6% Pop Age 70-74 2,379 4.4% 2,949'' 4.9% 3,185 4.9%• Pop Age 75-79 2,308 4.2% 2,427 4.0% 2,650 4.1% ;Pop Age 80-84 2,185 4.0% 1,9501 3.2% 2,025 3.1% Pop Age 85+ 2,309 4.2% 2,671 4.4% 2,808 4.3% Pop Age 19 & Under 11,737 21.5% Total Change Pop Age 20-34 10,269 18.8% Total Change Pop Age 35-54 14,628 26.8% Total Change Pop Age 55-74 11,230 20.5% Total Change 13,144 21.8% 1,407 12.0% 10,678 17.7% 409 4.0% 15,775 26.1% 1,147 7.8% 13,785 22.8% 2,555 22.8% 14,741 22.7% 1,597 12.2% 10,872 16.8% 194 1.8% 16,718 25.8% 943 6.0% 14,988 23.1% 1,203 8.7% Pop Age 75 & Up 6,802 12.4% 7,048 11.7% 7,483 11.5% Total Change 246 3.6% 435 6.2% Boynton Beach's population is forecast to grow by just under 4,400 people in the next 5 years, a 7.2% increase. This rate of increase similar to Palm Beach County's projected rate of 7.1%. • Like Palm Beach County, the largest numerical increase in the homebuying age ranges comes from the 55-74 age group, with over 1,200 expected in the next 5 years. The 20-34 age group has the slowest growth, with just under 200, but the 35-54 age group (usually defined as the prime home -buying years) is projected to gain over 900 people. • The western parts of Boynton Beach have long been known for its 55+ housing, but housing must continue to innovate to allow for longer life -expectancies, aging in place, and various levels of managed care. Housing for the 20-34 age group (the Millennials) offers a challenge in both housing type and affordability. Many in this group still live with family or rent, but do still show a desire for homeownership. City of Boynton Beach by Race and Households by Age of Householder Ethnicity 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 Not Hispanic 47,276186.5%. The City Of Boynton Beach Race 2010 census 2015 Q4 9,320 15.4% 2021 Q4 White Alone 36,546; 66.9/0, 38,7681 64.2%'40,784; 4,42811 16.1 W 62.9%1 continues to become more Black Alone 15,798 28.9%_ 18,792 31.1% 20,748 32.0%' racially diverse through in- and Native American Alone 213; 0.4 f 247; 0.4%, 271; 0.4%1 out -migration from Other parts Asian Alone 1,244 2.3% 1,499 2.5% 1,701 2.6% of South Florida as well as Pacific Islander Alone 301 0.1%" 42 0.1% 441 0.1W other parts of the world, but ` Two Or More Races 836 1.5% 1,081 1.8% 1,254 1.9% at a slower rate than Palm Ethnicity 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 Not Hispanic 47,276186.5%. 51,110; 84.6%. 54,160; 83.6% Hispanic 7,393 13.5% 9,320 15.4% 10,641 16.4% Head of Household Age-----�- 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 n� HHs Age 15-24 716{ 3.1% 749; 2.9%' 835 3.0% HHs Age 25-34 .._ 3;183 13.6% 3,391 13.2% 3,286 11.9% HHs Age 35-44 j 3,8861 16.6% 4,117! 16.0% 4,42811 16.1 W HHs Age 45-54 4,314 18.5% 4,440 17.3% 4,733 17.2% HHs Age 55-64 3,6391 15.6%' 4,3721 17.0%' 4,833; 17.6% HHs A e 65-74 3,123 13.4% 3,920 15.3% 4,293 15.6%1 6HHs Age 75-84 2,935 12.6% 2,943; 11.5%: 3,202', 11.6%' HHs Age 85+ _____ .__ ._ 1,581 6.8% 1,765 69% 1,895 6.9% y Average HH Age 54.91 55.3 55.7; Median HH A 54. 55 56 .. Beach County. The most significant growth is projected among Whites (+2,016), African-Americans (+1,956K), and Hispanics (+1,321). While the White population has the greatest numerical increase, its overall % share of the population is declining. • The median age of the Householder continues to climb as the 55+ age group grows faster than the others, but it remains slightly lower than that of Palm Beach County overall. • Note the largest increase in number of households and % is in the 55-64 age range. Household Summary. 2010 Census -`�2o1s Qa 2oz1 Q4 e Boynton Beach has an estimated average 'Households 23,377` 25,697 27,505; HH Growth 2016Q4To2021Q4 7.0% household income of $66,680 in 2016. Neustars HH Growth 2010 Census To 2016 04 9.9%: data projects average household income to grow Total Household Income ' 2010 Census 2016 Q4 - 2021 Q4 775 Average HH Income $58,306.00 8.9% $66,680.00{ 7.7% $67,665.00 8.1% Change 72.0% 247 $8,374.00 14.4% $985.00 1.5% Median HH Income $42,691.00 $47,850.00 $48,527.00 Change $5,159.00 12.1% $677.00 1.4%. Median Income as % of Average Income 73% 72% 72% HH Income Below 10k 1,376: 5.9% 1,9511 7.6% 2,159 7.8%: HH Income 10k -15k 1,715 7.3% 1,229 4.8% 1,251 4.5% HH Income 15k -20k 1,564 6.7% 1,821, 7.1% 1,963 7.1% - HH Income 20k -25k 1,672 7.2% 1,534 6.0% 1,595 5.8% HH Income 25k -30k 1,546 6.6% 1,659] 6.5% 1,768' 6.4%. HH Income 30k -35k 1,491 6.4% 1,380 5.4% 1,427 5.2%° IHH Income 35k -40k 1,420' 6.1%, 1,240; 4.8% 1,293 4.7% HH Income40k45k 1,682 7.2% 1,406 5.5%, 1,453 5.3% HH Income 45k -50k 1,144 4.9%' 1,104' 4.3% 1,194' 4.3% HH Income 50k -60k 1,659 7.1% 1,996 7.8% 2,143 7.8% HH Income 60k -75k 2,406; 10.3% 2,5501 9.9%; 2,693 9.8%; HH Income 75k -100k 2,281 9.8% 2,800 10.9% 3,017 11.0% 'HH Income 100k -125k 1,5591 6.7%i 1,971; 7.7% 2,128; 7.7% HH Income 125k -150k 710 3.0% 1,073 4.2%° 1,187 4.3% HH Income 150k -200k 634 2.7%1 1,041 4.1%i,1,170! 4.3% LHH Income Above 200k 520 2.2% 944 3.7% 1,062 3.9%° Income. Under 50k r 13,610 58.2% 13,324 51.9% r 14,103 51.3%' Total Change - .: ._ a _ _ 286 -2.1% __.779 5.8% Income 50k -100k 6,346 27.1%° 7,346 28.6% 7,853 28.6%1, Total Change 1,000 15.8% 507 6.9% - Income 100k -150k 2,269 Total Change Income 150k and Over 1,154 Total Change 9.7% 4.9%, 3,044 11.8% 3,315 12.1% '� 775 34.2% 271 8.9% 1,985 7.7% 2,232 8.1% 831 72.0% 247 12.4%. 1.5% over next 5 years to an average of $67,665. It should be noted that Metrostudy believes that Neustar has forecast this figure very conservatively, as our own national household income projections show a 13% growth over the next 5 years. • Average income is significantly below that of Palm Beach County overall. • Of the over 1,800 new households expected to be formed in the City over the next 5 years, the largest number increase is among the Under $50K age group (+779). The $50K -$100K (+507), $100K -$150K (+271) and $150K and Over (+247) income ranges have good growth as well. • There is a slightly smaller disparity between the median and average income in Boynton Beach than Palm Beach County overall, and it is expected to remain the same over the next 5 years. City ®f Boynt®n Beach Employment & Unemployment Rate 35000 30000 25000 �. 20000 a E 0 a. W 15000 10000 5000 0 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 12% 10°% 8% OCidgE- gNNNMMM�i c}gLnLAt1nt1?tD f�1�I� OfJ CJlQl OQOrti 9e -INN MMrn'� �7'7u1t11III Dtq ac?aagoo99c? aogaagaoc� ac�oc�gc`Sore.-��-+',.-,t-+.-�.-�.-��.+.-,�,-.��-,.,.�.-,r+., I i 1 1 1 i M 1 f i I I Y 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 G TQq�C TWQC hQC >-o..0 TqQ� G TC -1-C Tci.c T�,C T(Q,l.0 �-cs.c 'TQC 3-ciC>^��} Tc�1Q15 C >- tl') l� L% —moi —moi t% (� -@s In —moi to In t� —moi tN -M•+ (n MM l� —mss t' " 4% 2% 0% • The non -seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for the City of Boynton Beach in November 2016 was 5.1%, up 0.4 points YOY, but down significantly from the peak of 11.1% of Jan. & Aug. 2010. The City saw slow but consistent YOY job growth from 2000 to mid -2007, and then a period of job losses as a result of local and national economic conditions through mid - 2010. Total employment had peaked at just 33,465 in December 2006 before falling, but now stands at 36,107 as of November 2016, having more than made up all the jobs lost during the recession. November 2016's YOY job growth was 650 and the City has shown positive gains for the past 72 months in a row. • i • • ... • . . �, • • . • NAICS Business Employees Employees Boynton Beach is home Code Label Count Count Per Business to over 2,800 businesses '62 Health Care and Social Assistance 478 3,432 7 that employ almost 44-45 Retail Trade 398 4,531 11 28,000 people, yielding '81 Other Services (except Public Administration) 325 1,758 5 an average of 10 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 294 1,514 5 employees each. `54 23 Construction 217' 1,165 5 '52 finance and Insurance 205: 1,661 8 '53 Real Estate and Rental and teasing 197 1,079 S This translates to one '72 Accommodation and Food Services 170 3,733 22 business for every 21 '56 Administrative and Support and Waste 130 1,067, 8. people living in Boynton '42 Wholesale Trade 106 799' 8 Beach, or one for every 9 Manufacturing 76 7% 9 households, meaning that :1-33 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 60 95& 16 51 Information 56 618 11 the City has less 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 52 360 7 businesses per person '61 Educational Services 44 1,534- ` 35 and household than Palm 92 Public Administration 37' 2,671 72' Beach County overall. 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 3 22 7' X55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 2 6' 3 '22 Utilities 1 12 12 Retail Trade has the most employees with over Total 2,851 27,636 10 4500, while Healthcare and Social Assistance has 2016 Residential Population 60,430 the most businesses with almost 480. Residential Population per Business 21 2016 Number of Households Households Per Business 25,697 9 City •` Boynton i . • • Employers 1 Bethesda Memorial Hospital Education and Health Services 2,650 2 City of Boynton Beach Government 791 Source: 2015 Cityof Boynton Beach Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), Principal Employers • Please note that there Employment Projections for the City of Boynton Beach are not available. That statistic is only available on a county level. • While no additional top employers were listed on the 2015 CAFR, the 2014 CAFR also included Publix Supermarket, School District of Palm Beach County, Walmart, Waste Management Corporation, Home Depot, Lowe's, Hunters Run Golf & Racquet Club, Quail Ridge Country Club, but no number of employees was disclosed. • This list is not available for each of the 3 Zip Codes, but Metrostudy does not believe that any one of these employers would have a significant demand impact on potential demand for housing within a Zip Code. t5oynton Beach — Zip Code 33426 Current Map View Zip Codes 33428, 33436 & 33435 FL ( Palm Beach Co. I Boynton Beach (1017) QT �"R $S� copytlght Menosh3dy v `` v cl S.1 -13W22]-"39 •ter..., cn+wr Zip Code 33426 runs north to south in the central part of Boynton Beach, roughly bordered by 1-95 to the east and Congress Avenue to the west. Demographic, economic and housing statistics for Zip Code 33426 are used throughout this study as a reference in comparison to those in Palm Beach County, the City of Boynton Beach, Zip Codes 33436 & 33435, as well as the 42 Census Blocks whose areas are predominantly located in the City of Boynton Beach. t"iiE't�i+UStUC,��% Boynton Beach Market Study ©copyright Metrostwdy2017 Zg mr-41WO OWN Population Summary 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 6 4 • 'Pop 19,252! 21,208 22,738; Annual Pop Growth 2016 Q4 To 2021 Q4 7.2% 'Annual Pop Growth 2010 Census To 2016 Q4 10.2%, Population Age __ 2010 Census __2016 Q4 4;094 2021 Q4 4,802 A\erage Age 44.3 44.4; 727 44.3. 708 Median Age 44 4,110 44 3,782 45 3,450 Pop Age 0-4 1,029: 5.3% 1,222; 5.8% 1,310. 5.8% Pop Age 5-9 798 4.1% 1,106 5.2% 1,288 5.7% Pop Age 10-14 749.. 3.9%. 938, 4.4% 1,174 5.2%; Pop Age 15-19 791. 4.1% 828 3.9% 1,030 4.5% Pop Age 20-24 1,112 5.8%. 8981 4.2%0 961' 4.2%• Pop Age 25-29 1,656 8.6% 1,318 6.2% 1,104 4.9% Pop Age 30-34 1,342 7.0% 1,566 7.4% 1,385 6.1% Pop Age 35-39 1,283 6.7% 1,511 7.1% 1,567 6.9% Pop Age 40-44 1,192 6.2%. 1,406, 6.6% 1,577 6.9% Pop Age 45-49 1,229 6.4% 1,325 6.2% 1,502 6.6% Pop Age 50-54 1,247 6.5% 1,343. 6.3% 1,442, 6.3% Pop Age 55-59 1,035 5.4% 1,291 6.1% 1,400 6.2% Pop Age 60-64 1,040 5.4% 1,181. 5.6%' 1,332' 5.9% ;Pop Age 65-69 968 5.0% 1,191 5.6% 1,271 5.69/a ,Pop Age 70-74 930; 4.8%'1,124; . 5.3%, 1,207, 5.3%, Pop Age 75-79 865 4.5% 964 4.5% 1,069 4.7% ,Pop Age 80-84 884: 4.6% l 7971) 3.8% . 8541 3.8% :Pop Age 85+ 4 �__.. 1,102 5.7% 1,199 5.7% 1,265 5.6% The population of Zip Code 33426 is forecast to grow by just over 1,500 people in the next 5 years, a 7.2% increase. This rate of increase is the same as Boynton Beach's overall projected rate. The median age is projected to be 2 years older than Boynton Beach overall. • Unlike Boynton Beach overall, the largest numerical increase in the homebuying age ranges comes from the 35-54 age group, with over 500 expected in the next 5 years. The 55- 74 group is second with over 400 new people. The 20-34 age group is projected to lose 332 people. The strong growth among the 35-54 age group signals the need for more traditional single-family move -up housing in this area. Pop Age 19 &Under 3,367 17.5% 4;094 19.3% 4,802 21.1% Total Change 727 21.6% 708 17.3% Pop Age 20-34 - 4,110 21.3% 3,782 17.8% 3,450 15.2% • Total Change -328 -8.0% -332 -8.8% Pop Age 35-54 4,951 25.7% 5,585 26.3% 6,088 26.8% Total Change 634 12.8% 503 9.0% Pop Age 55-74 3,973 20.6% 4,787 22.6% 5,210 22.96/. Total Change 814 20.5% 423 8.8% Pop Age 75 & Up 2,851 14.8% 2,960 14.0% 3,188 14.0% Total Change 109 3.8% 228 7.7% 55+ housing is mostly known to be found in western Boynton, but with the strong growth of that age group, 55+ housing will be needed here to allow for longer life -expectancies, aging in place, and various levels of managed care. Despite the projected decrease in population, housing for the 20-34 age group (the Millennials) will still be required as they eventually move out from living with family. Zip Code 33426 by Race and Households by Age of Householder Race 2010 Census 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 2021 Q4 16,8411 87.5% White Alone 14,924 77.5% 15,798 74.5%. 16,604 73.0% Black Alone 3,466 18.0% 4,315 20.3% 4,884 21.5% Native American Alone 571 0.3% 67 0.3% 70, 0.3% Asian Alone 500 2.6% 619 2.9% 708 3.1% Pacific Islander Alone 13 0.1% 17 0.1% 18 0.1% Two Or More Races 292 1.5% 392 1.8% 454 -2.0% Ethnicity 2010 Census 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 Not Hispanic 16,8411 87.5% 18,136; 85.5% 19,220; 84.5%, 'Hispanic 2,411 12.5% 3,072 14.5% 3,518 15.5% Head of Household Age 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021Q4 HHs Age 15-24 1 3151 3.6% 2301 2.4%;, 250; 2.4% HHs Age 25-34' 1,431 16.1% 1,364 14.1% 1,170 11.3% HHs Age 35-44 1,3251 14.9%; 1,608j 16.6% 1,757; 16.9% HHs Age 45-54 1,465 16.5% 1,529 15.8% 1,725 16.6%0. HHs Age 55-64 ... 1,241; 14.0%y 1,4821 15.3% 1,662; 16.0% HHs Age 65-74 1,174 13.2% 1,478 15.2% 1,604 15.50/o. m._ HHs Age 75-84 1,144! 12.9%y 1,200; 12.4% 1,338E 12.9%' HHs Age 85+ 769 8.7% 806 8.3% 865 8.3%0 Average HH Age 55.11 55.9 56.7; Median HH Age 54 56 57 • The Zip Code 33426 is less racially diverse than Boynton Beach overall, but is changing similarly. The most significant growth is projected among Whites (+806), African-Americans (+569) and Hispanics (+446K), with the overall % of Whites declining. The median age of the Householder continues to climb as the 55+ age group grows faster than the others, and the projected median age is 1 year older than Boynton Beach overall. • Note the largest increase in number of households and % is in the 45-54 age range. Zip code 33426 Household and Income Growth Household Summary 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 • Zip Code 33426 has an estimated average Households 8,864 9,697 10,371 household income of $69,203 in 2016. Neustar's HH Growth 2016 Q4 To 2021 Q4 7.0% HH Growth 2010 Census To 2016 Q4 9.4% data projects average household Income to grow Total Household Income 2010 Census 2016 Q4 46.6% _ 2021 Q4 46.1% Average HH Income $57,852.00 -91 $69,203.00: 260 $70,711.00 Income 50k -100k 'Change 3,190 32.9% $11,351.00 19.6% $1,508.00 2.2%€ Median HH Income f $47,514.00 166 $54,204.00 Income 100k -150k $55,006.00 1,210 .Change 1,329 12.8% $6,690.00, 14.1%` $802.00' 1.5% Median Income as %° of Average Income 82%! 78%1 78% HH Income Below 10k i 2961 3.3% 466j 4.8%' 523: 5.0%° HH Income 10k -15k 641 7.2% 331 3.4% 302 2.9% HH Income 15k -20k 426 4.8%' 4751 4.9%, 510; 4.9% HH Income 20k -25k 551 6.2% 606 6.2% 648 6.2% HH Income 25k -30k 5821 6.6%1 696' 7.2%: 751 7.2% HH Income 30k -35k 611 -6.9% 548 5.7%° 578 ,5.6% HH Income 35k -40k 469 5.3% 5981 6.2%, 653' 6.3%' HH Income 40k -45k 677 7.6% 419 4.3% 409 3.9%° HH Income 45k -50k 356; 4.0%€ 3791 3.9% 4041 3.9% HH Income 50k -60k 833 9.4% 7_86 _8.1%. 814. 7.8% HH Income 60k -75k 1,092; 12.3%t 1"069i 11.0%.v 1,118 10.8%' HH Income 75k -100k 1,171 13.2% 1,335 13.8% 1,424 13.7% HH Income 100k -125k 569+ 6.4%I 7581, 7.8% 825' 8.0% HH Income 125k -150k 341 3.8% 452 4.7% 504 4.9%, HH Income 150k -200k 193' 2.2% 5491 5.7%1 637: 6.1 ': HH Income Above 200k 56 0.6% 230 2.4% 271 2.6% Income Under 50k 4,609 52.0% 4,518 46.6% 4,778 46.1% Total Change -91 -2.0%° 260 5.8% Income 50k -100k 3,096 34.9% 3,190 32.9% 3,356 32.4% Total Change 94 3.0% 166 5.2% Income 100k -150k 910 10.3% 1,210 12.5% 1,329 12.8% Total Change 300 33.0% 119 9.8% Income 150k and Over 249 2.8% 779 8.0% 908 8.8% Total Change 530 212.9% 129 16.6%; 2.2% over next 5 years to an average of $70,711. It should be noted that Metrostudy believes that Neustar has forecast this figure very conservatively, as our own national household income projections show a 13% growth over the next 5 years. • These figures are above those of Boynton Beach overall. • Of the over 674 new households expected to be formed in Zip Code 33426 over the next 5 years, the largest number (260) fall into the under $50K income range. There is good growth among the $50K -$100K (+166), $100K -$150K (+119) and $150K+ (+129) income ranges as well. • There is a significantly smaller disparity between the median and average income in Zip Code 33426 than Boynton Beach overall, with the gap projected to remain the same over the next 5 years. Zip Code 33426 Workplace Population NAICS Business Employees Employees Code Label Count Count Per Business 62 Health Care and Social Assistance 255 1,774 7 44-45 Retail Trade 251 2,596.; 10 81 Other Services (except Public Administration) 192 1,319 7. 23 Construction 189 1,868:_ 10 ;54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 188' 955 5 52 finance and Insurance 131. 895E 7 42 Wholesale Trade 114' 1,189 10' 53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 111: ' 464' 4; '72 Accommodation and Food Services 97 2,198; 23 56 Administrative and Support and Waste 97: 1,016, 10 .31-33 Manufacturing 78 . 804, 10 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 40 382' 10 '51 Information 35 23ts 7 61 Educational Services 31 859' 28 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 23 131 6 92 Public Administration 6 207' 35 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 2 61 3 22 Utilities 1 10 % 21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 1 4 4 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 1 17 17 Tota I 2016 Residential Population Residential Population per Business 2016 Number of Households Households Per Business 1,843 16,932 9 21,208 12 9,697 5 • Zip Code 33426 is home to over 1,800 businesses that employ almost 17,000 people, yielding an average of 9 employees each. • This translates to one business for every 12 people living in Zip Code 33426, or one for every 5 households, which a much higher concentration of businesses than Boynton Beach overall. This is due to the fact that the commercial core of Boynton Beach runs though this zip code. • Like Boynton Beach overall, Retail has the most employees (almost 2,600), and Healthcare and Social Assistance has the highest business count with 255. Accommodations / Food Services also has a significant number of employees with 2,198. noynton Beach — Zip Code 33436 Current Map View metrostudy Fl f PaintBeach Co. f Boymon Beach (70f7) Copyright Metrosfudy $aief: 7-Ca627rEd34 '—'— • Zip Code 33436 runs north to south in the western part of Boynton Beach, roughly bordered by Congress Avenue to the east and Military Trail to the west. Demographic, economic and housing statistics for Zip Code 33436 are used throughout this study as a reference in comparison to those in Palm Beach County, the City of Boynton Beach, Zip Codes 33426 & 33435, as well as the 42 Census Blocks whose areas are predominantly located in the City of Boynton Beach. • it should be noted that Zip Code 33436 includes large parts of unincorporated Palm Beach County on its western portion. (Population Summary I 2010 Census ' 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 I The population of Zip Code 33436 is forecast Pop 41,027: 41,874 44,305, to grow by just over 2,400 people in the next Annual Pop -Growth 2016 Q4 To 2021 Q4 5.8% 5 years, a 5.8% increase, a slower rate of _ _. . Annual Pop Growth 2010 Census To 2016 Q4 2.1% increase than Boynton Beach's overall Population Age 2010 Census, 201e Qa 2021 Qa projected rate of 7.2%. The median age is Average Age 45.1 45.6; 45.2 projected to be 4 years older than Boynton Median Age 46 47 47 Beach overall. Pop Age 0-4 2,176 5.3%'. 2,162 5.2% 2,383 5.4% Pop Age 5-9 2,151 5.2% 2,187 5.2% 2,372 5.4% Pop Age 10-14 2,007 4.9%' 2,160 5.2% 2,363 5.3% Pop Age 15-19 1,793 4.4% 2,008 4.8% 2,303 5.2% Pop Age 20-24 2,0351 5.0%' 1,911 4.6% 2,196 5.0% Pop Age 25-29 2,411 5.9% 2,167 5.2% 2,198 5.0% Pop Age 30-34 2,296 5.6%. 2,310 5.5% 2,319 5.2% Pop Age 35-39 2,603 6.3% 2,361 5.6% 2,435 5.5% Pop Age 40-44 2,639 6.4% 2,511; 6.0% 2,552 5.8% Pop Age 45-49 2,633 6.4% 2,610 6.2% 2,673 6.0% Pop Age 50-54 2,528 6.2%: 2,708: 6.5% 2,779 6.3% Pop Age 55-59 2,397 5.8% 2,668 6.4% 2,825 6.40 Pop Age 60-64 2,356. 5.7%• 2,529, 6.0% 2,774 6.3%' Pop Age 65-69 2,367 5.8% 2,614 6.2% 2,707 6.1% ;Pop Age 70-74 2,123; 5.2%: 2,476' 5.9/° 2,588, 5.8% Pop Age -75-79 2,314 5.6% 2,175 5.2% 2,307 5.2% Pop Age 80-84 2,2141 5.4%I 1,854:! 4.4%, 1,8661 4.2% Pop Age 85+ „ 1,984 4.8% 2,463 5.9% 2,665 6.0% Pop Age 19 & Under Total Change Pop Age 20-34 Total Change Pop Age 35-54 Total Change Pop Age 55-74 Total Change Pop Age 75 & Up Total Change 8,127 19.8% 6,742 16.4% 10,403 25.4% 9,243 22.5% 6,512 15.9% 8,517 20.3% 9,421 21.3% 390 4.8% 904 10.6%. 6,388 15.3% 6,713 15.2% -354 -5.3% 325 5.1% 10,190 24.3% 10,439 23.6% -213 -2.0% 249 2.4% 10,287 24.6% 1,644 11.3% 6,492 15.5% -20 -0.3% 10,894 24.6% 607 5.9% 6,838 15.4% 346 5.3% • Like Boynton Beach overall, the largest numerical increase among the homebuying age groups comes from the 55-74 age group, with over 600 expected in the next 5 years. The 20-34 age is projected to grow by 325, which will require more entry-level housing. The 35-54 age group (usually defined as the prime home -buying years) is projected to gain 249 people, which will require some more traditional new single-family detached move - up housing. 55+ housing is mostly known to be found in this zip code, but with the strong growth of that age group, even more 55+ housing will be needed here to allow for longer life - expectancies, aging in place, and various levels of managed care. Zip Code 33436 by Race and Households by Age of Householder Race 2010 Census 2016 64 2021 Q4 White Alone 31,825 77.6% 31,451 75.1% 32,737' 73.9%, Black Alone 7,327 17.9% 8,242 19.7% 9,115 20.6% Native American Alone 1071 0.3% 112' 0.3% 114` 0.3% Asian Alone 1,149 2.8% 1,332 3.2% 1,500 3.4% Pacific Islander Alone 16 0.0% 21 0.1% 21 ", 0.0%' Two.Or More Races 603 1.5% 716 1.7% 818 1.8% Ethnicity 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 Not Hispanic 35,383; 86.2% 35,433' 84.6% 37,081{ 83.7%i Hispanic 5,644 13.8% 6,441 15.4% 7,224 16.3% Head of Household Age 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 HHs Age 15-24 5311 2.9%,'480! 2.6% 5531 2.8% HHs Age -25-34 2,196 12.0% 2,034 10.9% 2;029 10.3% HHs Age 35-44 2,850] 15.6%f 2,5941 14.0%= 2,683; 13.7% HHs Age 45-54 2,982 16.4% 2,955 15.9% 3,082 15.7% HHS Age 55-64 2,7451i 15.1%` 3,034' 16.3% 3,3081 16.8°/x' HHs Age 65-74 2,680 14.7% 3,175 17.1% 3,347 17.0% HHs Age 75-84 2,920, 16.0%: 2,692; 14.5%; 2,850; 14.5°/x' HHs Age 85+ 1,321 7.2% 1,618 8.7% 1,789 9.1% Average HH Age 56.81 58.0, 58.3; Median HH Age 57 59 60 • The Zip Code 33436 is the least racially diverse of the 3 zip codes, but its projected changes are similar to Boynton Beach overall. Significant growth is projected among Hispanics (+1,648), Whites (+1,276), and African-Americans (+873), while the White % share of the population continues to decline. • The median age of the Householder continues to climb as the 55+ age group grows faster than the others, and the projected median age is 4 years older than Boynton Beach overall. • Note the largest increase in number of households and % is in the 55-64 age range. Zip Code 33436 Household and Income GrowtJ Household Summary u 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 • Zip Code 33436 has an estimated average Households 18,225 18,582 19,641 household income of $71,981 in 2016. Neustar's HH Growth 2016 Q4 To 2021 Q4 5.7% HH Growth 2010 Census To 2016 Q4 2.0% data projects average household income to grow (Total Household Income 2010 Census _ 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 Average HH Income $64,494.00 $71,981.00; 1,894 10.4% $72,959.00 :Change $7,487.00•. 11.6% $978.00 1.4% Median HH Income $46,422.00 $55,129.00 $56,211.00 Change $8,707.00i 18.8% $1,082.00: 2.0% Median Income as % of Average Income 72%I 77%1 i 77%' ;HH Income Below 10k 8191 4.5% 1,2261 6.6% 1,369; 7.0% 'HH Income 10k -15k 1,308 7.2%. 835 4.5% 818 4.2%°' HH Income 15k -20k -_ , .- 8141 _ . . 4.5%': 1,0801 5.8%; 1,1861 6.0% HH Income 20k -25k 1,174 6.4% 971 5.2% 1,003 5.1% HH Income 25k -30k 1,1231 6.2/° 8411 4.5%t 839+ 4.3%i HH Income 30k -35k . 1,081 5'.9% 1,091 5.9% 1,137 5.8%' HH Income 35k -40k 1,275 7.0%' 688 3.7%' 641', 3.3%: HH Income 40k -45k 1 240 6.8%. 866 4.7% 854 4.3% HH Income 45k -50k 9791 5.4%,; 920 5.0%i 9841 5.0%I HH Income50k-60k 1,461 8.0% 1,507 8.1% 1,593 8.1% IHH Income 60k -75k 1,8101 9.9%: 2,0291 10.9%, 2,156 11.0% HH Income 75k 100k 2,034 11.2%° 2,315 12.5% 2,459 12.5% ';HH Income 100k -125k 1,3501 7.4%; 1,6991 9.1%i 1,8251 9.3% 'HH Income 125k -150k 544 3.0% 835 4.5% 925 4.7%' HH Income 150k -200k 613 3.4%; 9981 5.4%`•, 1,117; 5.7%, HH Income Above 200k 600 3.3% 681 3.7% 735 3.7% Income.Under 50k 9,813 53.8% Total Change Income 50k -100k 5,305 29.1% Total Change Income 100k -150k 1,894 10.4% Total Change 8,518 45.8% 8,831 45.0% -1,295 -13.2% 313 3.7%, 5,851 31.5% 546 10.3% 2,534 13.6% 640 33.8% 6,208 31.6% 357 6.1%. 2,750 14.0% 216 8.5% Income 150k and Over 1,213 6.7% 1,679 9.0% 1,852 9.4% Total Change 466 38.4% 173 10.3% 1.4% over next 5 years to an average of $72,959. It should be noted that Metrostudy believes that Neustar has forecast this figure very conservatively, as our own national household income projections show a 13% growth over the next 5 years. • The income figures are above those of Boynton Beach overall, while the % increase is just slightly below. • Of the over 1,000 new households expected to be formed in the City over the next 5 years, the largest number (357) fall into the $50K -$100K range. There is good growth among the under $50K (+313), $100K -$150K (+216) and $150K+ (+173) income ranges as well. • There is a significantly lower disparity between the median and average income in Zip Code 33436 than Boynton Beach overall, and the gap is projected to remain almost the same over the next 5 years. Zip Code 33436 Workplace Population NAICS Code Label Business Employees Employees • Count Count I Per Business 62 Health Care and Social Assistance 278 2,503 9 44-45 Retail Trade 228; 3,616 16 .81 Other Services (except Public Administration) 150 75T 5 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, 142 637' 4 52 Finance and Insurance 111, 1,012, 9. 53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 95, 672 " 7 23 - Construction 85 306 4, 72 Accommodation and food Services 81 1,798' 22 56 Administrative and Support and Waste 65 266 4' 51 Information 30 483, 16 :42 Wholesale Trade 27 136 5 '71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 25 1,091 44 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 22 125! 6 61 Educational Services 21 7321 35 31-33 Manufacturing 16 118 7 ,92 Public Administration 6 44, 7 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 3 8T 3 22 Utilities 1 5 5 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 1 16 16 Tota I 2016 Residential Population Residential Population per Business 2016 Number of Households Households Per Business 1,387 14,321 10 41,874 30 18,582 13 Zip Code 33436 is home to almost 1,400 businesses that employ over 14,000 people, yielding an average of 10 employees each. • This translates to one business for every 30 people living in Zip Code 33436, or one for every 13 households, which is a much lower concentration of businesses than Boynton Beach overall, and Palm Beach County as well, but it should be noted that it borders the main commercial area of Zip Code 33426 along Congress Avenue, so more businesses are in close proximity for many residents of 33436. • Retail Trade has the most employees with over 3,600, while Healthcare and Social Assistance has the most businesses with almost 280. Baynton Beach -- Zip Cade 33435 Current Map View FL,Palm epyrfc•. Boynton eoacn(,tJr7) metrostudy connranr nwo-osn,ny W..; ,t00.227-iB2D ��'" • Zip Code 33435 runs north to south in the eastern part of Boynton Beach, bordered by 1-95 to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. Demographic, economic and housing statistics for Zip Code 33435 are used throughout this study as a reference in comparison to those in Palm Beach County, the City of Boynton Beach, Zip Codes 33426 & 33436, as well as the 42 Census Blocks whose areas are predominantly located in the City of Boynton Beach. • It should be noted that Zip Code 33435 includes parts that are not located in the City of Boynton Beach, especially those along the barrier island (Ocean Ridge and Briny Breezes to the north ). v © Copyright Metr .... 2017 40 r�etr+�stu+d� Boynton Beach Market Study A: FenNy.rvroti Population Summary 2010 Census 2016 Q4 8,191 2021 Q4 Total -Change. The population of Zip Code 33435 is forecast to 953 13.2% Pop Age 20-34 5,651 Pop 6,789., 32,059 Total Change 37,837 40,980; grow by just over 3,100 people in the next 5 Annual Pop Growth 2016 Q4 To 2021 Q4 8,381 8:3% 9,299 24.6% Total Change years, an 8.3% increase, the highest rate of Annual Pop Growth 2010 Census To 2016 Q4 11.0% 18.0% 7,302 22.8% 9,315 .24.6% Total Change 2,013 27.6% increase among the 3 zip codes. The median Population Age 2010 Census 201604--- 2______1age is projected to the same as Boynton Beach AeerageAge 42.2 42.9 42.71 overall. Median Age 43 44 43 Pop Age 0-4 1,772' 5.5% 2,060 5.4% 2,370 5.8% • Unlike Boynton Beach overall, the largest Pop Age 5-9 1,712 5.3% 2,039 5.4% 2,313 5.6% Pop Age 10-14 1,833' 5.7% 2,040' 5.4% 2,267 5.5%, numerical increase in the homebuying age Pop Age 15-19 1,921 6.0% 2,052 5.4% 2,25$ 5.5% ranges comes from the 35-54 age group, with Pop Age 20-24 1,926: 6.0% 2,100' 5.6% 2,264 5.5%' over 700 expected in the next 5 years. The 55- Pop Age 25-29 1,903 ° 5.9/0 2, 339 ° 6.2 /0 2 ,375 5.8% 74 group is second with over 642 new people, Pop Age 30-34 1,822: 5.7% 2,350, 6.2% 2,510, 6.1%, Pop Age 35-39 1,803 5.6% 22199 5.8% 2,517 6.1% while the 20-34 age group is projected to add .Pop Age 40-44 1,981 6.2% 2,193 5.8% 2,460 6.0%' 360 people. The strong growth among the 35- Pop Age 45-49 - - - - 2,248 - 7.0% 2,324; 6.1% - 2,452 6.0% 54 age group signals the need for more :Pop Age 50-54 2,349; 7.3% 2,583 6.8% 2,574' 6.3% traditional single-family housing in this area. .Pop Age 55-59 2,106 6.6% 2,641 7.0% 2,700 6.6% IPop Age 60-64 1,889; 5.9% 2,405; 6.4%, 2,652: 6.5% ,Pop Age 65-69 1,755 5.5% 2,272 6^0% 2,450' 6.0% More 55+ housing will be needed here to allow 'Pop Age 70-74 1,552 4.8%,? 1,997; 5.3%: 2,155! 5.3% for longer life -expectancies, aging in place, and Pop Age 75-79 1,335 4,2% 1,596 4.2% 1,763_ 4.3%' _..,. __------_-.._ _ .._.._ .- _ -__.1_ various levels of managed care. Pop Age 80-84 1,077{ 3.4%, 1 192 3.2% 1,2931 3.2%) ..P_Op P`9?_85+_ y_. 1 075 3.4% 1,455 3.8% 1,612 3.9%, Pop Age 19 & Under 7,238 22.6% 8,191 21.6% Total -Change. 953 13.2% Pop Age 20-34 5,651 17.6% 6,789., 17.9% Total Change 1,138 20.1% Pop Age 35-54 8,381 26.1% 9,299 24.6% Total Change 918 11.0% Pop Age 55-74 7,302 22.8% 9,315 .24.6% Total Change 2,013 27.6% Pop Age 75 & Up Total Chanoe 3,487 10.9% 4,243 11.2% 756 21.7% 9,203 22.5% 1,012 12.4% 7,149 17.4% 360 5.3% 10,003 24.4% 704 7.6% 9,957 24.3% 642 6.9% 4,668 11.4% 425 10.0% • More housing for the 20-34 age group (the Millennials) will also be required as they eventually move out from living with family. Zip Code 33435 by Race and Households by Age of Householder Race 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 White Alone 181180; 56.7% 21,230` 56.1% 22,710', 55.4%. Black Alone 12,915, 40.3%° 15,337 40.5% 16,806 41.0% Native American Alone 1611 0.5% 188:, 0.5%. 2111 0.5%, Asian Alone 350 1.1% 466 1.2% 538 1.3%. Pacific Islander Alone 16; 0.0%' 241 0.1% 24' 0.1% Two Or More Races 437 1.4% 592 1.6% 691 1.7%' Ethnicity 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 :Not Hispanic 28,184, 87.9% 32,549! 86.0%' 34,8651 85.1% Hispanic 3,875 12.1%, 5,288 14.0% 6,115 14.9% Head of Household Age 2010 Census 2016 Q4 2021 Q4 HHs Age 15-24 3661 2.8% 479 3.1 W, 5231 3.1 HHs Age 25-34 1,426 10.8% 1,959 12.5% 2,023 11.9% HHs Age 35-44 1,8971 14.4%"2,210 14.1%. 2,514, 14.8%j HHs Age 45-54 2,573 19.5% 2,623 16.7% 2,725 16.0%. HHs Age 55-64 2,396 18.1%, 2,8661 18.3%' 3,078! 18.1%1 HHs Age 65-74 2,085 15.8% 2,655 16.9% 2,883 17.0% HHs Age 75-84 1,657; 12.5% 1,9171 12.2%( 2,126; 12.5%; HHs Age 85+ 818 6.2% 991 6.3% 1,130 6.6% Average HH Age 56.31 56.1; 56.31 Median HH Age 56 57 57 • The Zip Code 33435 is much more racially diverse than Boynton Beach overall. Significant growth is projected among Whites (+1,480), African Americans (+1,469) and Hispanics (+827), while the White share of the population continues to decline. • The median age of the Householder continues to climb as the 55+ age group grows faster than the others, and the projected median age is 1 year older than Boynton Beach overall. Note the largest increase in number of households and % is in the 35-44 age range. Zip Code 334.35 Household and Income Growth ,Household Summary 2010 Census T • Zip Code 33435 has an estimated average Households 13,218 15,700 17,002: household income of $63' 970 in 2016. Neustar's HH Growth 2016 Q4 To 2021 Q4 8.3% HH Growth 2010 Census To 2016 Q4 18.8% data projects average household income to grow Total Household Income 2010 Census 2016 Q4 9,652 2021 Q4 Average HH Income $55,162.00 643 $63,970.00 3,000 22.7% $65,023.00 24.7% Change 24.8% $8,808.00' 16.0% $1,053.00 1.6% .Median HH Income $37,487.00 10.5% $_41,846.00 10.7%' $4.2,423.00 554 !Change 171 10.4% $4,359.00 11.6% $577.00( 1A%°, Median Income as % of Average Income 68% 65% 65% HH Income Below 10k 1,153' 8.7%? 1,536; 9.8% 1,681! 9.9%, HH Income 10k -15k 1,068 8.1% 886 5.6% 932 5.5% 'HH Income 15k -20k 1,150; 8.7%` 1,296 8.3%. 1,394' 8.2%, HH Income 20k -25k 1,144 8.7% 1_,059. 6.7% 1,090 6.4%' "HH Income 25k -30k � _ .. - 8781 � 6.6% 1,214i 7.7%` 1,337] ° 7.9/0, ,... 'HH Income 30k -35k 929 7.0% 806 5.1% 827 4.9% 1HH Income 35k -40k 577; 4.4%, 744; 4.7% 811 4.8%' HH Income 40k -45k901 6.8% 837 5.3% 885 5.2% iHH Income 45k -50k 6291 „4.8% 6311 4.0% 6951 4.1%°' HH Income 50k -60k 797 6.0% 1,077 6.9% 1,168 6.9%' HH Income 60k -75k 1,1821 8.9%°d 1,379; 8.8% 1,484! 8.7%' HH Income 75k -100k 1,021 7.7% 1,426 9.1% 1,568 9.2% ?HH Income 100k -125k 7281 5.5% 1,06611 6.8% 1,1721 6.9%, -HH Income 125k -150k 364 2.8% 580 3.7% 645____3. HH Income 150k -200k 3121 2.4% 391! 2.5% 437; 2.6% HH Income Above 200k 385 2.9% 772 4,9% 876 5.2% Income Under 50k Total Change Income 50k -100k Total Change Income 100k -150k Total Change 8,429 63.8% 9,009 57.4% 9,652 56.8% 580 6.9% 643 7.1% 3,000 22.7% 3,882 24.7% 4,220 24.8% 882 29.4% 338 8.7% 1,092 8.3% 1,646 10.5% 1,817 10.7%' 554 50.7% 171 10.4% Income 150k and Over 697 5.3% 1,163 7.4% 1,313. 7.7% Total Change 46-6-66.9% 150 12.9% 1.6% over next 5 years to an average of $65,023. It should be noted that Metrostudy believes that Neustar has forecast this figure very conservatively, as our own national household income projections show a 13% growth over the next 5 years. These figures are lower than the other 2 zip codes , as well as Boynton Beach overall. • Of the just over 1,300 new households expected to be formed in Zip Code 33435 over the next 5 years, the largest number (643) fall into the under $50K income range. There is good growth among the $50K -$100K (+388), $100K -$150K (+171) and $150K+ (+150) income ranges as well. • The disparity between the, median and average income in Zip Code 33435 versus the other zip codes and Boynton Beach overall is much higher (67.5% in 2016) and that gap is not projected to change over the next 5 years. Zip Code 33435 Workplace Population NAICS Code Label li Business I Employees I Employees • Count Count Per Business '62 Health Care and Social Assistance 406. 3,924: 10 '81 Other Services (except Public Administration) 212 855 4 754 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 143 803' . 6 44-45 Retail Trade 142 791 6' 723 Construction 120 496; 4 '53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 102 462; ; 5 '52 -Finance andrinsurance 80 314' 4 156 Administrative and Support and Waste 69.250 4 172 Accommodation and Food Services 68: ' 1,082! 16 792 Public Administration 41 2,7021 66 X42 Wholesale Trade 38, 181 5 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 35 298 9. 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 27 91! 3 !31-33 Manufacturing 22: 128 6 '51 Information 16' 120 8 61 Educational Services 16 350 22 '11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 2 4: 2 '22 Utilities 1 12,12 Tota I 2016 Residential Population Residential Population per Business 2016 Number of Households Households Per Business 1,540 12,863 8 37,837 25 15,700 10 Zip Code 33435 is home to over 1,500 businesses that employ almost 13,000 people, yielding an average of 8 employees each. • This translates to one business for every 25 people living in Zip Code 33435, or one for every 10 households, which is a little higher than Boynton Beach overall. • Healthcare and Social Assistance dominates both the employee and business totals with almost 4,000 and over 400, respectively. t5®ynt®n Beach Census Blocks - South Current Map View South Census Blocks 77 N. .. Apr ,� 6th X12 2,1 —IJUI 4..' . AA, �iv �o'_wc. a '4"') t}CT 60-0 i M y Win v'ft0.f i s k FL I Palm Beach Co. I Boynton Beach (4016) Copyright Metrostudy metrostudy Sales: 1.800.2.27-8839A "'""`�"""" CO1 {"" s ,�{.; � � •, -eta e.. '* � . Area Population Growth Population by Race (2016) Age Population by Educational Attainment (2016) Some Metrostudy was asked to Projected Estimated No High College / Bachelor's 2021 2016 2010 Growth Growth African- 2016 School High School Associates Degree of compare and contrast Type Defined Projection Estimate Census 2016-2021 2010-2016 White American Hispanic I Median Diploma Diploma Degree Higher City`, ' Boynton Beach 64;801. q 60,43Q„ _. 59,668. ^' 72% "=- .'105%; 63/, .q 32% -15/ ` 43 - , 10•� ,. ''22% " 28% 19% various aspects of the population, households and housing stock in each of the Census Blocks with the City's overall demographics. To give additional perspective, Metrostudy also included the statistics for Palm Beach County overall and each of the three zip codes in the City - 33426, 33436 and 33435. • The summary to the left consists of the Population Growth, Population by Race, Median Age, and Population by Educational Attainment. Following this slide, each of these categories are sorted/ranked and discussed in further detail. • All data is based on 2016 Estimates unless otherwise noted. 22;738. 21 208 19 252 -71.* 02% _ 73/ ,_ 219 15/ 44 8% _4. r - 19%." _ ,.m27% ,...,_..22% - Zip ., 33436 44,305 41,874. 41027 _ 5 8/ - 2 1/ 74/ 21/ 15% _ 47 - 6% ". 23% 24/ - 22% Zip 33435 40,980 37,837 32,059 8.3% 18.0% 55% 41% 14% 44 13/ 22% 22% 15% Census Block 57011 1,868 1,685 1,195 10.9% 41.0'/ 37% 58% 16% 43 9% 409% 160/6 5% Census Block 57012 2,872 2,583 1,787 11.2% 44.5% 35% 63% 19% 37 21% 19% 22% 5% Census Block 57014 709 655 557 8.2% 17.60%, 36% 61% 21% 35 17% 24% 13% 10% Census Block 57021 1,400 1,328 1,334 5.4% -0.4% 9% 88% 13% 31 18% 19% 13% 9% Census Block 57022 3,494 3,198 2,544 9.3% 25.7% 31% 65% 15% 41 20% 23% 22% 4% Census Block 57023 1,441 1,364 1,348 5.6% 1.2% 13% 85% 9% 34 25% 12% 22% 6/ Census Block 57024 1,352 1,246 1,043 8.5% 19.5% 870/6 8% 13% 48 6% 200% 21% 319/ Census Block 58081 3,654 3,284 2,262 11.3% 45.2% 71% 18% 18% 34 2% 4% 34% 34% Census Block 58082 2,738 2,601 2,628 5.3% -1.01/. 74% 19% 16% 40 6% 21% 18o/ 26% Census Block 58132 1,670 1,578 1,547 5.8% 2.00/ 77% 14% 17% 46 2% 19% 32% 201% Census Block 58133 1,125 1,130 1,489 -0.4% -24.1% 72% 23% 23% 37 01/o 13% 35% 23% Census Block 58161 1,350 1,282 1,292 5.3% -0.8% 62% 27% 20% 40 13% 18% 20% 18% Census Block 58162 999 945 933 5.7% 1.3% 760/. 18% 16% 46 15% 15% 26% 21% Census Block 58163 2,409 2,352 2,734 2.4% -14.0% 74% 18% 32% 38 7% 19% 21% 20% Census Block 58164 569 567 722 0.4% -21.5% 84% 10% 17% 44 01/. 21% 31% 23% Census Block 58171 2,404 2,265 2,181 6.1% 3.9% 61% 30% 200/ 37 9% 18% 23% 15% Census Block 60051 1,820 1,692 1,500 7.6% 12.8% 87% 11% 8% 67 5% 33% 32% 200/ Census Block 60052 2,186 2,088 2,173 4.7% -3.9% 71% 23% 101/ 43 3% 25% 26% 18% Census Block 60072 2,526 2,446 2,733 3.3% -10.5% 32% 63% 12% 33 10% 27% 15% 11% Census Block 60091 1,015 933 768 8.8% 21.5% 97% 1% 5% 75 27% 34% 25% 14% Census Block 60092 1,612 1,473 1,159 9.40A 27.1% 98o/ 1% 8% 75 18% 27% 25% 28% Census Block 60101 1,692 1,572 1,385 7.6% 13.5% 72% 26% 13% 50 10% 25% 33% 14% Census Block 60102 2,426 2,306 2,337 5.2% -1.3% 45% 501% 2011 33 9•/ 12% 30% 14% Census Block 60121 2,162 2,021 1,857 7.0% 8.8% 69% 27% 17% 39 7% 17% 25% 201% Census Block 60122 2,591 2,458 2,463 5.4% -0.2% 77% 19% 15% 48 8/ 19% 32% 18% Census Block 61001 1,869 1,653 978 13.1% 69.0°/ 87% loo/ 1001. 50 4% 18% 38% 22% Census Block 61002 1,686 1,600 1,607 5.4% -0.4% 6% 92% 6% 36 16% 23% 18% 10% Census Block 61003 1,180 1,122 1,141 5.2% -1.7% 7D/o 901% 8% 33 20% 25% 17% 1% Census Block 62011 2,505 2,377 2,384 5.4% -0.3% 39% 57% 209% 34 18% 17% 201/0 101% Census Block 62012 1,251 1,174 1,102 6.6% 6.5% 48% 48% 21% 37 9% 409% 14% 6% Census Block 62013 1,301 1,235 1,247 5.3% -1.01% 46% 50% 19% 35 11% 21% 25% 8% Census Block 62021 1,943 1,746 1,193 11.3% 46.4% 78% 169/ 20% 39 12% 16% 27% 20%/ Census Block 62022 1,561 1,384 838 12.8% 65.2% 95% 2% 4% 73 12% 35% 30o/ 16% Census Block 62031 1,603 1,460 1,118 9.8% 30.61/. 58% 34% 19% 45 4% 280/6 27% 16% Census Block 62032 1,356 1,267 1,158 7.0% 9.4% 84% 14% 8% 68 12% 36% 27% 13% Census Block 63001 1,566 1,403 938 11.60/, 49.6% 76% 19% 17% 39 3% 15% 18% 41% Census Block 63002 1,690 1,604 1,612 5.4% -0.5% 87% 12% IOD/ 45 101% 25% 17% 22% Census Block 63003 1,885 1,768 1,660 6.6% 6.5% 46% 501/ 15% 39 17% 17% 30% 4% Census Block 63004 1,968 1,761 1,167 11.8% 50.9% 93% 4% 6% 61 14% 23% 28% 241/. Census Block 66032 1,897 1,770 1,609 7.2% 10.01% 79% 17% 13% 50 4% 19% 22% 35% Census Block 66033 1,644 1,502 1,180 9.5% 27.3% 93% 2% 6% 66 O'/ 10% 19% 53% Census Block 66034 603 610 824 -1.1% -26.00/ 98% 1% 1% 81 OD/ 9% 30o/D 61% various aspects of the population, households and housing stock in each of the Census Blocks with the City's overall demographics. To give additional perspective, Metrostudy also included the statistics for Palm Beach County overall and each of the three zip codes in the City - 33426, 33436 and 33435. • The summary to the left consists of the Population Growth, Population by Race, Median Age, and Population by Educational Attainment. Following this slide, each of these categories are sorted/ranked and discussed in further detail. • All data is based on 2016 Estimates unless otherwise noted. Population Growth Area Population Growth W,725U Projected Estimated SZ,U�y 2021 2016 2010 Growth Growth Type Defined Projection Estimate Census 2016-2021 2010-2016 CC11Onsus 816ck 01001,9,69,9 ;_ 1653. -. 978 1311: 69 0Jg ; Census Btock 62022 1_j86 1384. 838 12,85' 65.2-V6 Ce,n�u Bloek; ,x,°63004 ' 1,968:',1761 =° 1,16T 11.8 50.9%°s Census Black. 63001 1,566 1403. - 938' 116% ''_ 49.6% Ce sus Bloek':-'626k'_:1,943 * _ ° 1,746'=, , ' 1193," "-': 11.3/0 .' 46.4 Census Block; 58081 3,654' 3,284. 21262- 11.3%, 45.2% Census Block' SZ012 2;872 3;583 11787: '. 11.23/. ,a . 44.5% Census Block- s .57011 X1;868'' =' 1,685 , 1195 .. 1118 " °' 9.85/6' 30.6%. Census Btnck, 62031 1;603s 1460 Gensus6lock` >;' 66033 1,644 :' 3`1;502 1,180,'`.. 9'.5% 27:356:-= Census Block ° 60092, 1,612 1,473. 1,159 9.41% 27.11/. Census Block . 57022 3,494' , 3,198 2,544 9.3% 25.7% Census Block '60091 1,015 933 768 '8.81% 21,5% Census Block . 57024 1,352 1,246 1;043 8:55/. 19.5% Zlp 33431 W,725U . 5/,253/ SZ,U�y 25.5"/0 16. U"/o Census Block 57014 709 655 557 - 8.2% 17.6% " Census Block 60101 1,692 1,572 1,385 7:65/ 13.5% Census Block 6005E 1,820 1,692 1;500 7.6%' 12.8% City Boynton Beach 64 801 §0,430 54,6W 7.2% 10.59 � ZIp µ. 33426 _ n. 22 738 21208 w 19 252 "' 7 2% 10 2% Census Block 66032 1.897 1770 1.609 7.2% 10.0% 1,356 1,267 1,158 7.01% 9:4% Census Block 63003 1,885 1,768 1,660 6.61/. 6.5% Census Block 62012 1,251 1,174 1,102 6.60% 6.5% Census Block 58171 2,404 2,265 2,181 6.1% 3.9% Census Block 58132 11670 1,578 1,547 5.89/. 2.0% 33436 m 44 30541 874 41,227 5 8/0 21% Census Block 58162 999 945 933 5.70/ 1.3% Census Block 57023 1,441 1,364 1,348 5.60/. 1.2% Census Block 57021 1,400 1,328 1,334 5.40/ -0.4% Census Block 60122 2,591 2,458 2,463 5.4% -0.2% Census Block 62011 2,505 2,377 2,384 5.4% -0.3% Census Block 61002 1,686 1,600 1,607 5.40/, -0.4% Census Block 63002 1,690 .1,604 1,612 5.40/. Census Block 62013 1,301 1,235 1,247 5.3% -1:0% Census Block 58161 1,350 1,282 11292 5.3% -0.8% Census Block 58082 2,738 21601 2,628 5.3% -1.0% Census Block 60102 2,426 2,306 2337 5.2% -1.3% Census Block. 61003 1,180 1,122 1,141 5.2% -1.7% i Census Block 60052 31186 2,088 2,173 4.71/ -3.9% Census Block 60072 2,526 2,446 2;733 3.3% -10:51/. Census Block 58163 21409 2,352 2,734 2.40/.- -14.0% Census Block 58164- 569 567 722 0:40/. -21.5% Census Block 58133 1;125 1_,130 cIn 1,489 a11 -0.4% 1 eoi -24.1%I ..,c not C The chart on the right details Population Growth, showing the Projected Population in 2021, Estimated Population in 2016, and Census Population of 2010, along with the Projected Growth Percentage from 2016-2021 and the Estimated Growth Percentage from 2010-2016. e The chart was sorted and ranked by the Projected Growth Percentage from 2016-2021 (largest to smallest) and color -coded according to the Legend below. 0 The overall rate of growth in Boynton Beach is just slightly above that of Palm Beach County overall. Residential growth in Boynton Beach will have to come mostly from redevelopment of existing uses as few parcels that are currently zoned residential exist. O Zip Code 33435 has the fastest rate (+8.3%), while 33436 has the lowest (+5.8%). Census Block 61001 has the fastest rate (+13.1%), while 66034 has the lowest (-1.1%). • It should be noted that the change in the rate of population growth in Boynton Beach from 2010-2016 to 2016-2021 (-3.3 points) has dropped -more significantly than that of Palm Beach County (-2.7points). Only 17 of the 42 census blocks are outpacing the growth rate of the city overall, indicating that they are carrying a slightly disproportionate share of the growth rate. 0 40 of the 42 census blocks show positive growth projections for 2016-2021. This is an improvement over the 2010-2016 estimates, where only 26 of the census blocks showed positive growth. Color Legend Palm Beach County - v _ -jCity of Boynton Beach 133426 Zip Code 133436 Zip Code 33435 Zip Code 1-10 Ranked Census Blocks 111-20 Ranked Census Blocks 21-30 Ranked Census Blocks 131-42 Ranked Census Blocks Boynton Beach — census Blocks Current Map View Census Blocks FL i Pahn Beach Co.Boynkin Beach(0016) tTT! 0 \/ Copyright Metretro`ud1 oshotly s LN!t: I•W6I77.6939 �"'"°^'�cA� There are 42 Census Blocks that are either wholly or mostly within the boundary of the City of Boynton Beach. Demographic, economic and housing statistics for these Census Blocks are used throughout this study as a reference in comparison to those for Palm Beach County, the City of Boynton Beach, and Zip Codes 33426, 33436 & 33435. The following pages show enlarged images with more detail of the Census Blocks, broken down by northern and southern Boynton Beach. -,Q .e ° r � ° vw�l.NV-: UVVraU WJV7 V � _ - �O 6, � � 6 o • 6 �� � -.- � '.. Area Population by Race (2016) 72% African - Type Defined White American Hispanic Census Block 6 4 9S% % 1°0 • nsus Bloc 6009 8% 1 � 8 Census Bloek 97% 1% 5% Ce us Block 62022 C nsus Block 66033 93% 2% 6% Census Block 63004 93% 4% 6% Census 8iock 6005 8T,6 1 % 8% Wensus Bloek 570 Census Block 61001 87% 10°% 10% NMuEMMMbS )Census Block, .=62032.-`. -84%,,.-.w =.14% Census Block Block 58164 84% .. 10°% 17% E€i Census Block 66032 79%. 17% 13% Census Block .62021 - 78°,6 16% 20% Census'Block 58132 77%. 14% 17% Census Block. 60122 77% 19% 15% Census Block 63001- 76% 19% 17% IMUM!"20102MMUMMEMINIM Census Block 58162 76% 18% 16% Census Block 58082 74% 19% 16% Census Block 58163 74% 18% 3232% Zip 33436 74% 21% 15% 33426 73%-�- 21%N 15%'_.i Census Block 60101 72% 26% 13% Census Block 58133 72% 23% 23% Census Block 58081 71% 181% 18% Census Block 60052 71% 23% 10% Census Block , 60121 69% 27% 17% City Boynton Beach 63%. - 32%- 15% Census Block 58161 62% 27% 20°% Census Block 58171 61% 30% 20% Census Block 62031 58% 34% 19% Zip 33435 55% 41%_ 14% Census Block 62012 48% 48% 21% Census Block 62013 46% 501/ 19% Block 60102 45%. 50% 20'% Block 62011 39% 57% 20% Block 57011 37% 581/ 165, Block 57014 36% 615' 21% Block 57012 35% 63% 19°% Block 60072 32% 63% 12% Block 57022 31% 65% 15% Block 57023 13% 85% 9°h Block .57021 9°% 885, 13% Block 61003 7°% 90% 8°% • The chart details Population by Race, showing the percentage of the population who identifies itself as White or African-American alone. The percentage of Hispanic Residents totals those who identify themselves as Hispanic. This includes White Hispanics, African-American Hispanics, and Hispanics of other races, so the total of the 3 categories shown here does not typically equal 100%. • The chart was sorted and ranked by the percentage of the population that identifies themselves as White (largest to smallest) and color -coded according to the Legend below. • Boynton Beach has a significantly larger percentage of African-American residents than Palm Beach County (32% vs. 19%) overall, but a much smaller percentage of Hispanic residents (15% vs. 21%). 33436 has the highest % of White population (74%), while 33435 has the lowest (55%). 33435 has the highest % of African-American population (41%), while 33436 and 33426 have the lowest (21%). • 33436 & 33426 have the highest % of Hispanic population (15%), while 33435 has the lowest (14%). • 66034 and 60092 have the highest % of White population (98%), while 61002 has the lowest (6%). • 61002 has the highest % of African-American population (92%), while 66034, 60092 & 60091 have the lowest (1%). 58163 has the highest % of Hispanic population (32%), while 66034 has the lowest (1%). • 25 of the 42 census blocks have a higher % of White residents than the City overall. • Only 17 of the 42 census blocks exceed the overall % of African-American residents throughout the city, • 21 of the 42 census blocks exceed the overall % of Hispanic residents throughout the city. Area 2016 1 . The chart details Median Age, showing the Median Age as of 2016. Defined I Median < 57024 48- 60122 48 Block 58132 46 Block 58162 46 Block 62031 45 Zip 33435 44 Census Block 58_164 44 W City Boynton Beach 43 Census Block 57011 43 Census Block 60052 43 Census Block 57022 41 Census Block 58082 40 Census Block 58161 40 Census Block 60121 39 Census Block 62021 39 Census Block 63001 39 Census Block 63003 39 Census Block 58163 38 Census Block 57012 37 Census Block 58133 37 Census Block 58171— 37 Census Block 62012 37 Census Block 61002 36 Census Block 57014 35 Census Block 62013 35 Census Block 57023 34 . Census Block, 58081 34 Census Block 62011 34 Census Block 60072 33 Census Block 60102 33 Census Block 61003 33 • The chart was sorted and ranked by the Median Age(largest to smallest) and color -coded according to the Legend below. • Boynton Beach median age is more than 2 years younger than that of Palm Beach County. • Zip Code 33436 has the highest Median Age (47), while 33426 & 33435 have the lowest (44). • 66034 has the highest Median Age (81), while 57021 has the lowest (31). • 18 of the 42 census blocks exceed the overall Median Age throughout the city. Color Legend ~Palm Beach County rn ]City of Boynton Beach 133426Zip Code 133436 Zip Code 33435 Zip Code 1-10 Ranked Census Blocks 111-20 Ranked Census Blocks 21-30 Ranked Census Blocks ~ ]31-42 Ranked Census Blocks roplation by Educational Attainment Area Population by Educational Attainment (2016) 32% 18% Census Block 60052 Some 25% 26% 18% No High 62022 College / Bachelor's 30°/ 165, School High School Associates Degree of Type Defined Diploma Diploma Degree Higher Censu58lock,.. 66034;,' Census Block 58171 9% 18'.6 tensusbldck, ',66033-, al :Los 27% 34% Census Block ' 3-, 5%, 38°1 : 41% Census Block _ 66032 -` 4, . 19% - 22% , .: 35% Census Block 58081 '' 2%r. 41/.34% 12% 34% Census Block. 57024 - ,. G%: _ 201% 21% - 317 Census Block, _ 60092 F 19% - 27% X25% 281/ Ce us Blbck.. 58082 6$6. 21%. •18% 26% ^County°= --Palm Beach 956' ::i4y , 121%.-1.24'0 " Census Block 63004 =1410 _ - 23% 28% 24%- Census Block 58133. 0%. 13%.. 35% .23% Census Block -,.,-_,..,x-...33426`27% 58164 0%21% 31%23% I J Zip» -. ._ 2A Census BlmiC 61001'— � 4% ' 181Y. 38% 22% Census Block 63002 l0•/ 25% 17% 22% Zip 33436 - 6% 23% 24% 22% Census Block 58162 15% 15% r 26% 21% Census Block 60121 7% 17% 25% 201/ Census Block 62021 12% 16% 27% 20% Census Block 60051 5% 33% 32% 20% Census Block 58163 7% 19% 21% 200/. Census Block.58_132 2% 19% 329' 20% City joynton Beath 10%^ w- 22% 23% .__ 19% Census Block. 58161. 13% 18% 20% 18% Census Block 60122 81% 19% 32% 18% Census Block 60052 3% 25% 26% 18% Census Block 62022 12% 35% 30°/ 165, Census Block 62031 4% 28% 27% 16% Zip 33435 _ 13% 22% 22% 155, Census Block 58171 9% 18'.6 23% 155/ Census Block 60091 27% 34% 25% 14% Census Block 60101 10'/0 25% 33% 14% Census Block 60102 9% 12% 30% 14% Census Block , 62032 12% 36% 27% 13% Census Block 60072 SO% 27°/ 15% 11% Block 57014 175/ 2451 13% 1D% Block 62011 18•/ 17% 20% 101% Block 57021 18% 19% 13% 9% Block 62013 11% 2151 25% 80/ Block 57023 25% 12% 22% 6% Block 62012 - 91/. 401. 14% 69/ Block 57011 9% 40%. 16% 51/ Block 57012 2151 19"/ 22% 5% Block 57022 20"/ 23% 22%. 4% Block. 63003 17% 17% 309/ 4% .1. .1— 1— — riot- . 1 0 The chart details Population by Educational Attainment, showing the percentage of the population who has No High School Diploma, only a High School Diploma, Some College or an Associates Degree, or a Bachelor's Degree or Higher (Masters, Doctorate). e The chart was sorted and ranked by the percentage of the population that has a Bachelor's Degree or Higher (largest to smallest) and color -coded according to the Legend below. C Boynton Beach trails Palm Beach by 5 percentage points in % with Bachelor Degrees or Higher. • 33426 has the highest % Bachelor's or Higher (22%), while 33435 has the lowest (15%). C 33435 has the highest % of No High School Diploma (13%), while 33436 has the lowest (6%). 66034 has the highest % Bachelor's or Higher (61%), while 61003 has the lowest (1%). 60091 has the highest % of No High School Diploma (27%), while 66034, 66033, 58133, and 58164 have the lowest (1%). C 19 of the 42 census blocks have a higher percentage of Bachelor's or Higher Degrees than the City overall, indicating a more evenly spread among the number of census blocks as to Educational Attainment at this particular level. Only 16 of the 42 census blocks do not exceed the overall percentage of those who have No High School Diploma throughout the city. Legend _ IPalm Beach County - —City of Boynton Beach ' 133426Zip Code 133436 Zip Code 33435 Zip Code 1-10 Ranked Census Blocks 111-20 Ranked Census Blocks 21-30 Ranked Census Blocks -_131-42 Ranked Census Blocks Zip Area 17,002 Household Growth 13,218 Household Size Household Income 2.4 2.4 2.4 $63,970 $41,846 Census Block 57011 723 655 Median 10.4% 36.5% 2.6 2.6 Projected Estimated $23,089 Census Block Avg. HH HH 838 599 2021 2016 2010 Growth Growth 3.0 $48,657 $37,149 Income Income Type Defined Projection Estimate Census 2016-2021 2010-2016 2021 2016 2010 2016 2016 County, PatmBeach 63Z,76,201•�z544,227f. >7T0%... ,. 2.4 Z4 3,4 $83,517 $58,675 4.0 Boynton Beach• 27;505 - 25,697 .23,377' _t 70% `- 9.9% 24- 2.4 2.3 $66;680$47,580' 8.9% 23.2% 33426 10;371 9,697 P64'_ - - 7.0% 9.4% 2.2 - 2.2 2.2 $69;203 $54,204 Zip33436 5.3% 19,641 185 82 _ 18 225 _ , , 5 7% 2 0°/ _ 2 3 2 3 2.3 - $71,981 $55,129 Zip 33435 17,002 15,700 13,218 8.3% 18.89/. 2.4 2.4 2.4 $63,970 $41,846 Census Block 57011 723 655 480 10.4% 36.5% 2.6 2.6 2.5 $41,324 $23,089 Census Block 57012 927 838 599 10.61/. 39.9% 3.1 3.1 3.0 $48,657 $37,149 Census Block 57014 275 256 225 7.41% 13.8% 2.6 2.6 2.5 $54,717 $25,345 Census Block 57021 352 336 342 4.8% -1.8% 4.0 4.0 3.9 $65,746 $37,386 Census Block 57022 1,236 1,135 921 8.9% 23.2% 2.8 2.8 2.8 $35,120 $29,030 Census Block 57023 394 374 376 5.3% -0.5% 3.7 3.6 3.6 $41,633 $32,412 Census Block 57024 634 588 509 7.8% 15.5% 2.1 2.1 2.0 $89,634 $89,761 Census Block 58081 1,783 1,608 1,130 10.9% 423% 2.0 2.0 2.0 $92,180 $87,387 Census Block 58082 1,227 1,170 1,200 4.9% -2.5% 2.2 2.2 2.2 $65,591 $40,804 Census Block 58132 676 639 624 5.8% 2.4% 2.5 2.5 2.5 $69,507 $61,310 Census Block 58133 535 543 740 -1.5% -26.6% 2.1 2.1 2.0 $59,609 $51,867 Census Block 58161 513 489 499 4.9% -2.0% 2.6 2.6 2.6 $73,195 $61,520 Census Block 58162 467 443 440 5.4% 0.70A 2.1 2.1 2.1 $57,999 $57,121 Census Block 58163 788 778 946 1.3% -17.8% 3.1 3.0 2.9 $64,855 $57,618 Census Block 58164 256 257 338 -0.41/. -24.0°/ 2.2 2.2 2.1 $63,829 $58,374 Census Block 58171 867 819 798 5.9% 2.6% 2.8 2.8 2.7 $89,459 $65,305 Census Block 60051 1,066 997 913 6.9% 9.2% 1.7 1.7 1.6 $46,613 $34,726 Census Block 60052 783 753 810 4.0% -7.0% 2.8 2.8 2.7 $92,380 $67,622 Census Block 60072 910 889 1,030 2.4% -13.7% 2.8 2.8 2.7 $42,600 $29,679 Census Block 60091 635 587 499 8.2% 17.6% 1.6 1.6 1.5 $38,679 $29,845 Census Block 60092 1,022 939 763 8.8% 23.1% 1.6 1.6 1.5 $57,763 $36,021 Census Block 60101 822 766 686 7.3% 11.7% 2.1 2.1 2.0 $48,166 $34,444 Census Block 60102 840 803 834 4.60/, -3.7% 2.9 2.9 2.8 $69,606 $63,105 Census Block 60121 774 727 686 6.5% 6.0% 2.8 2.8 2.7 $81,035 $69,549 Census Block 60122 1,068 1,011 995 5.69/6 1.6% 2.4 2.4 2.5 $69,875 $59,178 Census Block 61001 977 867 529 12.7% 63.9% 1.9 1.9 1.8 $61,912 $62,185 Census Block 61002 540 514 521 5.1% -1.3% 3.1 3.1 3.1 $43,358 $34,090 Census Block 61003 393 376 395 4.5% -4.8% 3.0 3.0 2.9 $27,664 $21,087 Census Block 62011 739 703 710 5.1% -1.01% 3.4 3.4 3.4 $56,306 $44,294 Census Block 62012 497 468 451 6.2% 3.8% 2.5 2.5 2.4 $36,119 $36,196 Census Block 62013 364 348 360 4.6% -3.3% 3.6 3.5 3.5 $94,473 $68,870 Census Block 62021 973 877 613 10.9% 43.1% 2.0 2.0 1.9 $86,648 $63,987 Census Block 62022 992 882 552 12.5% 59.8% 1.6 1.6 1.5 $43,136 $29,456 Census Block 62031 819 750 593 9.2% 26.5% 2.0 1.9 1.9 $50,661 $34,031 Census Block 62032 821 772 730 6.3% 5.8% 1.7 1.6 1.6 $38,758 $28,149 Census Block 63001 837 753 517 11.2% 45.6% 1.9 1.9 1.8 $101,657 $61,731 Census Block 63002 611 583 597 4.8% -2.3% 2.8 2.8 2.7 $87,198 $77,273 Census Block 63003 630 593 566 6.2% 4.8% 3.0 3.0 2.9 $63,747 $47,685 Census Block 63004 1,208 1,083 726 11.5% 49.2% 1.6 1.6 1.6 $42,602 $45,461 Census Block 66032 839 787 732 6.6% 7.5% 2.3 2.2 2.2 $105,849 $79,934 Census Block 66033 849 775 603 9.5% 28.5% 1.9 1.9 2.0 $106,205 $104,981 Census Block 66034 332 339 474 -2.1% -28.5% 1.8 1.8 1.7 $121,632 $85,372 • There are 42 Census Blocks that are either wholly or mostly within the boundary of the City of Boynton Beach. • Metrostudy was asked to compare and contrast various aspects of the population, households, and housing stock in each of the Census Blocks with the City's overall demographics. To give additional perspective, Metrostudy also included the statistics for Palm Beach County overall and each of the three zip codes in the City - 33426, 33436 and 33435. • The summary to the left consists of the Household Growth, Household Size, and Household Income statistics. Following this slide, each of these categories are sorted/ranked and discussed in further detail. • All data is based on 2016 Estimates unless otherwise noted. Household Growth Zip Area 17,002 15,700 Household Growth 8.3% 18.89/ Census Block 57014 275 256 225 Projected Estimated Census Block 60,101 822 2021 2016 2010 Growth Growth Type Defined Projection Estimate Census 2016-2021 2010-2016 Census Block 61003, 977 , $E3 529 12,7% 6319%, Census.B ocls 6_2022 992 882'. 552 12.5% ," 59.8% Census Block ' 63004 'A8` 1,083, 726, 11.5% 49.21 Census Block 630M 837 7,53 517 11.2% 45.6% Census Block 62021. 973. 877 613 1091 431% Census 6_lack • -U991 1783. 1;6,08 1,130 10:9% 42.3% Census Bloc k`` '57012'. 927 - 838 - 599..-- 10,6% 39,9% - Censgs 516ck 5704 , .'723;,:. ; 655 - 480.. , 10.4% 36.5%. census Block 62031, 819 750, 593 9.2% •. 26:5% Census Block. 66033 849 775 603 9,5% 28.5% Census Block 60092 1;022 939 763 8.8% 23.1% Census Block 57022- 1,236'_ 1,135 921 8;9% 23.2% Census Block 60091 635 587 499 8.2% 17.6% Census Block 57024 634 588 509 7.8% 15.5% Zip .33435 17,002 15,700 13,218 8.3% 18.89/ Census Block 57014 275 256 225 7.4% 13.8% Census Block 60,101 822 766 686 7.3% 11.7% Census Block 60051 1,066 997 913 6.9% 9.2% City . Boynton Beach 27,505 25 697 23 3T7 7 0% 9 9% _ Zip_ 3342610371 5 7/ 9,697 8864...._ 7.0°/0 m6.61 94% Census:Block -66032 839 787 732 Census 7.5% County. .Palm; Beach - 637,780 596,201 544,227. 7.0% 9:6%"' 1Census Block 62032 821 772 730 6.3% 5.8% (Census Block 60121 774 727 686 6.591 6.0'� Census Block 63003 630 593 566 6.2% 4.8% Census Block 62012 497 468 451 6.2% 3.8% Census Block 58171 867 819 798 5.9% 2.61 Census Block 58132 676 639 624 5.8% 2.4% L Zip 33436 19,641 18,582 18 225 5 7/ 4,69/ Census Block 58162 467 443 440 5.4% 0.7% Census Block 57023 394 374 376 5.3% -0.5% Census Block 57021 352 336 342 4.8% -1.81 Census Block 60122 1,068 1,011 995 5.61 1.61 Census Block 62011 739 703 710 5.1% -1.0% Census Block 61002 540 514 521 5.1% -1.3% Census Block 63002 611 583 597 4.81 -.2.3% Census Block 62013 364 348 360 4.61 -3.3% Census Block 58161 513 489 499 4.9% -2.09/ Census Block 58082 1,227 1,170 1,200 4.9% -2.5% Census Block 60102 840 803 834 4,69/ -.3.7% Census Block 61003 393 376 395 4.5% -4.8% Census Block 60052 783 753 810 4.09 -7.0% Census Block 60072 910 889 1,030 2.49/ -13.79/ Census Block 58163 788 778 946 1.39/ -17.8°/ Census Block 58164 256 257 338 -0.4% -24.0% Census Block 58133 535 '543 740 -1.5% -26:69/o Census Block. 66034. 332 339 474 -.2.1% -28,5% The chart on the right details Household Growth, showing the Projected Households in 2021, Estimated Households in 2016, and Census Households of 2010, along with the Projected Growth Percentage from 2016-2021 and the Estimated Growth Percentage from 2010-2016. 0 The chart was sorted and ranked by the Projected Growth Percentage from 2016-2021 (largest to smallest) and color -coded according to the Legend below. o The overall rate of household growth in Boynton Beach is the same as Palm Beach County overall. Since population growth and household growth rates are very similar, this indicates that household size is not expected to change significantly over the next 5 years. 0 It should be noted that the change in the rate of Households growth in Boynton Beach from 2010-2016 to 2016-2021 (-2.9 points) is greater than that of Palm Beach County (-2.6 points). Zip Code 33435 has the fastest rate (+8.3%), while 33436 has the lowest (+5.7%). 0 Census Block 61001 has the fastest rate (+12.7%), while 66034 has the lowest (-2.1%). Only 17 of the 42 census blocks are outpacing the growth rate of the city overall, indicating that they are carrying a disproportionate share of the growth rate. 39 of the 42 census blocks show positive growth projections for 2016-2021. This is an improvement over the 2010-2016 estimates, where only 26 of the census blocks showed positive growth. Legend Palm Beach County . _lCity of Boynton Beach 133426Zip Code 33436 Zi p Code 33435 Zip Code 1-10 Ranked Census Blocks 111-20 Ranked Census Blocks 21-30 Ranked Census Blocks 131-42 Ranked Census Blocks Area Household Size • The chart details Household Size, showing the average Household Size as of 2021, 2016, and 2010. Type Defined 1 2021 2016 2010 Census Block " 57022 2.8. ..... 2.8 2.8 Census Block 60121 -2.8 2.8 2.7 Census Block 60052 2.8 2.8 2.7 Census Block 60072 2.8 '2.8 2.7 Census Block 58171 2.8 2.8 2.7 Census Block 63002 2.8 2.8 2.7 Census Block 58161 2.6 2.6 2.6 Census Block 57011 -2.6 2.6 - 2.5' Census Block 57614 2.6 2.6 2:5, Census Block 62012 2.5 2:5 2.4 Census Block 58132 2.5 2.5 2.5 County palm Beacfi 2.4 2:4 2:4' Census Block 60122 - 2.4 2.4 2.5 Zip 33435 2.4 2.4 2.4 -City. Boynton`..Beach.. 2.4 Block 62032 Census Block 66032_ 2.3 2.2 2.2 . Zip... 4-33436 ..LL2.3 2.3,:.h,_2.3.y Census Census Block 58082 2.2 2.2 2.2 Census Block 58164 2.2 2.2 2.1 Census Block 58162 2.1 2.1 2.1 Census Block 57024 2.1 2.1 2.0 Census Block 58133 2.1 2.1 2.0 Census Block 60101 2.1 2.1 2.0 Census Block 58081 2.0 2.0 2.0 Census Block 62021 20 2.0 1.9 Census Block 62031 2.0 1.9 1.9 Census Block. 66033 1.9 1.9 2.0 Census Block 61001 1.9 1.9 1.8 Census Block 63001 1.9 1.9 1.8 Census Block 66034 1.8 1.8 1.7 Census Block 60051 1.7 1.7 1.6 Census Block 62032 1.7 1.6 1,6 Census Block 63004 1.6 1.6 1.6 Census Block 60091 1.6 1.6 1.5 Census Block' 60092 1.6 1.6 1.5 • The chart was sorted and ranked by the Projected Household Size in 2021 (largest to smallest) and color -coded according to the Legend below. • Boynton Beach 's average Household Size (2.4) is the same as Palm Beach County. • Zip Code 33435 has the highest Household Size (2.4), while 33426 has the lowest (2.2) 57021 has the highest Household Size (4.0), while 62022, 60092, 60091, 63004 and 62032 have the lowest (1.6). ° 22 of the 42 census blocks exceed the overall Household Size throughout the city. Color Legend Palm Beach County ]City of Boynton Beach 133426 Zip Code 133436 Zip Code 33435 Zip Code 1-10 Ranked Census Blocks .----111-20 Ranked Census Blocks 21-30 Ranked Census Blocks N31-42 Ranked Census Blocks m®useh®Id Income Area Median Avg. HH HH Income Income Tvae Defined 2016 2016 Census Block 60121 $81,035 $69,549 Census Block_ 58161 $73,195 $61,520 I Zip 33436 $71,981 555.129 I Block 60122 $69,875 $59,178 Block 60102 $69,606 $63,105 Block '57021 $65;746 $37,386 Block58082 $65,591 $40,804 Zip 33435 $63,970 $41,846 Census 'Block 58164 $63,829 $58,374 1 Census Block 63003 $63,747 $47,685 Census Block 61001 $61,912 $62,185 Census Block 58133 $59,609 $51,867 Census Block 58162 $57,999 $57,121 Census Block 60092 $57,763 $36,021 Census Block 62011 $56,306 $44,294 Census Block 57014 $54,717 $25,345 Census Block 62031 $50,661 $34,031 Census Block 57012 $48,657 $37,149 Census Block 60101 $48,166 $34,444 Census Block 60051 $46,613$34,7261 Census Block 61002 .$43,358 $34,090 1 Census Block 62022 $43,136 $29,456 Census Block 63004 $42,602 $45,461 Census Block 60072 $42,600 $29,679 Census Block 57023 $41,633 $32,412 Census Block .57011 $41,324 $23;089 Census Block 62032 $38,758 $28,149 Census Block 60091 $38,679 $29,845 Census Block 62012 $36,119 $36,196 Census Block 57022 $35,120 $29,030 • The chart details Household Income, showing the Average and Median Household Incomes as of 2016. • The chart was sorted and ranked by the Average Household Income (largest to smallest) and color -coded according to the Legend below. • Boynton Beach 's Average Household Income ($66,680) is significantly below than that of Palm Beach County ($83,517), as is its Median Household Income ($47,580) vs. Palm Beach County's ($58,675) • Zip Code 33436 has the highest Average Household Income ($71,981), while 33435 has the lowest ($63,970). • Zip Code 33436 also has the highest Median Household Income (55,129), while 33435 also has the lowest ($41,846). • 66034 has the highest Average Household Income ($121,632), while 61003 has the lowest ($27,664). • 66033 has the highest Median Household Income ($104,981), while 61003 has the lowest ($21,087). • Only 16 of the 42 census blocks exceed the overall Average Household Income throughout the city. • 22 of the 42 census blocks exceed the overall Median Household Income throughout the city. Color Legend - IPalm Beach County rv]City of Boynton Beach 133426 Zip Code 33436 Zip Code 33435 Zip Code 1-10 Ranked Census Blocks 11-20 Ranked Census Blocks 21-30 Ranked Census Blocks 131-42 Ranked Census Blocks Housing Stock Characteristics Area Housing Characteristics (2016) 54% 29% $169,637 $136,317 Median 59% -_. 300/ Full -Time Full -Time Owner- 71% 17% Owner- Renter- Occupied Type Defined Occupied Occupied Value Census Block• .. ` 66034 3% '-1% $3,'7,8191 Census -Block... ` 61001 $154,639 3800, 33,7„7.29 Census Bioc 63904 57°Ja. 21! $907,30 Census Bloyk . 6(032 74% 14%, $301,762'. Census Block:' S7044 51/0` '36% `$_28109$ Ce`n4usBlock 6603. 83% 2% $259>126 Census Block 58173. 5614 26%. $2572, 2!79 Census Block §605Z',74% ` `12%` $251,61'3 County Palm�Beach -62/0 25% :-$251 064 Census Block 63002 77% 16% $248,538 Census Block f_r2013 6S°l0 22% $745,833', Census Block 58161 81% 11% $226,293 Census Block 60121- 751 17% $214,058 Census. Block. 62012 38% 51% $209,174 Census Block 58132 85% 7% $205,609 Census Block 58082 53% 34% $203,061 j Zip 33436 64% 21% $195,878 Census Block 58163 67/ 9/ $190,305 Census Block 60072 17/ 64/ $185,948 Census Black 62021 26/ 56/ $182 812 City•�.� µBoynton,Beach ..'56% 28/., - $179,529 Census Block 58081 19% 67% $177,472 Census Block 63001 45% 427. $176,562 Zip 33435 54% 29% $169,637 $136,317 33426 59% -_. 300/ $169,040 Census Block 60122 71% 17% $162,304 Census Block 61002 57% 32% $161,841 Census Block 63003 75% 22% $159,384 Census Block 61003 35% 52% $154,639 Census Block 60102 31% .62% $153,777 Census Block 58162 79% 12% $149,300 Census Block 62011 55% 33% $148,453 Census Block 60051 78% 12% $147,212 Census Block 60091 82% 8% $144,837 Census Block 58164 59% _ 100/ $144,472 ensus Block 60092 79% 8% $136,317 ensusBlock 60101 57% 35% $135,687 ensus Block 57023 62% 24% $133,796 ensus Block 58133 38% 29% $132,900 ensus Block 57022 43% 47% $127,250 ensus Block S7011 67% 21% $102,427 ensus Block 57014 55% 36% $100,641 ensus Block. 57012 71% 17% $90,666 ensus. Block 62032 64% 17% $86,856 ensus Block 62022 65% 14% $74,437 The chart details Housing Stock Characteristics, showing the % of the Full -Time Owner- and Renter -Occupied Housing, and the Median Value of Owner -Occupied housing. e The chart was sorted and ranked by the Median Value of Owner -Occupied Homes (largest to smallest) and color -coded according to the Legend below. e Boynton Beach's Median Housing Value is 28% lower than Palm Beach County's. 33436 has the highest Median Housing Value ($195,878), while 33426 has the lowest ($169,040). 33436 has the highest % of Full -Time Owner -Occupied housing (64%), while 33435 has the lowest (54%). 66034 has the highest Median Housing Value ($378,191), while 57021 has the lowest ($71,005). 58132 has the highest % of Full -Time Owner -Occupied housing (85%), while 60072 has the lowest (17%). O 18 of the 42 census blocks have a higher Median Housing Value than the City overall, while 26 of the 42 census blocks exceed the overall percentage of Full -Time Owner -Occupied homes throughout the city. Color Legend 1Palm Beach County �ACity of Boynton Beach 33426 Zip Code 133436Zip Code 33435 Zip Code 1-10 Ranked Census Blocks 111-20 Ranked Census Blocks 21-30 Ranked Census Blocks 131-42 Ranked Census Blocks CJ�;f Palm Beach New, Resale, and Foreclosures By Housing Type 4QO9-3Q76 Palm Beach County Transactions 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 r- 2,000 O N¢K -Tr. 1a:14m C --k C= Rr511014r R,Ooh, - Traa roan:l«x1 C.urir4 P -1-u- <T1 urlHaa�ih¢r Cu144 = ROO Sirla- Tr 0/r -'.0 Coarlll -+^ NVw . Avtrr �6V Prlc4 •-4.•- lZarDarlur ItaaNW - AvatuOra PrIG¢ -.a..- Rt?O taulu - Avur4Dy Pr -W¢ - 5600,000 Oat. R4n0a: 10/1120/6 - 0/30/2018 .- 5400,000 }t $10610/ Funrlly TN/P1¢4lg11)ar CV116VI.lIrr1V1.1 OU1a'r/ Urrk.rown - TWM Tran... thin Typa CVOOI Av0 PrICa Av0 OF WWF Av1/LVtSF CVOnt Av0 P,-Av6 SF $15P Z.71.1 __ Av0 Prl¢a Av0 SF 37tiF Caunt Curint Av0 POc¢ AvD SF 3r5P AVOLWSF N" 1,272 3720,-105 3.050 $210.0 11.200 400 3407.320 1,630 5.143.0 65 $523,044 1,441 3285.0 77 1,004 3835.580 .^.,712 $212.0 '11,208 {--R-.¢t111 It' '.rW 15,525 3471,610 2,162_ mm1.070 $195.1 � � 14,658 4, DOJ324011. v 01,59J 3I ttl,I -µ II.1Da $2200611.22!! -W. 31"57.0 956 JJ,30D $349,464 1,721 $174.1 14,658 FV•aWryaura 1,024 rllcr 16.1365 52-1 1.506 1,004 11:W7 20 3.47] 1,640 15,565 RF?O t1 « 818 5204 004 41076 $138,3 16;"118 042 $1 50 406 1,400 5108 4 1,403 $1 A OAO9,087 $10515 70 0-'3"S224.074 1,044 $124,5 15,616 Sala tlu T 4 1 m 21638 p^i $482073 2174 31686 14,746 w 8,758 3243213 1606 $1428 14,467 3218405 1188 31692 1,131 43.053 3341811 1744 $169.9 14.746 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 r- 2,000 O N¢K -Tr. 1a:14m C --k C= Rr511014r R,Ooh, - Traa roan:l«x1 C.urir4 P -1-u- <T1 urlHaa�ih¢r Cu144 = ROO Sirla- Tr 0/r -'.0 Coarlll -+^ NVw . Avtrr �6V Prlc4 •-4.•- lZarDarlur ItaaNW - AvatuOra PrIG¢ -.a..- Rt?O taulu - Avur4Dy Pr -W¢ 4Li0D 2010 .010 '.'.Q1/ 4011 2012 4012 2Q 13 4013 2014 4014 21318 4510 2Q 10 Mionrl-Fnn L-11.1d0le-WOW Pu Ln 0-11. FL (11] 97) Copyroptlt Motrov Wdy metrOstud / Sul¢si 1•rMl1r.7. ].]•843'J 3Q10 New Closings -1,786 New Avg. Price - $449K Resale Closings -18,340 Resale Avg. Price - $301K 3Q15 New Closings - 2,363(+32%) New Avg. Price - $604K(+34%) Resale Closings - 32,588(+77%) Resale Avg. Price - $357K(+19%) 3Q16 New Closings -1,904(-19%) New Avg. Price - $6351<(+5%) Resale Closings - 33,369(+2%) Resale Avg. Price - $349K(-2%) New and regular resale prices were more closely matched in Palm Beach County in the year ending 3Q10, but the gap has widened significantly as new home prices have risen much higher than resale prices, which actually decreased slightly last year. The volume of new homes has decreased in the past year after growing over the past 5 years, while regular resale volume has increased significantly over those same 6 years, with a slight increase last year. The summary of transactions above the chart is for the year ending 3Q16 (this data may very slightly from that of the Census Block Housing due - 5600,000 .- 5400,000 }t -- 5204.400 SO 4Li0D 2010 .010 '.'.Q1/ 4011 2012 4012 2Q 13 4013 2014 4014 21318 4510 2Q 10 Mionrl-Fnn L-11.1d0le-WOW Pu Ln 0-11. FL (11] 97) Copyroptlt Motrov Wdy metrOstud / Sul¢si 1•rMl1r.7. ].]•843'J 3Q10 New Closings -1,786 New Avg. Price - $449K Resale Closings -18,340 Resale Avg. Price - $301K 3Q15 New Closings - 2,363(+32%) New Avg. Price - $604K(+34%) Resale Closings - 32,588(+77%) Resale Avg. Price - $357K(+19%) 3Q16 New Closings -1,904(-19%) New Avg. Price - $6351<(+5%) Resale Closings - 33,369(+2%) Resale Avg. Price - $349K(-2%) New and regular resale prices were more closely matched in Palm Beach County in the year ending 3Q10, but the gap has widened significantly as new home prices have risen much higher than resale prices, which actually decreased slightly last year. The volume of new homes has decreased in the past year after growing over the past 5 years, while regular resale volume has increased significantly over those same 6 years, with a slight increase last year. The summary of transactions above the chart is for the year ending 3Q16 (this data may very slightly from that of the Census Block Housing due Rogular... 33,369, - Transaction Distribution By Category 4Q15-3QI6 Palm Beach County Transaction Distribution Date Range: 101112015 - 913012016 Transactions by Transaction Type = New r---1 Regular Resale O Foreclosure O REO Sale TWPloxlother 8,756 (t5%1 Singto Family 21.539 (49%) Transactions by Housing Type ndominium 467 (33%) 01 1herfUnknown 1,131(3%) Single Family p TH/Plex/Other 0 Condominium O Other/Unknown Miami -Fort Lauderdale -West Palm Beach, FL (1017) Copyright Metrostudy metrOstudv &.1-2•800�227.•839 ••--+-w•-••:b•r+✓•r • 4Q15 -3Q16 New — 4% Resale — 76% Foreclosure — 8% REO — 12% • 4Q15 -3Q16 Detached — 49% Attached (TH) — 15% Condo — 33% Other/Unknown — 3% • Palm Beach County still has a significant share of distressed transactions (20% Foreclosure & REO) • Product is pretty evenly mixed between detached (49%) and attached (48%). Boynton Beach Historical Housing Summary New, Resale, and Foreclosures By Housing Type 4009-3096 Boynton Beach City Transact/ons C.� N.hs� > Tlu .nGOun Gou+11 = Rogu4lr ftaulnlal * TrneW+ICtIOn 00-11 a-= Po+unlSra - - T,1--rlltnl C-1,1 ri RF_O Oulu - T--i+a:IWn G9un1 --- Nev. = Avoregn i++ia:a -+e- Ru11++14r Rusu1. . Avor4pn P- --- RLO :: . • A --go P-. 0 4C u9 2f]tu 40 i0 2011 4011 ..12 4012 :013 4111:1 20.14 4014 i0 i6 4016 1a- $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 550,000 $O M/Omt•FO" Lnlltlo1dn1Q-W..f Palm Doe Ch, FL (1017) R'ti'@ ®� @�'?�l� 5� ® ■ COPyr(glrf MOf1O8f1fdy ■ Ii M �i C o L® • 3Q10 New Closings - 64 New Avg. Price - $238K Resale Closings -1391 Resale Avg. Price - $135K • 3Q15 New Closings -160(+150%) New Avg. Price - $305K(+28%) Resale Closings -1798(+29%) Resale Avg. Price - $182K(+34%) • 3Q16 New Closings - 34(-79%) New Avg. Price - $3461<(+13%) Resale Closings -1862(-3%) Resale Avg. Price - $1931<(+6%) • In Boynton Beach, the gap between new home and resale pricing has remained similar, although new home prices were up 13% versus 6% for resales in the past year.. Both new and resale pricing is significantly below that of Palm Beach County. The volume of new homes decreased significantly in the past year after increasing significantly over the past 5 years before last, while regular resale volume has increased steadily over those same 5 years, with a slight decrease last year. • The summary of transactions above the chart is for the year.ending 3Q16 (this data may very slightly from that of the Census Block Housing due to this being a "live" data report that is constantly being updated as data comes in). Qtr B0�/n1t0n1 Igeac- t M3ikEt StUCi�/ ©Copyright Metrostudy 2017 6v3 n+.4.ay A+t ae�alrr J �� 61n Ic N+11nII O Y �� -<�� <� 04Ia Runge:11 O/112018 - Di3012014""""""""'""<«.«........«-..'....,«.......'.....<.......<..,...-..,.._..<,.._<_...�.�.�.,.m«.- 'T HINI4a<101hm Conoon11nn1tn Qitieal unklwwn Talol Tlal-tion TYPO Count Avg Pr1ce Avg 5F $16F Avg LotOP Count Avg Pr1ce Avg SP 51OP Crnrnl Avg P11ce Avg OP 510P Gounl Could Avg Pric4 Avg OP $1OP Avg LotBP N.tv1 16 5333,817 2,626 5146.0 61063 10 5386.464 1,614 $223.6 O 0 34 $346,472 2,120 *'184,8 6,963 Rugu Wr Raw:4o 818 $231.816 1,532 $160.3 6,708 303 $207.100 1,667 $131.8 732 $143,629 1,154 *118.4 8 1,062 $193,223 1,35.1 $136.0 6.706 FvlouWsuly f20 1,500 7,457 40 W. 1,585 87 W. 1.067 O 227 W. 1,384 7.457 ReO S.I. SelCcgan Totals t65 1,111 $101,6401 5226,868 ,486 1,630 4129.0 $146.7 7,191 6,940 55 4011 5104.196 5208,673 1.809 11676 $118.8 $131.0 01 050 $101,008 $130,174 1.097 1,141 $93,3 6116.7 1 10 :106 2,420 *167.203 $101,476 1,392 1,396 X:117.2 $132.0 7.191 6,810 C.� N.hs� > Tlu .nGOun Gou+11 = Rogu4lr ftaulnlal * TrneW+ICtIOn 00-11 a-= Po+unlSra - - T,1--rlltnl C-1,1 ri RF_O Oulu - T--i+a:IWn G9un1 --- Nev. = Avoregn i++ia:a -+e- Ru11++14r Rusu1. . Avor4pn P- --- RLO :: . • A --go P-. 0 4C u9 2f]tu 40 i0 2011 4011 ..12 4012 :013 4111:1 20.14 4014 i0 i6 4016 1a- $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 550,000 $O M/Omt•FO" Lnlltlo1dn1Q-W..f Palm Doe Ch, FL (1017) R'ti'@ ®� @�'?�l� 5� ® ■ COPyr(glrf MOf1O8f1fdy ■ Ii M �i C o L® • 3Q10 New Closings - 64 New Avg. Price - $238K Resale Closings -1391 Resale Avg. Price - $135K • 3Q15 New Closings -160(+150%) New Avg. Price - $305K(+28%) Resale Closings -1798(+29%) Resale Avg. Price - $182K(+34%) • 3Q16 New Closings - 34(-79%) New Avg. Price - $3461<(+13%) Resale Closings -1862(-3%) Resale Avg. Price - $1931<(+6%) • In Boynton Beach, the gap between new home and resale pricing has remained similar, although new home prices were up 13% versus 6% for resales in the past year.. Both new and resale pricing is significantly below that of Palm Beach County. The volume of new homes decreased significantly in the past year after increasing significantly over the past 5 years before last, while regular resale volume has increased steadily over those same 5 years, with a slight decrease last year. • The summary of transactions above the chart is for the year.ending 3Q16 (this data may very slightly from that of the Census Block Housing due to this being a "live" data report that is constantly being updated as data comes in). Qtr B0�/n1t0n1 Igeac- t M3ikEt StUCi�/ ©Copyright Metrostudy 2017 6v3 n+.4.ay A+t ae�alrr J Raqulur. - 1.862... Transaction Distribution By Category 4009.3QI6 Boynton Beach City Transaction Distribution Date Range: 101112015 - 9/30/2016 Transactions by Transaction Type (--I New Q Regular Resale r ---- I Foreclosure r --- I REO Sale aro D S.I. (13%) TMPIox�Othor 408(17%) SwOlo Fame 1.111 (46%) Transactions by Housing Type idominium (37%) IthodUnknown 9(1%) p Single Family F ---j TWPlexlOther F--) Condominium [:= Other/Unknown Mianei-Fort Lauderdalo-Wo5l Palm Beach, FL (1017) Capyrig/tt Metroatudy met■ 0stucitl • 4Q15 -3Q16 New — 1% Resale — 77% Foreclosure — 9% REO — 13% • 4Q15 -3Q16 Detached — 46% Attached (TH) — 17% Condo — 37% Other/Unknown — 1% • Boynton Beach still has a significant share of distressed transactions (22% Foreclosure & REO), slightly higher than Palm Beach County's 20% share. Zip Code 33426 Historical Housing Summary New, Resale, and Foreclosures By Housing Type 4QO9-3016 Zip Code 33426 Transact/ons T ---l- Count RnpuTra +inion ""a";�) Pbtmklau�v+ • Truaaaa;liaaa Carutvl REO Ealn . Tv aoCiN In Count -+- Nvw . Avar�pn P-.--•- Rf>pnla.r Iioaealea - A.varc pa Pr1cc --w- RI:O SW. - Avarayn P— aa0 — 0111L -5750.000 �a L. 300- 40_..200 200-- _S50,000 `o 0.... 100- 0.._L -S300,000 •-• $250.000 _11,111 111 111 H( i JIiIJI111 i",''1dI�1 1131 W,i"11.;! IIII IVI'1h 111 l6t0 16 1) 1011 3611 1612 A419 Iola 3013 16w =,-I lc),r 3019 Iwo 3O'n 402)q 2010 4G10 2011 4011 ?012 4012 RQ 1;1 4Q i:t 1('414 •S4tJ 201b ♦Olg 21:416 Miaull-FOR Lauderdale -Was[ Pah" daach, FL (1p17) Copyrlpbr Met—Ir ly kl IJ 0e YB6 Yom, tudv SulaG: l-ItW22'1-BB39 ' ' • 3Q10 New Closings —13 New Avg. Price - $185K Resale Closings — 705 Resale Avg. Price - $115K • 3Q15 New Closings — 12(-8%) New Avg. Price - $246K(+33%) Resale Closings — 579(-18%) Resale Avg. Price - $1521<(+33%) • 3Q16 New Closings — 0(-100%) New Avg. Price — N/A Resale Closings — 658(+14%) Resale Avg. Price - $179K(+18%) • In Zip Code 33426, the gap between new home and resale pricing remained similar over the 5 years between 3Q10 and 3Q15. There were no new home closings in the year ending 3Q16, but the resale closing pricing increased 18% in the past year. The regular resale volume decreased over those same 5 years, with a sharp increase (14%) last year. • The summary of transactions above the chart is for the year ending 3Q16 (this data may very slightly from that of the Census Block Housing due to this being a "live" data report that is constantly being updated as data comes in). 5 Nnw . -5750.000 �a _S50,000 _11,111 111 111 H( i JIiIJI111 i",''1dI�1 1131 W,i"11.;! IIII IVI'1h 111 l6t0 16 1) 1011 3611 1612 A419 Iola 3013 16w =,-I lc),r 3019 Iwo 3O'n 402)q 2010 4G10 2011 4011 ?012 4012 RQ 1;1 4Q i:t 1('414 •S4tJ 201b ♦Olg 21:416 Miaull-FOR Lauderdale -Was[ Pah" daach, FL (1p17) Copyrlpbr Met—Ir ly kl IJ 0e YB6 Yom, tudv SulaG: l-ItW22'1-BB39 ' ' • 3Q10 New Closings —13 New Avg. Price - $185K Resale Closings — 705 Resale Avg. Price - $115K • 3Q15 New Closings — 12(-8%) New Avg. Price - $246K(+33%) Resale Closings — 579(-18%) Resale Avg. Price - $1521<(+33%) • 3Q16 New Closings — 0(-100%) New Avg. Price — N/A Resale Closings — 658(+14%) Resale Avg. Price - $179K(+18%) • In Zip Code 33426, the gap between new home and resale pricing remained similar over the 5 years between 3Q10 and 3Q15. There were no new home closings in the year ending 3Q16, but the resale closing pricing increased 18% in the past year. The regular resale volume decreased over those same 5 years, with a sharp increase (14%) last year. • The summary of transactions above the chart is for the year ending 3Q16 (this data may very slightly from that of the Census Block Housing due to this being a "live" data report that is constantly being updated as data comes in). 5 Nnw . Zip Code 33426 Housing Distribution RcgUWr... 658 (80°4) Transaction Distribution By Category 4Q15 -3Q16 Zip Code 33426 Transaction Distribution Date Range: 10/112015 - 913012016 Transactions by Transaction Type Regular Resale = Foreclosure O REO Sale Uro Sato 2%) Singlo Famil) a" (55% Transactions by Housing Type TlVPtox/Otnor Single Family O TWPIox/Other = Condominium O Other/Unknown Miami -Fort Lauderdale -West Point Beach, FL (1017) Copyright MAIroShldy metrostudv Saps: 1.800.227.8839 —C.Ir — • 4Q15 -3Q16 New — 0% Resale — 80% Foreclosure — 9% REO — 12% • 4Q15 -3Q16 Detached — 55% Attached (TH) — 25% Condo — 20% Other/Unknown — 0% • 33426 has a significant share of distressed transactions (21% Foreclosure & REO), slightly less than Boynton Beach's 22% share. • Product is 55% detached and 45% attached, with only 20% condo compared to Boynton Beach's 37%. Zip Code 33436 Historical Housing Summary New, Resale, and Foreclosures By Housing Type 4QO9-3096 Zip Code 33436 Transactions 300 250 200 byytt is 150 0 100 E z' 50 O No, • T.4ng4Clk ., Count 1.: RaUut4r Run4k - T'..¢tion Counl ,,,,.,..u. Fo,—o % o - Tr4 4—tk n Count i REO SraW - Tronas I— C- k -_+- Nuw - A— . Pliw --�.- RV9ul-ar Roz4k, - AVutuUu Plkaa -w REQ Solo - Avg 4q). Plic.. 4000 2(p111 4010 ;Q11 4011 2012 4017 2Qt3 4013 :(014 4014 2015 4Q13 201r Mfurnf-Ft�r1 L.•Rulvrdalu-Wast P.1 .. HO:rc1r, F4 (1Q17) Copyrr(lfrf Malrosrrrtly $SOO.000 $400,000 5300,0W $200,000 $100,000 50 ■ @ detrostudy S.1— 1.000.227.6409 ' ••••// • 3Q10 New Closings — 25 New Avg. Price - $274K Resale Closings — 522 Resale Avg. Price - $208K • 3Q15 New Closings — 36(+44%) New Avg. Price — $3531<(+29%) Resale Closings — 948(+82%) Resale Avg. Price - $228K(+10%) • 3Q16 New Closings—12(-67%) New Avg. Price — $390K(+10%) Resale Closings — 966(+2%) Resale Avg. Price - $239K(+5%) • In Zip Code 33436, new home activity has been minimal, but the price gap between new and resale homes continues to expand. While new home volume was down 67% last year, pricing was up 10%. Both new and resale pricing is above Boynton Beach's overall averages. Regular resale volume increased slightly last year, after increasing significantly over the previous 5 years. • The summary of transactions above the chart is for the year ending 3Q16 (this data may very slightly from that of the Census Block Housing due to this being a "live" data report that is constantly being updated as data comes in). Ut1UJIJ�J `` 0TL Data Ratlga: 1011!2010. 8130/2016 —! 5inU1• F4.nlly TMIPI. 101bat Coll(lotlllnlurn UnknoOt1l.irl wn Total Tr4n44Cllun Type Count AVO PIYCO AVU SP SISF AV(IL..1SP Count AV(( PIICC AVU SF $ISF COunt AVO P1100 AVU SF $16F Co11.19 COunl An P.iCO AVO OF $16F Ant -018F N.x/ 11 $399,205 2,706 $145.3 5.171 1 $283,000 2,346 $115.0 O O 12 $389.688 2,710 3142.0 5,171 R.Uinnt R.—to 43! $314.867 2.OSO $152.7 0.07% 124 ',q 11;7,093 1,004 S'12:s.4 :JGti EIti i,09q 1.499 $105.1 42 t1fi8 $233+,377 1,7132 $1:i0.D 9.077 FOruOloaul0 tib n!4 i,tl70 7,816 20 n/t. 1,388 38 014 1.1119 '7 127 Wo 1,594 7.816 REO Sulu 86 5244,467 1,910 $120.9 6.227 20 $162,740 1.458 $110.8 82 $08,434 1,105 588.1 2 160 $184.600 1,621 $113.9 6.227 3VIUGtion TuW19 600 03062788 2.022 5149.0 8,468 168 S184A09 1483 S123.4 455 S154.620 1.440 $102.8 48 _ 1,248 $23A,27Y 1.732 $128.7 8,468 300 250 200 byytt is 150 0 100 E z' 50 O No, • T.4ng4Clk ., Count 1.: RaUut4r Run4k - T'..¢tion Counl ,,,,.,..u. Fo,—o % o - Tr4 4—tk n Count i REO SraW - Tronas I— C- k -_+- Nuw - A— . Pliw --�.- RV9ul-ar Roz4k, - AVutuUu Plkaa -w REQ Solo - Avg 4q). Plic.. 4000 2(p111 4010 ;Q11 4011 2012 4017 2Qt3 4013 :(014 4014 2015 4Q13 201r Mfurnf-Ft�r1 L.•Rulvrdalu-Wast P.1 .. HO:rc1r, F4 (1Q17) Copyrr(lfrf Malrosrrrtly $SOO.000 $400,000 5300,0W $200,000 $100,000 50 ■ @ detrostudy S.1— 1.000.227.6409 ' ••••// • 3Q10 New Closings — 25 New Avg. Price - $274K Resale Closings — 522 Resale Avg. Price - $208K • 3Q15 New Closings — 36(+44%) New Avg. Price — $3531<(+29%) Resale Closings — 948(+82%) Resale Avg. Price - $228K(+10%) • 3Q16 New Closings—12(-67%) New Avg. Price — $390K(+10%) Resale Closings — 966(+2%) Resale Avg. Price - $239K(+5%) • In Zip Code 33436, new home activity has been minimal, but the price gap between new and resale homes continues to expand. While new home volume was down 67% last year, pricing was up 10%. Both new and resale pricing is above Boynton Beach's overall averages. Regular resale volume increased slightly last year, after increasing significantly over the previous 5 years. • The summary of transactions above the chart is for the year ending 3Q16 (this data may very slightly from that of the Census Block Housing due to this being a "live" data report that is constantly being updated as data comes in). Ut1UJIJ�J `` 0TL Zip Code 33436 4Q15-3QI6 Housing DistributioiR Rogula,- 966 (76%) Transaction Distribution By Category 4QI5-3Q16 Zip Code 33436 Transaction Distribution Date Range: 101112015 - 913012016 Transactions by Transaction Type p New Q Regular Resale O Foreclosure = REO Sale a Solo 13N) TH(Plax/Othar 165(13%) Singlo Fom 600(47%) Transactions by Housing Type Condominium 6%) OtnorJUnkno-, 45(4%) 0 Single Family = TH/Piex/Other O Condominium 0 Other/Unknown Miura!-Fort Laudurdate-Wast Putrn Beuch, FL (1097) Copyright Me (restudy metr-(!)studv Sates: 1-8ea-227-6839 n r...r,,..ow c —r • 4Q15 -3Q16 New — 1% Resale — 76% Foreclosure — 10% REO — 13% • 4Q15 -3Q16 Detached — 47% Attached (TH) — 13% Condo -36% Other/Unknown — 4% • 33436 has a significant share of distressed transactions (23% Foreclosure & REO), slightly higher than Boynton Beach's 22% share. • Product is 49% attached and only 47% detached. Condos make up 36% of all transactions. � ; ,� � . 1 I � .. �� '. °'�-� Zip Code 33435 Historical Housing Summary New, Resale, and Foreclosures By Housing Type 4009-3016 Zip Code 33435 Transactions .'300 250 200 ISO 100 �1 c 5o 0 #'!'1 Nue _ T10..a—,n 1 C --I � RuV.el'11 Ruga.a... 1 ..nl.pn Cnsneill ..�.1 Fur+1«lanu,a -TrU pn4lkn. Creu.11 � R6a� 0U{u - T.«.'.an5>IM�ri C.n,1.. —►— Naw - Al a0v Melva --rt— Rao .1 llvnub - Avoruila P— -w-- FtLO CSe.la - AvofuUa V,— -- $1,200.000 .. _ _ - .. ..... $1,000,000 unto /lnnoo: 1om:zo+5 - e130r201G a -- s800.oa0 .� S01VIa Fnrnfly T/11PIo w10/11yr So CpnJu..Onfu.n —60-1 utvn, _ Tul:.l Tra1laacti5.e. TYPO CPunl Avu PriCo Avtil SP SrBP AVVLut5F Crsu.lt A,u PriC• AV" SF $ISF Ccna1.1 AVV Pr1Ca AVV SP $13F Co. -I Couni Avo P11ca Avu SP $/SF AvVLoiSF N. r 0 __- 5209.228 1,725 $151.0 7.340 10 372.7.542 1,034 $237,0 2 $1.38$.500 'i'I 28 5632.301 IAA u $22x.7 7.346 Ru0"�u. Rua..lu 3— 1 $44.7U2 1,64: $203.7 9,579 61 $275.0132 1,703 $I0U.6 460 3170,132 1.029 $191.8 20 030 $271,660 1,31 $1".4 0,579 FW uoW4uru 40 /,3liV O,USV IV ..fu I,VUfi iii .✓,. W3 1 V2 .✓+, 1,2CU 0.059 lSt:U re.�u @0 $558,446 T279 $120,1 0,3/0 t'J 5249.027 1.920 $117.7 44 $100.285 1,090_$95.5 57 1:14 $i4V,912 1.282 $111.5 6.310 Selcrllon Totuln 412 $3Y1,626 1,560 5190.1 ,18 9 6 HA 5324,000 1,7GI 5104.4 637 SIG9,992 1.031 $130.0 49 1,092 X264,217 1,301 $160.1 9,198 .'300 250 200 ISO 100 �1 c 5o 0 #'!'1 Nue _ T10..a—,n 1 C --I � RuV.el'11 Ruga.a... 1 ..nl.pn Cnsneill ..�.1 Fur+1«lanu,a -TrU pn4lkn. Creu.11 � R6a� 0U{u - T.«.'.an5>IM�ri C.n,1.. —►— Naw - Al a0v Melva --rt— Rao .1 llvnub - Avoruila P— -w-- FtLO CSe.la - AvofuUa V,— 4009 2016 4010 2011 .10 t 1 2012 4(712 2019 41a 13 2W4 4 45714 2018 4015 20'18 M1ao161—r1 L—d—dal.-W061 Pu/. B."Oh. PL (1017) Copy,lght Mof-6tt,dy metrostudy 5,.1a,: 3•.00.227.8839 "ane"'^'^".: --I • 3Q10 New Closings— 25 New Avg. Price - $224K Resale Closings — 513 Resale Avg. Price - $191K • 3Q15 New Closings— 119(+376%) New Avg. Price - $298K(+33%) Resale Closings — 857(+67%) Resale Avg. Price - $2781<(+45%) • 3Q16 New Closings — 28(-74%) New Avg. Price - $652K(+119%) Resale Closings — 838(-2%) Resale Avg. Price - $272K(-2%) • Zip Code 33435 has a wide variety of new and resale housing types from small condos to large oceanfront detached homes, so there has been some large fluctuation in pricing, particularly with new homes (up 119% in the past year). Resales have been steadier, but saw a slight decrease (- 2%) last year, but still significantly above Boynton Beach's overall average. The volume of resales also decreased slightly recently (-2%) after good growth over the previous 5 years, while new home volume skyrocketed over those same 5 years, but dropped sharply last year (-74%). • The summary of transactions above the chart is for the year ending 3Q16 (this data may very slightly from that of the Census Block Housing due to this being a "live" data report that is constantly being updated as data comes in). -- $1,200.000 .. _ _ - .. ..... $1,000,000 $800.000 a -- s800.oa0 .$400,000 So 4009 2016 4010 2011 .10 t 1 2012 4(712 2019 41a 13 2W4 4 45714 2018 4015 20'18 M1ao161—r1 L—d—dal.-W061 Pu/. B."Oh. PL (1017) Copy,lght Mof-6tt,dy metrostudy 5,.1a,: 3•.00.227.8839 "ane"'^'^".: --I • 3Q10 New Closings— 25 New Avg. Price - $224K Resale Closings — 513 Resale Avg. Price - $191K • 3Q15 New Closings— 119(+376%) New Avg. Price - $298K(+33%) Resale Closings — 857(+67%) Resale Avg. Price - $2781<(+45%) • 3Q16 New Closings — 28(-74%) New Avg. Price - $652K(+119%) Resale Closings — 838(-2%) Resale Avg. Price - $272K(-2%) • Zip Code 33435 has a wide variety of new and resale housing types from small condos to large oceanfront detached homes, so there has been some large fluctuation in pricing, particularly with new homes (up 119% in the past year). Resales have been steadier, but saw a slight decrease (- 2%) last year, but still significantly above Boynton Beach's overall average. The volume of resales also decreased slightly recently (-2%) after good growth over the previous 5 years, while new home volume skyrocketed over those same 5 years, but dropped sharply last year (-74%). • The summary of transactions above the chart is for the year ending 3Q16 (this data may very slightly from that of the Census Block Housing due to this being a "live" data report that is constantly being updated as data comes in). Zip Code 33435 4Q15-30.16 Housing Distribution Regular.., 838 (77%) Transaction Distribution By Category 4Q15 -3Q16 Zip Code 33435 Transaction Distribution Date Range: 101112016 - 9/30/2016 Transactions by Transaction Type �ul0eure 9%) THIPIG 94 Q Now = Regular Resale I`= Foreclosure Q REO Sale REO Sale 134(12%) Transactions by Housing Type Single Panlily Q TH/Flex/Other 0 Condominium Q Other/Unknown Mlami-Fort Lauderdale -West Palm Beach, FL (1017) Copyright Morrostudy inert® Ostu r6 Y S.1— 1.800.227.11889 —r;. ,—, • 4Q15 -3Q16 New — 3% Resale — 77% Foreclosure — 8% REO — 12% • 4Q15 -3Q16 Detached — 38% Attached (TH) — 9% Condo — 49% Other/Unknown — 4% • 33435 has a slightly lower share of distressed transactions (20% Foreclosure & REO) than Boynton Beach's 22% share. • Product is 58% attached and only 38% detached. Condo makes up 49% of all transactions. Boynton Be 4Q15 -3Q16 Q6Housing Io Summary Area New Home Closings (4Q35 -3Q16) LS Regular Resale Home Closings (4Q15 -3Q36) Foreclosures 14QI5-3Ql6)T REO Home Closings (4Q1S3Q16) 838 77% $271,669 Average Price Per $166 Average Price Per Average Average Price Per 12% %of All Average Square Square %of All Average Square Square Square %of All Average Square Square Type Defined Count Closings Price Footage Foot Count Closings Price Footage Foot Count % Footage Count Closings Price Footage Foot ':`County " P'almBeaeh».. X1,904 4/ ;`;:$635558& 7 2 x$213 '33,`369' <76% F$349;454` 1,721: %$1744"'''® 3,an s•� 16ao s 1z Szza o7a saaS1is a: Gty ..Boynton Beach 34, 1/ $346 472 2 120 $185 1 862 77%,-: $193 223' 1 384 _� $135 -227 9/ 1,384 305 139' 5167 203 392 $117 Zlp R 33rv426 � �, 0 0°/ _ _,,_1. $89 Census Block 658 80� 1372 -_; $130 - -,.. 73 9% 1,396 96: ; Rrt. 12%, 1388- $126,. . 33436` 12 1/$389 688 2 710 $76 ,m ^$179427 _AE6 76% $239,373. - 1,762 $131 _ 127 - 70°/ 1,594 _ a . ~$174,134 160. 13% $189,509. 1 621 n $114 E LIR 33435 LS 37o >b5L,361 . 1,b49 $LLS 838 77% $271,669 1,304 $166 92 8% 11269 134 12% $149,942 1,282 5112 Census Block 57011 0 M. 24 83% $78,025 976 $77 3 10% 995 2 7% $90,500 1,004 $89 Census Block 57012 0 01/ 46 79% $78,825 996 $76 4 7% 1,012 8 14% $74,131 981 $71 Census Block 57014 0 01/ 23 77% $66,850 944 $71 3 10% 953 4 13% $63,850 953 $67 Census Block 57021 0 01% 10 77% $135,050 1,300 $107 1 80/ 977 2 15% $141,000 1,356 $103 Census Block 57022 0 01/. 12 32% $82,776 1,024 $77 10 26% 1,265 16 421/ $123,689 1,415 $89 Census Block 57023 1 3% $230,000 22 63% $95,737 1,079 $86 4 11% 1,122 8 23% $90,300 1,207 $75 Census Block 57024 1 3% 20 69% $353,060 1,684 $201 3 109, 1,904 5 17% $309,840 1,331 $215 Census Block 58081 0 0'/0 75 85% $190,086 1,465 $133 4 5% 1,507 9 100/. $170,703 1,448 $121 Census Block 58082 0 0% 66 709/ $211,749 1,692 $127 it 12% 1,484 17 18% $165,623 1,453 $111 Census Block 58132 0 09/ 24 75% $285,829 1,980 $147 2 6% 1,688 6 19% $246,733 1,733 $142 Census Block 58133 0 01/ 38 76% $172,363 1,366 $126 4 8% 1,339 8 16% $154,075 1,334 $114 Census Block 58161 0 01/6 33 69% $209,488 1,309 5161 6 13% 1,329 9 19% $199,289 1,322 $151 Census Block 58162 0 01/ 30 56% $172,513 1,266 $136 11 201/ 11,241 13 24% $175,615 1,233 $142 Census Block 58163 0 0% 45 70% $245,871 1,647 $151 8 13% 1,656 11 17% $202,161 1,584 $128 Census Block 58164 0 09, 33 800/6 $185,456 1,388 $133 3 7% 1,340 5 12% $176,499 1,438 $122 Census Block 58171 10 9% $395,726 2,755 $145 64 56% $217,653 1,554 $134 19 17% 1,284 22 199, $162,698 1,372 $110 Census Block 60051 0 09, 77 8091. $162,105 1,363 $118 14 15% 1,399 5 5% $127,662 1,357 $98 Census Block 60052 0 01/ 50 83% $237,410 1,649 $144 3 5% 1,684 7 12% $232,979 1,616 $142 Census Block 60072 0 0% 16 62% $151,909 1,239 $124 5 19% 1,371 5 19% $172,942 1,495 $117 Census Block 60091 0 0% 36 92% $162,417 1,325 $123 1 3% 1,428 2 5% $115,000 1,375 $84 Census Block 60092 0 01% 93 86% $120,580 1,066 $106 6 651 1,189 9 B% $101,988 1,056 $92 Census Block 60101 0 01/6 39 93% $148,315 1,146 $131 1 2% 1,080 2 5% $118,050 1,062 $117 Census Block 60102 0 0% 22 81% $186,477 1,325 $142 2 71/ 1,357 3 11% $161,500 1,117 $148 Census Block 60121 0 0% 35 61% $181,230 1,261 $142 10 18% 1,410 12 21% $208,099 1,459 $148 Census Block 60122 0 09/ 113 84% $177,850 1,323 $134 15 11% 1,349 7 5% $152,196 1,215 $128 Census Block 61001 0 01/6 61 82% $292,553 1,251 $231 9 12% 1,027 4 5% $236,500 1,269 $190 Census Block 61002 4 13% $190,000 18 56% $138,834 1,269 $108 5 16% 1,537 5 16% $109,675 1,170 $99 Census Block 61003 1 81/ $180,000 1,505 $120 4 33% $108,750 1,027 $72 2 17% 1,528 5 42% $72,636 1,067 $65 Census Block 62011 1 2% $259,990 1,725 $151 32 62% $174,794 1,392 $126 8 15% 1,339 11 21% $152,813 1,277 $128 Census Block 62012 4 13% 18 56% $97,838 765 $124 6 19% 1,065 4 13% $133,150 1,406 $92 Census Block 62013 2 8% $185,000 17 68% $209,000 1,455 $145 4 16% 1,476 2 8% 5125,750 1,266 $101 Census Block 62021 0 0% 28 97% $249,560 1,160 5167 0 0% 1 3% $48,000 576 $83 Census Block 62022 0 0% 48 94% $87,507 710 $122 2 4% 646 1 2% $110,000 908 $121 Census Block 62031 0 0% 27 79% $113,948 857 $131 3 9% 1,495 4 12% $143,131 1,275 $109 Census Block 62032 0 03, 52 91% $88,012 1,042 583 2 4% 1,029 3 5% $80,333 1,167 $69 Census Block 63001 0 01/6 48 76% $161,292 1,282 $130 4 6% 1,634 11 17% $157,164 1,518 $104 Census Block 63002 0 01/6 34 895, $320,588 1,718 $188 1 3% 1,214 3 8% $331,667 1,423 $232 Census Block 63003 0 01/. 50 82% $236,459 1,487 $161 5 8% 1,666 6 100/6 $174,654 1,575 $114 Census Block 63004 10 10% $366,454 1,614 $224 74 7691. $221,638 1,319 $163 5 5% 1,710 8 8% $215,706 1,469 $124 Census Block 66032 0 01/6 78 82% $232,261 1,829 $123 5 5% 1,516 12 13% $168,074 1,582 $104 Census Block 66033 0 0% 35 81% $90,833 1,618 $54 4 91/ 1,594 4 9% $52,500 1,640 $35 Census Block 66034 0 0% 32 97% $326,000 2,767 $118 1 3% 2,284 0 01/ • Metrostudy was asked to compare and contrast the current housing market in each of the Census Blocks with the City's overall demographics. To give additional perspective, Metrostudy also included the statistics for Palm Beach County overall and each of the three zip codes in the City - 33426, 33436 and 33435. • The summary to the left consists of the New, Regular Resale & REO Closings, as well as Foreclosures. Following this slide, each of these categories are sorted/ranked and discussed in further detail. • All data is based on the period from 4Q15 - 3Q16 (10/1/15- 9/30/16).. v,oynton Beach 4Q15 -3Q16 New Home Closings Area New Home Closings (4Q35 -3Q16) 0 Average Price Per $635;558 % of All Average Square Square Type Defined Count Closings Price Footage Foot .Zia 33435 28 3% 5652.381 1.649 ,5223 .. 'County_,_ Palm Beach1,904 0 8% $635;558 2,712 - $213; G&osus Block; , ;x58171 <. �10 CensusBlock 57014 0 -,` ;Zip. 33436 12 '.1% _ $389,688 2,710 $142 1 C'en'sus Block.`_, ; .63004 , - •101 `' 10%" ° $366;454, W. Census Block F— -. City BoyntoriJ e11 � 34 `1% $346;472 2,130 $185 Census -Block Census Block:' Census Block' Cens`u,'s Block. Census Block. p 62011 `,57023, ' 61002' '62013 ' 610_03 -`•,1 ._� '4 2 ', 1 '2% _ •3% . :135 ° 8%' 8% - $259990. $230;000, $190;000; s185,000" $180,000` - 1,725 1,50S $1$1 $12d l Zip ' 33426;.. 0 , _ 0% _ ........ Oo/ .. i Census Block- census Block 62012 , 57024 4. 1 13$% 3% . 0 Oo/ Census Block 57011 0 0% Census Block 57012 0 0% CensusBlock 57014 0 W. CensusBlock 57021 0 01A Census Block 57022 0 Oo/ Census Block 58081 0 W. Census Block 58082 0 0% Census Block 58132 0 0% Census Block 58133 0 Oo/ Census Block 58161 0 0% Census Block 58162 0 Oo/ Census Block 58163 0 0% Census Block 58164 0 Oo/ Census Block 60051 0 Oo/ Census Block 60052 0 0% Census Block 60072 0 0% Census Block 60091 0 ON Census Block 60092 0 0% Census Block 60101 0 0% Census Block 60102 0 0% Census Block 60121 0 05 Census Block 60122 0 0% Census Block 61001 0 Oo/ Census Block 62021 0 Oo/ Census Block 62022 0 Go/ Census Block 62031 0 05 Census Block 62032 0 0% Census Block 63001 0 0% Census Block . 63002 0 Oo/ Census Block 63003 0 0% Census Block 66032 0 0% Census Block 66033 0 0% Census Block 66034 0 0% The chart details New Home Closings for the 12 -month period 4Q15 -3Q16, showing the Count, % of all Transactions (includes New, Regular Resale, Foreclosures and REOs), the Average Price, Average Sq. Ft., and Average Price Per Sq. Ft. G It should be noted that with new home closings, the square footage is not always available from the deed records in the first year after the home closes — therefore, some of the information in the chart is missing/incomplete. Also, the number of closings from the deed records may not match that of the Metrostudy Move -in count, since there some new home closings that occurred outside of subdivisions. a The chart was sorted and ranked by the Average Price (largest to smallest) and color -coded according to the Legend below. u Boynton Beach's Average Price is 55% lower than Palm Beach County. 33435 has the highest Average Price ($652,381), while 33436 has the lowest ($389,688). 33426 had no new home closings. The reason that the average prices for 33435 & 33436 are higher than Boynton Beach is that many of these closings occurred outside the city limits in more affluent areas. 33435 has the most closings (28), while 33426 has the least (0). • 58171 has the highest Average Price ($395,726), while 61003 has the lowest ($180,000). 58171 & 63004 had the most closings (10). e Only 9 of the 42 census blocks had new home closings. Color Legend 1Palm Beach County ICity of Boynton Beach 133426 Zip Code 133436 Zip Code 33435 Zip Code 1-10 Ranked Census Blocks 111-20 Ranked Census Blocks 21-30 Ranked Census Blocks 131-42 Ranked Census Blocks a 1 Ilw uV e , t. < Area - .'62021 Regular Resale Home Closings (4Q15 -3Q16) 97% r $249,560• 1,160 $3G7 Census Block Z. Average Price Per 70% $20,871.. - 1,647 %of All Average Square Square Type Defined Count Closings Price Footage Foot ensus�BloCk «,. • 57024 ': , -_- 20" 69% � 353 060 63Q03 County.... Palm Beach 33,369 76% _$349 464'_ 1,721 $174_ Census Block ..° '.66034 32 97%_ $326,000 1,767 $118 Census Block 630¢2' 34 , 896A- •`$320,588 $124 1,718-. $188:, Census,elock. .61001 61- 82% $282,553 1,251 $231 Census Block - S8132 . 2-4 .7S% '$2 ,829 1,949 $147' Zio. 33435 838 77% 5271.669 1.304 S166 C-5us Block - .'62021 28- 97% r $249,560• 1,160 $3G7 Census Block Z. 5816, - 45 - 70% $20,871.. - 1,647 $136 Zip - 33436 966 - 7651 $239,373 1,762 $1311, Census Block.. 600,52. 50 83% - - $137,410 1,649 $144'. census Block- 63Q03 SO' 82% 5236,459 3,487 $161 Ce nsus Block 66032 - 78 82% $232,261. .1,629 $123 Census Block. 63004 74'., 76% :' $221,638° .1,319$163 $124 Census Block. 58171. 64'. 56% $217,653 1,554 ` $134. Census Block 58082 66 70%. $211,749 1,692 .$127 Census Block .58161. 33 69% $209,488 1;309 $161 Census Block_ 62013- 17 685, '$209000 ~1,384 1455 _.$145 CityyJBoynton BeBeach 1,862, 7�y5_$193 2p23 857 $135 Census Block 58081 1 75 85% $190;086 1,465-$133 $72 Census Block 60102 22 . 813, $186,477 1,325 $142 Census Block '58164 33 80% $185,456 1,388 $133 Census Block 60121 �.., _. 35 61% $181 230 v_. ._ 1 261 $142 J{ Lp _ m 33426 _... 658 80% $179427 m '1372$1301 $83 jCensus Blockw� 6012i7.f 113 84% 5177850 1323 $134 CensusBlock 62011 32 62% $174,794 1,392 5126 Ce nsus Block 58162 30 56% $1721513 11266 $136 Census Block 58133 38 76% $172,363 1,366 $126 Census Block 60091 36 92% $162,417 1,325 $123 Census Block 60051 77 80% $162,105 1,363 $118 Census Block 63001 48 76% $161,292 1,282 $130 Census Block 60072 16 62% $151,909 1,239 $124 Census Block 60101 39 93% $148,315 1,146 $131 Census Block 61002 18 56% $138,834 1,269 $108 Census Block 57021 10 77% $135,050 1,300 $107 Census Block 60092 93 86% $120,580 1,066 $106 Ce nsus Block 62031 27 79% $113;948 857 .$131 Census Block 61003 4 33% $108,750 1;027 $72 Census Block 62012 18 569/ $97,838 765 _ $124 Census Block 57023 22 631/. $95,737 - 1,079 $86 Census Block 66033 35 81% $90,833 1,618 $54 Census Block 62032 '52 915/ $88,012 1,042 $83 (Census Block 62022 48 94% $87,507 710 $122 ',.Census Block 57022 12.. 32% $82,776 1,024 $77 (Census Block 57012 46 799/ $78,825 996 $76 ',Census' Block - 57011 24 83% $78,025 976 $77 lip q !IlliX1 A The chart details Regular Resale Closings (non -REO) for the 12 -month period 4Q15 - 3Q16, showing the Count, % of all Transactions (includes New, Regular Resale, Foreclosures and REOs), the Average Price, Average Sq. Ft., and Average Price Per Sq. Ft. C The chart was sorted and ranked by the Average Price (largest to smallest) and color - coded according to the Legend below. C Boynton Beach's Average Price is 55% lower than Palm Beach County, the same differential as new home closings. Average sq. ft. was 20% lower, and average $/sq. ft. was 22% lower. 33435 has the highest Average Price ($271,669), while 33426 has the lowest ($179,427). 33436 has the most closings (966), while 33426 has the least (658). 33426 had the highest % of regular resales (80%), while 33436 had the lowest (76%). 33436 had the highest avg. sq. ft. (1,762), while 33435 had the lowest (1,304). 33435 had the highest price per avg. sq. ft. ($166), while 33426 had the lowest ($130). 57024 has the highest Average Price ($353,060), while 57014 has the lowest ($66,850). 60122 has the most closings (113), while 61003 has the fewest (4). 66034 had the highest % of regular resales (97%), while 57022 had the lowest (32%). 66034 had the highest avg. sq. ft. (2,767), while 62022 had the lowest (710). 61001 had the highest price per avg. sq. ft. ($231), while 66033 had the lowest ($54). C 27 of the 42 census blocks have a lower Average Price than the City overall, indicating a disproportionate share of census blocks with lower-priced homes. Legend -�-� ]Palm Beach County , ]City of Boynton Beach 133426 Zip Code 133436 Zip Code 33435 Zip Code j 1-10 Ranked Census Blocks 111-20 Ranked Census Blocks 21-30 Ranked Census Blocks '-- 131-42 Ranked Census Blocks Bo nton Beach Market Stud MetrOS C CQ r) ht $Ud 2017 77 pY �9 Y A-�+eJey�wwl i%, Boynton Beach 4Q15-3QI6 Foreclosures Census Block 66033 4 9% 1,594 Zip 3342673 9/ 1,396 Census Block 62031 3 9% 1,495 Zip33435 92 8% _ 1,269 Census Block 63003 5 81% 1,666 Census Block 58133 4 8% 1.339 Census Census Census Census Census Census Block Block Block Block Block Block 57021 60102 58164 57012 63001 58132 1 2 3 4 4 2 8% 7% 7% 7% 6% 61/6 977 1,357 1,340 1,012 1,634 1,688 Census Block 60092 6 6% 1,189 Census Block 66032 5 5% - 1,516 Census Block - 63004 - 5 5% 1,710 Census Block 60052 3 5% 1,684 'Census Block 58081 4 5% 1,507 Census Block 62022 2 4% 646 Census Block 62032 2 4% 1,029 Census Block 66034 1 31% 2,284 Census Block 63002 1 3% 1,214 Census Block. 60091 1 3% 1,428 Census Block ` 60101 1 2% 1,080 Census Block 62021 0 0% • The chart details Foreclosures for the 12 -month period 4Q15 -3Q16, showing the Count, of all Transactions (includes New, Regular Resale, Foreclosures and REOs), and Average Sq. Ft. There is no average price since the homes have not been resold yet (REO sale). • The chart was sorted and ranked by the % of all Transactions (largest to smallest) and color - coded according to the Legend below. • Boynton Beach's % of Foreclosures (9%) is 1 points higher than Palm Beach County (8%). Average sq. ft. was 16% smaller. • 33436 has the highest % of Foreclosures(10%), while 33435 has the lowest (8%). • 33436 has the most foreclosures (127), while 33426 has the least (73). • 33436 had the highest avg. sq. ft. (1,594), while 33435 had the lowest (1,269). • 57022 has the highest % of Foreclosures(26%), while 62021 had the lowest (0%). • 58171 has the most foreclosures (19), while 62021 has the least (0). • 66034 had the highest avg. sq. ft. (2,284), while 62022 had the lowest (646). • 20 of the 42 census blocks have a higher percentage of foreclosures than the City overall. Color Legend Palm Beach County City of Boynton Beach 133426 Zip Code 133436 Zip Code 33435 Zip Code 4 1-10 Ranked Census Blocks m'11-20 Ranked Census Blocks 21-30 Ranked Census Blocks Ranked Census Blocks noynton Beach 4QI5-3Ql6 REO Home Closings Census Block 62012 4 13% $133,150 Average Price Per $92 Zip. 33435. %of All Average Square Square Type Defined Count Closings Price Footage Foot Census Block - V022. 16 . QM _23,6891 1 1,275 census Kock 610n3-- - 929e $72,)6q@,10,8 $234,074 ,$,,6.5 - Census Block. 3962 P 24% .$17%gJ5 1,2x33 $'1.4:2. Census Block 57023. 8, 23Y. $90,300 1,207 $75,. - Ce'nsus Block, 6_201x..- ` 11' - 21% .$153:814 1,7x77 $128 - census Block.'' 60123, 10°% 234'.4:' $208,949; 11499, - $148 Census Block 60972• 10"% $174,654 1,575 1,495 $117' census Block 58171 22 4%. $162,698. 1,972 $110. Cw,sus Block ` ° 58182, - 6. 49% $296;733 _ 1,733 $192 Cen ,QBJ04 'PI&I 9 ` 1,9%. ,. $A99,28$ 1322: ' $7u1 IiCensys Block` ` 58082 17 18% $165,623 1,453 - $111 Census Block_ ,63001. ,. _11, 17% -:$157,164•- 1,518 "$104 Census Block 157024 5. 17% $309,840 1,331 $215 CensusBlock..58163 11 17% .$202,161 1,584 $128' Census',Block.- 58133 8 16% $154;075 1,334 $114 Census Block 61002 5 .16% $109,675 1,170 $99 Census Block, 57021 2 15%.$141,000 .1,356 $103 Census Block' 57012 8. 14% $74,131 981 $71 , Census Block 57014 4 13% $63,850 .953 $67 Zip 33436 160 13% $189509 1,621 $114 Census Block _ 66032, 12 13% $168074 _ 1 582 $104.. ci y � VBoynton Beach 305t� 13� ~.$167 203 - 1,392 $117 Census Block 62012 4 13% $133,150 1,406 $92 Zip. 33435. 134 12% $149,942 1,282 $112 Census Block 58164 5 12% $176,499 1,438 $122 Census Block 62031 4 12% $143,131 1,275 $109 Lcounly, Palm:Beach_ 5,233 12% $234,074 1,644 125 Census Block 60052 7 12% $_232,979 1,616 $142 Zip.,��.t. 33426 96 IZ% $174,134 1,385 $12 Census Block 60102 3 11% $161,500 1,117 $148 Census Block 58081 9 10°% $170,703 1,448 $121 Census Block 63003 6 10"% $174,654 1,575 $114 Census Block 66033 4 9°% $52,500 1,640 $35 Census Block 60092 9 8% $101,988 1,056 $92 Census Block 63004 8 8% $215,706 1,469 $124 Block. 62013 2 8% $125;750 1,266 Block.- 63002 3 8% 5331,667" 1,423 Block - 57011 2 7% $90,500 1;004 Block 61001 4 5% $236,500 1,269 Block 62032 3 5% $80,333 1,167 Block 60051 5 5% $127,662 1,357 Block 60122 7 5% $152,196 1,215 Block 60091 2 5% ,$115,000 1,375 Block 60101 2 5% $118,050 1,062 Block 62021 1 3% $48,000 576 Block 62022 1 2% $1101000 908 Block 66034 0 0°% The chart details REO (Real Estate Owned - usually by a financial institution) Closings for the 12 -month period 4Q15 -3Q16, showing the Count, % of all Transactions (includes New, Regular Resale, Foreclosures and REOs), the Average Price, Average Sq. Ft., and Average Price Per Sq. Ft. C The chart was sorted and ranked by the % of REOs (largest to smallest) and color - coded according to the Legend below. 0 Boynton Beach's % of REOs (13%) is 1 point higher than Palm Beach County (12%). Average Price was 25% lower average sq. ft. was 15% lower, and average $/sq. ft. was 6% lower. 33436 had the highest % of REOs (13%), while 33435 & 33426 had the lowest (12%). 33436 has the most REOs (160), while 33426 has the least (96). C 33436 has the highest Average Price ($189,509), while 33435 has the lowest ($149,942). 33436 had the highest avg. sq. ft. (1,621), while 33435 had the lowest (1,282). 33426 had the highest price per avg. sq. ft. ($126), while 33435 had the lowest ($112). 57022 & 61003 had the highest % of REOs (42%), while 66034 had the lowest (0%). 58171 has the most REOs (22), while 66034 had the least (0). 63002 has the highest Average Price ($331,667), while 62021 has the lowest ($48,000). 58132 had the highest avg. sq. ft. (1,733), while 62021 had the lowest (576). $232 $89 0 63002 had the highest price per avg. sq. ft. ($232), while 66033 had the lowest ($35). $190 $69 0 20 of the 42 census blocks have a higher percentage of REOs than the City overall. $98 $126 $84 Color Legend $117 $83 $121 j (palm Beach County -]City of Boynton Beach 133426 Zip Code 133436 Zip Code 33435 Zip Code 1-10 Ranked Census Blocks r 111-20 Ranked Census Blocks 21-30 Ranked Census Blocks ' 7131-42 Ranked Census Blocks Y . < I � T Boynton Beach Total New Starts and g! • 1,200 1,000 800 0 M, CU 600 M fz Q 400 X• X n. r- W CO W W CT CIl M 01 O O O O -1 .--1 -1 , -4 rV C-4 N N M M M M d' %T 't ' T Ui ' Uj Ln • Ln +.D til lD LD claaaaaaaaaaaI" rn aaaaaaacsaac7dr'sM r_Jr"-7dcrdaadcf r'1 N M `7 ''"f N M d' r"1 N M 'R7' r -i N M ct .-1 N M d' r1 N M Ct ri N M '7 ri N M Ct .-1 N M �J' .--I N M It 1-1 N M `:r ® ® Annual starts ® Annual Closings • There is little new home activity in Boynton Beach, as the city saw 23 annual starts and 20 annual closings of new detached, attached (non -condo) and condo housing units in subdivisions/projects in 2016, representing a 12% decrease in starts and 84% decrease in closings YOY. • This is the lowest level of annual starts in Boynton Beach since 4Q11 and the lowest level of annual closings since Metrostudy began tracking them for this market. •r i t �► i at i ®t i i i i t - i r i t a t t t r mop amp n. r- W CO W W CT CIl M 01 O O O O -1 .--1 -1 , -4 rV C-4 N N M M M M d' %T 't ' T Ui ' Uj Ln • Ln +.D til lD LD claaaaaaaaaaaI" rn aaaaaaacsaac7dr'sM r_Jr"-7dcrdaadcf r'1 N M `7 ''"f N M d' r"1 N M 'R7' r -i N M ct .-1 N M d' r1 N M Ct ri N M '7 ri N M Ct .-1 N M �J' .--I N M It 1-1 N M `:r ® ® Annual starts ® Annual Closings • There is little new home activity in Boynton Beach, as the city saw 23 annual starts and 20 annual closings of new detached, attached (non -condo) and condo housing units in subdivisions/projects in 2016, representing a 12% decrease in starts and 84% decrease in closings YOY. • This is the lowest level of annual starts in Boynton Beach since 4Q11 and the lowest level of annual closings since Metrostudy began tracking them for this market. Boynton Beach Total Finished Vacant Inventory 1,600 1,400 1,200 0 1,000 a � • • E•• 200 0 W W 00 CQ al Cn 61 M O O O O . . .-ti . N N N c'V Cn M M M CP v w' -r tll Ln Ln Ln to t0 to to cr ct cr a cr cs cr cs or cr cs ci c�'� rc'7 cs cs 0 or C 0 cr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C c� 7 c7 c7 cr c� cr cl c7 c7 c7 c7 cr o 11 N M ct -I N M 'cT .-i N M 4 .-i N M V' '-i N M Ct . I N M— v A N M S .-1 N M M r ® Finished Vacant Under construction Finished Vacant MOS 14.0 1.2.0 10.0 0 8.0 l .n 6.0 _C L.L. 4.0 2.0 0.0 • The months -of -supply (MOS) of finished vacant home inventory at the 2016 was 0, since there were no finished vacant units. A normal level is usually between 1.5 and 2.5 months of supply, and as the level reaches 3.0 month of supply or higher, Metrostudy typically begins to see builders offering incentives. • Note that the graph was artificially capped at 12 months in 3Q09 -3Q13 (due to high level of finished inventory coming out of the market bust cycle and the almost complete lack of new construction activity during this time) so that the graph would have more relevancy at current levels. Fes. Beacha cant Developed 700 y 600 0 J 0 500_ 400 U 2.00 100 0 1�0 UoI wo r- r, r� W W 00 CO rn on rn rn CO a 01 <D .-, . . CN M M rn M yr 'J Cr t Ln L.) LA LA 'r, D tU IGf CY)I;r �Ora�O�dCY-'r -zr� Gld�YCY��UCIdC7C7�C7��dad'r .-ti N M C' a -y N M '7 ."� N M �t .-i N M �!' .-1 N M `�' .-i N M S M M cf Vac iit Developed Lots -VOL MOS 140 120 100 c 80 CL C. 60 N J D 40 20 0 • There is a slightly low supply of vacant developed lots within Boynton Beach, which currently stands at only 53, representing a 27.7 month supply at the current rate of starts. A healthy balanced supply would likely be somewhere in the 24-36 month range. When VDL supply is low, it puts upward pressure on land prices. • Due to an almost complete lack of new housing starts from 1Q08 -1Q09 and 3Q10 -4Q11, the graph was artificially capped at a 10 -year supply since having VDL with no starts would result in an infinite supply, and also so that the graph would have more relevancy at current levels. 3,000 2,500 2,000 x� 0 J a 1,500 1,000 500 tiD %D �'D lD I^+ r. r. r. CO o0 W W 431 431 M M d d CD Q . .-i .-i .-i N N N N m m m M 'eY- -Gr zt yr ul Ln .n ul in to t�o ip crcfcresuaacic�cfcicscsc��racrcic�0CyCY 7crc7acsc�raac`�.7CCOC(OCrOC -I --I -A N M Vr .-i N M ei --1 N M -'Zr .-i N M c7' .-i N M c!' —i N M Q' .-i N M 'Cr .-i N m �7 14 N m '-Zr �- " M 'Zr " N CO V Many future for -sale units have become rental apartment units in the past few years, leaving the total future for -sale unit supply in Boynton Beach at just 725 units, a 31.5 year supply at the current level of starts, but if starts return to a level somewhere between 100-200 units per year, that number drops to 3.6-7.2 years. It should be noted that 643 of these future units were recently revised to rental units, leaving a severe shortage of future for -sale units in subdivisions or condo projects. Additional for -sale residential growth in Boynton will have to come mostly from redevelopment of existing uses (or proposed uses in the form of vacant land not currently zoned residential), as there is little vacant land that is currently zoned residential available. I v Distribution o New home closing activity has not exceeded 100 units in the past 2 years. 2013 was the peak at 193 units, while 2016 only produced 21 closings. C In 2013, closings under $300,000 made up 77% of the new home market. a In the year ending 2015, closings under $300,000 had shrunk to 40% of the new home market. c In the year ending 2016, there were no closings under $300,000, and all closings were at $350,000 or higher. lJ U L.I� h ll�AJ� AJUJ,ylS a _ . , C..L`J $0 - $199,999 11 23 45 110 23 10 0 $200,000 - $249,999 2 19 0 25 70 12 0 $250,000 - $299,999 0 10 0 13 27 12 0 $300,000 - $349,999 0 10 0 13 27 18 0 $350,000 - $399,999 0 10 0 11 14 13 11 $400,000 - $449,999 1 11 1 12 8 21 6 $450,000 - $499,999 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 $500,000 - And Over 10 2 52 9 0 0 4 Total 25 85 101 193 169 86 21 o New home closing activity has not exceeded 100 units in the past 2 years. 2013 was the peak at 193 units, while 2016 only produced 21 closings. C In 2013, closings under $300,000 made up 77% of the new home market. a In the year ending 2015, closings under $300,000 had shrunk to 40% of the new home market. c In the year ending 2016, there were no closings under $300,000, and all closings were at $350,000 or higher. lJ U L.I� h ll�AJ� AJUJ,ylS a _ . , C..L`J Boynton Beach Total Annual New Home Closings Price Distribution Graph 120 .. 02010 s 2011 012012 132013 02014 02015 ■ 2016 100 80 , 60 > 0 40 Q 20 r o 0 o L a © o U 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 o a o 0 0 to to tr► to to tr} to ?r L Q � kD � < I'D Ljo(D W w w Boynton Beach Total 2016 Top Ranked Subdivisions Annual Starts VDL Inventory 1 Casa Del Mar/TH K. Hovnanian Homes 16 1 Casa Del Mar/TH K. Hovnanian 2 Waterside (TH) - PB Home Dynamics 7 Annual Closings Housing Inventory t� 1 Waterside (TH) - PB Home Dynamics 17 1 Casa Del Mar/TH K. Hovnanian Homes 2 Eastview Park Express Homes by DR 3 2 Waterside (TH) - PB Home Dynamics • K. Hovnanian's Casa Del Mar Townhomes had 16 starts, which represented 70% of the total market 53 • Home Dynamics' Waterside Townhomes had the most closings with 17, accounting for 85% of the market. • The only site with a supply of VDL is the Casa Del Mar, which has 53 units. 16 0 0 16 7 0 0 7 • All of the current total housing inventory is represented by units the 23 under construction at Casa Del Mar and Waterside. Boynton Beach Total Future Unit Supply Detail 1 Cortina at Boynton Village AM 643 643 0 0 0 0 0 2 Baywalk SH Communities 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 3 Tuscan Villas of Boynton Beach (TH) - 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 4 Bermuda Bay - 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 5 Casa Del Mar/SF K.Hovnanian 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 • There are only 5 total future parcels (for -sale) within the City of Boynton Beach currently being tracked in Metrostudy's database, representing 725 units. • The largest of these is Cortina at Boynton Village, with 643 future units. However, the developer has submitted revised plans to turn all 643 units into rentals, instead of the previous mix of for -sale and rental units. This leaves just 82 future units currently slated as for -sale. • Traditional large-scale for -sale development opportunities are extremely limited in Boynton Beach, as most of the areas are significantly built out and future growth is geographically limited by city boundaries on all sides. Even annexation would not help much as the areas immediately to the east, south, west and north are all significantly built out as well. • Long-term future development in Boynton Beach will have to focus on redevelopment of existing underused properties such as church properties, golf courses, nurseries, shopping centers, and commercial spaces, as well as rezoning any parcels currently zoned for non-residential uses. �� F.1:J rl*J 60 c Q 40 30 20 10 0 aim f^+ r`+ 1`r W W W W of {T O'1 C7 4 Q Q e-9 rl e-1 r1 N N N M M M M M Q ST Q KY Ll1 tIl t!'1 4f'1 h0 lLi t8 117 p" 6r a --i E e--1 a--1 C,D 8 ti �',r crvcs cr�cs cr cr�c7 cr cJ CJ CJ crc ccs cJ cr cr cr cx cf cs csc N M V' ati N M --J' .—� Ci M cr ra M M C' ^U' N ..�.. Annual starts -Annual11. C 11 losings • The TMA saw just no annual starts and only 3 annual closings of new detached homes in subdivisions in 2016. Closings were down 70% from 2015. • Metrostudy's database tracks only those units being built within subdivisions, but not custom and/or "on your lot" home activity. The fact that most custom homes are built for clients (or are started as specs and then purchased prior to completion) make them difficult to track. Transaction amounts shown in the public records often show only the price of the lot (some vacant, but most with existing homes that are then torn down), so there is rarely a record of the final price or cost unless the builder sells a finished spec house. • While there have been some additional new homes built on scattered lots, Boynton Beach has not had any significant detached new home activity within subdivisions since 2007. This is likely due to the fact that there have not been many large parcels needed for detached new home development, and that the available parcels have usually been zoned for higher density attached housing (for sale and for rent). IA' Oho 8 � ... d. v 0. 0 �`..; s �►. e f^+ r`+ 1`r W W W W of {T O'1 C7 4 Q Q e-9 rl e-1 r1 N N N M M M M M Q ST Q KY Ll1 tIl t!'1 4f'1 h0 lLi t8 117 p" 6r a --i E e--1 a--1 C,D 8 ti �',r crvcs cr�cs cr cr�c7 cr cJ CJ CJ crc ccs cJ cr cr cr cx cf cs csc N M V' ati N M --J' .—� Ci M cr ra M M C' ^U' N ..�.. Annual starts -Annual11. C 11 losings • The TMA saw just no annual starts and only 3 annual closings of new detached homes in subdivisions in 2016. Closings were down 70% from 2015. • Metrostudy's database tracks only those units being built within subdivisions, but not custom and/or "on your lot" home activity. The fact that most custom homes are built for clients (or are started as specs and then purchased prior to completion) make them difficult to track. Transaction amounts shown in the public records often show only the price of the lot (some vacant, but most with existing homes that are then torn down), so there is rarely a record of the final price or cost unless the builder sells a finished spec house. • While there have been some additional new homes built on scattered lots, Boynton Beach has not had any significant detached new home activity within subdivisions since 2007. This is likely due to the fact that there have not been many large parcels needed for detached new home development, and that the available parcels have usually been zoned for higher density attached housing (for sale and for rent). 80 14 70_a_��_ 12 60 - 10 50 g 0 z > 5' 40 V tL Q) 6 V) C 30 G 4 20 — 10 - 2 0 0 Lf) Ln U) k.0 tD LD Lo r-f^_1`_r-WW W 0 MMMl7)OO00%-1c-I ri c-tNNN NMM MM Cf Q'ICT cY Ln Lf) to Ul LD LD LD LD O 'O�aclO OrOdO 'O d3 O O O7O OrOd9OrO S-1 -.c+lrrc1 ci -01 '0_1 E; rc7'CA '0'0' r0"—i E7r;a-1 66EISErI '_1 6 N F" zr r-1 N M �Ir r -I r%j r1 N M Q' r-1 N M Ct e -I N M ct rl N M et rr N M -Ir r-1 N (Y) -q N M ''!' .-1 N M d' .-1 N M 'c:l- ® Finished Vacant Under Construction —Finished Vacant MOS • The months -of -supply (MOS) of finished vacant home inventory at the end of 2016 was 0, since there were no finished vacant homes. • Note that the graph was artificially capped at 12 months in 3Q12 so that the graph would have more relevancy at current levels. Boynton Beach Detached Vacant Developed Lot Supply Vaca;nL Developed I_«ts � VDE. K40S • There are no vacant developed lots within Boynton Beach currently, which is a severe lack of supply. Continued low or complete lack of VDL supply will put upward pressure on land prices. • Note that the graph was artificially capped at 120 months in 3Q06, 4Q06, and 1Q12, so that the graph would have more relevancy at current levels. i .• f r '1 1 51 • ...............:..:............................ ME Vaca;nL Developed I_«ts � VDE. K40S • There are no vacant developed lots within Boynton Beach currently, which is a severe lack of supply. Continued low or complete lack of VDL supply will put upward pressure on land prices. • Note that the graph was artificially capped at 120 months in 3Q06, 4Q06, and 1Q12, so that the graph would have more relevancy at current levels. 2 5 0 200 - — ------- 150 O 100 50 0 U1 U-1 U", tiD ko 5 9 O� CD -0 r- r__ r- r_ W 00 CO W M M Cn M C) CO C1 d rJ CJ r_4 N M M en M 114, Ln Ln Ln L') "0 '0 %M 1.0 O� Of O7 Of Of O� O7 O7 �O cO O7 8 O7 O7 c7 -0-1 5 CS -0-1 —0 C_ SCri S "0 "C8 8 8 Ei Elf Elf 88 Elf 8 5 8 if6SS 8 " cn -Zf r1 " M ,i- -H " rn N -T -i " cn Zr -i " cr) -4 --1 " rn 4 r -H " rel 1-4 " r1l IT -4 C14 M Ct rH t-4 M IZT " r-4 M :T -A rIJ M I__r • There are only 20 future detached lots within subdivisions in Boynton Beach. While this technically represents an infinite supply based on no starts in the past year, just a few additional starts would quickly create a shortage of supply. • Additional for -sale residential growth in Boynton will have to come mostly from redevelopment of existing uses (or proposed uses in the form of vacant land not currently zoned residential), as well as building on individual lots and tearclowns, as there is very little residential vacant land available for actual detached home subdivisions. Boynton Beach Detached Annual New Home Closings Price Distribution $0 - $199,999 OPP 0 a o 0 0 0 0 $0 - $199,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $200,000 - $249,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $250,000 - $299,999 0 0 5 35 13 14 3 $300,000 - $349,999 17 0 0 2 8 1 0 $350,000 - $399,999 0 0 0 0 14 13 0 $400,000 - $449,999 0 0 0 0 2 9 0 $450,000 - $499,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _$500,000 - And Over 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tota 1 17 0 5 37 37 37 3 C Detached new home closing activity in the past 7 years has been minimal, peaking at 37 units in 2013, 2014, and 2015. C In 2013, 95% of the closings were in the under $300,000 price range. Y In 2015, only 38% of the closings were in the under $300,000 price range. �, ©Copyright Metrostudy 2017 94 rtnetic�stu �% Boynton Beach Market Study apu,ay�w,mn Co•Mr., Boynton Beach Detached Annual New Home Closings Price Distribution Graph 18 17 16 1s 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 0 7 6 5 d 4 3 2 1 0 t^ if�. t^ 0 in.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 LD rQ � LD � t w a. o '�•, • iii,; ��'.�, �• • '� '•.• �.�, ,"� �,� • Subdivision Ann al Sulsdivi Rank Nameiii�ler Starts Rank Name ,- - ion Bank Na eVision guilder fln inac Rank NarnAui5 1 Eastview Park Express Homes by DR 3 • There were no new starts of detached homes in a subdivision came in 2016. All 3 of the closings of detached new homes took place at Express Homes by DR Horton's Eastview Park, which is now sold out. • There was no VDL supply at the end of 2016. O There was no current housing inventory at the end of 2016. Boynton Beach Detached Future Lot Supply Detail Future Lot Inventory Resort 1 Bermuda Bay 2 Casa Del Mar/SF 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 K.Hovnanian 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 • There are only 2 future detached home parcels within the City of Boynton Beach currently being tracked in Metrostudy's database. • The largest of these is known as Bermuda Bay, with 17 future lots. Traditional large-scale for -sale development opportunities are extremely limited in Boynton Beach, as most of the areas are significantly built out and future growth is geographically limited by city boundaries on all sides. The larger remaining residential parcels are mostly zoned for higher density attached housing (for sale and for rent). • Long-term future development for detached housing in Boynton Beach will have to focus on redevelopment of existing underused properties such as church properties, golf courses, nurseries, shopping centers, and commercial spaces, as well as rezoning any parcels currently zoned for non-residential uses. Teardowns and building on scattered empty lots are also an option for additional SFD housing. wg MAO AF • ` r!JOW a '. ����-�` •' � � TStudy v Bo nton Beach. -Market Stud ©Copyright Metrostudy 2017 98 metrU Y Boynton Beach Attached Non -Condo New Starts and Closings MGM • •C U 400 N J-+ N V7 300 d aim 100 - 0 a o � 0 0 0 0 0 �1 a 0 % ®®.q, o .,.. ,.r O '0► LIi Ln Ln lD W to to P. f`+ t- f`- W CO 00 00 M fr O O p O '-f ri .-t rl N N N N M M M M .. dr cl' Ln Ln Ln Vl aD LD 40 t.o did 1� Jc�clUctcfdcJc��lc�7dUcldalE 8 Elf l(Elf "0 scscJ sc� csc�uc��Uc�cfcrUc� CV m 'V' .-y rV m "Cr t-1 N m a:P .-1 rJ m rt ti N m 'ct .1 " m ci- -i N m '.t c-1 N m qr .-+ ry m Qr *-+ ry m Q' *-+ ry m cr -i N m cr am am Annual Starts •••Annual Closings • Boynton saw 23 annual starts and 17 annual closings of new attached (non -condo) housing units (typically townhomes) in 2016, representing a 156% increase in starts and 89% increase in closings YOY. • This is still a very small number of new attached non -condo housing starts, as there was significantly more activity from 2012-2014 (as well as during the boom in 2005-2007). M BoyntonBeach • Non -Condo Finished Vacant Inventory ® Finished Vacant Under Construction Finished Vacant MOS • The months -of -supply (MOS) of finished vacant home inventory at the end of 2016 was 0, since there were no finished vacant units. A normal level is usually between 1.5 and 2.5 months of supply, and as the level reaches 3.0 month of supply or higher, Metrostudy typically begins to see builders offering incentives. • Note that the graph was artificially capped at 12 months from 1Q08 to 4Q11, so that the graph would have more relevancy at current levels. 700 14 600 12- 2500 500 10 0 CU 400 - - 8 a, 300 - - _ _^ 6 in 200 4 100 M 2 0 - o V1 V) Lr) to k.0"D LD r- r'r r1 rte. W W W C4 M M M M Q O Q d . i . 1 -A r1 N . N N M M M M V �f �1 d Ln tf1 ift u1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O e -i Irl e-1 1-1 s -i e-1 -4 r -I 14 1" . " e -I a 4 a-1 -.4 1" e -i a -i ,-� .-I .--+ r4 ri C7C1ddCfcfdddddddddC7C7 Cldddddda'dcl000(DrddC7dddCJddddddddd N CO IT M 5 -4 M �T rV M 7' e-+ N M rt ti N M d' " N M _T r_1 N M aT -I N M 4 .-i N Cn '!T -4 N M 4 ri N M 'C ® Finished Vacant Under Construction Finished Vacant MOS • The months -of -supply (MOS) of finished vacant home inventory at the end of 2016 was 0, since there were no finished vacant units. A normal level is usually between 1.5 and 2.5 months of supply, and as the level reaches 3.0 month of supply or higher, Metrostudy typically begins to see builders offering incentives. • Note that the graph was artificially capped at 12 months from 1Q08 to 4Q11, so that the graph would have more relevancy at current levels. Boynton Beach Attached Non -Condo Vacant Developed Lot Supply 450 400 350 300 J c 250 200 CO �T 150 100 50 0 140 120 100 Ln V1 Ln wo 1D LD 1D to r- t- t'- oo 0o co 00 m m a) m O CI CI O -4 -4 -1 -4 N N N N M M M M C' d' tel' cY Ll u'1 LA V1 10 1D 1.0 VO 9999 49cjcf99999999998E`;rE'FE4 rt8 8888888 88E;E-188Er8888crd885 N M C' -1 rI4 M '7 1-4 N M 'zt -4 N M V I" " C" '4' " N M -CT 1-1 N M et F N M -It ri " M C' .-f N M GT -1 N M 17 -4 M til' Onva Vacant Developed Lots _VDL MOS 0 • There is a severe lack of supply of vacant developed lots for attached non -condo product within Boynton Beach, which currently stands at only 53, representing a 27.7 month supply, which falls in the 24-36 month range Metrostudy considers as a balanced supply. • Since there were little to no new housing starts from 1Q08 through 4Q11, the graph was artificially capped at a 10 -year supply since having VDL with no starts would result in an infinite supply, and so that the graph would have more relevancy at current levels. Boynton Beach Attached Non -Condo Future Lot Supply M. 500 !i• 0 J d) 300 LL 200 100 X inLnLn aiD for r+hr. mCIO nJmrn rnalall rDrDr-,:)C7__4MMM M:' �tZ:td LnLnLnLn4OkDtDk.O crc7�c1U&dcicictciclclc7c7dcscY"c�c�dc7cac7dadarccCCOaescsc�0Cf Cr Or 0cyc00 N Md .-iNM 11 NM st V-4"Md'_-4 NM'Zr T-iN MCY e--INM ctriN M%7- iNM z �- Nrnd riN Met r- Nm q, • There are only 22 future lots for attached non -condo product, a miniscule 1 year supply at the current level of starts. • Additional for -sale residential growth in Boynton will have to come mostly from redevelopment of existing uses (or proposed uses in the form of vacant land not currently zoned residential), as there is very little residential vacant land available. Boynton Beach Attached Non -Condo Annual New Home Closings Price Distribution $0 - $199,999 11 14 45 99 1 0 0 $200,000 - $249,999 2 9 0 12 43 0 0 $250,000 - $299,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $300,000 - $349,999 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 $350,000 - $399,999 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 $400,000 - $449,999 1 0 1 0 0 0 6 $450,000 - $499,999 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 $500,000- And Over 10 1 52 9 0 0 0 Total 25 24 101 120 44 9 17 New home closing activity for attached non -condo product has not exceeded 100 units in the past 3 years. 2013 was the peak for the past7 years at 120 units, while 2015 produced a low of just 9 closings. C In the year ending 2012, closings under $300,000 made up 45% of the market. G In the year ending 2013, closings under $300,000 had risen sharply to 92% of the market. C In the year ending 2016, there were no closings under $300,000, and all 17 of the closings were priced at $350,000 or higher. r Boynton Beach Attached Non -Condo Annual New Home Closings Price Distribution Graph In 50 ,M 30 r 20 4 IM V ► vl� V). i!► {!► ih in {r► NJ W Ln kn Ln Ln O Q C7 O O kD O O O O 0 0 O 0 kD (10W t,- �O LD n. lD k.0W W lD W tD lD W tD lD 110 �D tD W tD W (D O C Boynton Beach Attached Non -Condo 2016 Top Ranked Subdivisions Siibslvis 1 Casa Del Mar/TH K. Hovnanian Homes 16 2 Waterside (TH) - PB Home Dynamics 7 Annual Closings 1 Waterside (TH) - PB Home Dynamics 17 VDLlnvento 1 Casa Del Mar/TH K. Hovnanian Housing Invento 1 Casa Del Mar/TH K. Hovnanian Homes 2 Waterside (TH) - PB Home Dynamics • K. Hovnanian's Casa Del Mar Townhomes had 16 starts, which represented 70% of the total market. • Home Dynamics' Waterside Townhomes had the most closings with 17, accounting for all of the closings. • The only site with a supply of VDL is the Casa Del Mar, which has 53 units. 53 16 0 0 16 7 0 0 7 • All of the current total housing inventory is represented by units the 23 under construction at Casa Del Mar and Waterside. Boynton Beach Attached Non -Condo Active Subdivisions Current Map View Attached Active Subdivisions FL I Palm Beach Co. I Boynton Beach (I016) Copyright Mrostudy met o Srt u�[wciYYY v Sals1,SM227.8839w • Map #28 — Waterside — Zip Code 33483— Census Block 63001 • Map #35 — Casa Del Mar— Zip Code 33435 — Census Block 57021 t s y htm- N t 4Yn 4'� wprM r Nr ' twnc IR0� n • 74 r°.�F. FL I Palm Beach Co. I Boynton Beach (I016) Copyright Mrostudy met o Srt u�[wciYYY v Sals1,SM227.8839w • Map #28 — Waterside — Zip Code 33483— Census Block 63001 • Map #35 — Casa Del Mar— Zip Code 33435 — Census Block 57021 Boynt®n Beach Attached Non -Conde Future Unit Supply Detail 1 Tuscan Villas of Boynton Beach (TH) - 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 • There is only one future attached non -condo home parcels within the City of Boynton Beach currently being tracked in Metrostudy's database — Tuscan Villas of Boynton Beach, with 20 units. • More traditional large-scale attached non -condo for -sale development opportunities are extremely limited in Boynton Beach, as most of the areas are significantly built out and future growth is geographically limited by city boundaries on all sides. The larger parcels that remain are zoned for even higher density attached housing (condo for sale and for rent). • Long-term future development for detached housing in Boynton Beach will have to focus on redevelopment of existing underused properties such as church properties, golf courses, nurseries, shopping centers, and commercial spaces, as well as rezoning any parcels currently zoned for non-residential uses. Boynton Beach Attached Non -Condo Future Subdivisions Current Map View Future Tawnhome Subdivlslons FL I Paint Beach Co. I Boynton Beach (4QI6) � �o 4 �� 1 �+9�d CopyrightMnQ e ostudy VV Sales: 3-IM22741339 <A....Y...w C_ o Map #22 — Tuscan Villas of Boynton Beach (TH) - Zip Code 33483 - Census Block 63001 �l� ISG�'J 15 o pp e o 0 0 0 Boynton Beach Condo New Starts and Closings 1,400 r' r r i! Ir 1 It 1 _ 1 1 1,200 - 1,000 0 v $00 Co If ca 600 allem 200 - M to Ln Ln 00 00 00 W M M M M © O O O c-1 '-I r -i a -.i N N N N M r C' 4 Ln ul u1 Ln LD lD tD t0 ac�dc�'xdctc'xc�cj�crcrcxdcfcdddactdcxc�cydc�c7dcrc7c7dcrc�cictcydOcoc�c7�00Cf N M d' 1-1 N M d' 1-1 N M d' -4 N M d' s--1 N M d' IH N M d" rI N M d' 1-i N M d' .-i N M R'i• r-1 N M b" r-1 N M d' -1 N M ¢t mo ® Annual Starts mmmomAnnual Closings • There were no annual starts or closings of new condo housing units in 2016. • Boynton Beach has no condo start activity since 2Q10 (16 units) and no significant condo new home activity since 2007. Condos were hit hardest by the bust, and it took a long time to absorb inventory. Most of the newer high-density buildings that may have been designed as condos were turned into rental apartments. � Finished Vacant Under Construction Finished Vacant MOS • The months -of -supply (MOS) of finished vacant home inventory at the end of 2016 was 0, as there were no finished vacant units. • Note that the graph was artificially capped at 12 months from 1Q10 to 3Q14, so that the graph would have more relevancy at current levels. • Note that there is no VDD for condos — a condo site is considered vacant until vertical construction begins. 1,200 14.0 12.0 1,000 10.0 800 L, o 8.0 C 600 Qj a 400 - - 4.0 200 2.0 o - 0.0 Ln V7 u7 til 4-0 lfl r" r"� r� r� CO 00 00 00 0) O1 01 Ol CO O O O_ -I N N N N M M_ M_ M ch cF 'zf -It Ln Ln Ln Ln L0 t0 i0 wo rl r" sr c) 7I- CY cl c7 d c4 7 c i cs c! IT 1-1 (Y) - - rn -J- rJ cf -I N M�tiNM'�S e�NMQ' �-9NM�'.-iNMcY �-iN MQ'.-iNM'�'a-FNM �'r-INMd''-1NMci".-i NM�t .-1NMd' C" -:T " 4 M -;zr r rj rn -,t � Finished Vacant Under Construction Finished Vacant MOS • The months -of -supply (MOS) of finished vacant home inventory at the end of 2016 was 0, as there were no finished vacant units. • Note that the graph was artificially capped at 12 months from 1Q10 to 3Q14, so that the graph would have more relevancy at current levels. • Note that there is no VDD for condos — a condo site is considered vacant until vertical construction begins. 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Ls• [a] c 1 V1 ul tD 40 tD to I"- r— f-- r-- co OQ 00 04 m Ql 01 al O O O O a -i '-1 ri r7 N N N N M CO M M moi' fit X d' Ln Ln Ln LO S.D W t0 tD �3d�98Yad9d����3ddE� E�d8C7C7d�7B'-5S' 'C8'7ECICr558(SfStEUaE;Ec 8rE4-0'0Of N M -r I" N M �' *- N M CT e- fN M 4' " rw M ct " N M 4J- " r*1 M ¢t " N M 7' -4 N M 4r " N M '-T -4 N M --Cr --1 N M cf • Many future condo units became rental apartment instead, leaving the total future for -sale Unit supply in Boynton Beach at just 683 units, technically an infinite supply at the current level of zero starts, but if starts return to a level somewhere between 100-200 units per year, that number drops to 4-8 years. It should be noted that 643 of these future units (Cortina) were recently revised to rental units, leaving a severe shortage of future for -sale condo units. • Additional condo growth in Boynton will have to come mostly from redevelopment of existing uses (or proposed uses in the form of vacant land not currently zoned residential), as there is little vacant land that is currently zoned residential available. Boynton Beach Condo Annual New Home Closings Price Distribution Price Segmenit 2010 2Q11 2412 2013 2Q14 2015 20.6 $0 - $199,999 0 9 0 11 22 10 0 $200,000 - $249,999 0 10 0 13 27 12 0 $250,000 - $299,999 0 10 0 13 27 12 0 $300,000 - $349,999 0 10 0 13 27 12 0 $350,000 - $399,999 0 10 0 11 14 10 0 $400,000 - $449,999 0 11 0 12 8 21 0 $450,000 - $499,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $500,000- And Over 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 60 0 73 125 77 0 • New home condo closing activity in the past 7 years peaked at 125 units in 2014. 2010, 2012 and 2016 had no closings at all. In 2014, closings under $300,000 made up 61% of the new home market. In 2015, closings under $300,000 dropped to 44% of the new home market. Boynton Beach Condo Annual New Home Closings Price Distribution Graph to 30 VI* 25 to 20 t,} 15 o a 0 5- M 10 c 5 0 to to VI* tr} to tr. t,} ir. o tQ o o L o v� to tr. to to to v. y LU lD lO W lD W l�D G lD lD W l0 W 1p Boynton Beach Condo 2016 Top Ranked Subdivisions Annual Starts Annual Closi VOLlnvento There was no new condo activity in the market for 2016. Boynton Beach Future Condo Unit Supply Detail 1 Cortina at Boynton Village JKM 2 Baywalk SH Communities 643 643 0 0 0 0 40 40 0 0 0 0 • There are only 2 future condo parcels within the City of Boynton Beach currently being tracked in Metrostudy's database. • The largest of these is Cortina at Boynton Village, with 643 future units. However, the developer has submitted revised plans to turn all 643 units into rentals, instead of the previous mix of for -sale and rental units. This leaves just 40 future condo units currently slated as for -sale. II • Traditional large-scale for -sale development opportunities are extremely limited in Boynton Beach, as most of the areas are significantly built out and future growth is geographically limited by city boundaries on all sides. Even annexation would not help much as the areas immediately to the east, south, west and north are all significantly built out as well. • Long-term future development in Boynton Beach will have to focus on redevelopment of existing underused properties such as church properties, golf courses, nurseries, shopping centers, and commercial spaces, as well as rezoning any parcels currently zoned for non-residential uses. Boynton Beach condo Future Subdivisions cuerent Map'vi.ew Ft aana gid+ ca j BOY=r, Baena (4,QIq " i "� t� i Capyrrct►at tferr�sscPf • Map #5—Cortin a at Boynton Village - Zip Code 33426— Census Block 60122 • Map #9 — Baywalk — Zip Code 33483 — Census Block 63001 I' j 1 j i. ._ �, i Rental Apartment Market - Summary Statistics • Metrostudy analyzed 3rd party data from ALN Apartment Data, Inc. It's important to note that in addition to managed rental apartments, there are many individually -owned individual detached and attached homes that are being used as rentals. The condo -conversion boom during the mid 2000s took a lot of apartment properties and converted them into for -sale condos, many of which were purchased for speculative short-term "flip" investments. When the market bust happened, many of these individuals became "accidental landlords" who had to rent their units since they could not resell them for a profit. • The rental data is as of December 2016. • Average Rents in Boynton Beach are up 3.1% in the past 12 months and up 9.1% in the past 24 months. • Compared to Palm Beach County— • The average unit counts at Boynton Beach apartment properties are 36% larger. • The average occupancy at Boynton Beach apartment properties is 1% higher. • The average unit size at Boynton Beach apartment properties is 7% larger. • The average monthly rent at Boynton Beach apartment properties is 5% higher. • The average monthly rent per square foot at Boynton Beach apartment properties is 2% lower. • In Boynton Beach — • Zip Code 33436 has the most properties with 10, while Zip Code 33426 has the least with 6. • The average unit count in 33426 is 21% larger than the city average, while 33435 is 27% smaller. • The average occupancy in 33436 is 1.6% higher than the city average, while 33426 is 3% lower. • The average unit size in 33426 is 7% larger than the city average, while 33436 is 7% smaller. • The average monthly rent in 33435 is 4% higher than the city average, while 33436 is 2% lower. • The average monthly rent per square foot in 33436 is 6% larger than the city average, while 33426 is 6% lower. Average Average Average # of # of Units Per Occupancy Average Monthly Mo. stent / Area Properties Units Property % Sq. Ft Rent Sq. Ft. Palm Beach County 278 63,910 230 91.4 1,026 $1,426 $1.39 City of Boynton Beach 24 7,490 312 92.4 1,094 $1,493 $1.36 Zip Code 33426 6 2,255 376 89.1 1,168 $1,493 $1.28 Zip Code 33436 10 3,413 341 94 1,012 $1,457 $1.44 Zip Code 33435 8 1,822 228 93.7 1,158 $1,560 $1.35 • Metrostudy analyzed 3rd party data from ALN Apartment Data, Inc. It's important to note that in addition to managed rental apartments, there are many individually -owned individual detached and attached homes that are being used as rentals. The condo -conversion boom during the mid 2000s took a lot of apartment properties and converted them into for -sale condos, many of which were purchased for speculative short-term "flip" investments. When the market bust happened, many of these individuals became "accidental landlords" who had to rent their units since they could not resell them for a profit. • The rental data is as of December 2016. • Average Rents in Boynton Beach are up 3.1% in the past 12 months and up 9.1% in the past 24 months. • Compared to Palm Beach County— • The average unit counts at Boynton Beach apartment properties are 36% larger. • The average occupancy at Boynton Beach apartment properties is 1% higher. • The average unit size at Boynton Beach apartment properties is 7% larger. • The average monthly rent at Boynton Beach apartment properties is 5% higher. • The average monthly rent per square foot at Boynton Beach apartment properties is 2% lower. • In Boynton Beach — • Zip Code 33436 has the most properties with 10, while Zip Code 33426 has the least with 6. • The average unit count in 33426 is 21% larger than the city average, while 33435 is 27% smaller. • The average occupancy in 33436 is 1.6% higher than the city average, while 33426 is 3% lower. • The average unit size in 33426 is 7% larger than the city average, while 33436 is 7% smaller. • The average monthly rent in 33435 is 4% higher than the city average, while 33436 is 2% lower. • The average monthly rent per square foot in 33436 is 6% larger than the city average, while 33426 is 6% lower. Rental Apartments — Zip Code 33426 - Statistics Average Average # of Occupancy Average Monthly Mo. Rent/ Property Name Address ZIP Units Year Built Remodel % Sq. Ft Rent Sq. Ft. Compson Place 1831 Renaissance Commons BI1 33426 338 2014 95 900 $1,512 $1.68 Cove at Boynton Beach 100 New Lake Dr 33426 S48 1996 92.3 1,210 $1,442 $1.19 Aventine at Boynton Be 1575 Southwest 8th Street 33426 216 2002 97 1,097 $1,383 $1.26 Vizcaya Lakes 1700 Renaissance Commons BIS 33426 338 2007 96 1,124 $1,724 $1.53 Whalers Cove 2301 S Congress Ave 33426 136 1991 2007 85.2 1,144 $1,464 $1.28 Quantum Lake Villas 2700 Quantum Lakes Dr 33426 679 2002 78.5 1,316 $1,450 $1.10 Total 2,255 2,633,312 • Average 376 2002 i• .2 $1,492.77 Median 338 2002 • Zip Code 33426 has 6 apartment properties, all of which are market rate. • Average Monthly Rents in Zip Code 33426 are unchanged in the past 12 months and up 11.8% in the past 24 months. • Occupancy is down 0.2% compared to 2015. • Cove at Boynton Beach has the highest unit count with 548, while Whalers Cove has the lowest at 136. Compson Place is the newest property (2014), while Whalers Cove is the oldest (1991). • 1 of the 6 properties have been renovated. • Aventine at Boynton Beach has the highest occupancy at 97%, while Quantum Lake Villas has the lowest occupancy at 78.5%. The newer communities have the higher occupancies. • Quantum Lake Villas has the largest average unit size at 1,316 sq. ft., while Compson Place has the smallest at 900 (the trend for newer rental projects is to have more smaller units). • Vizcaya Lakes has the highest average monthly rent at $1,724, while Aventine at Boynton Beach has the lowest at $1,383. Compson Place has the highest average monthly rent per sq. ft. at $1.68, while Quantum Lake Villas has the lowest at $1.10. -Nental Apartments — Zip Code 33426 - Map w r 8.1 VA �. jrJV Pi _ .» i .. _ , .GIS 3 ) 1 Ki � yam} i U- PWRrCA; "goal, fty CIA r JI kit` • Map #1— Aventine at Boynton Beach — Census Block 60101 • Map #2 — Compson Place — Census Block 58081 • Map #3 — Cove at Boynton Beach — Census Block 60102 • Map #4 — Quantum Lake Villas — Census Block 58081 • Map #5 — Vizcaya Lakes — Census Block 58081 • Map #6 — Whalers Cove — Census Block 60081 Rental Apartments — Zip cede 334.36 - Statistics Average Average # of Occupancy Average Monthly Mo. Rent/ Property Name Address ZIP Units Year Built Remodel % Sq. Ft Rent Sq. Ft. Windward Palms 84405 MilitaryTrail 33436 118 2007 94 622 $2,863 $4.60 Gateway Club 3930 Max PI 33436 319 1999 91 1,259 $1,794 $1.43 Advenirat La Costa 4101 Mahogany Dr 33436 328 1986 2006 N/A 959 $1,403 $1.46 Villages of Banyan Grov3500Sandpiper Dr 33436 416 1986 2011 96.1 1,028 $1,319 $1.28 Savannah Lakes 220 Savannah Lakes Dr 33436 466 1991 2010 94.6 942 $1,438 $1.53 Island Reach 9873 Lawrence Road 33436 280 1989 94 1,061 $1,313 $1.24 Banyan Lake 1561 Stonehaven Drive 33436 288 1986 2006 97 1,062 $1,524 $1.44 Clipper Cove 1500 Southern Cross Ln 33436 384 1985 2007 98.7 961 $1,183 $1.23 Via Lugano 1400 Via Lugano Cir 33436 364 1999 2007 95 1,004 $1,303 $1.30 Indian Hills 112115 MilitaryTrail 33436 450 1990 2016 87 1,024 $1,444 $1.41 Total 3,413 3,454,368 $4,974,337 $1.44 Average 341 1992:.° 94.0 1,012 $1,457.47 $1.44 Median 346 1989 Y Zip Code 33436 has the most apartment properties in Boynton Beach (10), nine of which are market -rate. Windward Palms is a Senior Living community, which has much higher rents, smaller units, and higher rent per square foot than market rate projects. O Average Monthly Rents in Zip Code 33436 are up 8.9% in the past 12 months and up 15.1% in the past 24 months. • Occupancy is up 0.5% over the 2015. Savannah Lakes has the highest unit count with 466, while Windward Palms has the lowest at 118. • Windward Palms is the newest property (2007), while Clipper Cove is the oldest (1985). • 7 of 10 properties have been renovated. Of the older projects, only Island Reach and Gateway Club have not been renovated. • Clipper Cove has the highest occupancy at 98.7%, while Indian Hills has the lowest occupancy at 87%. • The occupancy rate for Adventir at La Costa was not available, so the average occupancy of 94% for Zip Code 33436 is for 9 of 10 properties. • Gateway Club has the largest average unit size at 1,259 sq. ft., while Windward Palms has the smallest at 622. O Windward Palms highest average monthly rent at $2,863, while Clipper Cove has the lowest at $1,183. 0 Windward Palms has the highest average monthly rent per sq. ft. at $4.60, while Clipper Cove has the lowest at $1.23. mental Apartments — Zip Cade 33436 - Map Y N' r Ai A-41-1 j1 - k `l CM ' �a a 1. t;',u AV We i &A ! �I":"�d f, emu, Map #1— Adventir at LaCosta — Census Block 58131 Map #2 — Banyan Lake — Census Block 60072 Map #3 — Clipper Cove — Census Block 60072 Map #4 — Gateway Club— Census Block 58131 Map #5 — Indian Hill— Census Block 59263 • Map #6 — Island Reach — Census Block 60013 • Map #7 — Savannah Lakes — Census Block 58121 ° Map #8 — Via Lugano — Census Block 58133 • Map #9 — Villages of Banyan Grove — Census Block 58121 • Map #10 — Windward Palms — Census Block 58112 CQ °m o a leJ.yGt.�.iU�`�1C°�J Y, Rental Apartments — Zip Code 33435 - Statistics Property Name Address ZIP Manatee Bay II 1632 N Federal Hwy 33435 Boynton Bay 499 Boynton Bay Circle 33435 Manatee Bay 1 1632 N Federal Hwy 33435 Las Ventanas at Boynto 1351 S Federal Hwy 33435 Bermuda Cay 661 East Wool bright Road 33435 Ocean Park 2861 South Seacrest Boulevard 33435 Seabourn Cove 1 3501 S Federal Hwy 33435 Seabourn Cove II 3373 S Federal Hwy 33435 Total 1,822 Average 228 1999 Median 170 2001 2,109,529 $2,841,422 $1.35 93.7 1,158 $1,559.51 $1.35 • Zip Code 33435 has 8 apartment properties. • Average Monthly Rents in Zip Code 33435 are down 2% in the past 12 months and down 3.4% in the past 24 months. Occupancy is up 0.6% over the 2015. • Las Ventanas has the highest unit count with 494, while Ocean Park has the lowest at 64. • Manatee Bay II is the newest property (2014), while Ocean Park is the oldest (1974). • 2 of 8 properties have been renovated. Of the older projects, only Ocean Park has not been renovated. • Ocean Park has 100% occupancy, while Seabourn Cove I has the lowest occupancy at 91.2%. • Seabourn Cove I has the largest average unit size at 1,374 sq. ft., while Ocean Park has the smallest at 838. • Seabourn Cove I has the highest average monthly rent at $1,755, while Boynton Bay has the lowest at $891. • Manatee Bay 11 has the highest average monthly rent per sq. ft. at $1.49, while Boynton Bay has the lowest at $1.02. Average Average #of Occupancy Average Monthly Mo. Rent/ Units Year Built Remodel % Sq. Ft Rent Sq. Ft. 80 2014 93 1,044 $1,553 $1.49 240 1991 2008 98 891 $913 $1.02 180 2001 93 1,273 $1,740 $1.37 494 2009 91.7 1,150 $1,696 $1.47 160 1975 2005 98 1,066 $1,485 $1.39 64 1974 100 838 $1,061 $1.27 456 2012 91.2 1,374 $1,755 $1.28 148 2013 95.2 1,109 $1,629 $1.47 Total 1,822 Average 228 1999 Median 170 2001 2,109,529 $2,841,422 $1.35 93.7 1,158 $1,559.51 $1.35 • Zip Code 33435 has 8 apartment properties. • Average Monthly Rents in Zip Code 33435 are down 2% in the past 12 months and down 3.4% in the past 24 months. Occupancy is up 0.6% over the 2015. • Las Ventanas has the highest unit count with 494, while Ocean Park has the lowest at 64. • Manatee Bay II is the newest property (2014), while Ocean Park is the oldest (1974). • 2 of 8 properties have been renovated. Of the older projects, only Ocean Park has not been renovated. • Ocean Park has 100% occupancy, while Seabourn Cove I has the lowest occupancy at 91.2%. • Seabourn Cove I has the largest average unit size at 1,374 sq. ft., while Ocean Park has the smallest at 838. • Seabourn Cove I has the highest average monthly rent at $1,755, while Boynton Bay has the lowest at $891. • Manatee Bay 11 has the highest average monthly rent per sq. ft. at $1.49, while Boynton Bay has the lowest at $1.02. Rental Apartments — Zip Code 33435 - Map �iS I ice. ,, f z �, f I i •i ik 3!� > 11 a} x t` k s }t Bog_ 4 �N ix -MiA ,_ w� 1 ! . t M 4� , -L" s tr LI� ►�47 � , '• � � �. � � �.� TP Imo, �. �� ._ � � ���.•>; i 3 ° Map #1— Bermuda Cay— Census Block 62021 0 Map #1— Manatee Bay II — Census Block 57024 • Map #2 — Boynton Bay — Census Block 57022 0 Map #2 — Ocean Park — Census Block 63002 • Map #3 — Las Ventanas — Census Block 62021 0 Map #3 — Seabourn Cove I — Census Block 63002 0 Map #4 — Manatee Bay I— Census Block 57024 0 Map #4 — Seabourn Cove 11 — Census Block 63002 Boynton Beach Future Rental Apartment Supply - Statistics Project Name Project Address ZIP Census Block # Units Property Type Status Cortina at Boynton Village Renaissance Commons Blvd 33426 60122 350 Mid -rise Under Construction Quentin Avenue Quentin Ave & Nickels Blvd 33436 60122 144 Garden In Research Santorini at Renaissance 1645 Renaissance 33426 58081 226 Mid -rise Under Construction Total Units 720 • There 3 Future Rental Apartment Projects that total 720 units. • Two are located in the 33426 Zip Code and one is located in the 33436 Zip Code • Two are under construction and scheduled for completion in 2017. • As noted previously, 643 future units (Cortina) were recently revised from for -sale to rental units, almost doubling the number of future rental units. Risks to the Forecast Every investment has risk, and it is vital to consider the various risks that would apply to the subject. Key risk factors at this property are related to affordability, interest rate changes, as well as other economic conditions. The economy is strengthening now, but this project could experience an economic downturn. The timing, duration, and severity of the next downturn cannot be known, and it could significantly hinder absorptions or pricing at the subject. Disclaimer It is understood by the City of Boynton Beach ("Client") that Metrostudy can make no guarantees about the recommendations in this study, primarily because these recommendations must be based and in some cases inferred from facts discovered by Metrostudy during the course of the study. To protect the Client and to assure that Metrostudy's research results will continue to be accepted as objective and impartial by the business community, it is understood that Metrostudy's fee for this study is in no way dependent upon the specific conclusions reached or the nature of the advice given in this report. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the data contained in this study reflect the most accurate and timely information possible and are believed to be reliable. This study is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed by Metrostudy from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry and consultations with the Client and its representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the Client, its agents and representatives or any other data source used in preparing or presenting this study. This report is based on Metrostudy proprietary housing information and Neustar demographic information that was current as of the end of 4Q2016 (For Sale) and 3rd Party Data as of January 2017 (Rental), as well as deed records ending 3Q16. Metrostudy has not undertaken any update of its research effort since such date. This information includes reported units released, pricing, incentives, and market entry dates for future planned communities. While every reasonable effort was made to collect this information and it is deemed reliable, it cannot be guaranteed for accuracy. Our report may contain prospective financial information, estimates, or opinions that represent our view of reasonable expectations at a particular point in time, but such information, estimates or opinions are not offered as predictions or as assurances that events will occur or that a particular price will be offered or accepted. Actual results achieved during the period covered by our prospective financial analysis may vary from those described in our report and the variations may be material. Therefore, Metrostudy makes no warranty or representation that any of the projected values or results in this study will actually be achieved. Participating Team Dirk Neumann — Senior Consultant — Market Study Dirk Neumann is Metrostudy's Senior Consultant, who consults with clients in Florida, plus other markets all around the country. Coming from the homebuilding industry, he is an expert in evaluating land parcels for use in the development of single-family detached, single-family attached, and condominium housing, both for - sale and for -rent, as well as product planning and design. A graduate of the University of Miami with a BBA in Finance and Real Estate, Dirk has 28 years of hands-on experience in real estate development, participating in the creation of over 15,000 homes and numerous award-winning communities. Prior to joining Metrostudy, Dirk was director of land acquisition, market research, and product design at Minto Communities. He was integrally involved in all of Minto's decisions in acquisition, land planning, product design, pricing, and sales and marketing of new home communities. He also led initiatives in branding, process mapping and customer satisfaction. Before joining Minto, he held positions of project manager and sales and marketing director for multiple home building companies, and he is a former investment director for Hearthstone Advisors. Over the years, Dirk has been active in local building industry associations, including serving on the board of directors of the Gold Coast Builders Association and Florida Atlantic Builders Association, and in ULI as a member of their UrbanPlan team, teaching planning to high school and college students. Participating Team David Cobb -- Regional Director and Homebuilding Consultant David Cobb's professional real estate experience spans over thirty years. He comes from the homebuilding industry, having been Division President for two public homebuilding companies and having driven dozens of land purchases and land evaluations for the builders he worked for. Cobb began his career with General Homes Corporation, and over the next several years, progressed through its construction management program to the position of Division Manager at New Orleans and Orlando. For the past two decades, Cobb has managed multiple home building divisions in Florida, primarily for large, public home building companies. His areas of expertise include P and L responsibility, land acquisition and development, single and multi -family product design, supply chain, value engineering, finance and accounting, marketing, and professional sales associate training and development. A state certified contractor, licensed real estate broker, and HERS rater, Cobb has been responsible for the construction of 10,000 new homes with a market value exceeding $2 billion. Cobb earned his Bachelor's degree in Business Management at the University of Texas at Austin, and a Master of Business Administration degree, with honors, at Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida. kw City of Boynton Beach f ' Public Works Department Fiscal Year 2017/18 Capital Budget Presentation Jeffrey R. Livergood, P.E. Director of Public Works Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension F. fr dernt High»ry Type: savixicape Acreage: NA Built: 2005 Renovations: None FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS= $115,000 Planter Box Repairs Landscaping and irrigation at planters Overall FY 17-18 Capital Improvement Plan • The General Fund CIP includes three funds • Non -Surtax Funds - Gas Tax, Public Service Tax, etc.... • One -penny Surtax -10 year funding to catch up on deferred maintenance • Golf Course - Fee generated funds • Proposed funding amounts: • Non -surtax - $1,375,810 • Surtax - $4,440,024 • Golf Course - $ 80,000 • The proposed CIP projects are presented in alphabetical order Schoolhouse Children's Museum 129 E. Ocean Avenue Type; Hist—kal Schoolhouse and Museum Area: 8,288 Sq. Ft. Built: !913 Renovations: 2000 FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS= $35,000 Exterior building paint t 7/1,7/2017 1 Public Works Compound 222 N.E. 9° - Type: Public Building Area: 14,242 Sq. Ft. Built: 1988 Reaovatlons: None FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $270,363 Exterior building paint, all buildings Sealwat parking P-bufuel tanks Paint Fleet MaintenanmBay Interior and Lighting ADA Improvements Yard Drainageimproveme at Fled Bay reloeation scope and preliminmy design Replace air handling units Boynton Lakes Park Soo nor- Inkes &ulereN Type: Neighborhood Area: 7.94 Acre Built: 1994 Renovations: NA FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $106558 Sealcwat Parking Lot Replace Furnishings Replace Fitness Stations Resurface pathway New Playground equipment and ADA Paint gazebo 7/17/2017 Betty Thomas Park 2692 a. n 2� 6emn Type: Neigbborhad Area: 2.34 Built: 2007 Renovations: None FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $5,700 Basketball Court markings ADA hnprovements Carolyn Sims Center and Denson FY 17118 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS= $95,000 Exterior building paint, all buildings Pavilion and table painting Pool Fence Replacement L Pool 1. N.W. 12-Avcmx Type: Community Building and Pool Area: 13,816 Sq. Ft. Built: 2007 Pool Built: 1956 Pool Renmations: 2007 FY 17118 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS= $95,000 Exterior building paint, all buildings Pavilion and table painting Pool Fence Replacement L Ezell Hester, Jr. Community Park 19 No hseuar4Bw Type: Community Acreage: 23.82 (includes 8 acres of Rolling Great Scrub) Built: 1992 Renovations: 2006 FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $632,500 Park Furnishings Path repairs Additional office and lobby repairs Irrigation repairs Misc. Painting Fence Repairs ADA implementation Multi-purpose field Pavilion repairs Numerous HVAC Units FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $64,000 Exterior Restroom and Pavilion Painting Replace Cans and Benches Sealcoat parking lot Repair Poured in Place play surface Interpretive markets Intracoastal Park and Clubhouse 2340 N. Fcdmvl Highway Type: Community Acreage: Mbho ce= 7,303 Sq. Ft., Park 8.97Acres Built: 2007/2003 Renovations: NA FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS= $135,000 Audio / Video Upgrades Carpeting Sealcoat Parking Lot Refurbish Pavilion restrooms and ADA Knollwood Park Type: Jaycee Park Acreage: 2600 South Fitl 1For—, Type: Water/B.& Access Acreage: 5.31 Acres Built: Land lease in 1965, Improvements in 2005-08 Renovations: NA FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $64,000 Exterior Restroom and Pavilion Painting Replace Cans and Benches Sealcoat parking lot Repair Poured in Place play surface Interpretive markets Intracoastal Park and Clubhouse 2340 N. Fcdmvl Highway Type: Community Acreage: Mbho ce= 7,303 Sq. Ft., Park 8.97Acres Built: 2007/2003 Renovations: NA FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS= $135,000 Audio / Video Upgrades Carpeting Sealcoat Parking Lot Refurbish Pavilion restrooms and ADA Knollwood Park Type: Neighborhood Acreage: 3.01 Built 2007 Renwatiuns: NA FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS — S3,000 Sealcoat parking lot 7/17/2017 3 Laurel Hills Park Type: Neighborhood Acreage: 1.31 Built: 1912 Renovations: 1997,2006 FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $8,000 Basketball Court Restoration Mangrove Walk at the Marina Type: Storm water storage and water ameuny Acreage: 3.611 - Built 1999 Rcnovatloas: 2014 FY 17118 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $49500 Pathway ADA 7/17/2017 Mangrove Park Type: Water access Acreage: 10.72 Built: 1997 Renovations: NA FY 17118 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $49,500 Refurbish restrooms Replace interpretive markers Replace benches and cans Fence Repair ADA Meadows Park 4305N. C� Avave Type: Neighborhood Acreage: 7.2 Built: 1994 Renovations: 2005 FY 17118 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS= $327,000 Restroom refurbishment and painting Fitness Trail Equipment New tables, cans and benches Repair Pathways Repair Tennis fence Sealcoat Parldng Lot Replace Playground Equipment and ADA 4 FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $387,000 Repair Parsing Lot Light lower lot Remove and north and south sail s and poles Refurbish centers sails and poles Repair Retaining wall and steps Playground Replace / Plan Sealecat Parking Lot and ADA Pain beachfront pavilions/buildings Palmetto Greens Linear Park 431 N.B. 13'^w Type: Greenway/bikeway audNeighburhood Park Acreage: 0.3 Built: 1994 Renovxff a 1997, 1998, 2011 FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $52,000 Numerous ADA improvements Pathway resurfacing Restroom Refurbishment Parking Lot sealcoat Harvey E. Oyer, Jr. Park 2016 NwfM1 PMm:IIia4,ny Oceanfront Park Wafer and Beach Amiss Acreage: 6415 NMh Oran Bakwd, r—nRlda Built: Type: Water and Beach A—s 1986, 2002, 2005, 2010 Acreage: 6.89 Built: Purchased 1921 Ream Beans: 1984, 1986, 1991, 2011 FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $387,000 Repair Parsing Lot Light lower lot Remove and north and south sail s and poles Refurbish centers sails and poles Repair Retaining wall and steps Playground Replace / Plan Sealecat Parking Lot and ADA Pain beachfront pavilions/buildings Palmetto Greens Linear Park 431 N.B. 13'^w Type: Greenway/bikeway audNeighburhood Park Acreage: 0.3 Built: 1994 Renovxff a 1997, 1998, 2011 FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $52,000 Numerous ADA improvements Pathway resurfacing Restroom Refurbishment Parking Lot sealcoat Harvey E. Oyer, Jr. Park FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $120,000 Coast Guard Building repairs and ADA Coast Guard pavilion repair and ADA Ramp Engineering Study assessment Paint restroom exterior New Dumpsterenclosum Pence Park 60a S.E.4•S— Type: Neighborhood Acreage: 284 Buih: 1950 Renovations: 1980, 2063, 2009, 2011 FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS= $16,000 Replace cans and furnishings Refurbish and paint restrooms New ADA parking space 7/17/2017 5 2016 NwfM1 PMm:IIia4,ny Type: Wafer and Beach Amiss Acreage: 8.79 Built: 1950 Renmatiom 1986, 2002, 2005, 2010 FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $120,000 Coast Guard Building repairs and ADA Coast Guard pavilion repair and ADA Ramp Engineering Study assessment Paint restroom exterior New Dumpsterenclosum Pence Park 60a S.E.4•S— Type: Neighborhood Acreage: 284 Buih: 1950 Renovations: 1980, 2063, 2009, 2011 FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS= $16,000 Replace cans and furnishings Refurbish and paint restrooms New ADA parking space 7/17/2017 5 Pioneer Canal Park BdS N.W. 1]� Avewe Type: Neighborhood Acreage: 2.32 Built: 1975 Renovations: 2008 FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS= $118,000 Repair Fishing Pier / ADA Tennis Court fence repairs Basketball and Tennis ADA Replace cans, benches and grills Refurbish Sand Volleyball courtADA Refurbish Restrooms and ADA Senior Center 1021 Sa Fatlae]Hirfwq Type: Special Use Area: 9,891 Sq. Ft. Built / Estab: 1999, 2005 Renovations: 1997,1999,2009 FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS= $46,000 Replace Flooring Patio and Awning repairs Sara Sims Park N9 N w. 9'court Type: Neighborhood Acreage: 6.86 Built: 1979 Renovations: 1997,1999,2009 FY 17118 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS City Expense = 5776,198 CRA Expense = $600,000 Fencing, irrigation upgrade, replace parking lot New pavilion, Park ADA upgrades Sodding and Landscape enhancements New Restrooms, Upgraded park lighting Pathway Construction Park identifying feature at MLK and Seacrest Tennis Center FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $86,000 Sealcoat park lot and ADA Parking lot median upgrade landscape for FPL canopy Signage 7/17/2017 R J111 .4Mh Coogrt!-� Avcme Type•. Special Use Acreage: NA Built: 1982 Renovations: 1992,1996,2015 FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $86,000 Sealcoat park lot and ADA Parking lot median upgrade landscape for FPL canopy Signage 7/17/2017 R Fire Station Repairs FY 17118 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS= $293,000 Station 2 Kitchen Renovation Women Restmom Repair Station 3 Concrete Apron expansion' rki Pang lot sealcoat, Seaicoat west lot, Paint Apparatus hay ceiling Common: yroom soffit and security and lighting Station 5 Pressure wash and seal exterior walls Information Technology FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $463,000 Anti-Vims Replacement PC Replacement PC Replacement - Utilities Server Replacement VSP7000 Switch - Data Center Network Infrastructure Replacement - SCADA - Utilities SAN Storage Replacement - SCADA - Utilities Server Replacement (SCADA) - Utilities ROAD ROAD ` CLOSED F t" Streets, Sidewalks, Bridges FY 17,118 BUDGETED ]IMPROVEMENTS $185,000 Various Ciy-wide projects to continue the improvements funded in FYI 6-17 Badge, General Surtax Capital (Fund 303) (City -Wide) FY 17/18 BUDGETED EffROVEMENTS = $226,000 Citywide Building and Parks Signage (Branding) 7/17/2017 NON Surtax Capital (Fund 302) FY 17/18 BUDGETED IMPROVEMENTS = $1,375,890 • These funds often supplement Surtax dollars on specific projects such as Oceanfront Park parking Improvements These funds provide alternative capital funding in the future Funding source is primarily Public Services Tax and Debt Representative Projects in FY 2017/18 Citywide radio system Fire Training Site Library Development and Police software Golf Capital 7/17/2017 L-]