REVIEW COMMENTS
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-546
TO: Patricia Mathis,
Occupational License Administrator
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden ~
Planning and Zoning Director
DATE: October 16, 1996
SUBJECT: Renewal of Gentleman Jim's Occ. License
With regards to the above-referenced request, and in particular, the potential impact of the recent
rezoning of the subject property to residential use, it was communicated to both the property
owner and business operator at the time of rezoning, that the restaurant operation could continue
in perpetuity contingent upon continued compliance with city regulations which regard
discontinuation of legal, nonconforming uses. Therefore, if the use has been discontinued for
more than six (6) months, it can not be re-established..
TJH:mr
OLLE'ITER. WPD
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-454
TO:
Jim Cherof, City Attorney
Michael Rumpf, Senior Planner (YlZ--
FROM:
DATE:
August 22, 1995
SUBJECT:
Preparation of Ordinances for:
2404 S. Federal Highway-Future Land Use Plan Amendment (LUAR 1195-003)
2404 S. Federal Highway-Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (CPTA 4195-001)
Table 1124 - Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (GPTA 4195-002)
Attached please find for your assistance with preparation of the above-referenced
ordinances, excerpts from respective applications and staff reports, necessary
attachments, and required text for the ordinances pursuant to the Florida Department
of Communi ty Affairs. Please prepare these ordinances in conjunction wi th our
intention to request that first reading be scheduled for September 5, 1995.
,c: Joyce Costello,
Administrative Assistant
KISCX:95-l0RDS.JIK
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-240
THRU:
Chairman a~d~mbers, Planning and Development Board
-J~1A, Q.' ~
Tambri J. Heyd , Planning and Zoning Director
TO:
FROM:
Michael W. Rumpf, Senior Planner
DATE:
June 8, 1995
SUBJECT:
2404 S. Federal Highway - LUAR #95-003, CPTA #95-001
Request for Land Use Amendment/Rezoning and Text Amendment
INTRODUCTION
Joseph G. Salamone, Executive Vice President of Bravo Boynton, Inc., a
Florida Partnership and contract purchaser, is requesting that 1.45
acres of property located on the east side of S. Federal Highway
(currently occupied by Gentleman Jim's Restaurant), directly opposite
S.E. 23rd Avenue be rezoned and that the Future Land Use Plan
designation be amended (see location map in Attachment "A"). The
current land use and zoning on this property is Local Retail
Commercial and C-3 (Community commercial), respectively. To prepare
this property to be assembled with the adjacent property to the east
and developed 'with condominiums, the applicant is requesting that the
property be reclassified to Special High Density (permitted maximum of
20 dwelling units per acre), and rezoned to R-3, Multi-family
Residential. Lastly, in connection with the expansion of the Special
High Density (SH) area, Table #24-site Specific Future Land Use and
Design Considerations-within the Coastal Management support Document
is to be amended to show the acreage for the SH area (Map Area #16)
increased by the 1.45 acres. Table #24 describes the area delineated
for SH and special development regulations intended to both preserve
the site's environmentally sensitive features and to mitigate any
potential impacts generated by development at this higher density. In
brief, the applicant requests these changes to accommodate an overall
residential development through replacement of the less demanded/
valued commercial use, and application of the special maximum density
provision of 20 dwelling units per acre to offset the site specific
development restrictions as required of development within the SH
district pursuant to Table #24, Coastal Management Support Document
(as adopted by Policy 7.9.6). The specific design considerations
include a 150 feet shoreline setback, and southern setbacks which
increase with building height (e.g. 1 & 2 levels-40 feet; 3 levels-75;
and 4 levels-100 feet).
With respect to the text amendment, this amendment is only necessary
to properly maintain the Comprehensive Plan, and specifically, the
description of Map Area #16 which delineates an area immediately to
the north and east of the subject property. Table #24, Site specific
Future Land Use and Design Considerations, of the coastal Management
support Document was adopted into the Plan by Policy 7.9.6, and in
part, describes the size of the area that the special High Density
classification and design recommendations apply to (see map and Table
#24 within Attachment "B"). Logically, if the SH area is expanded to
include the SUbject property, the corresponding recommendations should
apply to the new area, and Table #24 should be revised to accurately
describe the property within Map Area #16.
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS
A plan amendment may follow an abbreviated review schedule as
established by the Florida Department of Community Affairs if the
proposed amendment effects less than 10 acres of property and does not
involve a land use classification with a density exceeding 10 units
per acre. Since the subject amendment involves a density of 20 units
per acre, the proposed map and text amendments are limited to the
standard review procedure which requires apprOXimately 6 to 8 months
to complete.
Memo No. 95-240
-2-
June 8, 1995
The following analysis is provided pursuant to the city's code of
ordinances (Part III-Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Section
9), and Florida law with respect to the transmittal and review of land
use plan amendments. This analysis will focus primarily on
consistency with the City's comprehensive plan objectives, policies
and text, and compatibility of the proposed amendment with the
adjacent properties.
ADJACENT LAND USE AND ZONING
The land use and zoning in the surrounding area varies and is
presented in the table below:
Direction
North
Use
Restaurant
(John Case's Streb's Restaurant)
Zoning
C-3
Northeast/East
Undeveloped
R-3
Southeast/South
Multi-family condominiums
(Hampshire Gardens)
R-3
West
S. Federal Highway (U.S. 1)
N/A
Farther west
Mobil Service Station
C-3
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO SEC. 9.C.7 OF CH. 2, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
This section of the Code of Ordinances requires the evaluation of plan
amendment/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 could result from development
of the property are as follows:
7.a. "WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH
APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES.. .".
Although the Future Land Use Plan is proposed to be amended, the
requests are generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan objectives
and policies, in part, due to the compatibility of the proposed land
use classification with adjacent land uses, the availability of
service capacity, and due to the Comprehensive Plan's projected
surplus of commercial land. This consistency is described by the
following policies and narrative:
policv 1.3.3 - ".. .limit the type, intensity, extent and location
of land uses to those which the traffic generated by same can be
accommodated. . .without exceeding the levels of service set
forth.. ."
Policy 1.4.4 - ".. .limit the type, intensity, extent and location
of land uses to those which can be accommodated by the potable
water system... II
Policy 1.4.5 - ".. .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..."
Policv 1.5.4 - ".. .limit the type, intensity, extent and location
of land uses to those which can be accommodated by the sanitary
sewer system... II
Policy 1.5.5 - ".. .residential densities shall not be increased
above those which were assumed in projecting sewer flows 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..."
Memo No. 95-240
-3-
June 8, 1995
Logically, the evaluation of service capacity is of particular
importance when considering the expanded application of a special high
density area which was not included in the original data and analysis
of the Comprehensive Plan. Analyses on the availability of traffic
and utility facilities have been conducted, which compare service
demands of the current restaurant use with a condominium project (it
should be noted that the utility analysis evaluates the potential
development scenario on the subject property of approximately 20
dwelling units, while the traffic analysis was conducted for a maximum
70-unit condominium project to occupy the entire site to be assembled
from the subject property and the undeveloped property to the east.
The analyses indicate that traffic would be reduced by the proposed
amendment, demand for sanitary sewer would increase slightly, and
capacity exists to serve the increased potable water demands of the
potential project.
With respect to the "reduction of density or intensity elsewhere" as
required by Policies 1.4.5 and 1.5.5, this adjustment is not necessary
given that the proposed increase in facility demands are low and can
be easily accommodated by existing supplies.
1
Policy 1.12.1 - "notify and solicit the comments of the Palm
Beach County Division of Emergency Management and the city's Risk
Management Officer, prior to approving any increase in
residential densities in the Hurricane Evacuation Zone above the
maximum densities allowed in the Coastal Management Element, if
the proposed density increase would result in an increase of 50
or more dwellings."
7
(
Policy 1.12.1 is not applicable as the proposed amendments represent a
maximum possible increase of 29 dwellings (1.45 acres * 20 dwelling
per acre maximum permitted density) above that considered by the
Future Land Use and Coastal Management Elements. The notification
requirements of Policy 1.12.1 are required when 50 dwellings or more
above that recommended by the Comprehensive Plan are approved.
Policy 1.9.1 - "Implement the land use and redevelopment
policies contained within the Coastal Management Element."
Policy 1.13.3 - "Encourage infill development and
redevelopment by adopting and implementing the policies
contained in the Coastal Management Element."
A SH classification was created and recommended by the Comprehensive
Plan to encourage development/redevelopment of the remaining 9.9 acres
of undeveloped, coastal area land in this vicinity (see page 49,
Future Land Use Support Document in Attachment "C"). To mitigate
potential effects of this higher density, the special setbacks, which
increase with building height would apply to these sites if developed
at this higher density. The applicant plans to utilize the special
density provision currently applying to the adjacent property, and is
requesting that this SH classification be extended to the subject
property. Along with the special density provision, the site specifiC
development considerations would also apply to the subject property if
expansion of the overlay zone is approved. The applicant desires to
incorporate the site specific design considerations onto both the area
they currently apply to, and the subject property.
~ Policy 1.19.6 - ".. .do not allow commercial acreage which is
greater than the demand which has been projected, ..."
h.1 \ ~r~.!
l'~
v
Policy 1.19.7 - "In areas where demand for commercial uses will
not increase, particularly in the Coastal Area, subsequent to
Plan adoption change the land use and zoning to permit only
residential.. ."
The replacement of this commercial use with a residential
classification is indirectly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
as the data and analysis projects that land for retail uses will have
Memo No. 95-240
-4-
June 8, 1995
the highest surplus compared to other commercial uses, and the Plan
recommends, where appropriate, the replacement of commercial uses with
residential uses.
The Future Land Use Support Document projects that approximately 142
acres of surplus land will exist for retail uses at build-out.
Although this prOjection was adjusted, in part, in anticipation of it
being "absorbed by an increase in per capita income", which therefore
increased the base demand figure, it still may underestimate the
ultimate surplus given the following Plan amendments which occurred
SUbsequent to Plan adoption: a) the conversion of nearly 30 acres to
commercial use for the Boynton Beach Boulevard and the Knuth Road
Planned Commercial Developments; b) the denial of amending 11 acres
along a segment of Boynton Beach Boulevard from Local Retail
Commercial to Office Commercial as recommended by the Plan; and c) the
amendment of the 30-acre, Hunterrs Run commercial tract to Local
Retail Commercial land use. As a result of these amendments, the
projected 142 acre surplus should be increased to nearly 213 acres of
land designated for retail uses.
Lastly, to further encourage development/redevelopment of coastal
properties, Policy 1.19.7 recommends that selected commercial sites
within the coastal area be amended to residential use contingent upon
a "demand for commercial use which will not increase". staff has not
evaluated commercial demand within this area (e.g. by examining
commercial vacancies, business turnover, or vacant land), but given
the proximity of the SUbject property to vacant waterfront land
designated for a maximum density nearly double that permitted in the
High Density Residential classification, and the proximity of this
commercial use with the nearest major commercial activity center (i.e.
Woolbright Road and U.S. 1), it is arguable that the demand for
residential use of this property may exceed the demand for, or value
of commercial use. It should also be noted that the comprehensive
plan recommends that ideally, commercial uses should be concentrated
at or nearby thoroughfare intersections.
The following additional objectives, policies, and issues addressed
below are either typically referenced by the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), or required by them to be analyzed in the
review of proposed amendments:
Obiective 1.2 - "Coordinate future land uses with soil conditions
so that urban land uses are prohibited in locations where it is
not economical to remove or treat unsuitable soils.. ."; and
Policy 1.2.1 - ". ..prohibit development of urban land uses where
the removal or treatment of unsuitable soils would be
uneconomical, provide that unstable soils shall be removed in all
construction and land development sites where soils would affect
the performance of infrastructure, drainage.. .".
No extreme soil conditions are known to be characteristic of this
property which is already developed. Furthermore, policies such as
those above will ensure the use of proper development techniques.
Obiective 4.4 - "The city shall,. ..protect all remaining areas of
substantial native upland and wetland vegetation and eliminate
undesirable exotic tree species.";
Policy 1.11.14 - ".. .provide for open space preservation by
requiring the preservation of 25% of all "A", "B", and "C" rated
sites...".
There are no environmentally sensitive features on the subject
property; however, the existence of mangroves on and near the property
to the east will warrant appropriate management techniques and
permits. Staff has already surveyed the current condition of the site
to the east, and assisted the applicant with mangrove and exotic tree
identification.
Memo No. 95-240
-5-
June 8, 1995
Obiective 1.11 - ".. . future land uses shall include provisions
for the protection of. ..archaeological resources and historic
buildings.. .".
The City's Comprehensive Plan requires that historical resources and
archaeological sites be preserved and protected. However, the
subject property is developed and, there are no archaeological
amenities known to exist on the remainder of the site to the east.
7.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 THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE.; AND
7.e. "WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH CURRENT
AND FUTURE USE OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTIES, OR WOULD AFFECT THE
PROPERTY VALUES OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.".
With respect to reclassification of the subject property, the proposed
conversion to residential land use and zoning represents a slight
deintensification of the property compared to the current commercial
use, as traffic generation is projected to decrease (only water demand
is anticipated to significantly increase which is not an impact which
directly affects adjacent or nearby properties similar to traffic).
Secondly, the proposed classification is a similar classification to,
or has a similar density of that on all abutting properties except for
the parcel to the north which remains designated for commercial use
(John Case's Strebs Restaurant). As for the compatibility (with
adjacent uses) of the proposed SH classification being extended to the
subject property, the special design considerations that accompany
this area are intended to offset the potential impacts generated by
the higher density that would be experienced by adjacent properties
(namely Hampshire Gardens). As indicated above, based on the number
; of stories ultimately approved for this site, the southern setback
'~ would vary between 40 feet (the standard minimum setback for the R-3
zoning district) for one (1) or two (2) stories to 100 feet for four
(4) stories.
~ Furthermore, residential use is a more compatible classification with
S the adjacent residential area than the existing commercial
classification. The SH district applied to the subject property would
allow a maximum of 15 dwellings more than would be allowed by the
conventional maximum density of 10.8 dwellings per acre. Lastly, it
(should be noted that the relatively higher densities greatly vary
along the City's coastal area, ranging between 18.8 dwellings per acre
I to 45 dwellings per acre, and the actual gross density of the adjacent
Hampshire Gardens Cooperative is 22 dwellings per acre.
7.c. "WHETHER CHANGED OR CHANGING CONDITIONS MAKE THE PROPOSED
REZONING DESIRABLE."
As indicated above and based on the request to rezone the existing
restaurant, the commercial value of this property may be declining.
Lastly, although Policy 1.19.7 suggests the conversion of applicable
commercial properties within the coastal area, the Plan may not have
considered the conversion of the Gentleman Jim's property to
residential use as is necessary to provide needed access to the
waterfront parcel, which has a limited 25 feet of frontage on Federal
Highway.
7.d. "WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH UTILITY
SYSTEMS, ROADWAYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES. II
Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 9J-11 also requires that the
availability of publiC facilities be analyzed in connection with a
proposed amendment to a comprehensive plan, and that the maximum
potential demand upon pUblic facilities be determined. The following
facilities were analyzed in order to ensure that capacity is
available:
Memo No. 95-240
-6-
June 8, 1995
1) Roads: The traffic statement was analyzed by the County who
confirmed that the entire project would represent a reduction of total
generated trips and therefore demand on the immediate roadway network;
2) Water/Sewer: The city's utility Department reviewed the
amendment and indicated that water and sewer capacities are
to serve the maximum demands to be generated on this site.
demand for sanitary sewer facilities will remain relatively
the demand for potable water is projected to increase from
approximately 129,000 gallons per month to 258,000 gallons per month.
This review also indicated that residential development will require
that fire (water) flow requirements be brought to current standards,
which may require off-site improvements at the developer's expense. It
is recommended that a fire flow test be conducted in order to
determine the current available fire flow to the site;
proposed
available
While the
unchanged,
3) Solid Waste: The Solid Waste Authority reviewed this request and
does not object to the proposed amendment as ample capacity exists to
serve the future solid waste collection and disposal needs generated
on this site. This limited, non-quantitative review by the Solid
Waste Authority is provided through a standard letter that they
request be used for facility review until subsequent notice is
received from them;
4) Drainage: An analysis of drainage facilities was not conducted;
however, ultimate development of the site must comply with both
drainage requirements within the Plan as well as those imposed by the
appropriate district/authority; and
(; :)
,,-y
IS~G
5) Recreation: Extension of the SH classification represents an
increase of 29 dwelling units above that considered in the
Comprehensive Plan, which equates to an estimated 45 persons, or 29
units multiplied by 1.53 persons per unit (1.53 is the average persons
per household in this census tract, 1990 Census).
a) NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS - Neighborhood park levels of service will
likely be met on site given the anticipated age of the future
residents, and the minimum facilities to be included in the
project. As with nearly all comparable coastal area
developments, at a minimum, on site recreation facilities will
likely include open space, a swimming pool anduudock--f-aGi14t.ies.
Furthermore, a recreation impact fee will now be collected at the
site plan review stage rather than during plat review, which will
contribute to the construction/improvement of recreation
resources which serve this area. With respect to the collection
of land or money in lieu of, with the close proximity of Jaycee
Park, and the proximity to u.S. 1, this site is not ideal for a
small neighborhood park, but rather money should be collected in
lieu of land which could be possibly contribute to improvements
to Jaycee Park.
b) DISTRICT PARKS - Regarding the district park level of service
capacity, the surplus of district park space was calculated at
over 13 acres on July 6, 1994. According to the level of service
standard for district parks, 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons, this
13.76 acres will serve an additional 5,504 residents. It should
be noted that the City, at most, has grown by approximately 600
to 900 persons since conducting this previous analysis.
c) RECREATION FACILITIES - As of July 6, 1994 four of the
eighteen categories of facilities had the minimum number of units
as required by the corresponding level of service standards.
However, these facility categories include single facilities
which serve large population groups such as practice fields (1
field per 10,000 persons) youth baseball/softball fields (1 field
per 17,500 persons), and regulation baseball fields (1 field per
35,000 persons). All other facilities have surpluses ranging
between 2 (shuffleboard courts) and 10 (racquetball courts)
units/facilities.
Memo No. 95-240
-7-
June 8, 1995
7.f. "WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS PHYSICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY DEVELOPABLE
UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING.";
With respect to residential conversion of the subject property, since
the property is already developed there are not likely any unique
physical constraints which would limit redevelopment. As for economic
feasibility, the subject property is not undevelopable as currently
zoned and classified. However, as indicated in this report, there may
currently be factors which create greater demand for residential use
than commercial use of this property, particularly given the
availability of land for assemblage which facilitates waterfront
development. With respect to extension of the SH area, rather than
the application of the conventional High Density Residential
classification, the applicant indicates that a density in between 10.8
dwellings per acre and the maximum for the SH classification (20
dwellings per acre), is necessary given the application of the
restrictive setbacks on the parcel to the east. Although staff is
unable to confirm the potential economic necessity of the SH
classification on the subject property, it is possible that the plan
assumed the planned development of the entire area designated for the
new SH classification. This assumption would be consistent with
general comprehensive plan policies that encourage land assemblage as
it prevents isolated uses and conserves natural and man-made
resources. Also, more efficient infrastructure can be designed for
assembled parcels as compared to small parcels developed for stand
alone uses that cannot benefit from shared improvements.
&-;> ;
JI'~<ij
7.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."
Criteria for evaluating the relationship between the proposed
amendments and development related to the needs of the neighborhood
and the City include service demands, density, use, value, and
accomplishment of, and consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies.
As indicated above, ample capacity exists to serve the maximum
potential service needs of this proposed project, the maximum density
is less than that of the adjacent Hampshire Gardens Cooperative. and
midway between the densities existing on larger coastal area
developments within the City. The requests would comply with the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan through the residential development
of this coastal area and the preservation of the waterfront,
mangroves, and adjacent property values (through application of the
more stringent design standards). As already indicated, extension of
the SH area would allow for the addition of 29 dwelling units beyond
that recommended by the Plan (based on the current 9.9 acres
designated for SH), and an increase of only 13 dwelling units above
that if the subject property were developed for multi-family housing
in accordance with the C-3, Community Commercial district or with the
High Density Residential classification and R-3, Multi-family
Residential district (both limit maximum density to 10.8 dwellings per
acre) .
7.h. "WHETHER THERE ARE ADEQUATE SITES ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY FOR THE
PROPOSED USE, IN DISTRICTS WHERE SUCH USE IS ALREADY ALLOWED."
It should be noted that the C-3, Community Commercial zoning district
permits multi-family uses limited to 10.8 dwellings per acre; however,
staff typically recommends that a residential use utilize the
appropriate residential zoning district, and that a single parcel be
unified under one classification and zoning district.
With respect to alternative locations, there are certainly other sites
which would allow condominium development, including those zoned C-3,
Community Commercial, R-3, High Density Residential, Central Business
District, and the newly created MX or Mixed Use district (which allows
a maximum density of 40 dwellings per acre). However, although there
are likely vacant or partially vacant properties within appropriate
districts, these areas may not include waterfront properties, would
require greater land assemblage, and would lack direct visibility from
U.S.!.
Memo No. 95-240
-8-
June 8, 1995
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Department recommends that the applications
submitted by Joseph G. Salamone for High Density Residential land use,
extension of the Special High Density overlay district, and R-3 (High
Density Residential) zoning be approved, based on the following:
1. The proposed amendments and zoning would be consistent with
Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies;
2. The proposed amendments would not be contrary to the established
land use pattern, nor would they create an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, and nor would it
constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property
owner;
3. The requested land use and zoning would be compatible with
capacities of utility systems, roadways, and other public
facilities;
4. The proposed land use and zoning would be compatible with the
current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties and,
would not affect the property values of adjacent or nearby
properties;
5. The proposed land use and zoning are of a scale which is
reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the city
as a whole; and
6. The expansion of the adjacent Special High Density classification
onto the subject property is consistent with encouraging
development of property under one unified classification and
zoning district.
MISCVIII'2101.REP
MEMORANDUM
UTILITIES DEPT. NO. 95 - 114
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning Di
FROM:
John A. Guidry, Utilities Director
DATE:
March 27, 1995
SUBJECT: Impact of rezoning - 3.5 acre parcel including Gentleman Jim's
Based upon conversations between Peter Mazzella and Michael Rumpf of your
office, we project a potential potable water use of 8,600 gpd (258,000 gallons per
month) for the 20 apartment units that may be constructed at that site. In
conversations with one of the owners, Mr. Salomone, his current water usage for
the restaurant ranges from 81,000 - 129,000 gallons per month. The residential
development would therefore create an increased demand for potable water.
Based upon sanitary sewer usage of 90 gpcd, we can also forecast a sewer usage of
3,870 gpd, or 116,100 gallons per month, which correlates closely to the current
usage.
In view of these assumptions, this utility has sufficient reserve capacity to
accommodate the additional demand. The residential development will require that
fire flow requirements be brought to current standards, which may require some off-
site improvements at the developer's expense. We recommend the applicant have
fire flow tests conducted to ascertain the available fire flow to the site at this time.
Please refer any questions on this matter to Peter Mazzella of this office.
JAG/PVM
bc: Peter Mazzella
xc: Skip Milor
Michael Rumpf, Planning
File
'.m~. '. ~ @ ~~U~.Jrr.. ;;1.1".
I Ii ...---'~' \I \ I
11'1 ,,>I
lin i Ilnil ') q .
, ' ~ ij ~ (',,', L '"
th
VI. RLDEVELOPMENT NELUS
Redevelopment a=eas are defined as those areas which are either
characterized by the prevalence of obsolete structures or by obsolete
~roperty ownership and land use patterns. There are two major areas of
Boynton Beach which require redevelopment: First, the Coastal Area,
which consists pri~arily of the area lying east of the Florida East Coast
Railway; second, the neighborhood bounded by The FEC Railway on the east,
the Boynton (C-161 canal on the north, Interstate 95 on the west, and
Ocean Avenue on the south. The residential neighborhoods which lie to
the north of the Boynton canal, and between Ocean Avenue and Woolbright
Road contain a substantial number of single-family dwellings with minor
deter1o,'ation, however, virtually all of these dwellings al'e structurally
sound and are located on adequately-sized lots. Therefore, these
neighborhoods have not been classified as requiring redevelopment,
although the improvement of housing conditions in these neighborhoods lS
warranted. Housing rehabilitation in these two neighborhoods is
discussed in detail in the Housing Element support Documents.
coastal Area
The coastal Area extends the entire length of the City along the
Intracoastal Waterway, and encompasses all land east of the Florida East
Coast Railway. The exact boundaries of the Coastal Area are delineated
in the coastal Management Element support Documents. The parcels which
front on U.S. Highway 1, and the segments of Boynton Beach Boulevard and
Ocean Avenue which extend westward, comprise the original commercial
center of the city. Existing conditions are described in detail in the
Coastal Management Element support Documents, however, the findings of
that element will be summarlzed here. The commercial portions of the
Coastal Area are characterized by a fairly large number of obsolete
structures, and parcels of substandard size. Vacancy rates are fa1rly
low; however, many of the commercial buildings are occupied by marginal
or low-quality tenants, with low rents. Housing in the coastal Area 15
"enerally in good condition, although a few small pockets of deteriorated
Single-family housing exist, mainly along the north end of Old Dixie
IIlghway and in the vicinity of S.E. 21st Avenue. single-family housing
Which is adjacent to the Intracoastal waterway is generally expenslve and
I:; well-maintained, particularly where the lot has access to the
Illtracoastal. MUltiple-family housing (condominiums and cooperatives) 15
'II" dominant form of housing in the Coastal Area, and most of these
'\wnllings are modestly priced, although well-maintained. These dwelllngs
~Ia mainlY occupied by elderly persons living on fixed incomes, which is
"',n reason why the demand for commercial floor space is somewhat limited
I" the Coastal Area.
'" "'-d,er to minimize the number of mal-ginal commercial uses, the Coastac
""'vJe~'''nt Element recommends that the land use on several parcels be
I 'llgecl from commercial to residential. Three of these parcels aloe
It"" 1n t~e vicinity of North Federal Highway, where the land use
"ld I'e changed from commercial to High Density Residential: A
, ,1" I" pare e 1 immediately east of Inlet plaz a, a 2. I-acre parcel to th'?
-, "I Bernard's Restaur:mt, and a 1.9-acre parcel south of Bel'nal'd's
47
)
Restaurant. The third parcel could be combined with the vacant land
which lies to the east, and the mobile home park which lies to the south,
to create a 12 acre parcel on which 130 multi-family units could be
bUllt. TRe-€eas~a!-Ma8a~eme8~-E!emeftt-peeemme8as-~fia~-~ftis-meBi!e-fieme
~aPK-tseaview-~~ai!ep-PapktT-~fie-meBile-fieme-~aFK-wfiiefi-lies-ale8~-~fie
8ep~RePft-ei~y-!iw.i~-tbake-ei~y-TFai!er-pafktT-a8a-~fie-meBi!e-fieme-~aPK-~~
~fte-se~~ftePft-€i~y-iimi~-t6~i~s~Feam-MeBiie-Heme-Papkt-Be-~epmi8a~ea
W:~fti8-5-yeaps-e~-~fie-aae~~ie8-e~-~ftis-~laft~--Elimi8a~i8~-meBiie-fteffie
~afKs-eas~-e~-~fie-FEe-~paeks-is-aesifaBle-Beea~se-e~-~fte-pisk-~fta~-~ftese
fieffies-ape-s~Bjee~-~e-i8-~fie-eve8e-e~-a-ft~Pfiea8eT-afta-Beea~se-eiiffii8a~iR~
meBiie-fteme-~afKs-wiil-ei:mi8a~e-~he-ia8a-~se-ee8~iie~s-eha~-~fteee-~aPKs
efea~e-aHa-wiii-eftee~pa~e-peaeveie~ffieft~~
It is the intent of the Coastal Management Element that high-quality
office, retail, and hotel uses be concentrated in the Central Business
District, which is centered around Boynton Beach Boulevard and U.S. 1.
The City has adopted a Community Redevelopment Plan for the CBD, as well
as zoning regulations and design guidelines. The history and current
status of redevelopment efforts in the CBD are discussed in detail below
under "Community Redevelopment Area 1". In order to encourage commerclal
redevelopment along u.s. 1 north of the CBD, the Coastal Management
Element recommends that the depth of commercial properties be increased
by one lot, if the additional property is developed in conjunction with
the parcels that front on u.s. 1.
The area extending northward from the central Business District, up to
the Boynton Canal presents a number of opportunities for redevelopment to
more intensive uses. Presently, this area is occupied by multiple-family
dwellings immediately north of the CBD, a mixture of single-family
dwellings and vacant parcels between N.E. 7th Avenue and N.E. lOth
Avenue, waterfront townhouses to the north of this single-family
neighborhood, and a single-family subdivision adjacent to the Boynton
Canal. A shallow commercial strip lies along the east side of u.s.
Highway 1.
This area is suitable for redevelopment to more intensive uses, due to
the large amount of vacant land between N.E. 7th Avenue and N.E. lOth
Avenue, the low quality of the commercial land uses fronting on U.S. 1,
the poor state of repair of many of the single-family houses, and the
proximity of this area to the central Business District. Therefore, it
is recommended that those portions of this area which are currently in
the Low Density and High Density Residential land use categories be
placed in a new Mixed Use land use category.
t In order to romote redevelopment in this area, densities up to 40
d~le 1 i acre co 0 e lngs wou be construed to
also mean hotel rooms). Furthermore, residential densities should be
permitted to be applied to parcels, in addition to the commercial
intensity permitted by the city'S development regulations. In order to
ensure that redevelopment projects are compatible with public facilities
in this area, and are compatible with existing land uses, the City should
adopt performance standards for such projects, and should require a
minimum slte area of 2 acres.
48
There is one other portion of the coastal Area in which commercial
redevelopment is desirable. The segment of u.s. 1 near the southern city
limit currently contains a significant number of vacant parcels, obsolete
buildings, and marginal commercial uses. In order to upgrade the
properties fronting on U.S. 1, the coastal Management Element recommends
that the eXisting Local Retail land use category be maintained, rather
than permitting heavy commercial uses. Heavy commercial uses would be
limited to the parcels which front on old Dixie Highway. In order to
absorb some of the commercial acreage along U.S. 1, the Coastal
Management Element recommends that new car sales be allowed on the C-3
zoned property south of old Dixie Highway, on parcels that have a minimum
area of 2 acres.
There are several arcels and areas where increased tial densities
are recommended, in order to encour 1 development. T ere are wo
small parcels, of 1. acres and 1.2 acres, located on t e north side o~
Dimmick Road and at the end of Las palmas Avenue, where it is recommended
that the land use category be changed from Low Density (4.84 dwellings
per acre) to High Density Residential (10.8 dwellings per acre). These
density increases are contingent on limiting development to two-story
townhouses.
In order to encourage infill development south of Woolbriaht Rnad. the
c;a~l Management Element recommenn~ ~hat the density be increasedCln
the largest remaining vacant multiple-family parcels. currently, thJL-
maximum residential densit in the C is 10.8 dwellings er e. ~
Coasta Management Element recommends that a Special Hiq Density land
use category be created a maximum den 't of 2 wellin s r acr
The applicat10n 0 this land use category would be limited to the coastal
Area, however. The arc in e Intracoastal
Waterway and is partlY occupied bv manaroves. Although the manaroves are
rotected b law, it would be possible for this dens it 0 be transfer
to the upland por 10ns of this property. It is also recommended, n this
ement, that residential densities of up to 40 dwellings per acre be
permitted in the CBD zoning district, and that this density be applied in
addition to the commercial intensity which is permitted in the CBD zoning
district.
ny of the existi multi-family ro ects in the Coastal Area exceed he
maximum density which is shown on the Future Lan se an. The High
Density Re' tial categor of the land use plan allows for ~ up
o 10.8 dwplli~g~ per acre. whereas eX1S n mult -famil ro ects have
densitie which an e from 17 to wellings per acre. It is
, ",il'! recQ ement as well as in this ele
';)(of)"'1 that the er etuation of these projects at the r ex s enslties
/t"'.jit5perm reasons: F rs, ecause u e
'-f, ,'>' oastal Area are suffic1en 0 serve these densities; and second, because
JV classifying these densities as non-conforming makes it difficult for
potential buyers of these units to obtain mortgages, which creates a
hardship for the existing owners, who are often elderly persons with
moderate incomes. ~ is not desirable. however, for the City to create
hi he - use categories to accommodate the existing densit of
hese ro'ec be ossible or ro erty owners in
otheL-a,r.aas of the Ci ty tn request the same den~ i tv. Also, the arge
c-----
49
difficult to organize into a coherent, meaningful
would be administratively unworkable. Therefore
use cate ories hich accommodate these densities
s ould be construed to inc ude existing condom' .
1n e- ed pro'ects as c
the existing densities.
erative, and
regard ess of
....,
In order to increase the availability land for marinas and boat storage,
the coastal Management Element has identified several sites where these
uses would be suitable. A 6.8-acre parcel has been identified as a
possible marina/boat storage facility along the northern boundary of the
City. Two sites for ground level boat storage have been identified on
N.E. 4th street, (south of N.E. 22nd Avenue), and on the south side of
N.E. 15th Avenue, adjacent to the FEC tracks. In order to ensure that
the development of these properties is compatible with surrounding land
uses, the Coastal Management Element specifies that the properties must
first be rezoned to Planned Commercial Developments.
All of the land use and zoning changes which have been summarized above
are described in detail under planning Area 1, in Section VIII of this
document. A table which summarizes these changes is included in section
III (Table 24) of the Coastal Management Element support Documents.
Community Redevelopment Area 1: Central Business District
In 1981, the City Commission created a Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) , pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida statutes, and made a finding that
a condition of blight existed within the designated Community
Redevelopment Area. The CRA was directed to prepare a Community
Redevelopment plan in order to increase the economic viablity of entire
area. This plan, which was adopted in 1984, recommended that a Central
Business District (CBD) be established in the core of the Redevelopment
Area. The CBD lies between the Florida East Coast Railway and the
Intracoastal Waterway, and is bounded on the north by N.E. 7th Avenue and
on the south by S.E. 2nd Avenue.
Major goals for the CBD include enhancement of its attractiveness by
requiring streetscape improvements, architectural continuity, and
coordinated signage; using a waterfront orientation to create a unique
retail/entertainment environment; providing pedestrian-scaled amenities;
providing for perpetual pUblic use of a newly created waterfront; and
protection from the negative impacts created by the railroad. The CBD
Plan encourages mixed-use development, including office, retail, service,
financial, restaurant, entertainment, lodging, residential uses, and a
civic center.
critical projects proposed by the Redevelopment plan include a specialty
retail/entertainment area, focused on a marina. A hotel, publiC park,
and a publiC plaza, as well as multi-family residences would also be
located in the vicinity of this marina. Other key elements of plan
include the provision of improved off-street parking, abandonment of
50
,/ ,limr,;h/r~ 60-"Q...",s;
/';,
LC "CJ~
(
Un:73 d3~
r(c le5
10..5-
/)<"h S; iy ,;J::2. <;/,f' / ;"(,, "",
(pJ oJ ~/" ,g',8_5
J"""
tu(jmf.,.~ ",f' '->hifs
(0{ -fl.c
J> (r:J...r>hO',Q f:X
So f..In in-) 0<",
-rh<-
"-!"r"" 076
sv,6j<"",f 'f''Y"of'''-'r-ty
5..<(5" O-c.-~s : ;Lf..s- <')(V~CT"'-
...+
c2)1' ' ,-L] / I f' {r"'c' {"
-" c..--?J~ 9'h '. OJ
'/, /..10;, cC'"Y/t:r<n) J=ns;+Z'cos" L '", ~
, I~ ~ ~
o_() c:a.>-,..fr,_(6,(''''~~
g Kec.,,"<.>-+,OVl
~<:-=:-r-y ( r\.o, "J .:Tv(y
~ :~7r;"'-+ '~/!. ,sV?!.-.so
~ I (1 i.t() "'1-< ~ 1'~ s:S.s-o't"
::>? "
~ 13.7~ o--~.-<:: s. (-rrl')
/"7o-/c.. .
G'"hllq-_,,~~ 0/' ;:./. .1-.(1 0":6r t;rTJ ~ (C-s;<-..<1:" D.
,;; ~ ,,'r'
c:.' d "t x: ..J7 =0 "'Yu '=..." o...,.s
7' f
((''''''S<tlC.~.G,3 frJL..)
/hv,-JVe. ~;'J/c -1=:.-:(-",..-;.:--;. {j"')1't, <L~/().5..5~
-n,d--r ~..rv..... Ll-:,j:.>~' 3S- o:>'P" I.;) c:;..!>..... p~r"'3~.--7"'\-S
y'.-~~L4<./ ,; / ,; ~
S('.r~..cN
./ 0,("~ CO"'v"(..'?'....,,,,,+ Gci-(-f";,,, Tic 'Y)tk.,.Q USe.. ~,~~,','ci {<,7..v,,~
0.... Coyy-.,vY\c,"-\~'-l e~""'"-~V\,,, ~",?" No " ,
(Q..I~w"i\.- il"'-vt-t.'p(' 1'<'1'~('1"\,,~ w~dj) "Rub< *- ~" ~".......'-(~&,
v ,~~ Af- .....::;,1~,f,-"j ~<c 'I J)""<C,,.\: ""("' "',.'s tr G" M.:.. r"', < <,0 '~iJ" f-
"'~-~-t"\.../ ~, ~ C\?, t-":> ~
,j fr/<--(' I'.~ F/~~ cf..&'-'l",~r- -('7 ;P~'f'C~~' ,.{ ucq;J ,S"'fG",'(C,
GeV\e c- ((y, c......~,,-f-( frjrr'. 5 D k...t~ per ?'s
-r: . (' '
T~C ( ,,'T~ C:--s
~-->~ f, (- f rv<._ '^-+
.
Table 21. Non-Conforming Residential Densities
"
Map Plan Existing
Index # Density Density
1 10.8 38.3
2 10.8 40.0
3 10.8 18.1
4 10.8 17.9
5 10.8 29.0
6 10.8 45.7
< f,,' ,. 7c~.fj.. 10.8 30.0
8 10.8 18.0
9 10.8 20.3
"')t :"'~ I, ,~\ ~ii I '''~,.,.. c,....),~.O 10.8 18.6
, ,. ,:',." 11,;. ' 10.8 27.7
, ty.,: .,
. ~ ( " , ".,,' ,', -.,12 10.8 25.4
-' 13'.' 10.8 32.2
C....I(-"'I,,,.f'" I
. ,~, 'V. f (' '.~1 ,.14 10.8 21.0
150 3.0 5.3
160 8.0 8.1
r\(". (t' '-j~:~ t",)
170 8.0 9.7
It
,'.". ,,source: Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc.
~:\' ",.. '., ~"
Redevelopment Potential
Comments
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family: includes
Recreation Area
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Multi-Family
Single Family; County
Density; City Plan
indicales Mod Density
Combination Single and
multi family; County
Density
Single Family
e
Note: Asterisked sites are subject
to potential land use
modification per the
following Table 24.
As stated in the previous discussion, much of the coastal management study area is
characterized by established and stable land uses. Based on a historical observation
of more built-out communities further to the south, coastal area redevelopment will
probably occur on a scattered basis, and only after the regional supply of vacant land
suitable for new fIrst stage development has been effectively diminished. Considering
the available vacant land in both the study area and in the area west of 1-95, the
potential for extensive areawide redevelopment is considered low within the ten-year
planning horizon.
In terms of residential activity, existing mobile home parks and a few underdeveloped
multifamily shoreline properties have the greatest potential for redevelopment. This
potential is highest in Planning Area I due to the proximity of these sites to Lake
Worth and the Boynton Inlet. Substantial renovation or reconstruction of existing
.
-68-
,.. ..."......, ,.. .~
~="o=~ CA .,,~,"'.~, .~~
T.... OF
e
@!
- DaX ~ aF SIm;: IKRE EXISTD5
OENSm EXCEED& RJT\.RE l.NI) \.&: Pl.AN DfJlSm
L.J.I
, ~
;' ,I
-L
.~rj
r I
I r
p ,.
LEGEND
SITE BO..NJARl'
=.-
"
L~
~
...
~L:1
1'------'00
0, .
I
I
I
0'
.
.
~.:....-/
r
TIM< OF
MAiuuP",
I
r
r I
I I
I I
,,:) !
=::;:" j"
...~ .....c:yo-_l
,.... r't
I I
j I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
r
I
i
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
r
I
:
.
:
,
,
.
.
~
"
~
"
~
...
.
.
~
...
.
...-
:It'dO"_,
,,-."'.....-.
FIEil.AE 16 - NQN-CONF~IN6 RESIDENTIAL DENS~T:ES
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
~
~... -
~-~.__._---
----_.._~--
-- -'--~--
----- _."---
---,~-_._-
SOURCE: Watter H. Keller Jr., Inc.
May 1989
--"
............ DE
-"......---..-
-..-'.....
-67-
'^.
'p&R
I
I I
d Ci
Ie
, 0
I 0
I I
~----..,
1/ )
h '
1',-- 'r:.
/ "-i ;
I
I
I
I
I
..,
~~2:-]
I /,,,...,, ",..
r
I
~
/ _.
'----)
/:.,
'--.
,-'
]
I
I
I
/
I
i
T"," OF
OCEAH AIDSE
'.\.c'.".'
, I
!
i
....~If
i i /
I i I
Iii
i!
il
, I
II
, I'
I'
i ,1-,..,.;.
J!; 1
'1-"...
j (.....,
, I
: i'
~+=-
:/
. I
I . I
! : I
I - I
/ ' .
, . I
i ~ i
.
j ~ I
i 'I!
Ii!
Ii!
/ ,/
I II
, ! I
I i I
I'
i I T"," OF
LTRE~..
---'
I """ n
I r-~
UI
~ I
II I
1.......--.1
In"",
~
r:-'
L:,'"
, I
,~~
'..... (I
~i!
H,
C
H
i
, ,
t....:'..
[]
C
C
.,,,...,,
~
I
H
tOttN ,,'"
~IN"'(_8Af'EZf$
'.;/j
.,/1 .'f ~~
.."
I
1/'
,1
I
I
,
,\ r: ~'"
.\ ..'.n~
c
.....~'.:"':; .'
,..."1."
"",,'r
L
I
i
I
-J
rl
I
I
i
1
~ ._~ . - - . - __ _0
--- ...- -. ~_. ..--
-- --' --_.~'-'
-81.
>:
..
"
"
"
"
...
...
>:
..
~
...
..
I
,
I
II ,I
I/l
"..,."
_,.,...." .01'
q ....-..,:...... ",.
. ..:..."'........
-.r ",..."
"....,..
, >.r.....,..
- ..--.....,...
'" ......." ~ .... .."
,..-,...".,.-..
., ..... -,.... ,. ..,.., ;.". "......-.
,,-.......,-,..,.. ","-,.."
_...... ~....._._,....v
* :Joe'Igt"U~ HlItg~lt SHe
~'. ~.._r~ ~...._,~...-
--.... - ..- - .-,- .
~... . ....,~ .. --
';.....".....
'",,_.- ,.
SOURCE: Wa"er H. Keller Jr.. Inc
May 1989
FI&URE 17 - FIJTUI'\E ~,l.NO :':SE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
SKE' 2 tJ l
, - -
------
_9......,., x
- ~~--..-
,..." --rTIT
'" '- ~i ' r I !
1';1
'- 1\ Ii!
if""!'~' i '~~\0~~~~~
.. j ';I~~~~~81~~,~E~t
I! II. " ',<,,~~?,'.\':~;"i!k.
' {'' ,\",c..,,,,,,,..,ycJ
· 'J \ \ \,\ I.;:tCi\"'::\
.; I /{! \ . '.A~:l~~,;~;;l
. /,: i .\"i;&~*iWj
,\ '.'
( ~! \
-",L; _--.J~~
r--"
L-) 1
~.~~.1
( @ami
'-4....-_... "
r-(j'
( 00.~ <
r-............J ~
_--I...-~_.._---,
,^
','",.
I
.,."'\
1-
-=1C::J
-#~."'-'
" ;-~ :. :
Jtt:-___
~
0'~4rTl
~.""'--<I:'
r "'1' ~
~,_., -::'~;~ :::::,:::,:::,:::/
<t -1,; ~~ :':':':'::':',,
J.t .. ~..I, :,:,:,:,:,:,:,::,: "
'-"'l- -+.' ........
~ ~:.::- ~---"'i. - - - };:;:mIj I
- -, ~~-
'...~ --~~~.:.:~ '
~
"1.....
Ii
"
~
... i
<
. .
, ,
.
""'-
..
_-"oI'!:...-....
:I.[,T
o
4./
..l... g~
..
20./
~:::
I -
,
".
!..L.:.2.
" -)
q....'~(
,'). - -1
S' ~"I/
II,,, \ .. () ~.-
~/Jl'~ ;,~,-!.
/l.H,
" ~"
~ 'j
'._L
'I
!'9
~~
~{~
I....
FAIRFIELD
APTS
CONDO.
....,
~=
,; ? f
I ,
~-CA~
. t,.'?:
8
.;>
so. ..,
Zoo
1'1>7 '
/V-.,&
1,'
11 ,r '
./ '7.,....
~
11')-"7 .l)'ll~ Co
..<<,Ae. ~c..
t. '\.If""
~ 511- j,L.____DEWEl r-IGiS
rJ~ 12 -SEAWAY TE RRA
~~ 13 - SUNNY OAKS
* j4 SL/B QF w3A OF
tlvl 1..5 - HIGH POINT WES
~~19 - HIGH POIN T '{I/ES
tJvJll- HIGH POiNT WES
rJvJ IE HIGH PQiN.T WE~
NW /9 " I I C 0
s€ 20 C OWN I AL CW8
SE 2/ COLON' tit.. CL U/3
~Jr22 SEAGATE OF
"'1.;2 3 BOyt:!l:ON BEACH M
NE24 FAIRFIELD APAR
s!::25 LOS MANGOS PI
NE26 CRESTVIEW
sw2ISEACREST DEi
NE28 SEAWAY VILLAS
sw29 RIDGEWOOD ~
NE:3Q PALMWAY CON
NE 31 MUNICIPAL CE
;- =:A'~ATt: ,.)~
uij,-~::Tf\~AM 2
CuNO
,..
~ ,,",-
"
..
.'
.
'"
,,'/,-
~
........ ~
oj
..
~
V)
~
u:
.
.
"""
~
,
SEA GATE OF
GULFSTREAM
CONDO /
,
#-
~
'~L
~
IJ1
..
..
".
310.00
l
I" '
:..:;r_~
19 <-
I (J 11
3,
rt:)
v"
- \~,5~~
'"
.
.
.
..
aJ. .."
1,
; ",fit ,. i
.J 5'8
{7 ,
f{'. <;11
:~f2( ~
~ ,
-
~1,IrS ~v .
.
5" 11'-
3,
~6~'
~~
0
5~ SO"'.. .
! .'-442
3DO
~ (,j,tb. ..
50~ .,,,..
. ' .
/ 0'1. ,,16"" ..
~/ "
II
,
p
(~- "
'[!!.
c~r,i "V
-.>i'-
. ,.
.
,7~
"'"
.
.
rw52 RIDGEPOINTE \
NN33 BETHESDA Pfl
~\. ~ ~ r.; H ~rr:- c:...
Nw3S BETHESDA PM
::: 36 242' CORP OF
>- 37 243t.LORPOF
x 38 2440,CORPOF
-~ 39 2442' CORP Of
c~40 24~O CORP OF
cAI 2460 CORP OF
c[42 2S20 CORF OF
cc-A3 2tJ30 COF\P OF
'"'044 c:..::.A::. CORP OF
.:;:f.5 2552 CORPOF
1--1' DA ~H- IIJA RK S I,
.'il1I/J./lf SLI&. Cl
IIARKE.D EACH I
.
WITHSU..N014
-:40 2SaO CORP OF
gl~~
!
I,Oj02
~ ..1-'
, - -J.c
)(Q
l ~ '~l:
-~ ~ "'-, ~
~ ~ '\
; I _ --r"'
. --
~.I
{l I
...~._'-'- '--:-el
..., ~. -
-,
IL 0/
0
L
~
)t " -
2~ . ~,
-
-
~! t-I
,
~'I
-
M
~
0.... ~~
:J -i8~
o ~ h ~
cr.:. ~ ..,~ 'If J
'''I Uz ~ jlj i
v '5 j ~
>--, ~ dB
l') <l. "si II. ,.
1-0 ~~lP-
-- -- . 0 _ $ ~
~ 0:: $. ~ <li II -; -
- - - :IN $'
Wo ~.~ ~(l~~j
I..J B ~ ::~-!C E'
f--l.L :; : i?~h ~
,
I
r-
~-il
,~
v
~
- t lIS
~% '
- .
--- .':'""..
,...."., ul,,:,"":.._:f ....2..L_~'~
...-__.,......"""'lIIoW.h;.,-___.'...ii!i..jc.:..L._.. __._
{(
l
J.1J
1-
~
-l
<(
I-
(()
<(
o
U
rL
w
f-
2
SIMMONS & WHITE, INC.
Engineers' Planners. Consultants
mrnffi[~ll
I, ,'---'-
In, 0
'I!!: APR 1 .,
!.,
April 10, 2000
Job No. 00-43
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT
286-Unit Apartment Complex
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
SITE DATA
The subject parcel is located on the east side of U.S. 1 at the
easterly terminus of 23rd Avenue and contains approximately 14
acres. Existing site improvements consist of approximately 10,000
S.F. of quality restaurant (Streb's and Gentleman Jim's) and a 4.6
acre wholesale nursery. Proposed site development consists of
removing the existing improvements and constructing a 286-unit
apartment complex with a build-out of 2002. For additional
information concerning site location and layout please refer to the
site plan prepared by Mouriz Salazar Architect & Planners.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
This study will analyze the proposed development's impact on the
surrounding thoroughfares within the project 1 s radius of
development influence in accordance with the Palm Beach County Land
Development Code Article 15, Traffic Performance Standards.
The Traffic Performance Standards require that a proposed
development meet two "tests" with regard to traffic. Test 1, or
the Link/Buildout Test, requires that no site specific development
order be issued which would, during the build-out period of the
project, add project traffic at any point on any major thoroughfare
link within the project's radius of development influence if the
total traffic on that link would result in an average annual daily
traffic or peak hour traffic volume that exceeds the adopted
threshold level of service during the build-out period of the
project.
Test 2, or the Model Test, requires that no site specific
development order be issued which would add project traffic to any
link within the project's model radius of development influence if
the total model traffic on that link would result in an average
annual daily traffic' volume, as determined by the model, that
exceeds the adopted level of service. For the purposes of this
analysis, the construction contemplated in the Modified 2010 Plan
shall be used.
This study will verify that the proposed development's traffic
impact will meet the above Performance Standards.
4623 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite 112, West Palm Beach, Florida 33415
Telephone (561) 965-9144 . Fax (561) 965-0926
Certificate of AuthoflzatlOn Number 3452
Traffic Impact Statement
Job No. 00-43
April 10, 2000 - Page Two
TRAFFIC GENERATION
The Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code Article 15,
Section 15 (I) (C) - Traffic Performance Standards - APPLICABILITY
Subsection 2 (B) requires that for any application for a site
specific development order on property on which there is an
existing use shall be subject to the Palm Beach County Traffic
Performance Standards to the extent the traffic generation
proj ected for the site specific development order exceeds the
traffic generation of the existing use. The generation rates and
capture rates of the existing use shall be updated to current pro
forma traffic generation and pass-by rates and shall be used to
calculate existing use traffic. The traffic currently vested to
the site by the existing use may be calculated as follows:
OUALITY RESTAURANT (10.000 S.F. )
10,000 S.F. x 96 .51 tpd
1000 S.F. = 965 tpd
Less 5% Passer-By = -145 tpd
NET = 820 tpd
WHOLESALE NURSERY (4.6 ACRES)
4.6 Acres x 2....Q.
Acre = 32 tpd
TOTAL = 852 tpd
The traffic to be generated by the proposed development may be
calculated in accordance with the traffic generation rates provided
in Table 10.8-1 Fair Share Road Impact Fee Schedule of Article 10:
MULTI-FAMILY (286 D.n.)
286 M.F.D.U. x 7 tod
D.U.
=
2002 tpd
The proposed plan of development therefore results in a net
increase of 1150 tpd over the existing uses as follows:
2002 tpd - 852 tpd =
1150
Traffic Impact Statement
Job No. 00-43
April 10, 2000 - Page Three
TRAFFIC GENERATION (CONTINUED)
The Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Section 15.
(I)L Subsection 1 states:
"The Coastal Residential exception to the level of
service requirements of this Section promotes urban
infill and deters urban sprawl. It also promotes
redevelopment. It provides closer proximity of
residential uses to commercial uses and employment bases,
thereby reducing the impact on the overall Major
Thoroughfare system, pollution, the use of fossil fuels
and other resources, and the travel time and needs of the
public. Because it applies only to the incorporated
area, it also promotes annexation of unincorporated
areas. Therefore, the public benefits of an uncrowded
and efficient road system promoted by this Section are
also promoted generally (but not necessarily on a
specific Link or Major Intersection) by the creation of
a Coastal Residential exception to the level of service
requirements of this Section. The Coastal Residential
exception may also result in more integration in the Palm
Beach County School system."
Therefore, the proposed 286 multi-family dwelling units meet the
Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards criteria via the
Coastal Residential Exception. Although the project is approvable
with regard to traffic performance via the Coastal Residential
Exception, the net external traffic of 1150 tpd will be assigned to
the roadway network as required by SECTION 15. (I) L COASTAL
RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION, Subsection 3.
RADIUS OF DEVEI,OPMENr INFI,UENCE
Based on Table 2A and 2B of the Palm Beach County Traffic
Performance Standards, for a net trip generation of 1150 trips, the
radius of development influence shall be two miles for Test 1 and
one mile for Test 2.
EXISTING TRAFFIC
Existing average annual daily traffic volumes for the links within
the radius of development influence were available from the
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Palm Beach County 1998/1999
Annual Traffic Volume Map.
Traffic Impact Statement
Job No. 00-43
April 10, 2000 - Page Four
EXISTING TRAFFIC (CONTINUED)
Background traffic, consisting of historical growth allowances
furnished by Palm Beach County, major project traffic, and
anticipated development in the area was also considered. The
following Table calculates the 3-year historical growth rate for
each of the applicable count stations within the project's radius
of development influence:
LINK
A. U.S. 1 95/96 98/99 1-
1. South of Old Dixie Hwy. 20038 19202 -1.41% (Use 1%)
2. South of Woolbright Road 25435 26116 0.88% (Use 1%)
3 . North of Woolbright Road 21626 22129 0.77% (Use 1%)
B. 23rd AVENUE
1. East of Seacrest Blvd.
2. East of 1-95
3 . East of Congress Avenue
C. WOOLBRIGHT ROAD
1. West of ICWW Bridge
2. East of 1-95
* 1995 AADT
** 1998 AADT
7451
10332
9907
7022
11800
11510
-1. 96% (Use 1%)
4.53%
5.13%
8262*
29525
10213** 7.32%
33198 3.99%
The project is expected to be built-out in 2002 and background
traffic was projected to that time. Please refer to Figure 1.
The project distribution was based upon the existing and proposed
geometry of the roadway network, a review of the existing and
historical travel patterns, as well as a review of the proposed
development and improvements in the area.
The distributed traffic for the project at full build-out of the
development was assigned to the links within the project's radius
of development influence and can be seen in Figure 1.
The 1998/1999 average daily traffic volumes, the proposed project
traffic, background traffic, and the total traffic are also shown
in Figure 1.
Traffic Impact Statement
Job No. 00-43
April 10, 2000 - Page Five
EXISTING TRAFFIC (CONTINUED)
Based on the projected total daily traffic volumes and threshold
volumes for the links within the project's radius of development
influence as shown in Figure 1, this project meets the applicable
Average Daily Traffic Volume Link Performance Standards listed
under "Test One" of the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance
Standards on all links within the project's radius of development
influence except Woolbright Road between U.S. 1 and Seacrest Blvd.
PEAK HOlm TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The net external A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes to be
generated by the existing use based on the rates provided by the
ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition may be calculated as
follows:
The net external A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes to be
generated by the proposed plan of development may be calculated as
follows:
PERIOD :usE PEAK HOUR
~ PASSER-BY % NET P.H.T.
M.F.D.U. (286 D.U. )
A.M. 286 M.F.D.U. 0.51 pht/D.U. 0% 146
P.M. 286 M.F.D.U. 0.62 pht/D.U. 0% 177
"
Traffic Impact Statement
Job No. 00 -43
April 10, 2000 - Page Six
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLI~ES (CONTINUED)
The proposed plan of development will therefore result in a net
increase of 138 external A.M. peak hour trips and 111 external P.M.
peak hour trips from the currently existing development.
The existing average peak hour traffic has been determined by
factoring the 1998/1999 average annual daily traffic by a uK" factor
of 9.3% and can be seen in Figure 2. The project's net external
P.M. peak hour traffic volumes, the peak hour background traffic,
and the total peak hour traffic volumes are also shown in Figure 2.
Based on the Level. of Service uD" Average Peak Hour Threshold
Volumes shown in Table 1A of the Palm Beach County Traffic
Performance Standards and the total peak hour volumes shown in
Figure 2, this proj ect meets the applicable Peak Hour Traffic
Volume Link Performance Standards on all links within the project's
radius of development influence except Woolbright Road between U.S.
1 and Seacrest Blvd.
SITE RELATED IMPROVEMENTS
The A.M. and P.M. peak hour turning movement volumes and
directional distributions at the project entrances for the proposed
development with no reduction for existing use credits may be
calculated as follows:
PERIOD USE PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONAL DIRECTIONAL
RAIE. DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION
(% IN/OUT) (TRIPS IN/OUT)
M.F.D.U. (286 D.U. )
A.M. 286 M.F.D.U. 0.51 pht/1000 S.F. 16%/84% 23/123
P.M. 286 M.F.D.U. 0.62 pht/1000 S.F. 67%/33% 119/ 58
An exclusive left turn lane north approach at the intersection of
23rd Avenue and U.S. 1 is existing. Based on the peak hour movement
worksheet attached with this report and the Palm Beach County
Engineering guideline used in determining the need for turn lanes
of 75 right turns in the peak hour, no additional turn lanes appear
required. A single lane exiting the project at the northerly
driveway connection (exit only, right turn only driveway
connection) appears adequate. Two westbound exiting lanes are shown
on the site plan exiting the parcel at the east approach of the
intersection of 23rd Avenue and U. S. 1.
Traffic Impact Statement
Job No. 00-43
April 10, 2000 - Page Seven
MODEr. TEST
Modified Table 5, Project Network Deficiencies for the future
network, does not presently indicate that the applicable links
within the project's radius of development influence will be over
capacity. Therefore, this project meets the Model Test.
CONCLUSION
This proposed development is expected to generate a total of 1150
net external trips per day at project build-out by December 31,
2002.
Based on an analysis of existing and project traffic
characteristics, major project traffic and distribution, as well as
the existing and future roadway network geometry and traffic
volumes, this project meets the Link/Buildout Test and the Model
Test as required by the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance
Standards on all links within the project's radius of development
influence except Woolbright Road from Seacrest Blvd. to U.S. 1.
This link was analyzed based on a 1998/1999 existing AADT volume of
33,198 taken just east of 1-95. It is possible the link count on
Woolbright Road east of Seacrest Blvd. is lower than the count on
Woolbright Road east of I-95 and the link would meet the Level of
Service D Standard. Based on the Coastal Residential Exception,
however, further analysis or in-field counts for this link are not
required and this project meets the Palm ch County Traffic
Performance Standards.
t F. Rennebaum, P.E.
km: 0043.tis
SIMMONS at WHITE, INC.
f ENGINEERS . PLANNERS . CONSULTANTS
N (12) (46)
(46) (23)
BOYNTON BEACH BLVD.
(12) (92) OCEAN AVE.
(46) 22129 (23)
(92) 784
115 (23)
23028
WOOLBRIGHT RD, 32500
(23) (115) 26116
(23) L/) 926
a> <(
I 345 I
27387 ~
~ I
<( 32500 <{
23rd AVE.
(23) SITE (35)
(/) 11510 11800 7022
(/) 10213'
w 2203 1979 249 3335
Q:: 345 368 460
<.:J 14058 0 58
z 14147 > 7731 13606
0 14900 14900 --' 14900
u CD 14900
I- (35)
(23) (/)
w
Q::
u 19202
<{
w 681
(/) 345
20228
32500
FIGURE 1
LEGEND
39546 1998/1999 AADT
1984 HISTORICAL GROWTH
322 PROJECT ASSIGNMENT
41852 TOTAL TRAFFIC
47500 L,O,S STANDARD
(32) LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF CAPACITY
, 1998 AADT
BOYNTON BEACH RENTAL
00-43 K.D, 4-10-00
4623 FOREST HILL BLVD" SUITE 112, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33415
TELEPHONE (561) 965-9144
f
N
SIMMONS at WHITE, INC.
ENGINEERS · PLANNERS · CONSULTANTS
BOYNTON BEACH BLVD,
OCEAN AVE.
WOOLBRIGHT RD,
Lf1 2429
(j) 86 <l:
I 41 I
2556 -
w I
> 3020 <l:
<l: 23rd AVE.
SITE
(f) 1070 1097 653
(f) 950
w 205 184 23
a:: 41 45 56 310
c.:> 1316 0 7
z 1326 > 732 1267
0 1390 1390 ...J 1390
u CD 1390
>--
(f)
w
a::
u 1786
<l: 63
w
(f) 41
1890
3020
FIGURE 2
LEGEND
3678 PK, HR, TRAFFIC
185 HISTORICAL GROWTH
33 PROJECT ASSIGNMENT
3896 TOTAL TRAFFIC
4420 L.O.S STANDARD
BOYNTON BEACH RENTAL
00-4.3 K,Q, 4-10-00
4623 FOREST HILL BLVD" SUITE 112, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33415
TELEPHONE (561) 965-9144
SIMMONS & WHITE, INC.
ENGINEERS * PLANNERS * CONSULTANTS
QQQJ
L 37(17)
~ SITE
V'l
=>
4 3 7
(2) (1) L
~ ~ L7(3)
9(47) .. 117021 ... 45(22)
23RD AVE I (~r-- 134(16)
TURNING MOVEMENT WORKSHEET
LEGEND
7 A.M. PK. HR. TURNING MOVEMENT
(23) P.M. PK. HR, TURNING MOVEMENT
1330 I MOT
4
N
00-43 JBS. 4-10-00
BOYNTON BEACH RENTAL
4623 FOREST HILL BLVD.. SUITE 112, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33415
TELEPHONE (561) 965-9144