REVIEW COMMENTS
'l'J.A
~, j fv,,1J.- ~
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-263
TO: Christopher Cutro, Planning & Zoning Director
w. Richard Staudinger, P.E., Gee & Jenson
FROM: Vincent A. Finizio
Administrative Coordinator of Engineering
DATE: September 17, 1992
RE: Exclusion of V. Finizio
Meeting Regarding Knuth Road of September 17, 1992
As Administrative Coordinator of Engineering, I will ultimately be
responsible for the administration and inspections of Knuth Road,
both during the plan stages and during construction.
I am disappointed that all of you held a meeting today with Mr. Rossi,
Mr. Winchester and his Attorney without the benefit of my presence as
I have extensive knowledge of the historical and technical aspects of
this project as it applies to City Code of Ordinances.
I will not take your actions personally, but herein state that what-
ever your motives were for not including me in the meeting, the result
is not one which enhances interdepartmental cooperation nor does it
foster the teamwork principle attested to by the City Manager.
Additionally, by not keeping me informed of current events relative
to this roadway project, I will have to rely upon what the "Developer"
tells me about whatever agreements you may have reached or I will have
to waste time and effort contacting all of you individually regarding
what has been agreed to. This will lead the developer to believe in
the adage that "one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing",
should our inability to communicate in a timely fashion result in
project delays. End of Memo
cc: J. Scott Miller, City Manager
RECEIVED
SEP 1 7 1992
_.~___^___.___,__.____.____._~"e-
0'
,......
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
To:
Council Members
AGENDA IT8~ 5C2
From:
staff
Date:
January 18, 1991 Council Meeting
Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review-Adopted
Amendments to the City of Boynton Beach
Comprehensive Plan
Introduction
Pursuant to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's
contract wi th the State Department of Communi ty Affairs
(DCA), the Council must review comprehensive plan amendments
after their adoption. The City of Boynton Beach has
submitted adopted amendments to the DCA, which in turn is
seekinq -Coune!'!'lI 'comments.
Council's review of the information provided by the DCA is
to focus on the consistency of the adopted amendments with
the Regional Comprehensive Policy, Plan (RCPP) developed
pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida Statutes. A written
report, containing a determination of consistency wi th the
Regional Plan is to be provided to the DCA within 30
calendar days of receipt of the plan, elements, or
amendments.
Background
The City of Boynton Beach entered into a Stipulated
Settlement Agreement with the DCA ,on July 12, 1990. The
City previously submitted draft amendments pursuant to this
agreement, as well as six draft amendments to the future
land use map not related to the settlement agreement.
Council approved a review report for the draft amendments
pursuant to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and five of
the draft future land use map amendments on August 17, 1990
(see attached). Council approved another review report for
a small-scale amendment on September 21, 1990 (also
attached) .
On October 22, 1990, the DCA issued their Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report on these
amendments. On December 18, 1990, the City adopted the
comprehensive plan amendments.
...,
...,
Evaluation
staff has completed a review of the adopted comprehensive
plan amendments to the City of Boynton Beach's comprehensive
plan for consistency with the RCPP.
Council had one objection to the Settlement Agreement
amendments previously submitted by the City. The objection
related to the Ci ty' s decision to adopt a "maintain" level
of service on four regional roadways in the city. The City
standard would allow Level of Service E to be maintained on
these roadways, inconsistent with the Regional Plan. The
Ci ty' s revised obj ecti ve 2 . 1 was an improvement over the
City's adopted plan, however, which established a "maintain"
level of service for all roadways where level of service
standards had been exceeded.
The DCA did not include the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Co~cil objection in the ORC report issued for the
settlement agreement amendments. The Ci ty made no changes
to the draft amendments to address Council's objection.
Council had one objection to the City'S draft amendments to_
the Future Land Use Map. ---The n ob-j:eetion -was related to
Amendments 494 and 493, which consist of two parcels of land
being proposed for local retail commercial land use totaling
approximately 29 acres. The objection was based on the
City'S failure to demonstrate a need for additional
commercial land at these locations and the fact that the
City's comprehensive plan indicates an existing over-
allocation of commercial land use.
The City has prepared a response which indicates that a
shortage of commercially designated land has been projected
in this area and is documented in the Economic Element of
Palm Beach County's comprehensive plan. However, the County
staff has indicated that the data upon which the projections
were made is outdated and needs to be revised.
The city further indicates in its response that much of the
commercial land referenced in the City's plan is located in
other areas of the City where lack of demand and/or the
depth of the parcels make the future prospect of development
unlikely. Much of the available commercial land is along
U. S. 1 and the parcels are of sufficient depth only to
accommodate strip commercial development rather than
shopping facilities which include larger anchor stores. The
City's plan discourages additional strip commercial
development. The City also considers the changes in land
use for these parcels to be minor boundary adjustments,
which are consistent with its plan.
Since these parcels will accommodate neighborhood shopping
centers which can provide for the sale of convenience goods
and personal services for the day-to-day living needs of the
2
immediate neighborhood, the amendments may be appropriate
for this area. The City is strongly encouraged, however, to
prepare a new analysis of the supply and demand of land uses
within and adjacent to the City and to identify needs which
are appropriate for each area of the city. An analysis
which identifies specific geographic needs is especially
important to balance the local distribution of land uses as
these areas are nearing buildout because the opportunity to
correct any deficiencies is becoming more limited. The
failure to carefully balance and organize land uses often
results in traffic congestion and subsequent large
expenditures for roadway improvements.
After a new land use needs analysis is conducted, the City
should amend its comprehensive plan accordingly.
Conclusion
The adopted amendments appear to be basically CONSISTENT
with the goals and policies contained in the RCPP. Council
continues to object to the City'S adoption of traffic level
of service standards which are not consistent wi~ the RCPP.
Recommendation
Council should adopt the comments and recommendations
outlined above and approve their transmittal to the State
Department of Community A~fairs in fulfillment of the
requirements of the 1990-91 contract with the Department of
Community Affairs. Council encourages the City to further
address the issues of traffic level of service, public/mass
transit, elimination of the ocean outfall for sewage
effluent, water quality, removal of invasive exotic
vegetation, financing of transportation improvements, and
upland habitat preservation in order to be consistent with
the Regional Plan.
Attachments
3
",.. -.-.--_. ._.- ..--.-----.---.--. .-..,- ._..-.__.__.__..+._-_._._._------~,--_.__.+- ._"'-_..._~_._---
,.,
....,
4
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
To:
Council Members
MEMORANDUM
NOH: TlIB CITY'S
AC'!IONS TO ADDRESS
COUNCIL'S CONCERNS
ARB NOTED IN BOLD TYPE
From:
staff
Date: August 17, 1990 Council Meeting
Subje~t: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
Amendments to the City of Boynton Beach
Comprehensive Plan
Introduction
Pursuant to the prov1s1ons of the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163,
Florida statutes (FS) , the Council must be provided an
opportunity to review and comment on comprehensive plan
amendments prior to their adoption. The Ci ty of Boynton Beach
has submi tted proposed amendments to the state Department of
Communi ty Affairs (DCA), which in turn is seeking Council's
comments.
Council's review of the information provided by the DCA is to
focus on the consistency of the proposed amendments wi th the
regional policy plan developed pursuant to Section 186.507, FS.
A written report, containing any objections, recommendations for
modification, and comments (as defined in Chapter 9J-11, Florida
Administrative Code) is to be provided to the DCA within 45
calendar days of receipt of the plan, elements or amendments.
Backaround
On January 10, 1990, the DCA issued a Notice of Intent to find
the comprehensive plan for the City of Boynton Beach not in
compliance, pursuant to section 163.3184, FS. As part of this
finding, the ADOPTED plan was found to be Inconsistent with the
Regional Plan.
The City of Boynton Beach is considering draft amendments to the
text and policies pursuant to a stipulated settlement agreement
with the DCA. In addition, the City is considering five draft
amendments to the Future Land Use Map, not related to a
stipulated settlement agreement. The locations of the
properties under consideration are shown on the accompanying
map, and the number of acres and proposed changes in land use
designations are summarized in the following list:
5
~
"'WI'
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
CUrrent
Map Amend. Approx. Land Use
No. No. Acreaae Desianation
proposed
Land Use
Desianation
Aooroximate Location
1
494 13.9
*Commercial
High/3 and
Commercial
Recreation
Local Retail Southwest Corner of
Commercial Boynton Beach Boulevard
and Knuth Road.
2
493
14.8
*Residential
8 units
per acre
Local Retail,
Commercial
South side of Boynton
Beach Boulevard,
between Post Office
and Stonehaven PUD.
3 473 20.1 Low Density Medium Between the Lake Worth
Residential Density Drainage District L-2S
Residential and L-26 Canals; west of
the Lakes of Tara PUD.
4 471 1.1 Recreational Moderate' Within Woolbright
Density Place PUD: 1,800, feet
Residential north of woolbright
Road.
S ** 1.3 *Commercial Local Retail Southwest corner of
High/8 Commercial Old Boynton Road and
Winchester Park
Boulevard.
* County Designation - Annexation request has been made.
**(unnumbered) Mall Corner Restaurant
Evaluation
Amendment No. 494 is located on the southwest corner of
Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road. This property has
been proposed for annexation into the City. The current
County designations for the property are Commercial High/3 for
the northern third and Commercial-Recreation for the southern
two-thirds, while the proposed City designation is Local
Retail Commercial.
Amendment No. 493 is located on the south side of Boynton
Beach Boulevard, between the Post Office and the Stonehaven
PUD. This property is a county enclave which has been
proposed for annexation into the City. The current County
designation is Residential/8 units per acre. The proposed
6
City designation is Local Retail Commercial. Both of the
proposed changes in land use designation (amendments #493 and
#494) would allow additional retail commercial in the area.
The City of Boynton Beach adopted comprehensive plan indicates
that there may be up to 198 acres of excess commercial land at
buildout. However, this figure may be reduced to a surplus of
only 30 acres when certain adjustments are taken into
consideration. The plan concludes that the supply of
commercial land in the Boynton Beach market area will be
sufficient to meet the demand. Since the southern two-thirds
of the property represented by Amendment No. 494 has been
designated as residential by the City in their plan for the
reserve annexation area and the County's Commercial-Recreation
designation would not allow office and retail commercial uses,
a change to Local Retail Commercial would increase the supply
of commercial land.
Amendment No. 47~ is located between the Lake Worth Drainage
District Canals L-25 and L-26 and west of the Lakes of Tara
POD. The proposed land use change would allow an increase in
residential density from 4.84 dwelling units per acre to 9.68
dwell~ng units per acre.
Development on these properties would
to the City'S central water and
sufficient water treatment capacity
until July 1991, according to the
utilities Department.
Traffic on portions, of Boynton Beach Boulevard is projected to
exceed capaci ty and no improvements have been recommended.
Development on these properties should comply with the
Countywide Traffic Performance Standards to ensure consistency
with the Regional Plan.
be required to' connect
sewer' lines~ however,
will not be available
City of Boynton Beach
Amendment No. 471 is located within the woolright Place POD.
The proposed land use change is the result of a settlement
agreement between the developer and the City. The parcel was
originally dedicated to the City as a public park site~
however, the park will be relocated to a 3.5-acre recreational
parcel within the POD which will be dedicated to the City.
The Mall Corner Restaurant amendment is located at the
southwest corner of Old Boynton Road and Winchester Park
Boulevard. This property is being proposed for annexation
into the City~ therefore, the proposed land use change is to
incorporate the property into the City'S Future Land Use plan.
The change would not allow additional commercial within the
City. In addition, water and sewer services are available to
the property.
7
...,
....,
staff has an obj ection to two of the above proposed Future
Land Use Map Amendments. In addition, staff has one objection
to a policy change in the Traffic Circulation Element.
Objections. Recommendations for Modification. and Comments
Amendments No. 494 and No. 493
A. o]:)jectioJl
1. Regional Goal 16. L 2 is to provide for a balanced,
well-planned, compatible mix of land uses which are
appropriately located, and Regional Policy 16.1.2.2
calls for Future Land Use Maps of government
comprehensive plans to be based upon surveys, studies,
and data regarding the amount of land required to
accommodate anticipated growth, the projected
population, the character of undeveloped land, the
availability of public services, the ability of
government to provide adequate levels of service, and
the need for redevelopment. The need for additional
commercial land at these locations has not been
demonstrated by the city. The City's comprehensive
plan documents an existing over-allocation of
commercial land use.
aecommendation for xodification
L Provide an analysis which demonstrates the need for
addi tional commercial land at these locations wi thin
in the city of Boynton Beach. If such a need can be
documented, additional changes to the City plan may be
warranted.
The city has prepared an analysis which indicates the need tor
additional commercial land. However, the analysis is based on
information in Palm Beach County's Economic Blement, which the
county staff has indicated is outdated.
Traffic Circulation Element
o]:)jections
L Modified Objective 2.1 allows for a lower level of
service to be maintained on several regional roadway
facilities than called for in Regional Policy 19.2.1.3.
Policy 19.2.1.3 states that the regional roadway
network shall be maintained at Level of Service (LOS) C
or better during annual average daily conditions and
LOS 0 during peak season, peak hour conditions. The
City proposes a "maintain" level of service on four
specific regional roadways within the City'S
jurisdiction. They are: I-95 from Boynton Beach
Boulevard to Woolbright Road ~ Boynton Beach Boulevard
8
from Old Boynton Road to Congress Avenue; Congress
Avenue from Boynton Beach Boulevard to the south City
limits; and Hypoluxo Road, east of I-95. The City
standard allows for LOS E to be maintained on these
facilities which is not consistent with Regional Policy
19.2.1.3. If the City has determined that lower levels
of service are appropriate in order to successfully
implement other City goals (i.e., redevelopment), then
the City would need to provide a complete rationale for
the lower levels of service, perhaps in conjunction
with the submission of a Downtown Development of
Regional Impact.
RecommeDda~ion for ModificatioD
1. The City should adopt a level of service for all
regional roadways in its jurisdiction that is equal to
or better than Council's LOS C/O Policy 19.2.1.3. LOS
C shall be maintained during average annual daily
traffic conditions, and LOS 0 shall be maintained
during peak season, peak hour conditions.
'rhe ci~y has ..d. no _ apparent chang.s to adopt a level, of
, service OD reqional roadways consistent vi thtll.- Regional - Pian
Recommendation
Council should adopt the comments outlined above and
their transmittal to the State Department of Community
in fulfillment of the requirements of Chapter 163,
Statutes.
approve
Affairs
Florida
Attachments
9
"""'"
'If1IIIJI
_ _ . _ _ _HYPOl..UXD RQ _ .J
t / I I
I.' la,
y 'e:
.'1 .
'el .
I!'r-
;:1,
I II
.--J ,r
! -J
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
.
.
-
-
.
.
I ' ·
-..:
. · - · ... .J :
,_______ ..-A :
I .
III 5
jl .
il :
Ii I :
- :
!II :
I,l~ i
.,'iir. _-.-.... .
I
I
I
Ii.,. ..
IIJ1l1R III
_..M
I
22 AYE ~ '----,
,
I
I
I
,..J
/
I
I. ESE N 0
^
I
I
.
I
I
....,
IIVIIR ~
I
~
I
t
-
"
I
>-
a
.:e
- ."
!
)(
lot
U
II
~J
I
~
~
~
.
-,
--
.
",.
;>>_.
.-
.
\II-
\II-
1=
i=
"" :WOCURl&HT RQ
2'!'AYE S
'.J
,
~
00
Nol To ScaI.
May. 1989
--CITY LlNJTS
. - IST\JOY AREA BOUNJAAY
SOURCE: Walter H. Keller Jr.. Inc.
......... Regional Roadways with LOS I J 11a:intain 'J
leAL TEA H. KaLER JR.. INC.
Consulting !!I9JMrS ; Plannrs
CI;r,j Sprjnp. f"}trjt>>
10
t-- .-- -
.- - -
- 'f1fII1
.",
\
, \
,
, ,
\ \
, J'\ ,
..., I
, , ~1Cl r
,
I .11Q lG
~
2 , "..
~ za ~'1E. 1t \..--, / r i
--""
. l' , ...
,
4- \ I ~
j r ~
, , \W
, ....
, ,..1 it :2\ ~
, ) ~
'6 ~\ ~
, oJ! oUO!l"" 5 ~
~
~ ~ ~
aQ"ftCtQJ( : a 0'
\ 2~ c:a
, ~\ ~ ~
~ '.; .....
, .\ <1\ 4- \ lo...,
, en
, . ~ 'fA
\3 ;e
I ~ 1IO~1GM! flQ ~
.
I
.._-1 -..J
lo...,
~ .'11. 5 ~
\ ' '....-
t\~.--l
I~'~
i'
~J
\\'
'\l. .
.. ......-.-.---
l
~
," ,
..~'
,
I..E~
~l..l"'liS_.a"
_ _ ,S"t'JO"f ~O a~
SOUl'lCa: >Nalter \'\, \<eller Jr.. Inc.
~
_io~
MaV. ,\ga9
~t.L 1<1\ \I. ~eJ.fll J\.. \lIt
CQllSUJti/l1 f/lgi/lfer5 & PJafI1ler~
CDf" sPri/lgs. norJda
ctriOF~
~~~~
11-
~':'..."\.... "':~';:Q"'l~"~1
. ...."....~; - " ....' ~.'...,"",".
't "'r;''' ~'"\ 6,.,.., . "f '"\
. .... ~........
'.' ';"'\' ..., f~"':'\..~ ..,~'\'~"--~;..,., '.
.. ., -..,.~ .....". "'.,
'.:-'"1,"- -. ~"""f\.,1 '. , " . ,)'.,,'
.... J.j."':......., '.' : ~,~.....'-J.l~
\ . . 'l l "" ..... t.., ~ . ..,...', ...."0 ~." ,-
:-~:~.:.~{. './\. .~ ....:?'.
.. I
I
I
-1.--
" J
/...
I
!
I
I I I
/~/ I
/,
I /
; /L 7'
, / ar::::::J
l L ,
/ / " I
, I '
I
(
I
J
I ~
/.
Ii
/,
I'
/ I
-'
~ -. - - -- - -
" MAP If-E-Y
-1
RESIDENTIAL
.... - - -. ... - - - .- --.- -..... .-
""." -- .. - _._-~
p',,(:?,~ ,LO,W.DE,NSJTY (LOR). :.-:'
~_. 'MA"x 4.84 D.LJJA-CR-e
-.....~.. -.., .---
y-~~:~~- .~.
::::: _ MOD ERA TE__tte.~, s I'~y ,_ (MOO R) " ,
_..=.~~. ~~. ~ .- ._". -f.. ..~ _' .~.. _. _. '_ ~.. __U.....;"d . ~:.
'f ':MAX -~.~6, O.Ul'/ACRE ~ :
--..-, .- ---.. -'--".: '-.. ' -: - -- \ '
MEDIUM .,DE~t~LIY ,- .CMeo.R).
MAX 9.68 0 .U../ Aq"RE '.. --
-..............
................
...............
,.-
~, . .::... --.....=..- ~ ~ ..- .~_-:-=--=--=-:.-"':_--7:. -.-:--:-. ~~..
't
.' .:H.IG,~_.DENSLTY :_tHOR}. ~
. .., I.
" '..'M~,.X 10.8 0.U.7 AC~E '
. -..
" '
. '
:.....- - ......~... -- -- --: -------:--..- _.._-~...- J . ~.-':'
. ::-fCOMMERC1AL'; ',"t~.
'-, --. ''-',
.' .-..- .", -----...-- - ~ r ~ -
. (.... .""""-:-~.. __ _ ... _. ,..,. t.
. W4 ;OFFtce ' ; (OC)~
:f
.'-' '
.' '~,
I-..- .
__..4,~~
. -
m '"LOCAL RETArL
(LRC)
, , "
, - --~-- - .-.-..-' .:---:-.- ..
m GENEAAt. (G.C)
e IN"OUS'TR,IAL '.(J)
,-
.__. -- ..-~--.",
;,."
f
,_ ,',J.
~ \ -t
~_.- -...,-
- .
'-
:,.: 'O.THER
. r,.
, '.
, " .
_ ___:_. _ __ _ .. _. 4 _
: "
~ ,..... "-..- - -._.;----~ , . -
j l
J~~~!t ,'AGRtCUl T1JRE .- ': (A)
!
r----- --' --.....c.._=-_-.::~
~:~;~J RECRS-ATJONAL' (R)
....
-.-.-- ----....-- - --- ..
~,_ .PtJB'L~ _&. I?RIVA IE (P PGI).
'(3'0 V ER N ME N:;- A L/ I N'STff-Utl0,N.~
_ ~I~E~-~~~-',,--~(~~)~o-:- ~~.
A . \ " ..
'1? -.- -- - ----___: ~-~.=.:._=-,=:::::=_.. '
-.--.....-..." ~""..I TUAT QUf"\""tI
~~.::::;:;:;:::::;:;:;:.::::
~;::::.:::::::::::::::::::::
~:...:..........~......../~
\ar.::::::::: ::: :::::::: ::::::
~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~~::::::: :::::::::E=::::::::
<=~:.:.:.:.:.:. :.:..:. :.:.:.:
~::::::::::::::::::.:.::::::
l'\.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:
~ .................... ....
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::.::::::::::
CQ
I
:..~:'~
CD
,~.~. T.:;'-----
Ii,.,
,;~,..
. "t,. ,.n,,",.....'..',. '.t'::,,:., ':--":.:~;~~~'" '~II
,.."""t,t::','"'t. ' , , , ' ;.....I't~j '.l't;~':;~~'lH; ~:".:.:::;. ~~. .:1
"",'..1,r.::'....~'lW:;p.._ < ., .',. t>-..: :;1 r \ \ ." ,I, ., .,.. ~
&ifiC-,.. ',' ',~t'::,'.r~;,.." _-"~~:<::::"::-:::lF>: ,,}.~-:. _ [, :.,' ...> ";.'
'-"':' -. ~. ". ,,,,m ~ :r I'JI:;;,.. ". " ::.' 'fT' ':'['1: :' I 'l!';.. r';:"'}t:::t;;, .;: '" ',I " .' .. :1';
:;:". . { U,..,..,. · . , ~ t;;. '. .....::1 i . I '.. ""';1- B "" "
.:.::i:: '*",;' ;'.' .' 'c'" ,"is ~' B r :\:: 'I 111 If? fl. ''-'''" ,i ,. H... '.
~mm,:' F' . ~T;i;i;~~~ 8" ',..,~~~~' ..' 4l:~1 :::('/1111 ~ .f ::." 'i:'~". .. " '
': ~::': \, ... ~.l::;-;r~'T :1i~ :'" ~.,:t..-:..:...; : :: II ; -:~: .~~ .,': x
$:::':l '- ......, -H!i\i"r.!i ,:..,'~"..-- -t:::: -~' ':.. ~ : '~.lI''< I, , I.. ~, .. . '
:~:.:::.:'. :.:.:..... V~~.. "',.,- [:"".,.....,. ','..." "1'1' , '._';;; <.1':','.;, ", .',
.~'... ~r- 1-' t., J~ ~"-, ~.', .,:",..1 'I: ~t;; ....~ . <:._~, ~J ~' II' 'II: I ::'.'''_''':\''',. , ..
.,...... ""-P"k- . "--c'.. .' I ";... "':';'''''~''
:,,:,t,; :i:..;.:u==..:".. , :..,.~ '~'-'. - "," m , '. ~ .', '..' ':1" . , "\, '",,. "..',
.,.... '. "",,.~ '.~; , . T' ': '.<',c ,5 ".".',:. ,
~"'-'o ~= " , , . '. .. ,.'-.> ,
"-". ,."'" " "':~~<':~: ',tJ )0,: 1 ,~~._~","
- f ',' . " .., '. t:. ., "_
U?,: ':~"',, l!'''''' """, , '4 .. ~ }:>.t'.. ...-' .,.... ..~,
;J, .' ~.7". " ~:, ,:'. '" · · ," '"... < ...........:....:.. . ......:-.... ~rrr, fVI ~' . ~ :
,.., ,.: ":.w.",.::::::.._.::~.. 'II \ I! II 'm'~ '~~;:;;~Ii ',.,
.->\!:: ':""'."':. ',' " \ \' i' , ". :.:'.'~_ :, ,,'.'S
1-t't 0, '.' ~. .. '...;..,.... t' . \\, ':., rb .~ till! .'. . ""'"
" ! '" . ;.::.::., , \ ,
A~..:::~.
"
/.. ',,'
. "~-< ~ ~"",' ';":";:':":', -=---' .. g:rr ",' ,I. . 41<. I .. . .,.
.. ::e . .:.::::: ::::,:,,:::::::;:-_,. ,,'W' ..'''" " _ ..,.". , ,. ....=
....:..:-,:. ':'.:. 'l":,:~.cr: os. , 'ti(, ,,~, " "I. " '., . ,m'. :;~ .., ';'~:ii'
:; ;: ::. :;::;:: :'::;If.H''':' :,., ........-c ~\ '\ H. I;: """'P:-'- F"':;':;: "*""~>""""";F:;:
'. '.: :. '. :":' ":'. m ''''.'r , , .' . ;,-. _. _,... .. ,", ,. to" '", .....!&" "
..~" .' .. ....~ Th,..~.,..,,::!,;_..r' "'~:l"."" !''''''.n. "[" ,....,. ..."....4..,
::!"~~~~::. : :::~:~..,. ,,'" ;.~. ,W':",:,",- .' iY:\ \"-, v.,.~;;,>t\..,\t.\d\'~;,:':.. j.~i#'f&':''):, "
..........=a.. · ......~ · ",.: ',_ "",,"Ed"... .. I:"t tm "''f."."", ". , ..
~~lf:;:l'~~~~ :~..~:; :;~k::~'. 't ~\ 1\ \ - ;~":'~'::":ft' """;t'f!L: "';
:.~ . ;'- ~:: .:-.: -::<; ~t · .. "."'~ '::.. , ..' , r. .y,
~ '~-~.",..., .~:or., ~' ..... .~ , ,...... ,. H
~...~, -;.~~;:.:!--~.:..,..:.. .... ......., .. (0,". '. . I" ;..,'.t: :.~,';. :.;.;~~:'.
. .... -. '. '. '. '. :-.-......... t."", . 1<' '. \ ,or:.. w- '''', ..
. --:-~ .~i:~:::t.:.:.:~~~;.t~~~::,:::!~:,.. ,''', ""'."I.';":~:'IO.:L <:; \ ::1;; '~:;J2:.;. -:':f~:, .;.... .. ~;.."
=:":':i ':i:';',,,-;::. ':l'::":.'t-: ,_.. ,,_. . . ", .. ... ..
"'::':~":I : .-:...,.::,., .:. jl' '~':"I:' ..":' "." . .' .. .' -:, -,; , .,. .'. , . . ....,
:::::::~: ':;l::~",=..:.a:::~:::l:::I:;"l '>::~....... '. ......:.:. ;::'" ' ".~ l "".. i":~:':!, ..' "', .
::':'.:.; :~:'j1":~""'l>::..:.....~. . . ,_.:.... . ..... ".., . "',.,.. ,.. "
":':'. .', ';":,..,. '''::5:."",.=::\:. ...,:.... ~ .:-.: ',' ..0 ., hC. . k
".,. .'~ .. .'. ., · .........= .~.. .,' ':":~.".r I '. ' I 'Fa'''' BtHl11~~ u~ ...
-- "- .*:.~. ':-.,:..:.,:.:-.... ':!l'" · .... :..:,,:.... :.::.' ". '. "m! ~ 1 : IT,." " I ,,:~
:-;-;.~""~ '. .:..... . ,.'l~. ....,.. ~_. ...:'.. , ,'.: , Ii. ...t ' ".. , 'lI:llltlfl
.... .. ~ \- ~ .. . '. '. '. '. '. . "". , . , ,~ , , ,
-. . ". ',. '.' '. """~ ':';' ,,' ~ .... . . '.' "" . "''''':::;, .,
., ,...... ".' ~~. ...... . . ..... ......... . '.' .... ,'., "", ""
C:.,:.: ',:. ',... .,.;-:-::.... ..j,.-.. ..... .'. '. '..:, :'~~:'1';' '., ,,' ',."...,~ '",,-, '.'. .. ',,,
' '- ....~. .. .... ',... ;3!';.<,.~, '" '. . .'. '. .' . '\ \:: "": ~ ' ...
.:~::.::.r. ..l~". -"::~:.. .,. · · .:' ...... "', '\ ""',, '. ::t : ': 'j!l
:C:":::",,:... .... ~'R1i:~:s::~ . ~:_ .::. '~." '''II, ,'ITmJ.. ...... J,i,!l.1\' .
::~~.:.~::.: ~ ~~- .....;,,-..""~:::I>:~....: : ""~:' 1lIT,"';',___ : "
'.' ....... ~". . " .' .... "'-''''''''~:':i', ""'. " , "-j. , .. , '.,
'.... "..... '" .....~.. "~"W". "........ '. ., '.. . .. _.
". ..... '.. . ....""... ,.. - . ...~... .'. """=8~... ". ~"'~'" ". .".... ..
':":'. ';::'" ....:;.::. ':". . -. '.' .:.........,.. "':'. ..,'.~ '".. '. '. .. . .]
, .....- '. ". '. . '. ,.. . ~, .... '''. . .' " .... .. ..
:: .:, . N,::... :':". ..,. :.' l'\: :: '. ...:..... ,,,.~ .. ',' I , .. ''''C
'.' '. .:: · ::. :-;'.:;.; .,.' .::Z.,... ...."'''''''':~ '1\ \ ~ "~' " '~1I2l)ff
:. .:i::::;: ;:*~;" .;: ::::c<:~. ":;:';l'::ot!,.: i,. J' \ -';1. \~. :\':;'r,~",.t~ ~::. ..., ": . :'_ .~~:~.~:
.. ~':~: '. :: ~.~~::: .:' "!". "':I. · '.' ,.:/ '. "i(';:-:' ,': , " '
:..~::;. ...~.,. .~";:':~a:; -:. .!aN t:~::~.:.., ,. Ii \ ~: t~,:.... _~,'''~_'
,x. . .~.. .:t:~:::: :::. .:: .' :. ..j.... 'j \, \ 'r.,.:.... ...'r; 'lot .1"".", ':---t'.
'..' .-a, -' ~.. ."....ffi .. r \\ ~.;, 1I-':iI,';,t,
'., ... """.,.. , \\.-....1'_,
". .... ". ..~o{. ":if,. . I " i ". . "
:';:: ~:t.i~:::e~' .\lffj'j;:i: ":, ,'.' "t,. ~.
'.:. .'. · '..,<. · :"J... , _ 'I i \ ~,...
'... ....,., " ...... . .', ". . I I \' :.
::.: . .-to: :,.". :'" :" '\ i " lts;: , --.-
~ ;l~~~i~~;::: ~*;i;;': ~1\. we~~' /.AI \ I \ \ _11 '''~'~''I,.:-.:,l:;-_~:"
' '.' lOP :-::;:. ." ":;:;",. ..... '......:..- ".. ".". , .
::: ::, ..". ':.:' "7. :.l: '\ ~.l ::~:.I ,,~::.,.: . . '" W,\",- ;"--, --.:.."
,.....~......:....~~.............:..~:. 70:.... :, _ ;..- _ "", ':"':"'-\'~~~'~',
'.. ',-- ..... . ". 4'. ....... _ . . .~
.',
"oj,.
;.
~~~
....::..
'~
~
: I~
i::" :":::':",::' :;:~~::::~<.~_.:-~~:::'::..: ::- .-:~-::: .:: .::::: :: ::.-..
.....
, p--'
...,
..."
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM
To:
Council Members
AGENDA ITEM SC2B
From: Staff
Date: September 21, 1990 Council Me.tinq
Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
Amendment to the City of Boynton Beach
Comprehensive Plan
Introduction
Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planninq and Land Development Regltlation Act,
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (FS), the Council must be
provided an opport:uni ty to review and comment on
-camprehens'ive plan amendiIlants prior- tothairadcption. The
ci ty o~ Boynton Beach has. submi ttad. a proposed amendment to
the state OepartJDent o~ CCDIIIlunity Ufairs (DCA), which in
turn is se&kinq Council's comments.
Council's review of the, intormation provided by the DCA is
to focus on the consistency of the proposed amendments with
the Reqional Comprehensive Policy Plan developed pursuant to
Section 186.507, FS. A written report,containinq any
o.bj ections, recommendations for modification, and comments
(as defined in Chapter 9J-l1, Florida Administrative Code)
is to be provided to the DCA within 45 calendar days of
receipt of the plan, elements or amendments.
Backaround
On January 10, 1990, the DCA issued a Notice of Intent to
find the comprehensive plan for the City of Boynton Beach
not in compliance, pursuant to Section 163 . 3184 , FS. As
part of this findinq, the ADOPTED plan was found to be
in~onsistant with the Regional Plan.
The City of Boynton Beach is considerinq one clraft amend-
ment to the Future Land Usa Element. The 0.84 acre parcel
is located on the northeast corner of Winchester Park
Bo~evard and West Boynton Beach Boulevard and is shown on
the attached maps. The parcel has been proposed for
annexation into the City and the proposed land use chanqe is
from the County's Commercial Hiqh Intensity to the City'S
Local Retail Commercial. The amendment is not related to
the findinq of noncompliance by the DCA.
13
Evaluation
The proposed amendment has been reviewed in accordance with
the requirements of Chapter 163, FS; Council's review
procedures; and Council's adopted Regional Comprehensi.ve
POlicy Plan. The subject: property has been proposed for
annexation and is currently vacant. The change in land use
is necessary in order to incorporate the property onto the
Boynton Beach Future Land Use Map.
Development on this property is required to connect to the
City's central water and sewer lines. Sufficient water
treatment capacity will not be available until July 1991,'
according to the city of Boynton Beach utilities Department.
Development should also comply with the Countywide Traffic
Performance Standards to ensure consistency with the
Regional Plan.
Ob;ections. Recommendations tor Moditication. and Comments
J'U1:U%. LaDeS Use B],...u.1:
A. Objection
Non.
B. Comment
None
Recommendation
Council should adopt the comments outlined above and approve
their tranS1Dittal to the State Department of community
Affairs in fulfillment of the requirements of Chapter 163,
Florida statutes.
Attachments
16
...,
...,
I
.at - -
I ~: I
I '1Q
I '
I I
"~-1
I I\--
'1 - - - .. -- ....J
, - WI
I
III
Ijl
~ J
III
IlL
.. "a-__..-.-.-
~
C
\II
II)
11lOaL.M16MTRII
n 4V( S
L ESE II 0
-....-Cl1Y Ll)tlTS
- - IS7tJQY AREA BlIUNIJAaY
General Location Map
SOURCE; Walter H. Keller Jr.. Inc.
/
/
~
~
~
~
<:::)
<:..J
...,
"
~
~
.....,
,
~
00
NDl ro ScaI.
May, 1989
WALTER H. KELLEFI JR.. INC.
ConsujUng E:nginurs ; P!annrs
CIJr,j S/JI'il7P. F,lD1'IU
,1
~, MAP KEY '."""
. - -.......- ~..... -. .
RESIDENTIAL
-1
~ - 4i
.... --. .. "". -~
D L..OW DENSITY (l.OR) ~.
MA'-X 4.84 0 .u:7 A1: Ffe
-..... .-. -------
. ,
'~-:.::-~ - -
m:::(.._MooeR_~J:..e..Jt,e.NSt,1':Y .. (M~R)
,,-'MA.X _:;.2'6" 'O.U./ACR'e '~;" .---
........- -~-.-..- .... ."..- - ...- -
~:::::::::::::::J ,M.eO ru M . 0 e.~'-~ tTY . CYeQ..R)
MAX 9.68 0 .U./ A C"RE
-~ .. .::-.~ --:--
.. ..-.. ---.-
-. ..- .. ... -'--" ... ._.
,.
_ ~H,IGf:i. OENSLTY: -~.c..8.J...,:.
. . ".
M~X 10.a O.U..7 AC'RE'
- "oO _____. __ _. - .. ___. - ----
.~----~ - ...- --,
;' COMMERClA.L'~',
....- .-....,.--- _.... .. -. _.... .
.~ ~ .
,,..
- -.-. -....... ..... .
f., ';
~ OFFIce I (ocr
-,
.- '
---.........- . ----- --~
,-
m .LOCAL RETAtL (LRC)
-,
.. ... - . - . -. ," ---
~ GENERAL (GC)
----.-.... -~.- .
~~~~~i IN.O U S TR r A L- (I )
---.--..- ~
-----. . '. ..
.. '
", OTHE-R
.~
.
"
I
.
"
. ,"0 .._ _
_..-.:~ ~
f~~i( ,'AGRtcUt.TtJRE '.'; (A)
.------ - ........-----.--~
I - '
~
~
RECREAT10NAL (R)
-'~'
.... ....:.
, .
,~ueL.t.C & P',RJV A 1:E____(e,F'.~J t___
'GO v ER N M EN:;- A LJ I N STITUTio'NA L
. ..~-.- ~ ,F ......~- ---.-
.' MIXED use
~MX)
,-
I'
-. .. .... - - - - .:... ....- .
- -_.._, 18, - .- ,--
I
" '. . . " .".'.... .-; .' . . . .
'.' ..' .......nr....m 4J ... ..........
.. . ..~ ~:~. ... ..,,,. . .'-
~~;;:~~:::n::L ~:=::: : "~.~:.:.::: ~::.:. ::-!:....-;.
~ :.. . .. :.' . .' . '..
;{'\Q~. '.-r~ .:~;.J/i"~:.::::. r1iO:.:.:...... ~f::
:x .",. . ~.. ~ [[.,j.......~.. ~~... ...... .'.~:;.~..
:.c.: : ... ~. " .... . ..::.:.,:.::.~.:
_.-;_ · J.~~;n,:~ :~:.:....:'1~:.::i~.:.
..... '. .. .. ........ij.... .....~..
~ ;:. .' . :::y'~ ~ ::. :::::::: :::: ::::~::
'. .... .. 11f,{;':' ....' .. ~ .. . ...:... ....Jli:..%..
:;~::~:_' ~~ ~.. t::., :::::::: ::::~::::::::
:w:~,:!. . :!~ :-= . . s:~::::::::..::::;::::~::
-:iII:-a.:..:. ~ .' . .t':.rI~:'::!:':":';'::+:'
.;., . . ". :.':':110... -..': ..:..:.:.:.:.;.:..
.:t; ~ .....;.;,;H.:.. Fl:.:.:.':.:':::-::-~.:.:~...!:':
":t:. ~.. ..... .....:.1..:.:.::,;:.::::::.::::...::
.. 0::;: ...... ~<::. . . .. ..ti:i:~':'
. ~;!' 1~~ · .
,I "i,-:..' !7"'~:........,:.
: }'~:t.~','..f" *..~..~.: ...~:~;~~i. : :;:;..;.,;:;:;:,:: ";'.;
~"..... ,-"i"m::..' . '-"- . .. .-:'
,.~,' '. " ~ i: : to' ',;: ' .: .':' ;~:. ...: ::
" ,.,.. t, .' ~' · I!'.' .... .'
.. ',' "'~' :,. < , '., .,:: ,:' : ~::: :::: ::: ::
:: I ,'..' .. ", ::,::.::::: '.' ::
... ' "lIT .: .:;: :.::. ::: :.:
" ,. ~:.: . .. ... :::
~.....~~~. .. .:......'........ e,'
r " . . .... ....... ...
l J I I .. . ......:........ '..
, ~', J., ,.::....... . . . . . .., ::=
~.... :-.: -..,.. . ':. :: ~. ~: ~~-_::.: ~ -~ :
".... i- '~~'
: :~' "~ .::'''.::''
... P!' . -.1',.
t, ...........
~.":r
i' '.......,
",. of
. .'.....:1!
:'~l.:"
.... "
~..
.;.,.,
1, "It',;:"
1 ..
, ! '1
j,l.I-
.:::.
..
,-'
--..:'
..
-
I'
[:
-
~
.J-'
.J'
.
-
',IY'"
-..,.
'.
" "t
,..,..T:.'
.
r
f ',I f;.
','. I,
I
'~~i,F ili..
------1:" ,,: L ..
.----,.:.l '
-.-J.'!
"-
iL! '
,_.-1" I
~ .....,.
----1
,l"t ~,T
,..".
I
t !
.;,/
j~'
.:.
"
.. "-
.
/""/.;',,,/,'
... :~,</ //.,7 ~./.'
~
.:...... . . .
:.::.:.::.:.:.
t:.::::.::::::
-::::.::::::.:
r :....:.:....:.
, .::::.:.::::.:
~ ~:::::::::::::
~....:.....,:.
~ iL':-'~'::'.""
J.u', '~ ~~~
"0 ~~Rt
:::
~'Z-
/'
~"
\
t
1
. .'. ,"
. ,'..1
. .. . ,
'.' '.
I
J
,....
I
,7~<"-L,~T.'
~(:x~c.
J:, ,..."A<':-':-::
,'"'~ ('>)0:"""
'~ t.: '-,' .' :"
t \./'. '
I- - -
. ::;:~:;:.:..'....". .
'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~
I .... . ...... . .... . .... · ...0\0
......:......................:......~
;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::~
l:.:....:.:....:.:....:.:....:.:....~
.:.::::.:.::::.:.::::.:..::::.:.::::~
:,:,:,::,:,:.::,:.:.::.:.:'::.:.:'::i
~\~~:~:~:~~:~:;:~~:~:~:~~:;:;:~~:~:~:~t
'oj .........:........................... .
..... ..:.:.:....:.:..:.:.:..:.:.:..:.:.:.. "f.
<;; ,.:.:.... :.:.... :.:....: .:....: .:. ...;t, ..
l\tl:::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~ '~-.3; ,;
;;~11111111111111111111111111111111i1il11~ '>;;l
..0 . .... . .... 0 . .. . . .... . ....;~ 1
::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;". .
lit:: .:.:.:: .:.:. ::. :.:.: :.: .:.::::.:.::::. :.:!i< "
~;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1i
~ :: : : : : ::: :: : : ::: :: : : :: : : :: : : .::: : : :: :: :::: :::t I
1:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :::::::::: :":i }o
I!l:::.::::::.::::::.:.::::::.::::::.::::::.:::~ '
~ ~:::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~. ,:
'"' ; . . : . :. : . . . . : . : . . . . : . : . . . . : . : . : . . :. : . : . . : . : ,I '.
~..:.:....:.:....:.:....:.:.,....:......:.:..t '::
~t:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~ ·
t:.:.:..:.:.:..:.:.:..:.:.:..:.:~~~:.:.~ ~
t.:.:.::.:.:.::.:.:.::.:.:'::.:' .::::~:.:.:: .
,=!:.:..:.:....:.:....:.:.:..:.: :.... .:.... ':'
. . ........:.:.:.:..:.:. .::.. :.::.:
.. ........ . . .. . . . .. : . ;
,~~~,:~i, ~~~'". ':" '.:~ t.",i
:,:':s:." ' ..' . ',..... ":". ,~,
,'," -,;,',;:KhY '~~~l'.;T:.J.t,:' . 1:: ;
);:.~~.::' .... ~.
.. ",1'0- ,. ':::F II"" '~
';';l"~' :I'-~
'~
p
.
-"":~ .3~~(.'"
- ._\
~,:..,..
,~
\
Io!- ,,' -- .......
~...
.:.....
-I
~
~
iI'""
u
',.
'~
~g IT,
"
I;?
.'
~, ;.:, ,
~:;;
~;~
.~,Ji
.. ~:;;
: _,:I
.:-: :
. ."'.1
;:J::
'''.~'
... .
::J;:
. .:-: t
;'~1Il
~::::
. :'..,.
.. ..~:t::1
~~
';" ~
-..
~:!: -.-'
<lo :
: t. .. ..
:,", ~
IA~ ~.
,"'$,' ...~!..
,... ..:~....
. . .'. .
H ...
.. ..~:.~..~..
'~.I"~~"'.::':;~
. ~> ..:.....
.. ... .:.
: · 1::.:::-.
. .
.. .....
.-r-g, . _ ..
19 :::.:.:.:.., ~
. :.:=:::::i3 it:\.':':'iri.~.:.1 -~ ,
.~::::::::~ .~~":lf:T ~
~:.::::::"""""-"''''. .~~: -~ ..... .~-
:J1..O'...,~. . tltJ-6l!1 .........._-:..........7-
.' ....-.-..,....... ....
..
::~.:.:!l
. .::
.t
... ..
..
-wi
.,.
to"
1': ...
VI. LEGAL
B.I5, 16
cc: Bldg, Plan
Eng, Util
-'
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM No. 90-347
FROM:
J. Scott Miller, City Manager
tJ..~h^- ~
chrfSigpher Cutro, AICP
Planning Director
TO:
DATE:
November 29, 1990
SUBJECT:
Tara Oaks PUD - Ordinances for Land Use Element
Amendment and Rezoning.
INTRODUCTION/HISTORY
Attached please find, and consider on First Reading at the city
Commission meeting scheduled for December 4, 1990, the ordinances
for the above referenced applications. The application is
described below and in the attached Planning Dept. Memo No.
90-177.
Kieran J. Kilday, contract purchaser, is requesting to amend the
Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for a 20.16
acre tract of land located between the L.W.D.D. L-25 and L-26
Canals, immediately west of the Lakes of Tara Planned Unit
Development (see attached legal advertisement). The current land
use designation is "Low Density Residential", allowing a maximum
density of 4.84 dwelling units per acre. The application
submitted requests approval of a "Medium Density Residential"
land use designation, allowing a maximum density of 9.68 dwelling
units per acre, a change in zoning from Planned Unit Development
with a Land Use Intensity=4 (PUD with LUI=4) to Planned Unit
Development with a Land Use Intensity=5 (PUD with LUI=5).
The application was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on
June 12, 1990, with a recommendation for "Moderate Density
Residential", subject to staff comments and the Plan amendment
which incorporates the conditions of approval to mitigate the
impacts, and involves building heights, buffer requirements and
the attempt to preserve gopher tortoises on the site. On June
19, 1990, the City Commissiom forwarded the application with the
requested "Medium Density Residential" land use classification,
and the specific requirements recommended by the staff that would
provide those items that the neighbors felt were necessary such
as to location of units and the on the site preservation of
gopher tortoises, to the Florida Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) Their review of this application can be found within the
Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report dated
October 22, 1990 (see attachments).
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
As indicated in the attached ORC report, the State's review of
the application was based upon consistency with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the
Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Essentially, the DCA's
objections to the application involved the following: the lack
of a suitability analysis, identification plan, or protection
plan to address the existence of pOSSibly endangered species, the
lack of a justification for an increase in density and intensity
of land use.
PM90-347
-2-
November 29, 1990
The Planning Department continues to recommend denial of this
application (see attached Memorandum No. 90-177 in addition to
the objections stated by DCA). Staff is unable to comment on
whether or not DCA would accept the amendment with a "Moderate
Density Residential" designation.
MWR
Ene.
A: COMENTTA.PCD
LEGAL AD
NOTICE uF LAND USE CHMNGE
NOTICE OF ZONING CHANGE
The City of Boynton Beach proposes to change the use of land and rezone
the land withln the area shown in the map in this advertisement.
A public hearing on these proposals will be held before the City
Commission on December 18, 1990, at 6:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as
the agenda permits, at Clty Hall in the Commission Chambers, 100 East
Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida.
01. !
I
i
/ i
i
~!I
, :,
19 tin
JII I
.Ll." ji i I
::: ~;: l--i
--'-' :-it
~'I
.l.l./: II
..,~ '
~lln
...... III' ;
....'\ II, I
5/ ii!-
--iil
=!
___....J_ __
--- ....---
- .
'('. , It
LOCATION:
~ ----- --r.
'~...".
~-..........
Bill R. Winchester
Kilday & ASSoclat~s
John :ambert Van Hezewyk & Anita Louise Van Hezewyk
Tara Oa}:s
Planned Unit Development (PUD) consistlng of 192
multl-family residential units and a church
A 20.16 acre parcel located at the east side of Knuth
Road extended south, betwEen L.W.D.D. L-25 & L-26 Canals
..~.
APPLICANT:
AGENT:
OWNER:
PROJECT NAME:
PROPOSED USE:
REQUEST:
Amend Future Land Use Plan:
From - Low Density Residentlal
To - Medium Density Residential
Rezone:
From - PUD W/LUI=4
To - PUD w/LUI=5
A copy of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning request
is available for review by the public in the City's Planning Department.
All interested parties are notified to appear at said hearings in person
or by attorney and be heard. Any person who decides to appeal any
decision of the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at
these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such
purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
SUZANNE M. KRUSE, CITY CLERK
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PUBLISH: December 13, 1990
STAFF COMMENTS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-177
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
FROM: TIMOTHY P. CANNON
INTERIM PLANNING DIRECTOR
DATE: JUNE 8, 1990
SUBJECT: TARA OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT\REZONING - FILE NO. 473
INTRODUCTION:
Kieran Kilday, agent for Bill Winchester, contract purchaser, is
requesting to amend the Future Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan for a 20.16 acre tract of land located between
the L.W.D.D. L-25 and L-26 canals, immediately west of the Lakes
of Tara Planned Unit Development (see Exhibit "A"- location map).
The current land use designation is "Low Density Residential",
allowing a maximum of 4.84 dwelling units per acre. The
application submitted by Kieran Kilday requests approval of a
"Medium Density Residential" land use designation, allowing a
maximum of 9.68 dwellings units per acre, and a change in zoning
from Planned Unit Development with a Land Use Intensity=4 (PUD
with LUI=4) to Planned Unit Development with a Land Use
Intensity=5 (PUD with LUI=5).
Although the subject parcel is undeveloped with scattered oak and
scrub oak clusters existing on-site, a master plan was approved
by City Commission on June 21, 1988, that currently would allow
78 single family, detached units to be built. The proposed use of
this property, if approved for a land use and zoning change,
would be to develop it as a Planned Unit Development consisting
of 192 multi-family units, a private recreation area, and a
20,000 square foot church (see Exhibit "B" - proposed master
plan) .
PROCEDURE:
These applications for amendment to the Future Land Use Element
of the Comprehensive Plan, and rezoning are being processed
consistent with Florida Statute and Boynton Beach codes,
ordinances and resolutions as follows:
1. F.S. 163.3161: Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act.
2. F.S. 166.041: Procedures for Adoption of Ordinances and
Resolutions.
3. Boynton Beach Ordinance #79-24.
4. Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Section 9C:
Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Rezonings.
5. Boynton Beach Ordinance 89-38: 1989 Comprehensive Plan.
These regulations have been listed for informational purposes.
Paraphrasing, these regulations require newspaper advertisements,
pUblic hearings before the Planning and Zoning Board and City
Commission, review by the Department of Community Affairs, and
Commission adoption of ordinances to annex, amend the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element and rezone. These
procedures take approximately 8 to 9 months to complete.
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-177
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 8, 1990
Page 2
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING (see Exhibit "A" - location map):
As previously discussed, the present zoning of the subject
parcel, allowing for the development of 78 single family,
detached homes, subject to platting is PUD with LUI=4 (see
Exhibit "c" for a copy of the approved master plan). The land
use and zoning surrounding the subject parcel varies. Abutting
the subject parcel to the north is an 85 foot wide right-of-way
for the Lake Worth Drainage District L-25 Canal. Further to the
north and northeast, across the the L.W.D.D. LO-25 Canal, are
single family detached homes in the Stonehaven Planned Unit
Development (Banyan Creek). These homes are valued in the
$80,000 to $100,000 price range. Abutting the subject parcel to
the east are three residential subdivisions. From north to south
they are: (1) The Villas of Banyan Creek within the Stonehaven
Planned Unit Development (2) Clipper Cove and (3) The Lakes of
Tara Planned Unit Development. The Villas of Banyan Creek and
Clipper Cove are rental apartment projects, while the Lakes of
Tara Planned Unit Development consists of single family detached
zero lot line units valued in the $80,000 to $100,000 price
range. Abutting the subject parcel to the south is an 80 foot
wide right-of-way for the L.W.D.D. L-26 canal. Further to the
south, across the L.W.D.D. L-26 canal, is the future right-of-way
for Woolbright Road. Abutting Woolbright Road on the south side
is a narrow vacant parcel which lies within the Quail Lake West
PUD. The Quail Ridge Planned Unit Development, which lies within
Palm Beach County, is located to the southwest and west of the
subject parcel. Quail Ridge is a large golf course community
similar to Hunters Run in Boynton Beach, with a mix of single and
multi-family units valued in the $150,000+ price range.
FUTURE LAND USE:
The land use designation of the parcels north (Stonehaven PUD -
Banyan Creek) and northeast (Stonehaven PUD - Villas of Banyan
Creek and The Landings PUD - Clipper Cove) of the subject parcel
is "Moderate Density Residential", allowing a maximum of 7.26
dwellings units per acre. The land use designation of the
parcels southeast (Lakes of Tara PUD) and south, across
Woolbright Road extended (Quail Lake PUO) is "Low Density
Residential", allowing a maximum of 4.84 dwellings units per
acre. The parcel southwest and south (Quail Ridge) of the
subject parcel is in Palm Beach County and has a land use
designation of "Low Residential 3", allowing 1 to 3 dwellings
units per acre. Therefore, the land use category requested,
"Medium Density Residential", allowing a maximum of 9.68
dwelling units per acre, is inconsistent with the land use of the
parcels in close proximity to the subject parcel.
PUD ZONING AND MASTER PLAN (see Exhibit "B" - proposed master
plan) :
The applicant is proposing to rezone from Planned Unit
Development with Land Use Intensity=4 (PUD with LUI=4) to Planned
Unit Development with Land Use Intensity=5 (PUD with LUI=5). A
discussion of the PUD master plan submitted follows:
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-177
TO: Chairman & Members, planning & Zoning Board
June 8, 1990
Page 3
PROPOSED USES
Land Use
No. of Units
Acres
Residential
multi-family/rental
(part of pod 1)
192
10.84
Church
(pod 3)
3.00
Private Recreation
(part of pod 1 & 2)
1. 90
Lake
(part of pod 2)
2.00
Buffers
.38
Right-of-way Dedicatlon
2.04
192 units
20.16 acres
The maximum bUilding height will be two stories (not to exceed 25
feet). The maximum building coverage will be 40 percent. The
minimum living area will be 750 square feet.
ACCESS AND INTERNAL TRAFFIC FLOW
Two access points to the multi-family portion of the PUD are
proposed; both from Knuth Road. Entrance to the church pod will
also be provided from Knuth Road via two driveways. No access to
the PUD is proposed from S.W. Congress Boulevard. If these
applications for land use amendment and rezoning are approved,
the requirement to construct S.W. Congress Boulevard west to
Knuth Road and to construct Knuth Road south to connect to
Woolbright Road shall be imposed consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan (see Planning Department memorandum - Exhibit
11 Ell) .
RECREATION
Based on the number and type of units proposed, a total of 2.88
acres is required to be dedicated for parkS and recreation
purposes. A 1.9 acre private recreation area is proposed to
receive a 50% credit pursuant to section 8, Article IX, of
AppendiX C. This private recreation area is divided between two
locations, a .4 acre area located within the residential pod and
a 1.5 acre area located within pod 2, which is separated from the
residential pod by S.W. Congress Boulevard. The fOllowing five
recreational amenities are proposed:
1. swimming pool
2. clubhouse
3. jogging trail
4. picnic area
5. fishing dock
The SWimming pool and clubhouse are the only amenities proposed
to b~ located within the residential pod. The Police Department
has expres sed c.)ncern regarding the loea tion and conf igurat ion of
the passive recreation area, particularly the picniC area and
jogging trail (see Exhibit "E" - police Department memorandum).
It is anticipated that due to the secluded, buffered nature of
this open space area, that it will undoubtedly pose a security
problem.
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-177
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 8, 1990
Page 4
With respect to the remaining 1.44 acres required for parks and
recreation purposes, the Recreation Department recommends that a
fee be paid in lieu of land dedication (see Exhibit "E" -
Recreation Department memorandum). Since the minimum size
required for a neighborhood park is 5 acres and due to the fact
that all of the property in the vicinity of the subject parcel is
developed or planned for development, there is no opportunity to
combine this remaining acreage with park dedication from adjacent
properties to meet the minimum size reqUired for a neighborhood
park.
TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS AND VEGETATION
The long, narrow, rectangular shape of the subject parcel is
slighty rolling with the highest pOint (ground elevation 19.0)
occltrring towards the center. The lowest point (ground elevation
15.0) occurs at the southeast portion of the parcel; a net change
in elevation of 4.0 feet. The parcel contains predominantly two
types of soils, Basinger fine sand and Okeelanta muck. Basinger
fine sand is a poorly drained, deep, sandy soil. Okeelanta muck
is similar to Basinger fine sand in that it is poorly drained
soil. On-site vegetation consists primarily of exotics and
clusters of oaks and scrub oaks scattered throughout the south
half of the site. Based on available information, there should
be no impediments to the development of the site owing to
environmental constraints. However, care should be taken to
preserve the oaks and scrub oaks as noted in the correspondence
in th~ Forester/Horticulturist's memorandum in Exhibit liE".
DRAINAGE
A schematlc drainage and storm water retention plan has been
submitted. On-site retention will be diverted to a storm water
management tract (lake) located south of S.W. Congress Boulevard
within pod 2, before flOWing into the L.W.D.D. L-26 canal along
the south property line of the site. Water levels will be
controlled by an outfall control structure at the southeast
corner of the storm water management tract. Littoral zone
plantings are required to be installed around a minimum of 50% of
the lakeshore area.
POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION
The site will be served with water by connecting to an existing
16 inch water main located within the Knuth Road right-of-way,
north of the L.W.D.D. L-25 canal, and to an existing 10 inch
water main withing the S.W. Congress Boulevard right-of-way.
SEWAGE COLLECTION
The site will be served by constructing a lift station at the
southeast corner of the residential pod which will tie into an
existing gravity sewer within the Lakes of Tara PUD.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The traffic impact analysis submitted by the developer was
reviewed to determine conSistency with the Municipal
Implementation Ordinance of the Palm Beach County Traffic
Performal1ce standards Ordinance, as the application was submitted
subsequent to February 1, 1990, and the proposed rezoning
generates in excess of 500 additional trips per day. A copy of
Walter Keller's report (the City's traffic consultant) can be
found in Exhibit liD" of this memorandum. Briefly, the results of
Mr. Keller's review indicate that the applicant meets City and
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-l77
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 8, 1990
Page 5
County concurrency requirements, but additional information is
requi~ed to assess traffic impacts. The Palm Beach County Traffic
Engineering Department has not completed their review, but it is
anticipated that their comments will be received prior to the
City Commission meeting. The required roadway improvements are
listed in the Planning Department memorandum in Exhibit "E".
ISSUES/DISCUSSION:
Section 9.c.7 of Appendix A - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances,
requires the evaluation of rezoning requests against criteria
related to the impacts which would result from the approval of
such requests. These criteria and an evaluation of the impacts
which would result from the proposed development are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed rezoning would be consistent with
applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. The Planning
Department shall also recommend limitations or requirements
which would have to be imposed on subsequent development of
the property, in order to comply with policies contained in
the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan
Policy 1.4.5 which states, "Subsequent to Plan adoption, modify
the land development regulations to provide that residential
densities shall not be increased above those which were assumed
in projecting water demand in the Potable Water Sub-element,
unless it can be demonstrated that capacity will be obtained by
reducing the land use density or intensity elsewhere in the water
service area." The applicant has not provided documentation
which verifies that the increased water capacity to serve the
requested increase in density and intensity of 4.84 dwelling
units per acre to 9.68 dwelling units per acre (192 multi-family
units) would be offset elsewhere.
Similarly, Policy 1.5.5 of the Comprehensive Plan states,
"Subsequent to Plan adoption, modify the land development
regulations to provide that residential densities shall not be
increased above those which were assumed in projecting sewer
flows in the Sanitary Sewer Sub-element, unless it can be
demonstrated that capacity will be obtained by reducing the land
use density or intensity elsewhere in the sewer service area."
The applicant has not provided documentation to verify that the
increased deand for sewer capacity to serve the requested
increase in density and intensity would be offset elsewhere.
In addition to the above, the Planning Department memorandum in
Exhibit "E" recommends limitations and requirements which should
be imposed on subsequent development of the property, if this
request is approved, in order to comply with other policies
contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Whether the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the
established land use pattern, or would create an isolated
district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, or would
constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
property owner as contrasted with protection of the public
welfare.
As previously discussed on page 2, "Future Land Use", all of the
surrounding zoning districts are planned unit developments with
land use intensities equal to four or less. Densities of the
surrounding districts range from 3 dwellings units per acre to a
maximum of 7.26 dwelling units per acre and units are a mixture
of single family, detached homes and multi-family, rental units.
Therefore, approval of a "Medium Density Residential" land use
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-177
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 8, 1990
Page 6
designation, allowing a maximum of 9.68 dwelling units per acre,
and a zoning category of Planned Unit Development with a Land Use
Intensity=5, would constitute a grant of special privilege to the
property owner, would be contrary to the established land use
pattern and would create an isolated island of "Medium Density
Residential" land use surrounded by "Low" and "Moderate Density
Residential" land use. Moderate Density Residential, at 7.26
dwellings per acre would be consistent, however, with the density
of projects which lie to the east.
c. Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed
rezoning desirable.
There has been no significant change in conditions in the
vicinity of this property, since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan, that would make the proposed rezoning
desirable.
d. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with
utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities.
Existing City water and sewer systems in the vicinity of the Tara
Oaks property are adequate to serve the proposed project.
However, as previously discussed in item "a", the applicant has
not demonstrated that the increased water and sewer demand can be
offset elsewhere. Concerning roadways, the proposed rezoning
must meet the requirements of the Municipal Implementation
Ordinance of the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards
Ordinance before development can proceed, as the rezoning
generates in excess of 500 new trips per day.
With respect to recreational facilities, the private recreation
area to be provided plus the recreation fee to be paid in the
amount equivalent to the value of 1.44 acres for the construction
of public recreational facilities, will adequately meet the
recreation needs of the proposed project.
e. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the
current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, or
would affect the property values of adjacent and nearby
properties.
As outlined under item "b", the density requested (9.68 dwelling
units per acre), would not be consistent with the densities which
exist on surrounding properties ranging from 3 to 7.26 dwelling
units per acre. However, it is not anticipated that the proposed
rezoning would affect the property values of adjacent and nearby
properties, as the proposed multi-family units are to be limited
to two stories and are to be located north of the extension of
S.W. Congress Boulevard, adjacent to existing multi-family units
in Clipper Cove and the Stonehaven PUD (a.k.a. Banyan Creek).
Also, the church and passive recreational amenities proposed
(picnic area, fishing dock and jogging trail) are located
adjacent to the single family, zero lot line units in the Lakes
of Tara PUD separated by a 15 foot buffer.
f. Whether the property is physically and economically
developable under the existing zoning.
Under the existing PUD with LUI=4 zoning, the property could be
developed for 78 single family, detached, zero lot line units.
Based on the justification statement submitted, it cannot be
ascertained whether the property is economically developable
under the existing zoning, since no economic analysis was
included with the application.
g. Whether the proposed rezoning is of a scale which is
reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the
City as a whole.
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-l77
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 8, 1990
Page 7
Based on the discussion under item "a", concerning Policy 1.4.5
and 1.5.5 of the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant's failure to
demonstrate that water and sewer capacity will be obtained by
reducing the land use intensity and density elsewhere in the
water and sewer service area and the discussion in item lib"
concerning the inconsistency of the proposed "Medium Density
Residential" land use with existing "Low" and "Moderate Density
Residential" land uses in the vicinity, it is arguable that the
proposed rezoning in not of a scale which is reasonably related
to the needs of the neighborhood and the City as a whole.
h. Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City for
the proposed use, in districts where such use is already
allowed.
The analysis of supply and demand for rental apartments in the
Future Land Use Element Support Documents (Volume 1), indicates
that there may be a surplus of up to 539 rental apartment units
in the City at build-out (pp. 29-30). Based on the above, it
is arguable that there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City
for multi-family housing in districts where such use is already
allowed, however the additional number of rental apartments
proposed by the applicant would not create an excessive
oversupply of land for rental apartments.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is the Planning Department's recommendation that the requests
for Future Land Use Element amendment and rezoning submitted by
Kieran Kilday for Bill Winchester, contract purchaser, be denied
but that a land use density of 7.26 du/acre ("Moderate Density
Residential") be approved. This recommendation is based on the
following findings contained within the preceding analysis:
1. The proposed land use amendment and rezoning is contrary to
the established land use pattern and would create an isolated
island of "Medium Density Residential" land use surrounded by
"Low" and "Moderate Density Residential" land use, thereby
constituting a grant of special privilege to the property
owner. Moderate Density Residential (7.26 du/acre) would be
warranted, however, since this is the density of the
apartment projects which lie to the east.
2. The applicant has not provided documentation which verifies
that the increased water and sewer demand to serve the
requested increase in density and intensity would be offset
elsewhere. Therefore, the proposed requests are
inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.4.5 and
1.5.5. An amendment to Moderate Density Residential
would create additional water and sewer impacts equivalent to
40 dwellings, which would not be excessive.
PROJECT APPROVAL
As previously stated, the current land use designation of the Tara
Oaks property, "Low Density Residential", allows only a maximum of
4.84 dwelling units per acre, as compared with two of the
abutting parcels having a "Moderate Density Residential" land use
designation, allowing a maximum of 7.26 dwelling units per acre.
Unless the applicant can provide documentation which demonstrates
that water and sewer capacity can be obtained by reducing the
land use density and intensity elsewhere in the water and sewer
service area, consistent with Policy 1.4.5 and l.5.5 of the
Comprehensive Plan, it is the Planning Department's
recommendation that a "Moderate Density Residential" land use
designation would be appropriate. This recommendation is based
on the compatibility of this land use with the established land
use pattern and the following aspects of the proposed master
plan:
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-177
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 8, 1990
Page 8
a. A 15 foot buffer between the proposed church and
adjacent Lakes of Tara single family homes
b. All residential uses and the more active recreational
, amenities (swimming pool and clubhouse) are clustered
within pod 1 on the master plan adjacent to existing
multi-family uses to the east (Clipper Cove and Villas
of Banyan Creek)
c. There is a distance of 350 feet between the existing
single family homes in Quail Ridge to the" west and the
proposed multi-family units.
Approval of a "Moderate Density Residential" land use designation
would allow a maximum of 7.26 dwelling units per acre or 146
units, a decrease of 46 units from the 192 units proposed by the
applicant.
~7~~
TIM HY P. CANNON
NOTE: Pursuant to Section 163.3174(4)(d), Florida Statutes, the
Planning and Zoning Board, as the local planning agency,
is required to make a recommendation to the City
Commission with respect to the consistency of these
proposed amendments with the Comprehensive Plan.
/cp
Encs
A:TARAOAKS
xc: Central File
EXHIBIT "A"
.
LOCATION MAP
. .
TARA OAKS PUD
'.IL
-
----- ~ FCc.T WT"lYAI-. '1\1 "1I!'.'Ilru BJJl.a
-~-J ~
C TLJ( Nt ~T
I .. - trrl~ := C:. lIy
L~i -. . ~~~,~ ~l~
E... E '--.:: r-.. I- f1 ~
1 ~ 1'\ I ~.. I.I;;l I .....
r~, v"' = . ~~-iJ
~~ - -, - !/~ ~. '-N~r.""~
=E:7 ~ >-- --, r1,f .... 0 )", :: 1=1 t -" 1:,
:~~ ~.~_ v ; TTTlT' ~l~
~1~) .~ .-- t.JkVlo)\~~ -,
~ \2J ~ '1~fA ~"
= ~~ {N0J
oQ.ll ,~ ?I ~ ." l
j ! :~ ~~~j ~~ l; i ~ I' iOl ' J -' :.'
~i' ,~,:",. _ "'~ ~bl~~ covfKJ./i,;?'; '-',
r __ .0" SITE.. ~ .
- '.. - '- P D, I- t:)..
'rr~' ~ -= '-'-I VI ~~~.'\: ~ ^ ":~~:;~ ~ ~~ ,;
- - '. W ~ ~..~'... >- /Tf':,,[\V~~" t: C?!:.:
· . "TO - ,-~L>/Z _ ~ "- ;:.-< H", :;. Y1' ~'" - ~
!.il D ::i I :C1.':
~I : - .' .'" - .. ~".. ~~t~"
i~ -~ _ ,', -, ,I o<lCj r----.-', ) _cay,,:','
", "_\~ i:~ J,~~~~ " ~-I ~
l ~. a U A I L R I ~ G E ".: ~ .J . . . . ~ --- --
.4' ,..~" '~/f : a." ~
~~l U'0\ ::;~: ~r r ')\ ~ "CllJ
R .} l ~ \ : I~
I-- ~
I- 0 ).n-' 'J \ . Q~ _
I--~n "/ - 3 - /' '"'\
~- \ U "n;f"ft r' - \~ - \
l..{ " ~ r I I 1.\
pi
ul
I
II
. . t. . ...~, \..;'
'J
C~ 3i
CD oc
PU
i:
( I
I
I
~ ~ I
3 \
l~
}\oJ
-u" r
i....~w
JIl
... J
'1
"'Ill PU l::
~~
"tj
1 , C"IW"L
L-~7
-,
1
I ...... "\.
1 r n I I I I I III .flI^.....
~ rH . ",j;
"- ' '. r-:l '\. - ....J
; :rll-....
1-: , t'
-; ....) -
~. "~ ..~. . ~
~ =. km'J..-~ .~_
'...r X?"( ]. r~y l ~
~ ., ~1i::"Jii.--=:- :....
y ~r-
1 JO ::::~. _ ...llS J. _
I ' ,...
, ~....;:: '.
.... ~.,... --, "- -
~ -' -
1-. V r(Tl r I'Y -
1'1
'Jilh
r II or
n
'0
1/8
I
1/4
MILES
-
I
, '0
400. '800
1600 FE~T
0, _..../A' ,.,,,,.
~r,",r ~ /P.I'I.
~
. ,
~
~.....
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTS
REPORT
~'E
~ ~~.~
'M}
C.UO 'At. ,tI' ...
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA ]2]99
101 MARTINEZ
c__
October 22, 1990
THOMAS G. PElHAM
S<<'N,Y
The Honorable Gene Moore
Mayor of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Post Office Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
Dear Mayor Moore:
The Department has completed its review of the proposed
comprehensive plan amendments (DCA No. 90-2 and 90S1) for the
City of Boynton Beach, submitted on July 10 and 26, 1990. Copies
of the proposed amendments have been distributed to appropriate
state, regional, and local agencies for their review and their
comments are enclosed.
I am enclosing the Department's Objections, Recommendations
and Comments Report, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, Florida
Administrative Code. Upon receipt of this report, the City of
Boynton Beach has 60 days in which to adopt the proposed amend-
ments, adopt the amendments with changes, or reject the amendments.
The process for adoption of amendments to local comprehensive'
plans is outlined in s.163.3184, Florida statutes, and Rule
9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code. The Objectionsr Recommen-
dations and Comments Report does not include objections relating
to the stipulated Settlement Agreement amendments; however,
objections have been raised'on the other amendments which have
been submitted.
Within five working days of the date of adoption, the City
of Boynton Beach must submit the following to the Department:
Five copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendme~
A signed copy of the adoption ordinance; <:~I11~I
A listing of additional changes not previously reviewedecr 24 ~
PLANNING DEPT.
EMERCENCY MANACEMENT . HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · RESOURCE PLANNING AN6 MANALtlY\t/4f
'-
The Honorable Gene Moore
October 22, 1990
Page Two
A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any,
which were not included in the ordinance; and
A statement indicating the relationship of the additional
changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report.
The above amendments and documentation are required for the
Department to conduct the compliance review, make a compliance
determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent.
As a deviation from the requirement above, you are requested
to provide one of the five copies of the adopted amendment
directly to the Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council. The regional planning councils have been asked
to review adopted amendments to determine local comprehensive
plan consistency with the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
Please forward these documents to the regional planning council
concurrent with your transmittal to the Department. Your cooper-
ation is appreciated in this matter.
If you have any questions, please contact Robert Pennock,
Chief, Bureau of Local Planning, or Maria Abadal, Plan Review
Administrator at (904) 487-4545.
Sincerely,
~a~ tor
Division of ~:~~~~e Planning
and Management ~
RGNjtmm
Enclosures: Review Agency Comments
cc: James J. Golden, Interim Planning Director
Daniel M. Cary, Executive Director, Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council
-~'---'---""-'._''-- -------------.-
.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
BOYNTON BEACH
AMENDMENTS 90-2 aDd 90S1
....
October 22 1990
Division of Resource Planning and Management
Bureau of Local ~lanning
Thi. repo" 11 prepared punuan& &0 Rule OJ-ll.OIO'
-'~-------------~
INTRODUCTION
The following objections, recommendations and comments are
based upon the Department's review of the proposed comprehensive
plan amendment(s) pursuant to s.163.3184, F.S.
objections (A. in the attached report) relate to specific
requirements of relevant portions of Ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., and
Ch~ 163, F.S. Each objection includes a recommendation of one
approach that might be taken to address the cited objection.
other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations.
Some of these objections may have initially been raised by one of
the other state agencies. If there is a difference between the
Department's objection and the state agency advisory objection or
comment, the Department's objection would take precedence.
Each of these objections must be addressed by the local
government and corrected when the amendment(s) is resubmitted for
our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may
result in a determination that the plan is not in compliance.
The Department may have raised an Objection regarding missing
data and analysis items which the local government considers not
applicable to its amendment(s). If that is the case, a statement
justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-11.004(2) (f),
F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a
determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if
the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered
addressed.
The comments (B. in the attached report) which follow the
objections and recommendations section are advisory in nature.
Comments do not represent objections and will not form bases of a
determination of non-compliance. They are included to call
attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be
substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or
logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, ,
organization, mapping, and reader comprehension.
Appended to the back of the Department's report are the
comment letters from the other state review agencies and other
agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are
advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental
objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in
this report.
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
City of Boynton Beach
Amendments 90-2 and 90S1
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
A. . OBJECTIONS
Analysis
1 . 9J - 5 . 006 ( 2) (b) 4 .
The proposed Tara Oaks Planned Unit Development (PUD)
map amendment of Amendment 90-2, which will increase
the density from 4.84 dwelling units per to 9.68
dwelling units per acre, does not include an analysis
of the site in order to determine its suitability for
use based on natural resources even though an internal
City memorandum (Recreation & Park Memorandum #90-278,
dated June 5, 1990) states that an assessment of plant
and animal species is needed for the site, and should
address the existing gopher tortoise (a protected
species) and scrub jay (a threatened species)
populations. Another internal City memorandum
(Planning Department Memorandum #90-177) states that
scrub oaks, the scrub jay's habitat, are also found on
the site. In addition, another internal City
memorandum (Recreation & Park Memorandum #90-321,
dated June 18, 1990) states that a preliminary survey
of the site on June 15, 1990 revealed that are a
significant number of gopher tortoise burrows existing
on the site.
Recommendation
Include an analysis of this site in order to determine
its suitability for use based on natural resources.
Revise the densities to protect the existing natural
resources. Alternatively, increase the amount of open
space on the site to protect natural resources.
2. 9J-5.006(2)lc)
The proposed Knuth Road Planned Commercial Development
(PCD), Boynton Beach PCD and Tara Oaks PUD map
amendments of Proposed Amendment 90-2, will change the
density or intensity of land use; however, Proposed
Amendment 90-2 does not include an analysis of the
cumulative affect of these land use changes on the
amount of land needed to accommodate the projected
1
population. In addition, the proposed map amendments
are not consistent with the analysis in the adopted
plan, which states that these sites should be developed
at lower densities or intensities of use and that an
over-allocation of commercial land exists in the City.
Recommendation
Include an analysis of the cumulative affect of these
land use changes on the amount of land needed to
accommodate the projected population. Include in the
analysis how these land use changes are consistent with
the analysis of future land uses in the adopted plan.
Goals. Objectives and Policies
3. 9J-5.006l3} lb}l.. l3} (c)3. and (4): and 9J-5.007(3) (b)2.
Proposed Amendment 90-2 is not consistent with
Objectives 1.3 and 2.1 and Policies 1.3.3 and 2.1.3,
which commit the City to coordinating future land uses
by limiting the type, intensity and location of land
uses to maintain traffic circulation levels of service,
because the Knuth Road PCD and Boynton Beach PCD map
amendments will exceed the traffic circulation levels
of service.
Recommendation
Include an analysis of how the Knuth Road PCD and
Boynton Beach PCD map amendments are consistent with
Objectives 1.3 and 2.1 and Policies 1.3.3 and 2.1.3.
Alternatively, revise the densities and intensities of
the proposed map amendments to be consistent with
Objectives 1.3 and 2.1 and Policies 1.3.3 and 2.1.~.
4. 9J-5.006(3) (b)4.. (3) (c)6. and (4)
The proposed Tara Oaks PUD map amendment of Amendment
90-2 which will allow higher density development on a
site where known endangered or threatened species are
found, is not consistent with Objectives 1.11 and
Policies 1.11.2, which commit the City to the
protection and preservation of native habitat and
endangered species. Gopher tortoises (a protected
species) and scrub jays (a threatened species) are
known to exist on the site. In addition, an analysis
of the site in order to determine its suitability for
use based on natural resources has not been included.
See also the objection raised for 9J-S.006(2) (b)4.
2
Recommendation
Include an analysis of the site in order to determine
its suitability for use based on natural resources.
Revise the densities to protect the existing natural
resources.
5. 9J-5.006l3}(c)7. and (4)
The proposed Knuth Road PCD, Boynton Beach PCD and Tara
Oaks PUD map amendments of Proposed Amendment 90-2 are
not consistent with Objectives 1.17 and 1.19 and
Policies 1.16.4, 1.17.1, 1.17.3, 1.17.8, 1.19.5 and
1.19.6 because these amendments will change the density
or intensity of land use, which commit the City to
discouraging and preventing increased commercial and
residential development. The proposed map amendments
will increase the density or intensity of use. In
addition, Proposed Amendment 90-2 is not supported by
the analysis because an analysis of the cumulative
affect of these land use changes on the amount of land
needed to accommodate the projected population is not
included. See also the objection raised for 9J-
5.006(2) (c).
Recommendation
Include an analysis of how the proposed map amendments
are consistent with Objectives 1.17 and 1.19 and
Policies 1.16.4, 1.17;1, 1.17.3, 1.17.8, 1.19.5 and
1.19.6. Include an analysis to resolve the referenced
objection for 9J-5.006(2) (c).
B. COMMENTS
None
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
A. OBJECTIONS
Data and Analysis
1. 9J-5.013(1l (bl
The proposed Tara Oaks PUD map amendment of Amendment
90-2 does not include an identification of all
wildlife and species listed as endangered,
threatened or species of special concern found on the
site and an analysis of the potential for protection of
species listed as endangered, threat~ned or species of
special concern. This is a site where goph~r tortoises
3
(a protected species) and scrub jays (a threatened
species) are known to exist and a significant number of
gopher tortoise burrows have been found.
Recommendation
Include an identification of all wildlife and species
listed as endangered, threatened or species of special
concern found on the site and an analysis of the
potential for protection of species listed as
endangered, threatened or species of special concern,
and in particular address gopher tortoises and scrub
jays. For example, the threatened eastern indigo snake
is a commensal of the gopher tortoise and use gopher
tortoise burrows as habitat. In addition to the
eastern indigo snake, more than 80 other wildlife
species, including the threatened scarab beetle, and
species of special concern, such as the gopher frog,
pine snake and burrowing owl, use gopher tortoise
burrows as habitat.
Goals. Objectives and Policies
2. 9J-5.013(21 (bl4. and (2) (cl5.
The proposed Tara Oaks PUD map amendment of Amendment
90-2 is not consistent with Objective 4.5 and Policy
4.5.1, which commit the City to the protection and
preservation of native habitat and endangered and
threatened species, because the proposed amendment will
allow higher density development on a site where gopher
tortoises (a protected species) and scrub jays (a
threatened species) are known to exist and a
significant number of gopher tortoise burrows have been
found. See also the objections raised for 9J-
.006(2) (b)4. and 9J-5.013(1) (b).
Recommendation
'..
Include an analysis of how the proposed map amendment
is consistent with Objective 4.5 and Policy 4.5.1.
Include an analysis to resolve the referenced
objections for 9J-.006(2) (b)4. and 9J-S.013(1) (b).
B. COMMENTS
None
STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. OBJECTIONS
4
- ---.-.-...---- _.__.,-.....~._---
'.
.
1. 9J-5.021(1\
Proposed Plan Amendment 90-2 does not adequately
address and further the following state Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies:
(a) Goal 10 (Natural Systems and Recreational Lands),
Policies 1 and 3 because the Tara Oaks PUD map
amendment will allow higher density development on
a site where gopher tortoises and scrub jays are
found and the amendment does not protect
endangered and threatened species.
(b) Goal 16 (Land Use), Policy 1 because the
cumulative impacts of the Knuth Road PCD, Boynton
Beach PCD and Tara Oaks PUD does not encourage
efficient development and maintain level of
service standards for roadways.
(c) Goal 20 (Transportation), Policy 13 because the
level of service standards for roadways cannot be
maintained.
Recommendation
Revise Plan Amendment 90-2 to be compatible with and
further the above referenced State Comprehensive Plan
goals and Objectives.
B. COMMENTS
None
REGIONAL POLICY PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. OBJECTIONS
1.
9J-S.02l(11
'..
Proposed Plan Amendment 90-2 does not adequately
address and further the following Regional Policy Plan
goals and policies:
(a)
Goal 10.2.1 (Natural Systems and Recreational
Lands), Policies 10.2.1.1 and 10.2.1.2 because the
Tara Oaks PUD map amendment will allow higher
density development on a site where gopher
tortoises and scrub jays are found and the
amendment does not protect endangered and
threatened species.
(b) -Goal 16.1.1 (Land Use), Policy 16.1.2 because the
5
- ------------ --'---..---.--'-'---
cumulative impacts of the ~nuth Road PCD, Boynton
Beach PCD and Tara Oaks PUD does not encourage
efficient development and maintain level of
service standards for roadways.
Recommendation
Revise Plan Amendment 90-2 to be compatible with and
further the above referenced goals and objectives of
the Treasure Coast Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
B. COMMENTS
None
'..
.'
6
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #90-549
SUBJECT:
Christopher Cutro, Planning Director '.
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist~
Proposed Tara Oaks PUD Map Amendment
Reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
November 1, 1990
This memorandum is in reference to my review of the
Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report prepared by the
DCA pertaining to the environmental assessments.
The environmental concerns noted on page 1 of the report are
consistent with our City Comprehensive Plan, Policy 4.4.1, page
68, which requires a detailed flora and fauna survey. In
accordance with Policy 4.5.1, page 69, the applicant would submit
the survey results to the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission to plan for protecting the resident populations of
listed species. The findings of the survey and direction given
by the State Fish and Game Agency will assist City staff in
making determinations for particular site developments.
KJH:ad
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-3l8
TO: Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist
FROM: Christopher Cutro, Planning Director~~f~'
DATE: October 25, 1990
SUBJECT: Proposed Tara Oaks PUD Map Amendment - Review by the
Department of Community Affairs
Accompanying this memorandum you will find a copy of the
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report provided by DCA,
which contains objections relating to scrub habitat and
endangered and threatened species connected with the
above-referenced map amendment.
Based on your preliminary environmental assessment, DCA's
recommendations, and the City's Comprehensive Plan, please review
those objections and provide our office with your comments by no
later than November 2, 1990.
If you have any questions concerning the above, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
MR: frb
Enc
C:PM90-318
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE' TALLAHASSEE, fLORIDA 32399
BOB MARTINEZ
G_
October 22, 1990
THOMAS G. PELHAM
~c'l!t.ry
The Honorable Gene Moore
Mayor of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Post Office Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
Dear Mayor Moore:
The Department has completed its review of the proposed
comprehensive plan amendments (DCA No. 90-2 and 90S1) for the
City of Boynton Beach, submitted on July 10 and 26, 1990. Copies
of the proposed amendments have been distributed to appropriate
state, regional, and local agencies for their review and their
comments are enclosed.
I am enclosing the Department's Objections, Recommendations
and Comments Report, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-ll.010, Florida
Administrative Code. Upon receipt of this report, the City of
Boynton Beach has 60 days in which to adopt the proposed amend-
ments, adopt the amendments with changes, or reject the amendments.
The process for adoption of amendments to local comprehensive
plans is outlined in s.163.3184, Florida statutes, and Rule
9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code. The Objections, Recommen-
dations and Comments Report does not include objections relating
to the stipulated Settlement Agreement amendments; however,
objections have been raised on the other amendments which have
been submitted.'
within five working days of the date of adoption, the City
of Boynton Beach must submit the following to the Department:
Five copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments;
A signed copy of the adoption ordinance; ~<:]E1l1~]
A listing of additional changes not previously reviewedecT 24 ~ _
PLANNING DEPT.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAl.tMll~,T
The Honorable Gene Moore
October 22, 1990
Page Two
A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any,
which were not included in the ordinance; and
A statement indicating the relationship of the additional
changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report.
The above amendments and documentation are required for the
Department to conduct the compliance review, make a compliance
determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent.
As a deviation from the requirement above, you are requested
to provide one of the five copies of the adopted amendment
directly to the Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council. The regional planning councils have been asked
to review adopted amendments to determine local comprehensive
plan consistency with the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
Please forward these documents to the regional planning council
concurrent with your transmittal to the Department. Your cooper-
ation is appreciated in this matter.
If you have any questions, please contact Robert'Pennock,
Chief, Bureau of Local Planning, or Maria Abadal, Plan Review
Administrator at (904) 487-4545.
Sincerely,
.~~L ,
Robert G. Nave, D ~~or '
Division of ReSOll ce Planning
and Management ~
RGN/tmm
Enclosures: Review ~gency Comments
cc: James J. Golden, Interim Planning Director
Daniel M. Cary, Executive Director, Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council
INTRODUCTION
The following objections, recommendations and comments are
based upon the Department's review of the proposed comprehensive
plan amendment(s) pursuant to s.163.3184, F.S.
Objections (A. in the attached report) relate to specific
requirements of relevant portions of Ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., and
Ch., 163, F.S. Each objection includes a recommendation of one
approach that might be taken to address the cited objection.
other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations.
Some of these objections may have initially been raised by one of
the other state agencies. If there is a difference between the
Department's objection and the state agency advisory objection or
comment, the Department's objection would take precedence.
Each of these objections must be addressed by the local
government and corrected when the amendment(s) is resubmitted for
our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may
result in a determination that the plan is not in compliance.
The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing
data and analysis items which the local government considers not
applicable to its amendment(s). If that is the case, a statement
justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-11.004(2) (f),
F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a
determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if
the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered
addressed.
The comments (B. in ,the attached report) which follow the
objections and recommendations section are advisory in nature.
Comments do not represent objections and will not form bases of a
determination of non-compliance. They are included to call
attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be
substantive, concerning planning principles; methodology or
logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar,
organization, mapping, and reader comprehension.
Appended to the back of the Department's report are the
comment letters from the other state review agencies and other
agencies, organizations and'individuals. These comments are
advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental
objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in
this report.
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
City of Boynton Beach
Amendments 90-2 and 90S1
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
A. ' OBJECTIONS
Analvsis
1 . 9J - 5 . 006 (2) l b) 4 .
The proposed Tara Oaks Planned unit Development (PUD)
map amendment of Amendment 90-2, which will increase
the density from 4.84 dwelling units per to 9.68
dwelling units per acre, does not include an analysis
of the site in order to determine its suitability for
use based on natural resources even though an internal
City memorandum (Recreation & Park Memorandum #90-278,
dated June 5, 1990) states that an assessment of plant
and animal species is needed for the site, and should
address the existing gopher tortoise (a protected
species) and scrub jay (a threatened species)
populations. Another internal City memorandum
(Planning Department Memorandum #90-177) states that
scrub oaks, the scrub jay's habitat, are also found on
the site. In addition, another internal City
memorandum (Recreation & Park Memorandum #90-321,
dated June 18, 1990) states that a preliminary survey
of the site on June 15, 1990 revealed that are a
significant number of gopher tortoise burrows existing
on the site.
Recommendation
Include an analysis of this site in order to determine
its suitability for use based on natural resources.
Revise the densities to protect the existing natural
resources. Alternatively, increase the amount of open
space 'on the site to protect natural resources.
2. 9J-5.006(2){c)
The proposed Knuth Road Planned Commercial Development
(PCD), Boynton Beach PCD and Tara Oaks PUD map .
amendments of Proposed Amendment 90-2, will change the
density or intensity of land use~ however, Proposed
Amendment 90-2 does not include an analysis of the
cumulative affect of these land use changes on the
amount.of land needed to accommodate the projected
1
population. In addition, the proposed map amendments
are not consistent with the analysis in the adopted
plan, which states that these sites should be developed
at lower densities or intensities of use and that an
over-allocation of commercial land exists in the city.
Recommendation
Include an analysis of the cumulative affect of these
land use changes on the amount of land needed to
accommodate the projected population. Include in the
analysis how these land use changes are consistent with
the analysis of future land uses in the adopted plan.
Goals. Obiectives and Policies
3. 9J-S.006(3} (b}1.. (3) (c)3. and (4) ~ and 9J-S.007(3) (b)2.
Proposed Amendment 90-2 is not consistent with
Objectives 1.3 and 2.1 and policies 1.3.3 and 2.1.3,
which commit the City to coordinating future land uses
by limiting the type, intensity and location of land
uses to maintain traffic circulation levels of service,
because the Knuth Road PCD and Boynton Beach PCD map
amendments will exceed the traffic circulation levels
of service.
Recommendation
Include an analysis of how the Knuth Road peD and
Boynton Beach PCD map amendments are consistent with
Objectives 1.3 and 2.1 and Policies 1.3.3 and 2.1.3.
Alternatively, revise the densities and intensities of
the proposed map amendments to be consistent with
objectives 1.3 and 2.1 and Policies 1.3.3 and 2.1.3~
4.
9J-S.006(3) lb)4.. (3) (c)6. and {4}
',.
The proposed Tara Oaks PUD map amendment of Amendment
90-2 which will allow higher density development on a
site where known endangered or threatened species are
found, is 'not consistent with objectives 1.11 and
Policies 1.11.2, which commit the City to the
protection and preservation of native habitat and
endangered species. Gopher tortoises (a protected
species) and scrub jays (a threatened species) are.
known to exist on the site. In addition, an analysis
of the site in order to determine its suitability for
use based on natural resources has not been included.
See also the objection raised for 9J-S.006(2) (b)4.
2
"-~."._-_.-._--,-,----_ .~___w_________
Recommendation
Include an analysis of the site in order to determine
its suitability for use based on natural resources.
Revise the densities to protect the existing natural
resources.
5. 9J-5.006(3) (c)7. and (4)
The proposed Knuth Road PCD, Boynton Beach PCD and Tara
Oaks PUD map amendments of Proposed Amendment 90-2 are
not consistent with Objectives 1.17 and 1.19 and
Policies 1.16.4, 1.17.1, 1.17.3, 1.17.8, 1.19.5 and
1.19.6 because these amendments will change the density
or intensity of land use, which commit the city to
discouraging and preventing increased commercial and
residential development. The proposed map amendments
will increase the density or intensity of use. In
addition, Proposed Amendment 90-2 is not supported by
the analysis because an analysis of the cumulative
affect of these land use changes on the amount of land
needed to accommodate the projected population is not
included. See also the objection raised for 9J-
5.006(2) (c).
Recommendation
Include an analysis of how the proposed map amendments
are consistent with Objectives 1.17 and 1.19 and
Policies 1.16.4, 1.17.1, 1.17.3, 1.17.8, 1.19.5 and
1.19.6. Include an analysis to resolve the referenced
objection for 9J-5.006(2) (c).
B. COMMENTS
None
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
'..
A.
OBJECTIONS
..
Data and Analvsis
1. 9J-5.013(l) (b)
The proposed Tara Oaks PUD map amendment of Amenqment
90-2 does not include an identification of all
wildlife and species listed as endangered,
threatened or species of special concern found on the
site and an analysis of the potential for protection of
species listed as endangered, threatened or species of
special concern. This is a site where goph~r tortoises
3
(a protected species) and scrub jays (a threatened
species) are known to exist and a significant number of
gopher tortoise burrows have been found.
Recommendation
Include an identification of all wildlife and species
listed as endangered, threatened or species of special
concern found on the site and an analysis of the
potential for protection of species listed as
endangered, threatened or species of special concern,
and in particular address gopher tortoises and scrub
jays. For example, the threatened eastern indigo snake
is a commensal of the gopher tortoise and use gopher
tortoise burrows as habitat. In addition to the
eastern indigo snake, more than 80 other wildlife
species, including the threatened scarab beetle, and
species of special concern, such as the gopher frog,
pine snake and burrowing owl, use gopher tortoise
burrows as habitat.
Goals, Objectives and Policies
2. 9J-S.013(2) Cb)4. and (2) (c)S.
The proposed Tara Oaks pun map amendment of Amendment
90~2 is not consistent with Objective 4.S and Policy
4.S.1, which commit the City to the protection and
preservation of native habitat and endangered and
threatened species, because the proposed amendment will
allow higher density development on a site where gopher
tortoises (a protected species) and scrub jays (a
threatened species) are known to exist and a
significant number of gopher tortoise burrows have been
found. See also the objections raised for 9J-
. 006,(2} (b) 4. and 9J-S. 013 (1) (b) .
Recommendation
Include an analysis of how the proposed map amendment
is consistent with Objective 4.S and Policy 4.S.1.
Include an analysis to resolve the referenced
objections for 9J-.006(2) (b)4. and 9J-S.013(1) (b).
B. COMMENTS
None
STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. OBJECTIONS
4
--------_._._----_._-~----
1. 9J-5.021(1)
Proposed Plan Amendment 90-2 does not adequately
address and further the following state Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies:
(a) Goal 10 (Natural systems and Recreational Lands),
Policies 1 and 3 because the Tara Oaks PUD map
amendment will allow higher density development on
a site where gopher tortoises and scrub jays are
found and the amendment does not protect
endangered and threatened species.
(b) Goal 16 (Land Use), Policy 1 because the
cumulative impacts of the Knuth Road peD, Boynton
Beach PCD and Tara Oaks PUD does not encourage
efficient development and maintain level of
service standards for roadways.
(c) Goal 20 (Transportation), Policy 13 because the
level of service standards for roadways cannot be
maintained.
Recommendation
Revise Plan Amendment 90-2 to be compatible with and
further the above referenced state Comprehensive Plan
goals and objectives.
B. COMMENTS
None
REGIONAL POLICY PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. OBJECTIONS
1.
9J-5.021Cl)
-..
Proposed Plan Amendment 90-2 does not adequately
address and further the following Regional Policy Plan
goals and policies:
(a) Goal 10.2.1 (Natural Systems and Recreational
Lands), Policies 10.2.1.1 and 10.2.1.2 because the
Tara Oaks PUD map amendment will allow highe.r
density development on a site where gopher
tortoises and scrub jays are found and the
amendment does not protect endangered and
threatened species.
(b) Goal 16.1.1 (Land Use), Policy 16.1.2 because the
5
cumulative impacts of the Knuth Road PCD, Boynton
Beach PCD and Tara Oaks PUD does not encourage
efficient development and maintain level of
service standards for roadways.
Recommendation
Revise Plan Amendment 90-2 to be compatible with and
further the above referenced goals and objectives of
the Treasure Coast Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan.
B. COMMENTS
None
'..
"
6
, ,
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-198
TO: J. Scott Miller, City Manager
THRU: Timothy P. Cannon, Interim Planning Director T6
FROM: James J. Golden, Senior City Planner
DATE: June l8, 1990
SUBJECT: Tara Oaks PUD
Please include the attached memorandum in the City Commission
agenda package for the above-referenced request.
J:;ik~
JJG:frb
Enc
cc: Forester/Horticulturist
Central File
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #90-32l
FROM:
Timothy Cannon, Interim Planning Director
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Horticulturist
K~H
TO:
SUBJECT: Tara Oaks - Master Plan Modification
Preliminary Environmental Assessment
DATE: June la, 1990
This memorandum is in reference to the above project which may be
affected by the environmental assessment to be prepared by the
applicant. There are concerns that the possible large
populations of existing gopher tortoises, a protected species,
will be adversely affected by the proposed development. I
surveyed most of the property on Friday, June 15th to do a
preliminary gopher tortoise burrow count and found thirty-four
sites. The burrows are concentrated in two locations, one north
of SW Congress Boulevard extended and another south of this road.
The quantity of burrows may be greater when an official transact
inventory is completed by the applicant.
This issue is important because in the past most developers have
elected to trap and relocate the inventoried tortoises.
Presently, there are no available state lands to relocate the
animal species to when they are trapped. The City Comprehensive
Plan directs the City to preserve this species where their
habitat is found. I feel this preliminary environmental
assessment may affect the potential use of the site if the gopher
tortoises cannot be relocated and must be preserved on the site.
KJH:ad
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Board Members
THRU: Timothy P. Cannon, Interim Planning Director
FROM: James J. Golden, Senior City Planner
DATE: June 8, 1990
SUBJECT: Tara Oaks PUD
Due to the large agenda and the absence of one of the Planners
due to a death in the family, the staff report for the above-
referenced request could not be completed today. It is
anticipated that the agenda packet for this item will be
delivered separately on Monday.
I apologize for the inconvenience.
t..- t ~
( ~AMES ,~. GOLDEN
v
JJG/cmc
JUN-01-'90 16:34 ID:JOSIQS AND GOREN
TEL NO:305-771-4923
~561 P02
~
DKOlWiDtJN
TO:
Timothy P. Cannon, Interim Plann1nq Director and
Tambri J. Heyden, Assistant city Planner
Scott A. Elk, Assistant City Attorney ~
June 1, 1990
Determination of Unified Control for Tara Oaks POD,
Boynton Beach Boulevard pen and Knuth Road PCD
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
In response to your memorandum dated May 15, 1990 to, James A.
Cherof, city Attorney. upon my review of t.he above referenced
Land Use Amendment and/or Rezoning Applications, I find that the
applications for tha Boynton Beaoh Boulovard, PCD and the Knuth
Read PCP contain affirmative statement.s aqreeing to t.he Unified
Control proviaion& of Seotion 6, Boynton Beaoh Code, which will
allow -cha city in the future to implement. All requirementeo
provided for under this Seotion. Please note that in both
~tatQmQnts of A9reement to Unified Control, Par~9rQph 0, there is
a typographical error which refers to .sub Section 3A" and Bhould
refer t.o "Sub Seotions A".
A ~i=ilQr Aqreement to the Unified Control provisions ot Section
6, Boynton &each Code, should be obtained from the applicant tor
Tara Oake PUD, t.o insure that the city of Boynton Beach may
implement el11 Unified Control Requirements ot section 6, and
implement all necessary Asreements, Contracts, Deed Restrictions,
and Sureties, acceptable to the City When appropriate.
please note that this Memorandum aoes not constitute an
examination by the city Attorney Of all Agreements and evidence
or uniried control, nor a Certification by the City Attorney that
any such Agreements and Evidence of Unified Control meet the
requirements of the Zoning Regulations. When such Agreements,
Contracts, Deed Restrictions, and Sureties are deemed appropriate
and required by the City, at that time I shall review the same
and provide all comments and revisions, prior to my final
Examination and Ceritification.
If I may be of any further assistance to you, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
SAE/kem
BOYNTON
KEM02
co: Jahes A. Cherof, City Attorney
7........D
....-.r,-"'\~i'r;:;...'.-4
13'. ,-nc, 'v,~ ~ 'W .b ,,'
f', jL;..... 'f
\~,........'
JUM .~ 19J}
PLANNING DE-PT.
~
-
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-l46
THRU:
James Cherof, City Attorney
Timothy P. Cannon, Interim Planning Director r-~
TO:
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden, Assistant City Planner
DATE: May 15, 1990
SUBJECT: Determination of Unified Control for Tara Oaks PUD,
Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD and Knuth Road PCD - File
Nos. 473, 493 & 494
Accompanying this memorandum you will find copies of the legal
documentation for the above-referenced rezoning requests for a
determination of consistency with Section 6 of Appendix B -
Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. These requests are scheduled
for June public hearings; therefore, a response is needed by June
l, 1990.
~j,J~
TAMBJtt J. H EN
TJH:frb
Encs
C:PM90-l46
-- ._._--~."~-_._..__._. ---~--_.__..__._--_._--------_.__._--_._---
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sue Kruse, City Clerk
FROM:
James J. Golden, senior City Planner
DATE:
April l6, 1989
SUBECT:
Tara Oaks PUD - Land Use Amendment/Rezoning Application
Accompanying this memorandum you will find a copy of the
above-referenced application. The application fees for this
application have previously been transmitted to the Finance
Department.
Also accompanying this memorandum you will find the newspaper
advertisement. I have included with the advertisement the
original scale map so that it may be utilized by the newspaper,
if necessary, to print the advertisement without losing the
details shown on the map. I
It is recommended that these applications be advertised as
follows:
Notice to Property Owners - at least 30 days prior to Planning
and Zoning Board public hearing.
First Map Ad - at least 15 days prior to Planning and Zoning
Board public hearing.
Second Map Ad - at least 6 days prior to Planning and Zoning
Board public hearing.
Third Map Ad - at least 7 days prior to City Commission public
hearing.
The above schedule exceeds statutory requirements and is
consistent with past City policy for these applications.
The attached advertisements are to be used for both the
notification to the surrounding property owners and for the
newspaper advertisements. The newspaper advertisements are to be
placed in the "Local News" section of the Palm Beach Post. It
would be permissible for the newspaper to retype these
advertisements, provided that the headlines are no less than
eighteen (18) point letter size and the advertisements occupy not
less than one-quarter (1/4) of a standard newspaper page.
~ t J;JdfL
J. ES ;:t. . GOLDEN
JJG:frb
Encs
~
.
CD #~.~ ~cK~:~ :-~~~..~~
. ' V':U:;A;.", I#/. ~ . J A. · ,: .
/~ ~~.JP~
@/4WV1'its ~~~r'~'
.~ .-~.~
~. ~~~
~~.~dNP~~~
~, o~
1. ~. ~ ~.d.. ~ ~ ~".... ~~
(!)!)It- ~r. .~ n.ha/~~U:- oP~~J
tr-- .:,w er- ~ t( ~ r
q ;~~
. ,/ ~ ;e.:>
(O. /51;)1t- ~ d _/. -~./'.-- .'
t · . / .'
-~
/--
"'-
~~ I)J-v +Lw r--
) ~~
""
~
I. ... .
/
If
f'l'~ I.&&' 1'...
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TARA OAKS PUD
KNUTH ROAD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
APRIL 2, 1990
Prepared By:
K.S. ROGERS, CONSULTING ENGINEER, INC.
1495 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite F
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
(407) 964-7300
(FAX) 969-9717
(/
10
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2 EXISTING ROADWAY
CONDITIONS
FIGURE 3 DISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC
FIGURE 4 TOTAL TRAFFIC
FIGURE 5 A.M. PEAK
HOUR VOLUMES
FIGURE 6 P.M. PEAK
HOUR VOLUMES
FIGURE 7 SUNDAY PARK HOUR
VOLUMES
FIGURE 8 A.M. PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES OFFSITE
FIGURE 9 P.M. PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES OFFSITE
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
ADOPTED
THRESHOLD VOLUMES
APPENDIX B
ONE PERCENT OF
ADOPTED THRESHOLD
VOLUMES
APPENDIX C
HISTORICAL GROWTH
APPENDIX D
MAJOR PROJECT LIST
APPENDIX E
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This office has been retained to prepare a Traffic Impact
Analysis for a proposed 192 unit multi-family residential devel-
opment and a 20,000 square foot church which are to be located on
the northeast corner of proposed Woolbright Road and Knuth Road,
in Section 30, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, in Boynton
Beach, Florida.
This Analysis has further been performed in order to deter-
mine the voium~ v[ traffic expected to be added to the rOddway
system as a resul t of the approval of this project, the effect
that this traffic will have on the capacity of the roadways in
the area of the project and what roadway improvements, if any,
are necessary as a result of the approval of this project. This
Analysis has also been performed in accordance with the standards
and criteria as established in the 1990 Traffic Performance
Standards Code of Palm Beach County, Ordinance #90-7.
Existing traffic counts, which were available from the
Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Palm Beach County
Traffic Division were used when applicable and these counts were
augmented by twenty-four (24) hour machine counts and peak hour
hand counts performed for this office.
SITE INFORMATION
The location map, Figure 1, shows the location of this
approximate 20 acre parcel in relat.'.on to the areas thorough-
fares. As shown in Figure l, this parcel is located on the
northeast corner of proposed Woolbr ight Road and the proposed
extension of Knuth Road. A single family project, also known as
Tara Oaks, was previously approved for this si.te. That 1988
approval was for 77 Single family detached homes. The developer
of this site has decided to change the housing concept to multi-
family units.
~-_.~---_.-.~------- _._'---,~-----_.._--~-~--~
IILlAIU II!PIIOOI"HfCS lt2t..a
w
>
<( W
>
<(
96-1
0
w >
....I
> In
<(
0 :I:
a:
t- O
10
a:
(')
~ (II 0
0 C/)
a: w a:
C/)
0
>
....I
In
3^V C/)w SS3~8NO:l
w>
a:<(
Z "
0 :I: Z
t- O 0 0
Z <( 0 a;
>- w
0 0 In
X 0 In
Z
::l (II 4(
....I (II a~ I 0
0
0.. I
>- .
J: .
a~ 3:lN3~MV1 I
0 . u. W
....I ....I ::.::
0 I 0 4(
~ I C) ....I
z
1IV~.l
t- ^~V 111U'f
:I:
C)
Z a:
0 In
t- ....I
Z C
>- 0
0
In ~
a~ H:l~ ~lV1:l 13
J1 ,
'\
k. s. rogers, consulting
engineer, inc.
west palm beach, fl.
LOCATION MAP
date
APR 90
figure
1
The si te plan, as prepared by Kilday & Associates, shows
that 192 multi-family residential units are planned for this
si te. In addi tion, the si te plan shows a large recrnation area
a nd a 20,000 square foot church. S . W. Congres s Bou 1 evard wi 11
bisect this site. All of the residential units will be located
north of S.W. Congress Boulevard. The church and the recreation-
al area will be located south of S.W. Congress Boulevard.
The site plan shows four (4) driveway entrances to be locat-
ed off Knuth Road. Two of the entrances will be located north of
S.W. Congress Boulevard providing access to the residential units
while the other two entrances will provide access to the church.
According to the developer, it is expected that full buildout
of this project is anticipated by 1993.
EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS
The roads which will be serving as access for this project
are Knuth Road, S.W. Congress Boulevard and Woolbright Road.
Knuth Road will be built as a two lane road from proposed Wool-
bright Road to the north property line of the site. It is not
proposed to extend Knuth Road north of the project's north
property line. S.W. Congress Boulevard will be constructed from
its present terminus at the property's east property line wester-
ly to Knuth Road. S.W. Congress Boulevard is a two lane minor
collector road which presently serves as access from the Lakes of
Tara and Stone Haven developments to Congress Avenue.
-2-
-~- - ~- ~- - - - - ----- ----- -- -- ---------~---
The two major roads serving as direct access to this site
are Woo 1 br ight Road and Congress Avenue. Present 1 y, Woolbright
Road is not extended adjacent to this site. However, Palm Beach
County has plans to construct Woolbright Road as a four (4) lane
road from Congress Avenue to Military Trail. Construction is
expected to commence in October 1990 and is expected to be comm-
pleted approximately one year after commencement. Congress
Avenue, in the immediate area of the subject site, has recently
been widened to a six lane divided road.
There are other planned roadway improvements in the project
study area affecting this project's status with the 1990 Traffic
Performance Standards Code. These improvements are as follows:
S.W. 15TH AVENUE (Woolbriqht Road):
A. From west of Congress Avenue to 1-95 - will be con-
structed as a six lane median divided roadway by the developer of
Cambridge Park. Construction of this section of road is expected
to commence in the first quarter of 1991. This construction is
considered assured.
The existing roadway average annual daily volumes and exist-
ing roadway capacities in the project study area are shown in
Figure 2.
GENERATION
The generation rates used for this project were obtained
from "Trip Generation, Fourth Edition", Institute of Transporta-
tion Engineers, 1987. It should be noted that churches, because
of their very unique nature, do not produce a singular generation
rate which should be analyzed.
-3-
.1Il'....1 JItI..oQlltutC. J12'40
96-1
0
W >
~ ~r
> CO
< coo
coC\/
e?0
ve?
0
a:
cor
vO
v.....
O>~
0 C\/IO
a: .....0
O>e?
010 colO T ;;~
~o 00 00
O>C\/ ~C\/ COC'll
0>0 0>0 0>0
C\/e? C\/e? C\/e?
3^V
Olol~ :I: ~IO
~O
C'II 0 e? .... 0 e?l")
0........ Z < .....~
co e?'" >- W C\/v
0 ... 0 co
x 0 co
z
:) C\/ a~
~ C\/ C\/IO
0 010 ~g vO
11. ~
>- COO e?.....
:I: ~..... ...e?
coe? ... -
...-
a~ 3:JN3~MVl mg ~IO
0 ~O
..J ~..... e?e?
colO 0 coe? 010 .....~
.....0 .'0 ... C\/O C\/v
~ co..... C'IIO ve?
Z ~~ e?..... v~
.....e? C\/V
...-
11V~1
w
~
:)
~
0
>
0
~
0
O:I:
-en
u.w
u.a:
UJ <:I:
> ~I-
< W <,0
> 0 Zw
< -I-
Z 1-11.
W ~o
0 xO
W w<
..J
colO
C\/O
~.....
Oe?
... ...
:I:
I- ~Ig 0
0."
a:
O>C'II l") ~IO
~ 00 C\/
C\/e? e?0 0
en ~ 0..... a:
o>e?
en ...
0100 or
.....0> vo
"'-e?~ e?C\/
~~ll) C\/O
C\/e?
en w 10 SS3~~NO:J
w> coo
a: < co..... colO
r" o~ C\/O
C\/oZ I ~.....
e?..... 0 0 Oe?
v l") () I ...- ...
... I a:
I
<
0
w
~
<
...J
U.
..J
g ~Ig
~.....
co~
C\/IO
C'IIO
e?C\/
-0
C\/e?
C\/IO
~o
~C\/
e?0
C\/e?
A~V 1.1'lv-4
~IO
00
"'-e?
C\/~Z
C\/VO
I-
Z
>-
o
ll)
C\/IO I-
~O:I:
~ C\/ C)
e? 0 _
C\/ e? a:
co
~
o
o
~
a~ H:J~ ~lV'~ 13
1010
00
...-e?
C\/<O
C\/V
<010
e?0
<OC'II
00
C\/ e?
J1
'-
~
k. s. rogers, consulting
engineer, inc.
west palm beach, FI.
date
APR 90
figure
2
EXISTING ROAD CONDITIONS
--_._.~, -~_.._-~-~---------
The useage of the church facility during the week is very
low and generally primarily limited to the evening hours. By
comparison, the generation on Sunday, the day of worship, is very
high. For the purposes of meeting the standards of the County's
1990 Traffic Performance Standards Code, the weekday traffic
shall be determined and analyzed. The Sunday traffic generation
shall be analyzed to determine what site related impacts are
created.
A summary of the expected average daily generation is pre-
sented below:
USE
GENERATION
RATE
GENERATION
Multi-Family (192 units)
Church (20,000 sq.ft.)
7.0 tpd/du
7.7 tpd/lOOO sf
TOTAL
1,344 tpd
154 tpd
1,498 TPD
Thus, the average daily weekday generation for this project
at full buildout and occupancy was determined to be 1,498 trips
per day.
As mentioned previously, this site is already approved for a
77 ur.it 5~r.gle family subdivision. The Munic~pal Implcmci.:~tion
Ordinance states that on1 y that vol ume of traffic which is in
excess of the volume of traffic previously approved for a site
shall be subject to application against the 1990 Code. According
to the traffic report submitted as part of the previous approval
entitled, "Engineer's Statement Traffic", for Tara Oaks, Job No.
87087 j 3/22/88, for Barry Barson, by Shalloway Inc., the total
previously approved traffic was 770 trips per day.
Thus, this project's actual additional impact is calculated
as:
THIS PETITION
PREVIOUS PETITION
Additional Impact
1,498 tpd
77lL1Pd
728 tpd
-4-
Thus, the total amount of traffic which shall be applied to
the standards of the 1990 Code shall be 728 trips per day.
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
The traffic distribution for this project was prepared
according to an examination of land use and travel patterns in
the project study area. Based upon the preceeding, the general-'
ized traffic distribution for this project was calculated and is
shown below:
NORTH
EAST
SOUTH
WEST
38.0%
18.6%
32.7%
10.7%
The distributed traffic volumes for this project are shown
in Figure 3. In accordance with TABLE 2 of the Traffic Perform-
ance Standards Ordinance, the Maximum Radius of Development
Influence for this project has been determined to be one mile.
As such, the distributed traffic was brought one mile from
the site or until the distributad ~l.-affic was less than one
percent of the roadway's capacity. It should be noted that this
distribution was done assuming that Woolbright Road will be
opened to traffic prior to the buildout of this project.
EFFECT ON CAPACITY
The Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards
Ordinance #90-7 delineates very specific criteria which must be
met pr ior to any Si te Specific Development Order request being
approved. The traffic performance standard for all major thor-
oughfares in Palm Beach County consists of two tests.
-5-
IIlIILlAa. _'p'NOQR.p'NtCa ]t"410
UJ
>
<
o
>
..J
m
UJ
>
<
UJ UJ
::E ()
:> Z
..J UJ
o
> 3
oll..~
50-
~J:(/)II..
1I..(/)::l0
II..UJ-I-
<a:0::E
II:J:<UJ
I-I-II:::E
1-0::E0-
OUJ::lO
WI-::E..J
"'0. -w
oox>
II: 0 <w
O-<::Eo
UJ
>
<
96-1
a
z
w
CJ
W
..J
""'Ie?*
~~*
0 J: .....1C'l
II: l- ~I~
LO
....
<Ole? ~
~IC') LOCO
0 coco -...,. (/) ~
II: ...,. \0
(/)
<01C'l LOIC') > ""',e?
C')O .....CO ~\ .....co
C') C'l...,. ......,.
3^V (/)w
w>
II: < 0I1C'l
z C'l1C') 011"'" 0 ""'0
0 J: ""'<0 C'lC') Z C'lC')
...,.~ ,,8
I- ~* ...,. 0
Z II: (')1.....
>- w ~C')
0 0 m ....
0 m
x z
::l C'l O~ I
..J C'l
0 I
0-
>- I
J: ,
O~ 3~N3~MV1 I **
0 I II..
..J I ..J
0 0
~ """C'l I 0
...,.0
z C')
**
11V~.l
o
a:
<
o
W
~
<
..J
z
o
I-
Z
>-
o
m
I-
J:
o
II:
m
..J
o
o
~
O~ H~~ ~IV1~ 13
^~V 1111r-1
J1
'-
"-
-
k. s. rogers, consulting
engineer, inc.
west palm beach, fl.
DISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC
date
APR 90
figure
3
The first test i.; the Link Buildout Test. This test requires
that the project not add traffic on any road link in the radius
of development influence which would cause the total traffic to
exceed capacity of the adopted threshold volumes at Level of
Service "D", (shown in Appendix A). The buildout period of this
project has been established as 1993 by the developer. Thus, to
meet the Link Buildout Test, the total traffic on all links in
the radi us of development inf 1 uence should not exceed capacity
during the buildout of the project (during 1993).
The total traffic is defined as the sum of the existing
average I a nnua 1 dai I y traffic, the p':o ject traffic r pI us the
background traffic. The background traffic is further defined as
the sum of the historical growth plus traffic generated by Major
Projects which are in excess of 10% of the capacity of the af-
fected roadway link. The total traffic volumes are shown in
Figure 4.
The 1993 projected traffic has been determined by taking the
sum of the 1989 A~DT, plus the projected historical growth, plus
the traffic generated by major projects which are in excess of
lO~ of the roadway's link capacity. The historical yruwth calcu-
lations are shown in APPENDIX C. The major project traffic
volume calculations are shown in APPENDIX D.
A review of the traffic associated with the major projects
impacting the project's radius of development influence revealed
that there were major projects identified which would generate
more than 10% of the capaci ty of a road 1 ink in the pro ject ' s
radius of development influence within this project's buildout
per iod. Thus, the background traffic 1 as shown in Figure 4,
shall be the sum of the historical growth volume and the major
project traffic.
-6-
~-~_.~---- -"----------~~-~--~---
tlIILI..... .r"lIM)CMt..~. ]1114C1
1
N co .....,0> 0
"'"(')COCOO
0)(') (')(')
.....N ~CO
(')... ~~
I
1
NU) "'"''''" 0
O(')NCOO
O)ON.....N
OCO "'"0
N N(')
IJ:
I-
It)
w
>
<
en
o 0
...J
U. 0
U. ...JO
0<0 OW
-0:- J:I-
u.. I- U. 0 en D..
u. u.-wO
<0 <u..0:0
0: Z 0: u.. J:<
I-:::ll-<I-
o 0: a:
C "a: I- I- "0
Z~"~...J~u..
W ~~...,<I-W
CJ _OOI-~~
WX<o:OX:::l
..J WCDD..I-W...J
o
I>
0..... 0)/00
"'"~ N~O
...~ ~O~
It)..... "'"CO
N'" (')~
1
w
>
<
96-1
w
>
<
o
>
...J
CD
U)(')~6
OCO(')OOO
~~""'~~o:
N..... ~~
1
, 1
co "'" co,..... 0
(')N(')OO
o g~ 6~
0: .......
(') 1 '
N
o
a:
o
0:
~
en
~
fI)
I
o It) 9<0 0
~o COO
(')1t)....0)(')
NCO OCO
N (')~
I
I
~;9~g 0
.....~ 0(') >
10..... "'"CO ...J
N..... (')1 CD
3 Nt' ~~
Z ,,<
0 J: I Z
0....9"'"0 0 I
I- 0 "'"~ coo
Z < ....~..."'"(') 0 I
> W 10..... coco I
0 0 CD N.... (')~ en I
x 0 CD
Z I....
:::l N
...J N at:l I
0
a.. I
> 1 I
:I: It)~ i..... 0
coCO~O)O I
(')..... 10(')
at:l 3:>N3t:1MVl "'"co lOCO I
0 N (')~ I
...J I
0 I
~ I
z
11Vt:I.l
SS3t:1~NO:::>
o
a:
009~6
","CO","NO
.....10.....0)(')
100) ~co
N (')~
I
\ I
U) ... (')IN 0
NO).....(') 0
It)... "'""'"
0"'" "'"(')
... ......
1
<
o
U.
...J
o
"
w
~
<
...J
Z
o
I-
Z
>
o
CD
I-
J:
"
a:
CD
-'
o
o
~
at:l H:::>t:I t:lIV1:::> 13
At:lV .llll~
71
'-
\.
k. s. rogers, consulting
engineer, inc.
west palm beach, fI.
TOTAL TRAFFIC
date
APR 90
figure
4
The total traffic volumes for the buildout year of 1993 are
shown with the roadway capacities in Figure 4. Reviewing the
total volumes and the roadway capacities in Figure 4, it is seen
that on the roadway links within the radius of development influ-
ence, the total traffic does exceed capacity on the following
roadway link:
ROAD
LINK
GOLF ROAD
Congress Avenue to Military Trail
For a road link which has a volume to capacity (V/C) ratio
greater than 1.0, and additional adequate capacity is not being
provided, the Ordinance allows for additional projects to be
approved which impact these roadway links such that up to a 5%
increase in volume over capacity is allowed. Anyone project is
allowed up to one-fifth (liS) of this 5% of capacity or a maxi-
mum of 1% of capacity. As shown in Figure 3 and the table below,
this project does in fact generate less than 1% of the capacity
on the roadway link listed above. The project volumes are shown
below:
ROAD/LINK
PROJECT
TRAFFIC
(TPDI
PROJECT
TRAFFIC
% OF
CA.PACITY
GOLF ROAD
13
0.095%
Thus, this project is deemed to meet the Link Buildout Test.
The second test a project must meet is the Model Test.
According to the Model Test, a project cannot be approved if the
total model traffic, which includes the project traffic on the
directly accessed links exceed the capacity or the adopted Level
of Service of the affected road link. For the purposes of com-
plying with the Model Test, this project shall be considered
directly accessing the following two roads:
-7-
BOAD
WOOLBRIGHT ROAD
CONGEESS AVENUE
LINK
Congress Avenue to Military Trail
Boynton Beach Blvd. to Woolbright Rd.
As neither of these roadway links are listed in TABLE 2 of
Ordinance #90-7 (Projected Network Deficiencies), it is concluded
that this project is deemed to meet the Model Test.
PEAK HOU~
The peak hour volumes generated by this project were calcu-
lated in order to determine what site related improvements, if
any, will be required. As stated, the Sunday traffic generated
by the church shall be analyzed to determine what site related
impacts a:-:e created by the church. The weekday A.M. and P.M.
church related volumes are to be combined with the residential
volumes in order to determine what off-site improvements are
necessary.
Thus, for the purposes of this Anal ysis, both the weekday
A.M. and P.M. peak hour volumes and the Sunday peak hour volumes
shall be analyzed. The peak hour volumes were calculated based
upon generation rates obtained from "Trip Generation". A summary
of the expected peak hour generation is shown below:
GENERATION PEAK HOUR
A.M. RATE GENERATION IN OUT
Multi-Family 0.532 trips/du 102 16 86
Church 0.108 tripsllOOO sf -.2 .-l .-l
TOTAL 104 17 87
P.M.
Multi-Family 0.672 trips/du 129 86 43
Church 0.641 trips/lOOO sf --D- -1 -2
TOTAL 142 93 49
SjJNDA'l
Church 8.35 trips/lOOO sf 167 70 97
-8-
-- --._._---~--_._------~ ~---------_._-_._--
The weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour volumes at the project
entrances with Knuth Road are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The
Sunday peak hour vol urnes for t11e church are shown in Figure 7.
Shown in Figures 8 and 9 are the project volumes at the intersec-
tions of Congress Avenue with Woolbright Road and S.W. Congress
Boulevard and the intersection of Knuth Road and Woolbright Road.
A review and an analysis of the volumes shown in Figures 5
through 9 were performed based upon the procedures in the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual. From these analyses, shown in APPENDIX
E, the following roadway improvements are recommended:
a. a separate left turn and right turn lane,
north approach, on Knuth Road at the
intersection of Woolbright Road
b. separate left turn and right turn lanes,
east approach, on S.W. Congress Boulevard
at the intersection of Knuth Road
c. left turn lane north approach on Knuth
Road at the intersection of S.W. Congress
Boulevard
d. left turn lane, north approach on Knuth Road,
at the intersection with future Woolbright Road
In addition, the following improvements will be required in
order to provide adequate access to the site:
e. construct S.W. Congress Boulevard as a two lane
collector road from its present terminus,
westerly to Knuth Road
f. construct Knuth Road as a two lane collector
road from future Woolbright Road to the
site's north property line
- 9-
111\....1 tlI,PJtOQAAI'tfICII :113140
r-------
I
I
I ~
.,-
L__\. e ---
01::1
71
k. s. rogers, consulting
engineer, inc.
west palm beach, fl.
w
::E
:J
..J
0 0
> >
..J 00:
lD z:J
wO
0:1:
w~
...J<C W
W >
en a.. <C
en
w co
0:
C) !
Z ,
0
u
w
!::
en
t")
.
\. '-e
--If
II
II
II
coo ~~ 110.-
_) \. L._____--ll) \. '-0
lS- H.lnN>l 0--'
6<:-
---I I--
I I
I I
I
I-
:I:
C)
0:
lD
..J
o
o
~
"
"
,
ON SITE AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
date
APR 90
figure
5
IlIlll".lllIr~"OOIlll"~NIC' ]U,.O
r-------
I
I
I -
L (\I '-
--\ ct> ---
a~
J1
k. s. rogers, consulting
engineer, inc.
west palm beach, fl.
w
:E
::::l
...J
0
0 >
> a:
...J c::::l
m ZO
w:I:
,,~
w<
..Jw W
0-
>
en <
en .....
w (')
a: \..
C)
z
0
u
w
t:
en
---I I--
I I
I I
I
---'i
II
II
II
J b~ '-~
(\I
(\I
\. '- ct>
'-~
-6t>
L__
.....(\1
(')
-) \
g~-
g~-
H.LnN>I
t-
:I:
C)
a:
m
...J
o
o
?;
'\.
'"
..
ON SITE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
date
APR 90
figure
6
"Ill"'" ...,ItOCI""~' 1""'0
w
::E
:J
..J
0 0
> >
..J C~
a:l
ZO
WJ:
C:Il::
W<
...JW W
a.. >
UJ <
UJ (0
W .
0:: I
C) \.
z
0
()
W
t:
(J)
at:!
Hl.nN:>I
r------- ---I ,-- ---'i
I I I II
I I I "
I II
(') I 11(')(0
L .... '-g ·
-- ---- - ---\ L---__--.Jl) \ '-e~
...
J:
C)
0::
a:l
..J
o
o
;:
J1
"
"
..
k. s. rogers, consulting
engineer, inc.
west palm beach, fl.
ON SITE SUNDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
date
APR 90
figure
7
.,1"'" .....ItOOb~. JU'.O
w
>
<
............
1I)0)t--
..,. II) (?
=.....~ '- (LOE)O
""..,.0 -(6~S)0
) t 'reLe)V
(~01l')1l'~.../ ~ I (
(9~~~)0~- ............
(9 ~ H " ;;; ~ ~
3^'"
0'''......
NO""
............... '- (~ )0
o 00 -(999)0
) t '\ ~ (LZ )~
SS3~mNO~ 1l'~ 0 - '\. I ~
(LSE~H- lTI
(SE )9 "' 'CO';:i:
.... ll)
...........
o ~o~
> (? N
-..l
lD
. ~';"o
,... ,...
f-
I
C)
0:
lD
-..l
o
o
rJ) ~
r------- ---1 ,- -l --,
I I i II I
I 'I ,I,j
I I I C;; ~
II II 010
L_________---' L___-1~_) I
(S~ )S~../ "\
(9 )9", "N
....,...
W
l-
(/)
Ot:f
HlnN>I
...
..........
"'0
71
'-
~
k, s. rogers, consulting
engineer, inc.
west palm beach, fI.
OFF SITE AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
~---~ -- "-_._'--_._----~-~-_.__._"-~---_.._-
5:2
IL
IL
<
0:
l-
f-
o
W
-,
o
0:
Il..
o
IL
IL
<:(
0:
f-
~o
ILW
ILf-
<0
O:w
f-,
f-O
000:
ZWIl..
W'(?
~00)
wO:O)
...Ill.....
....
(?o
(?...
....
.....
date
APR 90
figure
8
aLIA.' JJI.~~' ]12'''0
3^,'
SS31::JONO::>
...............
"'0"-
(\!
............ "- (9 )0
000 --U69~)~
) t \. 1""'"(9 ~ ~)9
(6E )0- " ~ (
(&.lE~H~ .....,.......
(lO~)~E-.. ;;o~
..................
o COOC\!
>..- ....
..J
m
w
>
<
,..
.....10.....
~O)~
~U)~ "-(ElE)O
10 C'II 0 - (9 ~ 9 ~)O
) I \. r (99 )E~
(09E)l J ~ ~ (
(O~O ~)9 - ...............
(9E )E _ ........-
"' ... Ill) Ill)
..........-
C'IIo)!o
l-
I
CJ
a:
m
..J
o
~ 0
rn ~
---1"- -l -~
II \ [I I
I II II ~~i
I II" ~=
I I 100
L_________---' L___-.J......_) l
(H )H-"'" '"
(~ )~ -.. Ga)
C'II
....C'II
100
Ol::J
J1
k. s. rogers, consulting
engineer, inc.
west palm beach, fl.
w
t:
(/)
H.lnN>I
'\.
'\.
OFF SITE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
o
u..
u..
.:(
a:
l-
I-
o
W
-,
o
a:
0..
+
o
u..
u..
<
a:
I-
00
U:W
u..1-
<0
a:w
1--'
1-0
oa:
wo..
o -'M
zOO)
wa:O)
CJ 0.. ...
W .....
...I C'II~
....10
....
date
APR 90
figure
9
CONCLUSIONS
This proposed 192 unit multi-family development and 20,000
square foot church are expected to generate an average of 1,498
trips per day upon full buildout and occupancy of the project.
However, for the purposes of applying the 1990 Code, only
the 726 trips per day which are in excess of the 770 trips per
day which have been previously approved for this site shall be
considered.
It was found that one roadway link in the project study area
was expected to have volumes in excess of capacity. That link is
Golf Road, between Congress Avenue and Military Trail. It is
believed that in actuality, the volumes on this link of Golf Road
will decrease upon the opening of the missing link of Woolbright
Road between Congress Avenue and Military Trail. Because this
cannot be proven at this time, it is found that this proje~t can
still meet the standards of approval because this project (1) is
expected to generate less than 1% of the capacity of the roadway
and (2) that there have not been other projects approved which
will have a total increase in traffic of more than 5% of capaci-
ty. Thus, accordi ng to ARTICLE V, Sectio:) 1 (A) ( 2) of the 1990
Code, this project can be approved.
It has been concluded that this project meets the Link
Buildout Test and the Model Test. Therefore, this project can be
approved in accordance l.Jith the 1990 Palm Beach County Traffic
Performance Standards Ordinance #90-7.
-10-
APPENDIX
--. --_.~_.----_._.~-------~~--------_.__.,------~..
APPENDIX A
ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE
(AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC)
ROADWAY
Two Lane
Four Lane Divided
Five Lane Undivided
Six Lane Divided
Eight Lane Divided
Six Lane Freeway
I-PD
13,700
30,200
30,200
46,300
60,000
110,700
APPENDIX B
ONE PERCENT (1%) OF THE
ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE
MINIMUM VOLUME
THOROUGHFARE TYPE (TRIPS PER DAY)
Two Lane 137
Four Lane (Divided) 302
Five Lane (Undivided) 302
Six Lane (Divided) 463
Eight Lane (Divided) 600
Six Lane (Expressway) 1107
APPENDIX C
HISTORICAL GROWTH CALCULATIONS
ROAD/LINK
BOYN7CN BEACH BLVD.:
Old Boynton Rd-Congress Ave.
Congress Ave-Knuth Road
TARA OAKS PUD
ANNUAL
GROWTH
RATE
8.5%
6.7%
WOOLBRIGHT ROAD (SW 15th Ave):
1-95-Congress Avenue 6.55%
Congress Ave-Military Trail 6.55%
GOLF ROAD (SW 23rd Ave):
1-95-Congress Avenue
Ccngress Ave-Military Trail
CONGRESS AVENUE:
old Bynt Rd-Bynt Bch Blvd.
Bynt Bch Blvd.-Woolbright Rd.
Woolbright Rd-Golf Road
Golf Road-Lake Ida Road
3.98%
13.9%
11.5%
9.82%
8.4%
8.4%
1989
MDT
31,972
27,365
1990
MDT
34,690
29,215
1991
MDT
37,638
31, 190
1992
MDT
40,837
33,298
1993
MDT
44,308
35,549
20,902 22,271 23,730 25,284 26,940
1,015
9,036 9,396 9,770 10,158 10,563
10,528 11,991 13,658 15,556 17,719
29,808
25,170
25,170
22,340
33,236
27,642
27,284
24,217
37,058
30,356
29,576
26,250
41,320
33,337
32,060
28,455
46,071
36,611
34,753
30,845
APPENDIX D
MAJOR PROJECT TRAFFIC - TARA OAKS PUD
WINCH KNUTH RD
~EPARED: 03/30/90 FOR: 1993 PAGE 1.01
==================================================================================================================================
CAMBR IDGE INDIAN SPR MOTOROlA QUANTUM PA ABERDEEN
PARK INGS RK
lAD EXIST 10i. OF
Llli< It OF EXIST
FRI)1 TO LANES CAPCTY TOTALS
IYNTIJ4 BEACH BW.EVARD
1-95 OLD BOYNTON ROAD 4LD 3000 * * * * * 0
--OLD BOYNTON ROAD CONSRESS AVENUE 6LD 4640 * * * * * 0
CONGRESS AVENUE LAWRENCE ROAD 6LD 4640 * t t t t 0
ClJ) BOYNT~ ROAD
BOYNTON BEACH BLVD. CONGRESS AVENUE 2L 1310 * * * 5b3 * 0
CONGRt:SS AVENUE KNUfH ROAD :L 3000 * * * * * r1
'40lBRIGHT ROAD
1-95 CONGRESS AVENUE 4LD 3000 * * * f * 0
CONGRESS AVENUE LAWRENCE ROAD 2L 1310 1512 f * f * 1512
~D AVE S (BOYNTON)
1-95 CONGRESS AVENUE 2L 1310 * * * * * I)
CONGRESS AVENlI: MILITARY TRAIL 2l 1310 * * * * * 0
[LITARY TRAIL
BOYNTON BEACH BLVD. WOOLBRIGHT ROAD 4LD 3000 * 1975 * * * 0
- WOOLBR I GHT ROAD GOLF ROAD 4LD 3000 * 1925 * * * 0
uJNGRESS AVENlE
NW 22 ND AVENUE OLD BOy~r"ON ROAD 4LD 3000 * * * 3493 * 3493
OLD BOYNTON ROAD BOYNTON BEACH BLVD. 4LD 3000 * * * 2592 * 0
BOYNTON BEACH BLVD. WOOlBRIGHT ROAD 6LD 4640 * * t * * 0
WOOLBRIGHT ROAD GOLF ROAD 6LD 4640 * * * * * 0
'- GOLF ROAD LAKE IDA ROAD 4LD 3000 * * * * * <)
* - Volume loess Than 107. at Proj:?Ct. s Sui Id-Out
APPENDIX E
10-34
URBAN STREETS
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS
Page 1
Location: ~A6/~;b Au5 ~ SJU ,a:.,v61$SS '::L.ut> Name:
TrH~n c?/'f-rrS; PVD
HOURLY VOLUMES
Grade _ %
8
N
....
Vo 'i!.
V 5 rb~';'
V 4 :2'7
N =[Z]
)1.1
/'35'7
3~
VI
V2
V3
)
(
Grade _ %
Grade _ %
..
major road
.c"C",,/~.-:Sss flt/F
't 11 (FSlOPO'
N=m V7VSVq YIELDO
IJ1~
minor road
Sk.J ~6~.s.::..- /SlU:::;;'
Date of counts: /9-9 ~
Time Period: f"fr';? ?6r~
Average Running Speed:
PHF:
tIc"'i~
Grade _,%
VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS
Movement No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (vph) 'If ,[3/ / 0 ~? ,::,:.
Vol. (pcph), see Table 10-1 IS ::::? '22-
VOLUMES IN PCPH
~ 2LQ-L L
!J~l ~ NA
v12 vll vlO V
/) NA
) ~: .. ~
(
IS-
NA
NA
VI
.. v2
')3
v, r'n
/~9 ..L- ~
UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS
10-35
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2
STEP 1: RT From Minor Street r Vq j VI2
Conflicting Flows, V, 1/2VJ+V:=Ve9 1/2 Vo + V5 = Vel 2
..L1L + .!iJZl. = ~g/ vph -L-+~= 7~tI vph
Critical Gap, T, (Tab. 10-2) ~~.-- (sec) 5,S" (sec)
J' .~ .
Potential Capacity, c., (Fig. 10-3) c~~ = h~~ pcph epn = pr;.o pcph
r
Perc~nt of c" L1tilized (vQ!crq) X 100 = 3/ C; % (VldCpI2) X 100 = 2.0 %
Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) Pq = C?? P1!= C:'lB
Actual Capacity, cm cmQ = cp" = fo#~ pcph Cml2 = Cpl2 = 81:>0 pcph
STEP 2: LT From Major Street t V4 .-J VI
Conflicting Flows, V, V J + V! = V C4 V6+Vs=Ve1
~+~= ~fl vph ~+:22'3 = ;:;"2:;- vph
Critical Gap, T, (Tab. 10-2) ~~ (sec) S,S (sec)
Potential Capacity, cp (Fig. 10-3) cp4 = ~ peph cpl = i3rf,o pcph
Percent of cp Utilized (v4/cp4) X 100 = ?'.'8 % (VI/Cpt) X 100 = /.7 %
Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) P = 0. 9-7 P = C. q9
4 1
Actual Capacity, Cm Cm4 = cp4 = ~'3C' peph Cml = Cpl = e:;,.o pcph
STEP 3: TH From Minor Street t V8 l VII
Conflicting Flows, V, 1/2V )+V:+V I+Vo+V5+V4=Ve8 1/2V6+Vs+V 4+V 3+V 2+V I=Vell
~+ ~~'3 +~+ -L- + 21'3 +22-+
--2.-+~+~= 75/ vph 3.:L+~+~='/67 vph
Critical Gap, T, (Tab. 10-2) /:::;,~ (see) ~,5 (sec)
l-'otent:al C<:'/,acity, cp (Fig. 10-3) cp~ = ~.;o pcph Crll = ......,;',;,; ~-:- pcph
~ ......;;,
Percent of cp Utilized (v~/cp~) X 100 = ~g % (vlI!cp,,) X 100 = /' .-' %
<- ..."
Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) P - c"';99 PII = /'C
~-
Actual Capacity, cm cmll = cp8 X P I X P 4 Cmll = Cpll X PI X P4
'32'7 = g~cJ X '''';;~:;' = 3'3S- X
C/j(; X ~. q:-"7 (pcph) ..,~, I1 X ,;:.", 9 .., (pcph)
STEP 4: LT From Minor Street lV7 Lv10
Conflicting Flows, V c VCR (step 3) + VIl + VI! = Ve7 Veil (step 3) + Vg + V9 = VelD
.:Z:S:.L + -2- + ~ = -??~ vph 76"7+~+ ;;,'C/:!= c?'7t-/ vph
Critical Gap, Te (Tab. 10-2) ~.C;- (see) t'~. ~J~ (sec)
Potential Capacity, cp (Fig. 10-3) cp7 = 3 'IS" pcph cp10 = 2~S- pcph
Actual Capacity, cm cm7 = cp7 X P I X P 4 X P II X P 12 Cm10 = CplO X P4 X PI X Ps X P9
325 =..2irx t7. c;<; X /"74 = ~) X c..::J"7X
a '1'7 X J. CJ X c:?':;; B(pcph) Co 9'1 X t.? '1 q X ....:::.22 (pcph)
10-36
URBAN STREETS
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3
SHARED-LANE CAPACITY
vi+v, where 2 movements share a lane
cSti =
(v,/cm,) + (v/cm,)
v-:, + vi + vk where 3 movements share a lane
CSH=
(v, /cmJ + (v/cm,) + (Vk/Cmk)
MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, 9
Movement v(pcph) cm(pcph) csH(pcph) cR = CSH - v LOS
7 /'2~ 3:2'5" 3:2~ Itf? l:;)
8 I 32'"") ,~J.I? :2;27 )~~~ <?~ A 15
9 20b 6'1s: IJ k/.i5 ~ #"2,C; /-l
MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10, 11, 12
Movement v(pcph) cm(pcph) csH(pcph) cR = CSH - v LOS
10 / /?9 /?Cf /76 L:>
11 t::/ g'22 )707 3:22 7~S" -s:2? r! 8
12 8~o ) ~)
2~ ~~{..... ..' e3<'i3
MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS I, 4
Movement v (pcph) cm (pcph) cR = cm - v LOS
1 /5" ~~(,., /q~5 ;:;
4 3~ G'30 ~C)i'" I~
COMMENTS:
- ~._---_._~-----~-----------~._---~_._--_._..,....-
10-34
URBAN STREETS
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS
Page 1
.
Location: c,-.,u,4?a;.<;;:, /tV,.;:' ~ ~ /2?~(" /~~~ Name: I?97?!A O~ :;:::=t.h~
HOURLY VOLUMES
Grade _ %
8
N
....
Vb e
V 5 /891
V4 //5"
N=0
'3Q
1'3'7/
10"
VI
V2
Vl
)
(
Grade _ %
Grade _ %
..
major road
~N'~<;'<:: AVENulf:
) 1 t rrsrop~
N =0 V7 Vs V9 YIELD 0
~l~
minor road
.s w C'oMd R€"SS 3l1lO
Date of counts: /99'3
Time Period: ;:n, P6='~
Average Running Speed:
PHF:
~.?
Grade _ %
VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS
Movement No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume (vph) 8 B; 0 ::;# 1 C 1."7
Vol. (pcph), see Table 10-1 91 C7 9! / 0 '30
VOLUMES IN PCPH
~ jTl ~~
v12 VII VIO V
b NA
) ~:. /?~
(
~9
NA
NA
VI
.. V2
~l
V7 Vs V9
1
t2!L .::L .:fl
UNSIGNALIZEO INTERSECTIONS
10-3S
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSEcTIONS Page 2
STEP 1: RT From Minor Street rVq J V12
i
Conflicting Flows. V, 1/2V3+V2==V,9 1/2Vb+V5==V'12
5!L..I...~== 5#'1 vph I-L+~==, (}.-37 vph
Critical Gap. T, (Tab. 10-2) S":S" (see) -:;' ~ (sec)
Potential Capacity. cp (Fig. 10-3) cr9 == 7'7-r::J pcph ,Cp12 = 5''30 pcph
Percent of e~ Utilized (Vll/Cp9) X 100 == Ff.'2 % i (v\2/cl'd X 100 == 5:'? %
,
Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) P'l == t!? 9~ PI' == 67. q,?
, -
c == c == 7;i?c7 I sgo
Aetual Capacity, cm m'l 1'9 pcph ; cmU == Cpl2 == pcph
STeP 2: LT From Major Street t V~ -3 VI
:
Conflicting Flows. V, V J + V l = V c. I
Vb+V5==VeI
.6Z:2. + ~ == bOO vph --.CL+~= 6#1 vpil
.
{;~ i $,~
Critical Gap, T,. (Tab. 10-2) (see) i (sec)
Potential Capacity, cp (Fig. 10-3) cp~ == $0 pcph c = 5?S- pcph
1'1
Percent of c1' Utilized (v Jcp~) X 100 == L'~. I % . (VI/Cpl) X 100 == El.'2 %
Impedance Factor. P (Fig. 10-5) P == &1.,q*/ P == .:::J. eft?
~ I
Actual Capacity. cm cm~ == cp~ == S'"5V pcph cml == cpl == G25"' pcph
I
STEP 3: TH From Minor Street t Vs 1 VII
,
Conflicting Flows, v, 1/2V 3+V 2+V I+V b+V5+V~=V,s , 1/2V b+V 5+V~+V 3+V z+V I=V 'II
54 +!:l.!l:3- + ~ + ..L + b:1. + /'27 +
--B- + f.r3'3 +.L:2.:L == LW- vph I i.ZL + ..!!t1:l.. + ..!!.:l.- == ~Io'1 vph
1
Critical Gap. T, (Tab. 10-2) ~.5 (sec) ~.S (see)
Potential Cap.:dty. cp (Fig. 10-3) cpll = I~o pcph 'I'll == ;/0 p'ph
Percent of cp Utilized (Vll/'pll) X 100 == /). r7 % I (Vll/Cpll) X 100 == c.c %
i
Impedance Factor, P (Fig. 10-5) P == /.v" PII == /. _"J
If
Actual Capacity. cm cmK = cps X PIX P ~ 'mil == Cpll X PI X P~
/ t:'5" - .'(~O X gq == /iC) X
~.cJb X :;.;B4 (pcph) ;;,.'~ '"f[",. X .r. a~ (pcph)
STeP 4: LT From Minor Street lV7 Lvlo
Conflicting Flows. V, V,p. (step 3) + VII + V,2 == V'7 Veil (step 3) + Va + Vq = V'IO
~+~+~= /g'qSvph /'1'07+--'2-+ 51 == /"~';'vph
Critical Gap. Tc (Tab. 10-2) .0.<; (see) .P.S; (see)
Potential Capacity, cp (Fig. 10.3) Cp7 = 1:25' pcph '1'10 == /r5" pcph
Actual Capacity, cm cm7 = Cp7 X PI X P4 X PlI X P12 CmlO == cplO X P ~ X PI X Ps X p..
98 = I~S" x.2.!lJz.. X 81 = /~-X~X
~ X L.fL X ..?2i2 (pcph) ~X /0 X ;;.~.l~(pcph)
10-36
URBAN STREETS
WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3
SHARED-LANE CAPACITY
v\+vj where 2 movements share a lane
CSH=
(v,/cm.) + (v/cm,)
V1' + Vi + vk where 3 movements share a lane
CSH=
(v, /cmi) + (v/cmj) + (vJcmk)
MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7, 8, 9
Movement v(pcph) cm(pcph) csH(pcph) cR = CSH - v LOS
7 ;:Bq tlfJ 98 q E
h
8 f"'!') 1.95" ) &5"? / ()c:;; Sq, /.05 A :)
. 9
Sq 7;;?'O 7:20 /'d(; I ;4
MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10, 11, 12
Movement v(pcph) cm(pcph) csH(pcph) cR = CSH - v LOS
10 I 13; 81 /::50 t::
11 0 g::r ) B9 .;; ':Z "7 gq A E
.p57
12 go ~9o ..I 530 ) Sot.:' A
MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1, 4
Movement v (pcph) cm (pcph) cR = cm - v LOS
1 #3 :S25" ~'8'2 ,A
4 /1;2-'} ~50 .J1"'2 r:s ;4
COMMENTS:
~-------~---------~-----------_.._..
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER
CRITICAL MOVEMENT ANALYSIS
WOOLBRIGHT RD & CONGRESS AVE
DATE 1993 AM
**********************************
LEVEL OF SERVICE B
SATURATION 59
CRITICAL N/S VOL 592
CRITICAL E/W VOL 430
CRITICAL SUM 1022
*************************************
LANE GEOMETRY
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND
LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH
1 RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0
2 T. . 12.0 T.. . 12.0 T. . 12.0
3 T. . 12.0 T.. 12.0 L. . 12.0
4 L. . 12.0 L. . 12.0 . . . .
5 L. . 12.0 L. . 12.0 . . . . . . .
6
WESTBOUND
MOV WIDTH
RT. 12.0
T.. .12.0
I... 12.0
. . .
. . .
. . . . . . .
NORTHBOUND
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
LEFT
THRU
RIGHT
27
519
307
401
1126
18
31
64
42
437
59
145
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
TRUCKS (%)
5
5
5
5
LOCAL BUSES (#/HR)
o
o
o
o
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
.87
.87
.87
.87
PHASING N/S
E/W
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY
CYCLE LENGTH
:4. BOTH TURNS PROTECTED (WITH OVERLAP)
:1. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED
: 1. 0 - 99 (#PEDS/HR)
: 90 SECONDS
CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
..:'HRU -RIGHT 353 505 65 124
LEFT 0 239 0 430
LEFT TURN CHECK
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
:NPUT VOLUME 27 401 31 437
ADJUSTED VOL 0 457 0 430
CAPACITY 0 0 0 59
MOVEMENT N/A N/A OK NO
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER
CRITICAL MOVEMENT ANALYSIS
WOOLBRIGHT RD & CONGRESS AVE
DATE 1993 PM
**********************************
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
SATURATION 82
CRITICAL N/S VOL 991
CRITICAL E/W VOL 410
CRITICAL SUM 1401
*************************************
NORTHBOUND
LANE MOV WIDTH
1 RT. 12.0
2 T. . 12.0
3 T. . 12.0
4 L. . 12.0
5 L. . 12.0
6 . . . . . . .
NORTHBOUND
LANE GEOMETRY
SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND
MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH
RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0
T.. . 12.0 T. . 12.0
T.. 12.0 L. . 12.0
L. . 12.0 . . . . . . .
L. . 12.0 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
MOV WIDTH
RT. 12.0
T.. 12.0
L.. 12.0
. . .
. . . . . . .
WESTBOUND
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
56
1516
373
TRUCKS (%)
5
5
5
5
350
l040
36
77
87
81
432
95
421
LEFT
THRU
RIGHT
LOCAL BUSES (#/HR)
o
o
o
o
PEAK HOUR FACTOR
.9
.9
.9
.9
N/S
E/W
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY :
CYCLE LENGTH
PHASING
:4.
BOTH TURNS
NEITHER TURN
1. 0
90 SECONDS
PROTECTED (WITH OVERLAP)
PROTECTED
- 99 (#PEDS/HR)
: 1.
.
.
CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT
HRU -RIGHT
LEFT
NORTHBOUND
793
9
SOUTHBOUND
458
19B
EASTBOUND
100
o
WESTBOUND
303
410
LEFT TURN CHECK
-NPUT VOLUME
DJUSTED VOL
CAPACITY
-MOVEMENT
NORTHBOUND
56
19
o
N/A
SOUTHBOUND
350
379
o
N/A
EASTBOUND
77
o
o
OK
WESTBOUND
432
410
203
NO