CORRESPONDENCE
,~.
't J~~,,~,.
-, .
f.-."i:'l'- :,~'~h'"*.., ;~~{,ijfi,:;,
\1..",' ":;:/"v'o/"'
,,", ,
"t!.. - ~'.
CORRESPONDENCE
~l)i' .~r1 '?'C:'4,;'(,:rJi;;~" i'i?;;'.~
-'-...
08:02191 17:23
Tradewinds
Group
Coogress Corpora1€ Plaza
902 Clint Moore Road
SUite 124
Boca Raton. FL 33487
(407) 994-313$
U407 241 0646
TRADEWINDS GROeF
~001
,~
- --
.August 2, 1991
Mr. Christopher CUuo, A.I.C.P.
Planning Diraetor
Planninq De.parbant
city of Boynton BeaCh
P.O. Box 3~O
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
via FAX'
'1b11.
RE: Gas station!PCD
Dear Mr. cu.tro;
As per our conversation this atternoon, this let-
ter wilt reattirm the representation ~~at was made at
the TRB ~eeting regarding the gas station use on the
five acre parce1. located west of SW Bth street in the
Shoppes ot woolbright PCD.
At that TRB meeting I represented that for the
present submittal regarding the curb cuts on Woolbright
Road that the gas station use was being withdrawn so as
not to confuse the issue of the curb cuts. This was
qui te clear and was incorporated in the Planning
Department Memorandum 91-165, wherein Tamhry Hayden in- '
dicated that "...(the request to use this outparcel for
a qas station was withdrawn - see revise.d proposed
master plan),".
DJLJdob
RECEIVED
AUG 5 '1/
PLANNING DEPT,
-
-Tfu, City of
(
'Boynton 'Beacfi
July 15, 1991
RE: Shoppes of Woolbright - File No. 91-603
Master Plan Modification (Driveways)
Schedule of Processing
Dear Mr. Levy:
This letter is to clarify our position regarding your request to
amend the Shoppes of Woolbright P.C.D. as we discussed with you
on 7/9/91.
As originally indicated to you by staff, it was believed that
changes to P.C.D. master plans were handled similarly to changes
to the other types of planned districts in the City (planned unit
developments-P.U.D. and planned industrial developments-P.I.D.
which is Technical Review Board (T.R.B.) review, City Commission
for a determination of substantial change and finally, Planning
and Zoning Board for final disposition, if determined not to be a
substantial change by the Commission. However, on July 8, 1991,
staff became aware that changes to P.C.D. IS are handled quite
differently in that changes which result in an increase in less
than ten(IO) percent in measurable impacts are approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board (reference attached code sections).
Please note that despite the misinformation regarding the
procedure, the correct application completion date is one week
longer than the original timing anticipated; the only difference
being the order of the Board and Commission review.
In addition, since a Special Planning and Zoning meeting is being
scheduled for either July 30th or August 1st. I am attempting to
schedule your item for that meeting. If I am successful in
scheduling this item the completion date is August 6th, which is
one week less than the original completion date.
If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not
hesitate to call me or my staff.
CC/cmc
C:WOOLBR
Very truly yours,
~~
Christopher Cutro
Planning Director
5tmerica's (jateway to tlie (jufjstream
consistent with the requirements of Chapter 19, Arti-
cle il, Site Plan Review and Approval and Chapter 19,
Article ill, Community Appearance Board of the Boyn-
ton Beach Code of Ordinances.
c. Permits. No building permits shall be issued unless
and until platting procedures and the requirements
outlined in Chapter 19, Articles il and il! of the City
Code are completed in every respect.
13. Changes in plans.
a. Modifications to approved plans which result in an
increase of ten (10) per cent or more in measurable
impacts such as traffic created, water useq or sewage
or storm water generated or some other comparable
measure shall be processed as for a new application for
zoning to peD.
b. Modifications to approved plans which result in an
increase of less than ten (10) per cent in measurable
impacts may be ~pproved by the planning and zoning
.board, however. any changes in traffic generated, water
consumed or sewage to be collected will require ap.
proval by the city council. The board's decision to ap-
prove, approve with modifications or deny or to rec.
ommend approval, approval with modifications or denial,
shall be predicated upon a finding of consistency with
he comprehensive plan and a finding that allY such
i crease will not result in a negative impact on infra-
ructure delivery systems or the surrounding area in
eneral. It is the intent of this section that all addi.
tional impacts be mitigated. Any decision of the board
in this regard is appealable to the Clty council.
rd. No. 75-35, H 7,8, 11-4.75; Ord. No. 76.16. U 1-3.6.1-76;
rd. No. 76.20, H 1, 2, 7.20.76; Ord. No. 76.39. f 1, 10.5.76;
Ord. No. 76-41, ~ 1, 10-5.76; Ord. No. 76-47, U 1, 2, 10-19-76;
! Ord. No. 76-50, ~ 1, 11.2-76; Ord. No. 76.58, H 1, 2, 1.3-77;
J Ord. No. 7~.17, ~ 1,7.5-77; Ord. No. 77.20, fi 1,8.16-77; Ord. No.
/ 77.37, ~ 1, 1-3-78; Ord. No. 79.7, ~ 1, 3-6-79; Ord. No. 80-29, U
/. 1-3, 7.15-80; Ord. No. 80-30, f 3. 7-15-80; Ord. No. 81-27, ~ 2,
/ 8-18-81; Ord. No. 83-23. ~ 4, 6.21.83; Ord. No. 84.12, f 1, 3,6-84;
\ /
T
~~,: I
,
See.S
,~,f;,
,Ire .,.?'
f;-'\' tJ~
J_1" t.\I'
OLV ,p.,..;
st , \li ~~f,; ,
II 0.... "...t;: > / ",
/ ~tJi ~ ~tI "
.jia
/
"
. C~
/ ,r'\'
,
0('
I, '
"IJ '
~
j~ '
, it. \ )\< \;~
,,<' (, .;' \,
, C' , (. " ,,'
I ~ _ .. _
'\ tj . 'Ii'l ~};_
1.,(\' \' .
I,v'
';i ,
~~{ ;
v~y, ..
\
"
3'
," . . ~
.J.
..f .J
.I'
Supp. No. 23
(p
~) :! 1
. ;, "" "l .
_ ,} 4p
r ~:J -~
.... ""~'
'>":2 '~j
~.fj .J.~,
'~ ...r <.,~
BOYNTON BEACH CODE
:'. r
~
1924.14
, .
'...
.
~~
-
~
K.S. ROGERS, CONSULTING ENGINEER, INC.
1495 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite F
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
(407) 964-7300
(FAX) 969-9717
July 3, 1991
RE: Woolbright Shoppes
Woolbright Road Turnout
0 ,.:
~ a..
lJ.J
0
~ C-'
~ QO '?"
U <-
-oJ Z
~ ;::) Z
..., :s
~
a..
Mr. David Staudinger, P.E.
Gee & Jenson
2001 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Dear Dave:
Following up on the City of Boynton Beach TRB meeting of Tuesday,
June 25, 1991, I am forwarding to you additional information in
support of the proposed turnout planned for Woolbright Road west
of S.W. 8th Street.
Attached please find a copy of Page 15 of "Chapter 14-97, State
Highway System Access Management Classification System and
Standards", FDOT, December, 1990. On Page 15, the minimum drive-
way spacing on the departing side of an intersection is shown as
230 feet. The proposed driveway onto Woolbright Road will meet
or exceed this requirement. It should al so be mentioned that
Woolbright Road is not State maintained, but County maintained,
and that the County's standard is 75 feet from an intersection.
As this driveway location will meet both the County and the FDOT
spacing criteria, it is presented that absent any specific data
to the contrary, this proposed driveway is properly and safely
located.
Also attached, please find pages I-1 through I-6 of APPENDIX I
"Guidelines on Determining Input Values for a Planning Level of
Service Analysis", "Florida's Level of Service Standards and
Guidelines Manual for Planning". This document published by FDOT
establishes the roadway capacities for all collector and arterial
roads in the State of Florida. The procedure used by the State
of Florida in determining the through capacity of a road does not
use right turns, driveway locations or frequency as a variable.
Although, theoretically, any driveway which gives an opportunity
for vehicles to either exit or enter a roadway will have an
impact on the capacity of a road, I cannot agree with the posi-
tion that this driveway should be denied because it will reduce
the capacity on Woolbright Road.
Mr. David Staudinger, P.E.
Gee & Jenson
Ju 1 y 3, 1 9 9 1
Woolbright Shoppes
Page Two
Upon reviewing this letter and the attachments, I will be avail-
able at your convenience to discuss this if you have any further
questions.
Very truly yours,
~~-- ~
/K.S. ~~,rp.E.
KSR/jr
Encl.
CC: Mr. Chris Cutro
Mr. David Levy
,
)
}
/'
4. Comer Clearances for "isolated comers properties"
are as follows:
Corner Clearance at Intersections
With Restrictive Median
Position
Approaching intersection
Approaching intersection
Departing intersection
Departing intersection
Access Allowed
Right In/Out
Right In Only
Right In/Out
Right Out Only
Without Restrictive Median
Position
Approaching intersection
Approaching intersection
Departing intersection
Departing intersection
Access Allowed
Full Access
Right In Only**
Full Access
Right Out Only**
Minimum (Feet)
115
75
230 (125)*
100
Minimum (Feet)
230 (125)*
100
230 (125)*
100
* Access Class 7 and Interim "Special Case" at 35 MPH or less, may use the
measurements in parenthesis.
** Right In/Out, Right In Only, and Right Out Only connections on roads without
restrictive medians shall, by design of the connection, effectively eliminate
unpermitted movements.
(j) Connections: and median openings on a controlled access
facility located up to 1/4 mile from an interchange area or up to
the first intersection with an arterial road, whichever distance
is less, shall be regulated to protect the safety and operational
efficiency of the limited access facility and the interchange
area. The 1/4 mile distance. shall be measured from the end of
the taper of the ramp furthest from the interchange.
14-97.003 Access Management
Classification System
and Standards
__________--------.:~~.:...:-::.~__~H....--~"-:'m,..'.,-
.._-_._-~-
Page 15
)
)
~""""-..,.".......-...... .,_....
_._---------~_._-_. ."'.-...-.-
APPENDIX I
GUIDLELINES ON DETERMINING INPUT VALUES FOR A
PLANNING LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX I
Form 281.10
MEMORANDUM
Sl.le of Florida De parlmcnl of Transporlallon
DATE February 19, 1988
---
TO
District Directors of Planning and Programs "Q'O ~ ;,.-
Bob Krzeminski, Acting Chief, Bureau of Multi-Modal Syst~s Planning
Pat McCue
FROM
COPIES TO
SUBJECT
'Guidelines on Determining Input Values for a Planning Level of Service
Analysis
)
On October 27, 1987, George Reed sent the Department's Generalized
Daily Level of Service Maximum Volumes and accompanying text to you.
Traffic characteristics vary within Florida and traffic, roadway and
signalization characteristics vary by roads. After discussion with
all District staffs and approximately half of the MPO and RPC staffs,
some requested guidance on how to determine values which may be more
appropriate for a planning level of analysis for a local area or a
spe~ific roadway. The attached text provides that guidance and should
help your staffs in meeting local desires.
These guidelines should not be viewed as providing a total answer
or procedure to modify the tables for any particular local
circumstance. However, these should be viewed as a source of
information as to the sensitivity of the factors used in developing
the Generalized Level of Service Tables and as a minimum approach to
be used in data gathering to justify modifying any of the factors.
Other considerations such as peak seasonal traffic variations could
require the collection of additional data beyond that defined in the
guidelines.
The Bureau of Multi-Modal Systems Planning welcomes comments on
these gui de 1 i nes and will reassess them duri ng 1988.' Pl ease contact
me or Doug McLeod (SC 278-9745) with your comments or questions.
)
1-1
"'/".,
. ____________.___. 0"- '._________.'0'.._.._.
(
GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING INPUT VALUES FOR A PLANNING LEVEL OF
SERVICE ANALYSIS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In October, 1987, the Department published Generalized Daily Level
of Service Maximum Volumes tables. Table 1 is the summary table for
urbanized areas. Accompanying the tables was a text on the
development and use of the tables. The tables are based on the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual and actual Florida traffic and signalization
data, making the tables applicable throughout Florida. Therefore, the
Department strongly encourages their use. However, it is recognized
that traffic characteristics vary within Florida and that traffic,
roadway and signalization characteristics vary by roads. Therefore.
the tables are not statewide standards which must be adhered to;
rather, they are planning guidelines on the measurement of highway
level of service. Development of regional, district or metr~politan
tables, or unique values for individual roadways may be desired by the
Department or other transportation entities. Development of localized
tables or values should coordinate with the Department's District
Planning staffs.
The following guidance is provided on developing more precise
values for individual areas and roadways. Like the level of service
tables, this guidance does not represent Department standards for
developing localized level of service tables. However, this guidance
does represent an acceptable planning method. The use of other
procedures should be agreed to by the Department (District Director of
Planning and Programs or his/her designatee) before concurrence on
such an alternative methodology can be given. The Department's
"f4anual of Uniform Traffic Studies" should be consulted for more
detailed traffic engineering study activities.
1-2
2.0 VARIABLES OF AND FIELD DATA COLLECTION FOR
LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLES
The variables used on the Generalized Daily Level of Service
Maximum Volumes tables may be divided into three broad categories:
traffic characteristics. roadway characteristics and signalization
characteristics. Traffic variables include:
(1) K or Design Hour Factor
(2) D or Directional Factor
(3) PHF or Peak Hour Factor
( 4) Lefts
)
Roadway variables include:
(1) Arterial Class
(2) Lane Capacity
(3) Left Turn Bays
(4) Terrain (level in Florida)
(5) Free Flow Speed
Signalization variables include:
(1) Arrival Type
(2) Signalized Intersections per Mile
(3) C or Cycle Length
(4) A weighted gfC. or Effective Green Time
)
1-3
(
Each of these variables is defined and discussed in this text.
When developing individual area or roadway level of service
tables, all the variables' inputs should be reviewed. Of the thirteen
variables used in the level of service tables, the most sensitive
variables are the K factor, the D factor, the number of signalized
intersections per mile, and the weighted g/e. Any study which
attempts to generate localized level of service tables or values for a
specific roadway should at a minimum analyze those four variables.
None of these four variables should not be altered without an analysis
and as appropriate, alteration of the other variables. This
eliminates the possibility of only selective changes being made that'
could show results benefiting a particular interest.
(
Table 2 provides general guidance on the relative senSitivity of
the variables to level of service planning calculations and whether
field data collection is suggested. Guidelines for determining values
are provided in subsequent sections.
I - 4
Table 1
Generalized Daily Level Of Service Maximum Volumes
for Florida's Urbanized Areas*
(Iaau. Date: October 27. 1987; Vallc1 for Ua. Throulb December 1988)
FREEWAYS FREEWAYS
(SarbarbaD) (CBD)
lANES lEVEL OF SERVICE LANES LEVEL OF SERVICE
C D E C D E
4 49.800 59.700 63.000 4 54.800 64.200 69.900
8 74.600 89.600 94.600 6 82.100 96.300 104.800
8 99.500 119.400 126.100 8 109.500 128.400 139.700
10 124.400 149.300 157.600 10 136.900 160.500 174.700
PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS
GROUP 1 (0.5 to 2.5 sJgnal1zed inter- I GROUP 2 (2,6 to 5.0 s1gna11zed inter-
secUons per mile) I sections per mile)
IANES lEVEL OF SERVICE I LANES LEVEL OF SERVICE
C D E I C D E
2 15.800 17.100 18.400 I 2 8.400 12.900 15.300
4 32.500 34.900 37.100 I 4 17.300 27.300 31.700
8 49.300 52.600 55.800 6 26.300 42.100 48,200
I
MULTI.LANE HIGHWAYS
ness than 1 stgnal1zed intersection
every 2 mUes)
lANES lEVEL OF SERVICE
C D E
4 42.000 53.300 59.700
6 Erl.900 79.900 89.600
GROUP 3 (more than 5 stgnaUzed inter-
I sections per mile)
I lANES LEVEL OF SERVICE
I C- 0 E
I 2 9.900 14.300
I 4 20.000 30.200
I 6 30.100 46.400
MINOR ARTERIALS
GROUP 1 (0.5 to 2.5 stgnal1z.ed inter- I GROUP 2 12,6 to 5.0 signalized inter-
sect10ns per mile) I sections per mile)
IANES IEVELOFSERVICE I
I lANES LEVEL OF SERVICE
C 0 E C- D E
2 13.600 15.000 16,200 I 2 10.700 13.100
4 28,200 30.600 32.800 I 4 22.800 27.400
8 42.900 46.300 49.300 I 6 34.200 41.900
I
ONE-WAY FACILITIES
) GROUP 2 (2.6to 5.0 stgnallzeclinter- I GROUP 3 (more than 5 stgnal1zed
sections per mile) I intersections per mile)
I
LANES LEVEL OF SERVICE I 1ANES LEVEL OF SERVICE
C 0 E I C 0 E
2 12.600 15.500 17.000 I 2 5.400 13.000 15.500
3 19.400 23,800 25.700 3 8,200 19.500 23.700
4 26.300 32.100 34.500 I 4 11.100 26.000 31.900
I
I GROUP 3 (more than
I secUons per mile)
I
I lANES
I
I
I
I
5 stgnalized inter-
2
4
6
lEVEL OF SERVICE
C- 0 E
6.200 12.300
12.700 26.300
19.200 40.600
TWO-WAY COLLECTORS
(intersection analysts)
LANES LEVEL OF SERVICE
C D E
2 6.200 9.900 11.100
4 13.100 20.700 22.800
6 20.200 32.000 34.600
ASSUMPTIONS
MULTI
FREEWNf .l&iE.. PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS MINOR AR1"'F:ruJ\LS ONF;.WAY COI.lECroR
Suburb CBD 0.1 0.2 Q.3 0.1 G-2 Q.3 0.2 G-3
K .094 .087 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 ,09 .09 .11 .11 .09
0 .59 .56 .57 .58 .58 .54 .58 .58 .54 1.00 1.00 .sa
PHF .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92
Lefts NA NA NA .m .m .m .09 .09 .09 ,m .07 .12
Class NA NA NA I I II I I [[ [ II NA
Ln Cap 1900 1850 1850 1700 1700 1650 1650 1650 1650 1700 1650 1600
LBays NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Level Yes Yes Yes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Speed NA NA 50 45 45 35 40 40 35 45 35 NA
Arrtva1 NA NA NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3
51." NA NA <.5 1.5 4 7 1.5 4 7 4 7 NA
C NA NA NA 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120
gjC NA NA NA .50 .50 .50 .45 ,45 ,45 .55 .55 .3S
. Values shown arc averoge dally traffic max1mum volumes (based on peak hour volumes) Cor levels oC servtce and are
based on the 1985 Htghway Capacity Manual and Florida traffic data. The table does not constitute a standard. but
can be used Cor general planning appUcal1ons.
.. Cannot be achieved.
... Stgnal1zed intersections per m1.le.
Source: Bureau of Multi-Modal System Planning. Florida Department oCTransportaUon. 1987.
)
1-5
~~--~----~--"".-=--'--'--,.-"
(
Table 2
Developing localized Level of Service Tables
Variables
Sensitivity of
Variance
Suggested
Field Data
Reference
in Text (Page)
Traffic..............................................................5
K
o
PHF
lefts
High
High
Medium
Low
yes
yes
yes
no
5
8
10
12
Roadway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .". . . . . . . .14
Class Low no 14
Ln Cap Low no 15
L Bays High yes 16
Level Low no 17
Speed Medium yes 18
Si gna 1 ; za t ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Arrival Medium no 19
S.I.* High yes 20
C Low yes 21
g/C High yes 22
(
* Signalized intersections per mile.
Source: Bureau of Multi-Modal Systems Planni~g
Florida Department of Transportation, 1988.
I - 6