REVIEW COMMENTS
vIII. DEVELOPMENT PLANS
B.3
ee: Plan, Dev, Util
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPAR'f
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-104
Agenda Memorandum for
March 21, 1995 City Commission Meeting
TO:
Carrie Parker
City Manager
FROM:
,-) If
Tambri J. Heyden "AI
Planning and Zoni~ Director
DATE:
SUBJECT:
March 16, 1995
Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD - CNTE 94-003 & MPTE 94-001
Time Extension - master plan and concurrency exemption
Please place the above-referenced request on the March 21, 1995
City Commission agenda under Development Plans, Non-consent agenda.
DESCRIPTION: This is a request for approval of an eighteen (18)
month retroactive and an indefinite time extension for
zoning/master plan approval and concurrency exemption, submitted by
Kieran Kilday, agent for Bill Winchester, property owner for the
Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD located south of the intersection of
Boynton Beach Boulevard and Winchester Boulevard. The expired
master plan depicts a one hundred twenty thousand (120,000) square
foot shopping center, which includes two outbuildings. In
addition, the applicant is requesting approval of a phasing plan
that would allow the project to utilize all or part of the 6,722
combined total trips per day that this PCD and the Knuth Road PCD
are allowed prior to widening of Gateway Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Development Board, with a 6-1
vote, recommended approval of this request, however for a period of
six months from the date of Commission approval and SUbject to
staff comments regarding phaSing (limitation of construction of
square footage not to exceed 3,361 daily trips until Gateway
Boulevard is widened to six lanes from Military Trail to Congress
Avenue) and re-evaluation at the time of site plan review of the
trips generated by the proposed outparcels.
TJH/pb
c:ccmtg321.bbb
,,'
.- -..
6.1\..3
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD peD
TIME EXTENSION
I
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-091
THRU:
Chairman ~nd Members
Planning and Development Board
. -r:: I
Tambri J. Heyden !~~
Planning and zoning Director
Micha81 E. Haa~6"ihcr
Zoning and site elopment Administrator
March 9, 1995
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJEeT:
Boynton Beach Boulevard peD - File No. eNTE 94-003
& MPTE 94-001 Time Extension (Amendment to Planning
and Zoning Department Memorandum 95-044)
At the request of the applicant, Kieran Kilday, the Planning and
Development Board at their February 14, 1995 meeting postponed
action on the request for a time extension for zoning/master plan
approval and concurrency exemption for the above-referenced
project. The applicant requested postponement due to incomplete
traffic information and related unresolved issues.
This memorandum serves to address these issues that could not be
addressed in the original staff report, Planning and Zoning
Department Memorandum No. 95-044. Based on recent Commission
sentiment regarding approving multiple and retroactive time
extension requests, staff has required, pursuant to the concurrency
management ordinance, traffic information to be submitted with such
requests. The purpose of the traffic information is to identify
any repercussions associated with approving a time extension with
an exemption from current traffic requirements; the difference
between traffic improvements that were required at the time of the
original development order vs. improvements that would be required
today. For example, the original traffic study did not include all
roadway links reviewed under the existing Traffic Performance
Standard Ordinance.
As indicated in the original staff report, there was a concern
regarding the traffic level of service of Gateway Boulevard,
between eongress Avenue and Military Trail, currently over
capacity. The Traffic Division of Palm Beach County has reviewed
the updated traffic data supplied by the applicant's engineer for
this Gateway Boulevard roadway link. It was determined that the
current Traffic Performance Standards (TPS) would restrict
construction of the PCD's 120,000 square feet of general retail to
75,700 square feet of general retail (3,361 daily trips) until
Gateway Boulevard is widened to six lanes, scheduled for fiscal
year 96/97. The updated traffic analysis reviewed by the county
included two (2) outparcels; a 5,~25 square foot bank with drive-
through and a 4,000 square foot high-turnover restaurant,
generating a total of 4,818 net daily trips (find attached Exhibit
"AI\." - letter from Mr. Dan Weisberg, Palm Beach County - Traffic
Division, dated March 7, 1995.
It is Staff's recommendation that the square footage restriction
identified in the fourth paragraph of the March 7, 1995 letter from
Mr. Weisberg be added to staff's original recommendation of
~pproval. T:lis recommendation includes a re-evaluation at time of
site plan review of the trips generated fcr any ,f the proposed
outp~rcels. Since outparcels are usually occupied by high traffic
generators, su-:h as the fast, food drive-through restaurants the
3quare foctage a:lowed to be constructed prior to the widening of
Gat~w~y Bculev~rd may have to be further limited.
/
~
..- --
Page 2
Boynton Beach Boulevard peD
Memorandum No. 95-091
The applicant is requesting an agreement be made with the City that
would allow either the subject project or the Boynton Beach
Boulevard peD (which has the same square footage restriction) to
utilize all or part of the total trips (6,722) that the projects
would be allowed before the widening of Gateway Boulevard (see
attached Exhibit "BB" - March 6, 1995 letter from Kieran Kilday).
At this time, staff does not have a recommendation on this issue
until the eounty can respond on this issue.
MEH:dim .
Attachments
! Bae~~!xt.!md/P.O
J-
E X U 1 B 1 T AA
:..-
'-'"
.---/-- . ..-- /..-------------------
11AR-O'C-l '.!g=- OS: 27
22222222222222222
Board of County Commissioners.,., _
Kan L. FOShil', Chairm.m
Burt Aaronson, Vie. Chilirman
KI1~f\ T. Ma1''''l~
Citrol A. Robe:t.
WonCll H. N~TVell
h1ftl'J' McCarty
\1.ac.de F(ncl Lec
--
4~7 478 S77~ P.02/~3
county Admlnlsualor
Robert Weisman
Department of Englnllering
and Public Works
Ma,'ch 7, 1995
Mr. Mike Haag
CIty Qf Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
RE: BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD P.C.D.
KNUTH ROAD P.C.D.
TARA OAKS P.U.D.
Dear Mr. Haag;
'The P"lll1 Bea:h County Traff1c Dlvlslon has trafflc reviewed the three traffic:
ana.iyses prepared by Simmons & White for these three proposed developments. The
three studies are updates to the K. S. Rogers traffic studies prepared in 1990.
Thay use the trip generation and trip distribution from the K. S. Rogers studies
and update the existing traffic volumes (1994) and the future traffic (1997)
volumes. These traffic studies do not address traff1c on Gateway Boulevard for
the triO P.C.D.s, as would be rllquired by the existing Traffic Performance
Standards (TPS). A letter received yesterday frem Simmons & Whlte provides some
of the requested additional information for Gateway Boulevard.
~on Bea~h Boulevard P.C.D.
The upd~l\lcJ L,'"rric study addresses 120,000 square feet of goneral retail. The
traffi: study states that the it address 110,375 square feet of general retail
and outparcels consisting of a 5,625 square foot bank with drive-through and a
4.000 square foot high-turnover restaurant. The outparcels are high trafflc
generators and the traffic study does not properly address the outparcel uses.
The 120.000 square feet of retail will generate 4,818 net daily trips with a
build..cut of 1997. The study shows that the project will meet the requirements
of TPS on all roadways except Gateway Boulevard. Gateway Boulevard restricts the
d~v~lapment to 75.700 square feet of general retail (3,361 daily trips) until it
is widened to six-lanes in FY 96/97.
rnuth Road P r. n.
The updated traffic study addresses a 120,000 square foot shopping center which
includes Iln.375 square feet of general retail and outparcels consisting a 4,500
.quare foat bank with drive-through and service station with a 2,000 square foot
cQnvg~i~ncQ store and a car wash. The project will generate 6,221 net daily
trips with a build-out of 1997. The study shows that the project will meet the
Y'Qquil'Qment!; of TPS on all roadways except Gateway Boulevard. Gateway Boulevard
"An Eq\.l:tl O~~rorhJ:l'I>' . -\.(firnurh'c- J\ction FIHpll>}'l'r"
.c.,
'<6.;t~".""_rr'oHII_'O}~''''
Do,21229 West Palm llooch. Florid. 33-11&.1229 (41171 &8+4000
/~
, -r
f'rIHR-07 -1 gg~ 09 : 47
22222222~22222222
4~7 478 577~ p"a]/~]
March 7, 1995
Mr. Mike Hug
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD P.C.D.
KNUTH ROAD P.C.D.
TARA OAKS P.U.D.
page two
restricts the development to 75,700 square feet of general retail (3,361 daily
tr'lps) untll It Is widened to six-lanes in FY 96/97.
Tara Oa~s P.U.D.
The updated traffic study discusses a project consisting of 19l multi.family
dwalling units and a 20,000 square foot church. This project would generate
I,49B daily trips. The study mentions an unidentified previous petition which
accounts for 770 of the projects dililY trips. like the K. S. Rogers study, the
updated stUdy does not address these trips. Rather, it ilddresses 128 daily trips
from an undefined project. The updilted" stUdy shows that this undefined project
meets TPS on all roadways, based on a build-out of 1997.
In your letter d!ted January 20, 1995, your requested verification that the
roadway improvements listed In the Simmons' White reports are still applicable.
There is no information in these reports that allows me to verify the need for
those roadway improvements.
1 a~ sorry for the delay in responding to your request. The form of the updated
traffic studies and missing Information did not allow a timely review. If you
have any questions regarding this' determination, please contact me at 684-4030.
Sincerely,
/
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER
~ -:JA,~
Dan Weisberg. P.E.
Senior Rigistered Civil Engineer
ce. Rob Rennebaum, R.E., Simmons & White
File: lPS - Mun. - Traffic Study Review
h:\traffic\diw\boyn37
TOTAL P."]
...-'
~
-- --
E X H I BIT BB
6
1'j::R-(i5-"3'J I'HI 16:04 ID:KILrl=<Y & ASSOC.
Ta ~lJ:407-689-25'32
1i340 P01
II..... "'11111_
I.Inlllu" ...1GIII..../1'll1IIIt"
1.ll'ONm ....1l4I
'01\11 10M
WMl ~.I,," I_h. 1'Io~. DIG!
14071 _ 9":1:1- ~..: 14071 _-_
Maroh 0, 188lS
MI. Tambrt Hayden, PIIMlng Director
City of Boynton BMCh Planning & Zoning Deplltment
100 eat Boynton BMCh Blvd.
Boynton Beech, Fl a34215
IfoJ rf&irnw m rfnl
I1lJJ /.L.lJl 6 , JJJ
~bt~~W8E~~D
All: Knuth Road P.C.D. -and Boynton Beach P.C.D. 11me Extlnllons
0lI Project No,: 799.16
Dear MI, Hevden.
Thank you for meeting with Bill Winchester IInd myself fat WMk 10 dl~ ,.. the
Tim. Extenllona lor Boynton Beach P.C.D. and Knuttl RoacI P.C,D. ,.. of thl8
dats, I am aUN WllltIng for verification frOm the County !ngln..,. that phulng for
each of the above proJtc18 woulcl only cccur der me tIIPI genntta byeacn
project exceed8 3,381 trips per day. Thl8 number Is the rn.mb8l' that \WI
calculated by our trafftc engineer. Mr. Robert Rennebaum. In ..llgnlng the 1%
that Is allowed to utilize GlItllWlly Boulevard and working the trlpa beokwards to
the ,It. bued upon the ...ignmenta contained In the original trafIIo atudy.
As you are lwere, Mr. 'Mnch... 18 concerned that thll project II being required
to retro8Ctlvely meet phasing requirements when there are many oth. proJecla
In the CIty of Boynton B-=h which have received extenllona without any phasing
requlrllment. For that reuon, WO ana requeetlng an agl'Ml'/lent wlIh the City that
either project be a1row.ct to utlllze all or part of the 0,722 totlII tripl that the
projecta would be allowed betlre the requrernent of phasing. In otIW wortls,
alnc. -=h project would be permitted to generate 3,381 tr1p. It mak.. sense that
we be dowed to assign either all or part of the trip. to ona project u It II Ilkllly
that one project will move ahead quicker than the other proJeot.
One addlUonall1lUe which we dlecUAed &II our meeang ~ we WOUlc:I Uk. to
have reaolVecI at tn. time of the conald8la1l0n of the extenalon requMl 'I the fact
that the Knuth Road p.e.D. hu an approvll on 1f8 Maater Plan including a llI'VIce
station. Whll. we .. aWlII" that the a.-vlce ataIIon c::r1ter1. whIoh waa adopted
alter this approval woulcl not allow this use at this comer, our ability to proceed
-
/
I'~:-DS-' SS r'o~ 16:05 ID:~, ILfoA')' ~ ASSOC.
TEL [1]: 407-E89-2592
~340 P02
--
--
Mt. Tambri H."
MII'Ch e, 1_
Page 2
using our approved master plan I. vety Important. In all probability, baed on
some very recent dllOu8IIonl with US.III of the Knuth Road F1.C.D., _ bell.-
that the service station U8l!l will In fact be the first phase of the development of this
oenter. Addltlonally, with the conltructlon of the lervlce ItatIon, we hop. to be
In II pesltlon to constNc1 Knuth Road from I~ current termlnu. and '- lOuthelty
to the canal crossing. (Tara Oaks P.U.O. will continue this COlll1nlCtlon lCluthll1y
to WoolbrIQht Rold.)
At thll time, \WI expect the petltlon to be h8an:I by the Pfannlng Commlulon on
March 14, 19S1l5. I wiN mllke myeelf available at any time .t1oulcl you wIeh to
dlscu6& these maners further. I will contlnue to leek wr1tten conllrmatlon from the
County Engineer that the phasing requirement referenced In thll letter Is In fact
oorreot.
KJeren J. Kilday
KJlday a Aesooiatee, lno.
cc: MII<e Schroecll!ll'
BUI Winchester
"
('
,I
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-044
TO: Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
THRU: Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM: Michael E. Haag
zoning and Site Development Administrator
DATE: February 9, 1995
SUBJECT: Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD - File No. CNTE 94-003 & MPTE
95-001 Time Extension (zoning/master plan approval and
concurrency exemption)
NATURE OF REOUEST
Kieran Kilday of Kilday & Associates, agent for Bill Winchest~,
property owner, is requesting an indefinite time extension for
Planned eommercial Development (peD) zoning/master plan approval
and concurrency exemption for the Boynton Beach Boulevard peD (see
Exhibit "A" - letter of request). The master plan consists of
120,000 square feet of retail, which includes two outparcels; a
5,625 square foot bank and a 4,000 square foot restaurant (see
Exhibit "B" - original master plan). The PCD is to be located at
the south side of the intersection of Boynton Beach Boulevard and
Winchester Boulevard.
BACKGROUND
On December 18, 1990, the eity Commission approved an ordinance
annexing the subject property. After review by the Department of
eommunity of Affairs (DCA) and despite objections, they also
approved ordinances for a land use element amendment that changed
the Residential 8 (Palm Beach County) classification of the
property to the City's Local Retail Commercial classification and
rezoning of the property from AR, Agricultural Residential (Palm
Beach eounty) to PCD, with a specific master plan. The adopted
comprehensive plan amendment was transmitted to DCA on December 19,
1990, along with responses to DCA's objections. In February 1991,
the DeA issued a notice of intent to find the comprehensive plan
amendment in compliance.
These applications were submitted prior to the effective date of
Palm Beach eounty's traffic performance standards ordinance and of
the City's concurrency management ordinance. Therefore,
concurrency exemption for traffic and drainage was granted with the
1990 approval.
On June 16, 1992, the eity Commission granted a one (1) year time
extension that extended the project's June 18, 1992 expiration date
to June 17, 1993. No application for extensions was made since
the June 1993 expiration, until the subject extension which was
filed in November 1994; a period of one year and five months. This
is the need for a retroactive extension.
ANALYSIS
Several sections of the code of ordinances govern these types of
extensions. Regarding expiration of the concurrency exemption for
the project, Section 19-92 (e) of ehapter 19, Article VI of the
eode of Ordinances states that such requests for time extensions
"may be filed not later than 60 days after the expiration of said
certificate or exemption". It furthers states that "time
extensions may be granted for any length of time which does not
exceed one year". Historically, retroactive extensions combined
with a "current" extension that equate to more than one year, have
been granted under certain circumstances.
I
--
... -
Page 2
Planning and Development Board
Memo No. 95-044
Time Extension for
Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD
February 9, 1995
Regarding the projects's previous exemption to the current drainage
and traffic levels of service, the project meets the current
drainage requirements. A traffic study was submitted in an attempt
to determine whether the project, subject to the original traffic
conditions, would meet current traffic requirements. The current
standards for traffic studies would require evaluation of roadways
not evaluated in the original study. The study submitted was not
complete in that it did not evaluate the additional roadways that
would be affected. The Palm Beach county traffic division is
coordinating the receipt of this additional information and
indicated that they would try to have a response to the city by the
Planning and Development Board meeting. However, they did indicate
that if the time extension were not granted and the project was
required to meet current standards, Gateway Boulevard, between
eongress Avenue and Military Trail, would be negatively impacted.
since, this road link is not scheduled for improvement by Palm
Beach eounty until fiscal year 1996/1997, a development order could
not be issued for the project earlier than this, unless the
developer made the improvements to the road, for which he could
receive road impact fee credit. The only option available would be
to phase development of the shopping center.
The other section applicable to this request is section 9.C.13 of
Appendix A - Zoning, wherein it states that the eity eommission
shall review any rezoning approval to a planned zoning district
(PUD, PID or peD) that has expired and take action in accordance
with paragraphs a. and b. below:
"a. The city commission may extend the zoning of the property
for a period of one (1) year or more, or may extend the
zoning of the property indefinitely. If development of
the property in the manner specified above does not occur
by the end of said time extension, the city commission
may grant additional time extensions or may take action
in accordance with paragraph b. below:
b. The city commission may instruct the city manager to file
an application to a more restrictive zoning district
and/or future land use category. The zoning of the
property shall be considered to be extended until final
adoption of the more restrictive zoning district and/or
future land use map use category."
eonsistent with section 9.e.13 of Appendix A - Zoning, the Planning
and Zoning Department is forwarding the request for review and
direction regarding the status of"the approval. If the approval is
not retroactively extended, the eity eommission may wish to
instruct staff to file a rezoning and/or land use amendment
application to a more restrictive zoning category. If the approval
is retroactively extended, the eity Commission should specify
whether the approval is extended indefinitely or for a set period
of time.
One of the original DCA objections with the change in land use from
residential to commercial was based on staff's determination that
there was an excess of commercial land at build-out, therefore the
eity should not further change land use to commercial categories.
Staff's determination was a result of the discussion of supply and
Demand of Commercial Land in the comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Element Support Documents. This analysis is five years old and the
City is required to submit its EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal
Report) of the comprehensive plan by August of next year. AS part
of the EAR, staff will reevaluate the appropriateness of the land
use of the property, if development has not commenced. staff has
'2
Page 3
Planninq and Development Board
Memo No. 95-044
Time Extension for
Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD
February 9, 1995
had recent meetings with a developer regarding the possibility of
purchasinq the property from Mr. Winchester for constructing a
shoppinq center.
The applicant is stating that the time extension is warranted based
on the completion of one of the conditions of the oriqinal zoning
approval (removal of several large, Australian Pines along a
portion of the property, adjacent to the Stonehaven PUDlo He is
also basing his justification on a clearinq and grubbinq permit
which was issued on October 1, 1993, a November 16, 1993,
eommission approval of an excavation and fill permit and a November
2S, 1994 excavation permit final inspection. It cannot be
determined whether the clearing and grubbing permit was final
inspected or whether the Buildinq Department issued the excavat~Qn
and fill permit that was approved by the eommission. Furthermore,
when the permit was approved, the city Manaqer sent a letter to the
applicant that stated that the excavation and fill permit shall not
be construed to extend the life of the expired zoning/master plan
approval and that an application for a time extension was needed.
REeOMMENDATION
On January 10, 1995 and January 24, 1995, the Technical Review
Committee (,TRC) reviewed the request and, based on recent interest
in development of the property, recommended that a time extension
be granted, subject to all previous comments and conditions of
rezoninq and master plan modification approval. However, rather
than granting an extension for an indefinite period of time, staff
is recommendinq that the extension expire on June IS, 1996. The
extension, if approved as recommended by staff, would equate to a
retroactive extension from June IS, 1993 to February 21, 1995 (one
year and nine months) and an additional extension from February 21,
1995 to June IS, 1996 (one year and four months).
As a point of information, at the time of the January 24th TRC
meetinq, it was not known that there was a traffic level of service
problem with Gateway Boulevard, between conqress Avenue and
Military Trail. Therefore, the TRC's recommendation does not
include a recommendation to the Planning and Development Board and
eommission as to whether the approval of this time extension should
also be contingent upon compliance with current traffic levels of
service.
MEH:dim
attachments
xc: Central File
.: ...vel'U.. .at
;5
--- --
E X H I BIT A
~,
4
lUkie, It ,,~.-
Landscape ArchilaclSl Planne..
155 I Forum Place
Suile l00A
West Palm Beach. Florida 33401
(4071 689-5522 . Fax: (4071 689.2592
November 23, 1994
Ms. Tambrf Heyden, Director
City of Boynton Beech Planning & Zoning Department
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beech, FL 33425
RE: Request for Time extensions
PROJECTS: Tara Oaks P.U.D. (Ordinance 90-75)
Knuth P.C.D. (Ordinance 90-70)
Boynton Beach Boulevard P.C.D. (Ordinance 90-73)
Dear Ms. Heyden,
~~
This letter will serve as a fonnal request to have the City Commission of Boynton Beach
review the status of the above three (3) Planned Developments and to grant further time
extensions for their commencement of development. I have reviewed your Zoning Code
in an effort to determine the proper procedure for extending these project approvals. It
appears that the only process available at this time is contained In Sect/on 9, Article 13,
Time Umitation for DeveloDment of ProDertv. In fact, this sect/on was the basis for a
similar review of the Capitol Professional Center PCD (located at the southeast comer
of Knuth Road and Old Boynton Road). In that case, the Commission, after determining
that the existing Planned Commercial Development zoning was the most appropriate
zoning for the property, granted an indefinite time extension. I have attached the staff
report and time extension letter for your review.
~
All three (3) of the above referenced Planned Developments were approved on
December 18, 1990. Since that time, while there has been some activity concerning
each of the proJectS, there has not been fonnal final development plan approval and/or
construction. The original eighteen (18) month time limit of the approvals would have
expired on June 18, 1992. However, on June 16, 1992, the City Commission approved
our request to extend the expiration dates of the three (3) planned developments for one
(1) year until June 17, 1993 (see attached letter from Chris Cutro dated June 29, 1992).
No action or review has taken place since that time. Due to the down swing in the
economy, the property owners have been unable to successfully commence
development which, in this case, is recording of a plat of record for the first phase of
development. However, the property owners have worked continuously on all three
projects since the last extension in an effort to commence development.
rn rn 0 \11 ~ 00
NUl 2 3 . · .
\
i::; ~
.5'"
--
--
Ms. Tambri Heyden
November 23, 1994
Page 2
Since the expiration of the time extension on June 18, 1993, the properties have been
in a sort of limbo. If you recall, the two commercial properties were annexed into the
City of Boynton Beach at the same time that they were rezoned. Therefore, the Planned
Commercial Development Zoning District is the only zoning district that has ever been
assigned to them within the City of Boynton Beach. With regard to the Tara Oaks
property, the project was already an existing Planned Unit Development when it was
modified to its current master plan status. Therefore, assuming that the Planned
Development approvalS have expired for all three projects, I have no idea what the actual
underlying zoning would be. I believe that is why the provisions of Section 9, Article 13
were provided in the Code. As in the case of the Capitol Professional Center PCD, the
projects clearly need to be revisited by the City Commission to detennine whether the
existing zoning is the most appropriate zoning and, assuming that it is, foomal action
should be taken regarding the extension of these approvals.
Needless to say, my clients are actively seeking extensions of these approvals. Despite
the economic problems which prevented these projects from moving to the next step 10
the development process, there has been activities undertaken throughout the antlre
timeframe of the approvals to ready these projects for development For the purpose of
your analysis regarding the status of these projects, I have prepared a summary of
activities for each project below. Additionally, I will be calling your office to set up a
meeting to review these projects with you and I will be prepared to be present at the time
of their consideration by the City Commission. At this time, I am not aware of any formal
application procedure. However, if there is an application document, we will be ready
to submit it to you promptly.
I. Tara Oaks Planned Unit Development. This project received a rezoning
approval from P.U.D. - Planned Unit Development with a land use intensity of 4.0
to a P.U.D. - Planned Unit Development with a land use intensity of 5.0. This
project also received a land use amendment approval from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential. Both of these ordinances were passed
on final reading by the City Commission on December 18, 1990.
As part of the rezoning and land use approval, the applicant entered into an
agreement with the Stonehaven Homeowner's Association which required the
applicant to commit to numerous conditions of approval including providing a
buffer wall on the projecfs north property line along with a twenty-five foot wide
landscape buffer and a 40' setback for all buildings from the north property line
of Tara Oaks P.U.D. (copy attached.) This agreement is still active and binding.
Since the approval of the project the applicant has done the following:
1. Pursuant to the approved master plan, the south portion of the property
was designated for utilization by a church. In fact, this property was sold
&
Ms. Tambri Heyden
November 23,1994
Page 4
c. A letter dated May 6, 1992 issuing a pennit for the culvertlng of
Knuth Road from the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation.
d. A letter dated June 11, 1992 from the Lake Worth Drainage District
approving the permit for the Knuth Road/Woolbright Road
intersection and culvert at the L-26 canal.
e. A letter from the Lake Worth Drainage District dated April 14, 1993
indicating final acceptance and final inspection of the Knuth Road
culvert crossing.
f. A pennit from the Palm Beach County Land Devalopment Division
dated June 16, 1992 for Right-of-Way Construction indicating
approval to connect Knuth Road into the north right-of-way of
Woolbright Road. ~
g. Three (3) letters from the City consultant, Gee & Jenson, dated
January 18, 1993, April 9, 1993 and May 4, 1993. These letters
reference City Commission approval for the extension of Knuth Road
to the Tara Oaks church site and correspondence regarding
construction plans that were prepared and submitted by Rossi &
Malavasi to the City for approval.
5. Received approval for an excavation and fill permit by the City Commission
on April 8, 1993 for the construction of Knuth Road (see attached minutes).
6. Cleared Knuth Road right-of-way pursuant to a clearing and grubbing
permit for $6,000.00. .
7. Requested a minor amendment to the master plan to amend a condition
of approval regarding construction of Knuth Road from the Stonehaven
P.U.D. on the north to Woolbright Road. This request was made on
June 15, 1992 and the petitioner paid a fee of $500.00 (see attached cash
receipt).
II. Knuth Road P.C.D. This project received annexation, Mure land use amendment
approval, from County Commercial High to Local Retail, rezoning from County AR
- Agricultural Residential to City P.C.D. . Planned Commercial Development and
an approval for a text amendment to the City Land Use Element pertaining to
.
8
--
--
Ms. Tambri Heyden
November 23, 1994
Page 5
planning area 7, 7.J. As part of the rezoning and land use amendment approval,
this project was also the subject of an agreement with the Stonehaven P.U.D.
Homeowner's Association. This document is also attached for your reference.
Since the time extension granted by the City Commission on June 16, 1992, the
property owner has done the following:
1. Received a master plan modification and site plan approval from the
Boynton Beach City Commission on June 2, 1992. This modification was
to allow the replacement of a restaurant on a comer of this P.C.D. to allow
a convenience store with gasoline sales.
2. Obtained a minor amendment to the master plan to split the construction
costs of the extension of Knuth Road from the Stonehaven P.U.D. entry
south to Woolbright Road. The applicant pald $500.00 for the request of
this modification.
11/. Boynton Beach Boulevard P.C.D. This project received annexation approval,
rezoning approval from County AR - Agricultural Residential to City P.C.D. -
Planned Commercial Development, a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment
from County Commercial High to City Commercial Local Retail, and a text
amendment to the City's Land Use Element deleting language indicating that this
property should be placed in a High Residential land use category. This project
also was the subject of an agreement with the residents of the Stonehaven P.U.D.
which abut the property to the west. Since the approval of the project, the
applicant has done the following:
1. As part of the original approval, the property owner agreed to comply with
a specific request from the Stonehaven P.U.D. Specifically, the removal of
several large Australian Pines along the portion of the property which the
neighbors considered to be a danger to adjacent property. Immediately
upon approval of this project, the property owner contracted with Arbor
Tree Services, Inc., who removed said trees.
2. This project also wes the subject of a request for a minor master plan
modification in an effort to split the construction costs of the proposed
Knuth Road extension. As previously stated, the City Commission
approved a request for minor master plan modification for this project on
April 8, 1993 to allow all three (3) Planned Developments to split the Knuth
Road link construction costs.
q
Ms. Tambri Heyden
November 23,1994
Page 6
3. Received approval for an excavation and fill permit from the City
Commission on November 16, 1993 (see attached letter dated November
23, 1993).
We have appreciated your working with us in the past. Recently, with the economy
improving, the applicant has received significant interest in the development of all three
parcels. We are. therefore, optimistic that with the proper extensions, we can move
ahead In their development. In that regard, I am forwarding to you under separate cover
a request to finalize the Impact fee credit agreement for the construction of Knuth Road.
Please feel free to contact m. If you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kieran J. Kilday'
cc: Bill Winchester
Michael Schroeder
AKJKljb/heyden.n16
~~
/0
--
--
E X H I BIT B
~,
II
',' ...."(_"':.i4,.:. ',"
~~ I .
~~g . *,~
~~ I ..!4\'Wl4Gl'i..V....,,"'" ~i~~
''''9 '''.~.to ,bg', I;; &l
~. S--',:,__. 'f.-:._:~:_.~::~-... .~ .--~. :--..7..-:...../... --;.~,~!
. ' )J (.~- I I
,( /~ '.. mIIIJ, #' 'jll0.....---->~) ..: i; : ~
,. ;r!1 . ~il "~ < >' , I ~ II
I i tl~ ...d_ k ',:!-'--<"" 'I' ,
'1 !L) \ "\, 11.1 I
i ! I,' ~/'; ,~" :~"y::~ ~ ~~ db II; I
~~I -- ~ I ~"'l,)' I 1 I
i'" I - l:) w' '" . y~'- ". I i I
~ Iltu~ . ~~,111 ~') ",., I ~
I L7 . I ~~0JW'r) IS" g> ~~.: '
-: [ _-~~~11.l1 z,!~-, _ ~" ~'. j ~
IV - ;., !I .
.._ :-.; I I I
- : I I'
~( Jrl~ - _-~~.~I nJ ~---':7~-' .~ ~: : I: -\
:r (5- !. -'- /u-Jr -.;,. ~ ~!t ~ ,~
t! .' 5S= S:2 C:::::.__ I ;J1!t L' .. :. I I I
I A",.. II lil. I' I I I
, (, ~i:: rj'
I: tmT1T!l~t! rrm ui1lnllmPJlTmrnm~ - ~ j
: ~ ~ ~ ..
, : ~rtHt.H I ~t!~t_HJ1 H+HtHil ' _: ~ :
II ~ ~ H I'~:I
~~ 1\1 ~~J.U~ll . 11 I,
'd" +, -" ~,~-
i I '; · C I -
I I {[I I~;I I
,III ~ _ ill I
. J:~~': : I _ _ _,: s ! 2 '-~:::~.-~Ll
no .... . t" .~ .I18.be .w I .
t' -+- II " ~
--::::--,.., _ k" ....... .... -__ ~" III
.. (?j~It~T1OS H::;~;;;S NO.lN.J.O .
I
_.~. .4_.... ,.
1'2...
Cl
U
0-
C
IX
~
....l
::)
o
a:l
~~ ::I:
- ~
~_ W
_.: a:l
~, Z
~t f2
~ z
~
a:l
Z
~
(l.
IX
W
l-
(/)
<(
~
~'"OCI\. -noN N\~
)'lN1'ON BEI\.CH BOULE\lI\.RO pCO
...
,! \ ,_ "\ 8\\ \
-\ . .~%\
l ,." ,_' S \ ~\ \. ~t!
"lfe- (' .=-- '" TO ';j
r""i:l:=l__ ..~,,',. L-~~
~- ~--' , ..~ ."
. j .. \. .' ~,
^G .-_ ~ Q , .J,~ '. I 1-1
,... - ,," ..," "
e) rJ il ' ,.= ~ ,"
~o \.-, ~ ;~ ' . T . ,~ r~
,.." ,_ .~_ \_ ...' "1T lOCO I.'
~r.:- ; "'. ,.' \ ...U - ,. ?.....,'
_ _.1.. .._ S\\E~ ',' ,. r r 'l'~ '.....-'.:}" "'''r;''<
" \" ~_' >-\ ,~'t U..
'c ~.. ". ~ 10 , lr;' t:l ' ' . .,.,. ~
\ '\ H~\\" __:~ \,/' v. u, <", \ \ - ..."'. ". '; ~
.\ l-' . ~ . ro..... .,' ,
lOCO .... . .;.'1' ~ '. \ i~ ~", . . ;..m\'
..."I, . '~ ..,e fir' u t ';.'. 1Ii..J-$l
. I "., l' _ t 1.-='" 0 \ · "BEe
I
'-; ffi'-':":t:PP ?,ti \ -liJ' i\i; I:'
~. . .""~.~~ .\, \ _ ..,/\' 1\: "
,~ .., ~' ,U ".' . ' . ,.
". I' .:'1'\1' >>\\ "[ -- ,. ,:/.'.
~ (j .l ~\..y' \j "~[ ';. \ 'v""" Ii. ~ !:l'A
';:::' ,~.~-'- .,,-. . ~.,...'
'~,/ _'~ r;~ \\1" . ~~{' ~,~~...'~/~~::~;>
'. ) 'i.l" .~, ~ ~ r- T .,;;. .' .., I \ '.VI."> ~,".
. U /~ L .- .J,\ . \ i " j,' . ' ..,
U . ( \' . , \1 ,c~.,.,,:.J;'j -- "
~'~ 0 \\ \';J,. . \ "\j Ctf~?jt'i/-i'''''''
~ ">- \\ U (--,;.._~.JIl . w:.\.'t;Jl:I I, L '"
. ~ . -J, \ ,'~J} 'f',.if2::!)(., U'. Ie"
.\..)J' .. \..\J\;;'V';' '';~':' ",' \ii',:/'" ,(~]\.,'
,!'"l. n\.;:~,.tlH~.t; r\' . . \'\"
I " ". .....q.U: ,;, ., "'", ,,' . ~.a.," \ I .-- .
J/ ' \.. .. ....."- ,~. ~
~ _ . ~l'i \::~~,~/g.\' ~.,...?, ~ G."! ~rtn I
,;/<"<_ ,,," .. 'i~ ' 1-',1<' .j' '
~/....--J' ,I." ':'II" om. ~ -,-, . . ~
;-.I.......~._. ..::,;"'; .";'::" ," -- :.:"-- ,:'r~ ~r " "" '\ 1\ '\ .. " ·
,-," ,,""
,_~.' 'T " ,- .,
- \ ,. "
'0
;:::--.,-- .
~ I} . _ I ;11l11 frh'f
f .. 400 'eOO ~ 600 FEel · . i.\: on
I 0
..
~:,,_.. --
I
\\ \ \\ ;\ \\ \ ~ ~\
,LrD '\ \ \ \.
TfL \ ~ \ \~ ", IH
\', ..... \, \ ,I' l\:\..~
.'. . --- . - ~
1'\3 P
~~a
~
~
Ms. Tambri Heyden
November 23,1994
Page 3
to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on June 26, 1992 (see
attached warranty deed). Therefore, the Planned Unit Development now
has two separate owners, the applicant and the church.
2. In order to develop this first phase for the church parcel, the applicant
requested an approval for road improvements for the Tara Oaks P.U.D.
This request was made by Rick Rossi of Rossi & Malavasl Engineers, Inc.
to conatruct a portion of Knuth Road at the south end of the Tara Otaka
P.U.O. to accommodate the pending purchase of the church parcel.
Subsequently, on June 2, 1992 the City Commission granted approval of
the partial Knuth Road improvements required by the Tara Oaks P.U.D.
(see attached letter dated June 12, 1992 from Chris Cutro). Also attached
is a letter from the Boynton City Engineer dated June 19, 1992 indicating
what additional work was required to obtain a land development permit for
the road construction. The applicant expended over $4,000.00 in
conjunction with Obtaining approval of these preliminary plans..,
Additionally, the applicant has obtained the previous construction plans
from the previous owner which will be modified in order to obtain final
permits. (It should also be noted that over $100,000.00 has been set aside
in an escrow account to guarantee construction of this portion of Knuth
Road at such time as the church is ready to pull building permits for the
development of the site.)
3. The applicant has complied with the zoning condition of approval to
dedicate to the City of Boynton Beach twenty-five (25) feet for Knuth Road
pursuant to the attached right-of-way deed (ORB 7324, Pg. 1159, dated
June 26, 1992).
4. The applicant has expended over $28,000.00 for the construction of the
canal crossing at the Intersection of Woolbright Road and Knuth Road.
Attached is correspondence concerning the canal crossing including:
a. A letter dated April 24, 1992 from the Department of Environmental
Resource Management indicating that no permit would be required
pursuant to the Palm Beach County WeUands Protection Ordinance.
b. A letter from South Florida Water Management District granting a
permit exemption dated April 29, 1992. This letter indicates that the
South Florida Water Management District will not be analyzing the
surface water management system.
7
VIII. I ELOPMEIIT PLANS
C.L
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMOR
AGENDA ITEM
cc:
Bldg, Plan, Eug, Util
RE:
J. Scott Miller
Ci ty Manager .~ ) /.
Office of the City Engin~;fw_-.ot, (vt-
November 4, 1993 / /
Boynton Beach Blvd. P.C.D.
Departmental Request to Authorize Permit for Excavation &
Fill Operation
Mr. Enrico .Ric. Rossi, P.E./Developer's Engineer
City Code of Ordinances/Chapter 8/Permit Submission
Requirements
iECEIVED
TO:
FROM:
O tl 1'''''~'
!.' ....,.1 ~... )
'1\. oJ..1-
DATE:
CITY MANAGER'SOfF!C=
The Developer's Engineer, that being Mr. Enrico "Ric" Rossi, P.E.,
has provided this office with permit submission data and technical
information thereby satisfying the application provisions of the
above referenced City code.
The Developer's Engineer has submitted the attached documents on
behalf of Mr. Bill Winchester for the excavation of muck and subse-
quent backfilling with clean silica sands of a tract of land situated
within the Boynton Beach Blvd. P.C.D. (prior approved master plan) .
The subject real property is comprised of 14.76 acres of deleterious
soils mainly comprised of decaying fibrous peat and muck. The land
is being prepared for future development (time unknown) of a commercial
site to be constructed ov_er suitable soils as required in Appendix "C",
Subdivision and Platting Regulations, specifically Article VIII,
Section 2, "Unsuitable Land". The necessity to remove all deleterious
material, such as muck and fibrous peat, is therefore a prerequisite
to plat approval, therefore, the applicant's request for authorization
to perform an excavation and fill operation is valid.
PROJECT HISTORY
On, or about June of 1990, the master plan for Boynton Beach Blvd.
P.C.D. was approved by the then City Commission, reference the subject
14.76 acre tract which will include 4,000 square feet of restaurant,
llO,375 square feet of retail and 5,625 square feet of a banking
facility.
The Boynton Beach Blvd. P.C.D. is situated along the south rights-of-way
of Boynton Beach Blvd. (State Road #804), immediately west of the new
postal service building and east of the Stonehaven community (see
attached location plan) .
Utilizing a soil survey of Palm Beach County, Florida, the Engineering
Department has confirmed that the type(s) of soil(s) existing within
the project limits is primarily okeelanta muck.
'w
-
Engineering Dept. Memo No. 93-328/Agenda Item
Boynton Beach Blvd. P.C.D./Excavation & Fill Permit Request
November 4, 1993
Page #2
SPEeIFIe INFORMATION ON EXCAVATION AND FILL OPERATION
The original application submitted by the applicant, on or about
October 20, 1993, was initially rejected by City staff based upon
the following:
I) The applicant did not submit a cross section with finished land
elevations as required by Section 8-7(1) (e).
2) The applicant did not provide the address and contact phone #
of the contractor who will be performing the excavation work as
well as all other subcontractors involved in performing the ,work
associated with this proposed excavation and fill operation, as
required by Section 8-7(1) (g).
3) The applicant did not provide assurances regarding the requirement
to seed and mulch (re-vegetation) the stripped surface within 30
days of completing the backfilling operation, a requirement of
the City's Comprehensive Plan.
4) The applicant did not provide a maintenance of traffic plan
providing for advanced traffic control warning devices as required
by Section 8-7 (1) (n) .
5) The applicant desire~ to excavate the entire l4.76 acres and
stockpile the material on site. This was unacceptable to City
staff.
eURRENT STATUS OF THIS APPLICATION
The application, submitted by Enrico "Ric" Rossi, P.E., dated
October 29, 1993, has been reviewed by the City Engineer and has been
found to be in a state of compliance with City codes (see attached
application, page I thru 3).
The developer originally proposed excavating the entire 14.76 acre
tract of land as a continuous operation which would result in numerous
stockpiles of unsuitable soil to be left on site for a period of one
to two years. This initial proposal was unacceptable to the City
Engineer's office and after discussions with the developer, the
developer has agreed to perform the excavation and fill operation
in four separate phases, each phase comprised of an area equaling 3.7
acres.
The developer would excavate the muck from one singular phase and then
be responsible to backfill that phase with clean silica sand to a grade
Engineering Dept.Memo No. 93-328/Agenda Item
Boynton Beach Blvd. P.C.D./Excavation & Fill Permit Request
November 4, 1993
Page #3
approximately 4' below surrounding land elevations. Although this
would result in a land depression, the stripped surface would in fact
be at an elevation l' above the water table, which would in all
liklihood, create a stripped surface at or near optimum moisture
content thereby diminishing the occurrence of unconfined emissions
(blowing sand).
CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Office of the City Engineer recommends approval of the excavation
and fill operation for the Boynton Beach Blvd. P.C.D. conditioned upon
compliance with the following items:
I) In order to provide site security, a fence will be constructed
around the entire site.
2) The developer will provide for security in the form of warning
signs and "No Trespassing" signs placed in conspicuous locations.
3) A Performance Bond or Clean Irrevocable Letter of Credit acceptable
to the Engineering Department, Finance Director and City Attorney's
Office shall be submitted in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars
($20,000.00 U.S.) and shall be submitted along with a letter from
the developer stating that the bond is submitted for the purposes
of odor control, mosquito contol, erosion control, roadway and
utilities restoration, vegetation overgrowth control and to ensure
completion of the demucking, backfilling operation on a phase to
phase basis.
4) The developer's contractor shall perform a demucking operation
which will result in the stockpiling of muck (unsuitable soils)
for periods not to exceed 48 hours, thereby requiring the removal
of the excavated material from the site on an ongoing basis rather
than realizing the existence of muck stockpiles for long periods
of time.
5) The applicant's contractor shall submit a City of Boynton Beach
building permit along with associated plans and plan filing fees
and be responsible to conduct a pre-hauling meeting with the City
Engineer's office and the Police Department's Traffic Safety
Division prior to issuance of permits authorizing commencement of
the requested excavation and fill operation.
6) The applicant shall submit a truck hauling route plan, along with
a maintenance of traffic plan depicting the location of all
advanced warning devices necessary to protect the motoring and
pedestrian public during the export/import phases of this operation.
-
-
Engineering Dept. Memo No. 93-328/Agenda Item
Boynton Beach Blvd. P.C.D./Excavation & Fill Permit Request
November 4, 1993
Page #4
7) The applicant shall provide the Office of the City Engineer
with all necessary governmental agency approvals (ie. SFWMD,
LWDD, etc.) having jurisdiction over these lands as a pre-
requisite to issuance of City permits.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION
The Engineering Department for the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
recommends approval of the excavation and fill operation for the
Boynton Beach Blvd. P.C.D. conditioned on the developer's full
compliance with the aforementioned conditions of approval.
Should you require any additional information or assistance, please
contact the undersigned at ext. 6282.
Vincent A. Finizio
VAF/ck
cc: Enrico Rossi, P.E., 625 Whispering pines Rd., B.B. 33435
~....nt'~
~
~ "'~ 1:'C.1::>.
~ON~
-
(
...,.-
~
.~~'"
.A,
-, .
N
.
"
~I
.,
ctN"(T..(\
1-
'"
!L-
w
'W
.,
~.~
I
l
I
I
I
.urs C nllw E. LESS ~T^Tf:. ROAD RIGlIT 01' WAY, BLOCK 'f; LOTS C Hmu L, I
_~ss STATl: ROI\D IllGllT or- WAY, BLOCK '. LOT'i A Tlmu t, lILOCK Z~ M.I~ I
'_01'5 A nIRu E. llLOCK 2'J, AS RlCORDEO IN PALM BEACH r^,~MS COMPM~Y
"LI\T NO.3. IN PLAT l\OOK '. PAGE 7) OF TIlE PUULlC RECORDS OF PAUl
lEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA.
",;.rl !IIi -',ii III 111'1' ;",11 r 'I
. 1 ~, ,\ ,~ , ~ 1 \ ; .,:' r
II,
,.<.
'"
"'.'"'/' ~ :",1;' ,'''l~-\V^J
.~ ",.;; , t /l .
\'
'! ;. ". ~
Enrico Rossi, PI.;.
625 Whispering Pines Road
Boynton Bepch, Florida 33435
CALCULAiED BY
OF
DATE ~7 z~ /9~
SlIf:ET ..0
CHECKED BY
DATE
SCALE
Boy lJ-rou ~c..I.\ ~Lvp. ? C. 1).
P\l-..Cpc>sr;ro E'Xc.t.\VA1""lo0 .l\l.1D "MLL ~~c.~ f)LAh,J
-.J :::l
!J ~
~ t-
:2 ~
~ ~
Boy IJTO JJ ~~Ac..r\
b\..vD
N
//
ME A bee..
P4,.q$e ~ ExC,
_/
/
L-
3.7 fJc.-
/
/"
/
~
3 ,'7/i-c,-
/"
,//
h" j e :z= PI' ,qSE 7J(;
P )}~s~.l]:. , ;9IfIl-S (;.2lI
_'';' r:::; l.-t. 'It> e..L.I2..,.'2.
, -"///e//;;;-{..IW'f.e.-~,<:: EXCAV~TE' Aut)
"......... _ _ __ _ _ .-./'..t:"t/'/',., ~I..'/.!i_
/""
,/ J, 7 ffi---:!
:5t!!E::C-f '/01-1'
ELS.S WI'l-,.e:!l... ~bU::
V'
".r-"
.-
/'"""'
, l O~2.I:/ J2; tJi=PEf'2... (EX/StllJb .TJ2..5fS
/// IIfI1SEA EXc...(5'ALJO otle-(Z..J.Avc./C... extJTIc..)
/'pHI1Se. J'/I1/arJ.JI F,U Pl4se.s
&6T. E><CAV. 54, ()I)O ~. Y.
PROOUCl2CM-1 ("SllIes\~I~\/~I..w. _~ IMss (l\~l\ W\ll1lll?lOlro\..lWii'....nHi31111
Item Ii):
Water truck with diffuser shall be utilized for dust
abatement. Vegetation along perimeter of property shall
remain until filling operations are complete and the area
has been "seeded and mulched". Seeding of mulching to be
done if natural stand of grass does not develop.
Item (i):
All pumped water shall be directed to the sedimentation
pond before discharging to L-2y Canal utilizing existing
culvert across Boynton Beach Blvd. Silt curtains shall
be installed around outlet of 'settling' pond.
Item ()c) (1):
Stockpiles will be temporary and be part of a continuing
excava~ion and removal process.
Item (m):
The excavation and fill of the site is estimated to be
completed within one to two years.
Item (n) (0):
Trucks will ingress and egress Boynton Beach Blvd.
approximately 300 ft. West of Winchester Park Blvd.
intersection. "Truck Entering" signs shall be placed
along Boynton Beach Blvd. to meet D.O.T. 's Manual on
Uniform Traffi.c Control Devi.ce. (MUTeD), ourrent edition.
Item (p):
Turn lanes not required.
Item (a):
De-watering permit for excavation to be obtained by
Contractor from S.F.W.M.D. and on-site area to be diked
for pre-sedimentation of discharge water before releasing
from property.
Item (r):
Boundary survey enclosed certified by applicant's
Engineer, including topographic survey.
Page 2
-------- ~- ~..-
-
-
Item (s):
Proper signage to be erected along Boynton Beach Blvd.,
advising of "Trucks Entering Roadway" to meet DOT Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Item (t):
A $20.000.00 surety to insure restoration shall be posted
by the applicant.
EXCAVATION & FILL STAGED SEOUENCE
1. Obtain permit to clear site. Application
obtained from Building Department and clearing
presently underway.
2. Excavate Phase A & B (west one half).
Segregate clean overburden from muck and fill
demucked areas to EL 9.5 NGVD (approximately
one foot higher than water table). Reclaimed
land in proximity to water table should
promote rapid vegetative growth.
3. Dewater site to permit removal of muck
(application for water use permit submitted to
S.F.W.M.D. on October 29, 1993; copy to LWDD).
4. Excavated muck to be deposited along
perimeter of property (max four foot high) for
future berming. Bulk of muck to be removed
from site.
5. Property to be filled to EL 12.2 by
trucking fill from offsite. Filling shall be
performed in 3.7 acre quadrants - i.e., one
quadrant completed before moving to other
quadrants.
6. Perimeter of property to be "backsloped" to
maintain runoff to site.
7. Estimated costs for Excavation and Fill is
as follows:
54,000 ey muck excavation x $1.50/ey =
100,000 CY fill x $2.25/CY
Total Estimated eost
=
$ 81,000.00
$225.000.00
$306,000.00
Page 3
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 92-164
TO: Chris Cutro
Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
Michael E. Kazunas
City Engineer
f11Q
DATE: June 29, 1992
RE: Tara Oaks PUD, Knuth Road PCD and Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD
This department's concern is that Knuth Road is not constructed in
its entirety, but,
a) is never build if Knuth Road PCD is constructed and Tara Oaks
PUD is del~yed or cancelled,
or
b) constructed in segments and not completed until both projects
are completed, which is the way we read the June 10, 1992
correspondence.
We have no objection to any agreement which completes Knuth Road in
its entirety, conditioned on the completion of either project.
MEK/ck
..r'
,,,,"'f~'O
,'-G. ,
, r, S..
.. -C'\- ,/
~ ~~ --
~. ;,;......
p/
\.., ?,I::i ,,"\.
,'\" ~<..(..
" ::'/'J~
. (.\",.
0',' ,
\ --' ,~_.- /
,.--?-/
/
--~.-
ENRICO ROSSI, P.E.
625 Wbisperinq pines Road
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
October 29, 1993
Lake Worth Drainage District
13081 Military Trail
Delray Beach, Florida 33484
Attn: Bill Winters, Manaqer
RE: Application to S.F.W.M.D. for Water Use Permit
Boynton Beach PUD for Bill Winchester (14.76 acres)
Dear Mr. Winters,
Pursuant to our phone conversation, I have enclosed a copy of the
referred application for your review and approval.
Please call me with your questions.
~urs,
~-.'. -
-
Enrico Rossi, P.E.
ER\tdc
cc: Bill Winchester
-
....
ENRICO ROSSI P.E.
625 Whispering pines Road
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
October 29, 1993
Office of the City Engineer
eity of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
Re: Application for Excavation and Fill on 14.76 ac tract of land
known as "Boynton Beach P.C.D." (south side of intersection of
Boynton Beach Blvd. and Winchester Park Blvd.)
Gentlemen:
I am resubmitting this application for an excavation and fill
permit on behalf of owner, Bill Winchester, to permit the phased
land reclamation of the referenced zoned parcel of land. Pursuant
to the eity's codes under ehapter 8, Section 8.7(1), items (a)
through (t) have been addressed below:
Item (al throuqh (el:
Enclosed are 4 copies of the boundary survey showing
Phase I and Phase II of areas to be demucked and filled,
4 copies of surveys showing existing topography, 2 copies
of soil boring logs and boring location sketch.
Item (fl:
Muck excavation shall be performed using front end
loader, back hoe and dump truck.
Item (ql:
Work shall be performed by Contractor, Odum Inc., 394
S.R. 7, West Palm Beach, Florida 33414 (phone 407-795-
9093)
Item (hI:
It is estimated that approximately 54,000 cubic yards of
muck will be excavated and utilized for perimeter
landscape mounds, and the bulk of the muck shall be
removed from the site by truck.
Page I
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 92-129
June II, 199 2
TO:
J. Scott Miller, City Manager
~U/-
~I~her Cutro, Planning and Zoning Director
FROM:
RE: Time Extensions for Knuth Road P.C.D., Tara Oaks P.U.D.
and Boynton Beach P.C.D.
Kieran Kilday, agent for Bill Winchester, has filed the attached
request to extend the limits for recording plats for the Knuth
Road P.C.D., Boynton Beach P.C.D. and Tara Oaks P.U.D.
These developments were approved by the eity eommission on
December 18, 1990 and would expire on June 18, 1992 if not
extended by the eity Commission.
The City Commission has approved a preliminary plat and site plan
for the Knuth Road P.C.D. and infrastructure improvements for the
Tara Oaks P.U.D. In addition, as ind1cated in the attached
letter, removal of the exotics on the Boynton Beach P.C.D. has
been discussed with staff.
This request has been discussed with the members of the
Concurrency Review Committee and no objections have been raised
to the requested extensions.
This item has been scheduled for City Commission review on June
16, 1992.
CC:ald
C:EXTENSNS.ALD
Klldlly It A880c1._
Landscape Architects/Plannsrs
1551 Forum Plsce
Suite l00A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 689-5522 . Fax: (407) 689-2592
JUN 0 2 1992
Mav 30. 1992
Hr. Chris Cutro. Director
Cltv of Bovnton Beach Planning Department
100 E. Bovnton Beach Boulevard
Bovnton Beach. FL 33425
RE: Request for Extensions
Dear Hr. Cutro.
It has recentlv come to our attention that the approvals for
the following three protects: Knuth Road PCD. Bovnton Beach
Boulevard PCD. and Tara Oaks PUD. will require an extension
as of June 18. 1992. This letter serves as a formal request
for a time extension for these approvals.
Needless to sav, the general economic state of the countrv
has substantial Iv effected the abilitv of these proiects to
move ahead over the past 18 months. Unfortunate Iv. due to
the substantial time requirements required in obtaining
Comprehensive Plan amendments and development approvals
(approximatelv one vear from date of application to final
approval). economic conditions can change substantiallv
between the time an applicant makes application for a
proiect and an applicant is in a position to receive
approval to bui Id that project. Nevertheless. we have
worked continuouslv on all three proiects during the last 18
months to bring them to fruition.
As vou are aware. several of the proiects are now in the
approval process and will most likelv receive some final
approvals during either the month of June or Julv. However.
in order to be sure that no deadlines are missed. we are
requesting official time extensions for all three proiects
to ensure that final platting can be recorded at such time
as all 20Yernmenta~ approvals are received.
On an individual basis. the status of the projects are as
fa I lows:
1.
Bovnton Beach Boulevard Planned Commercial
Development This PCD became the subiect of
litigation in 1991. The propertv is currentlv owned bv
the University of FlorIda Foundation. as Trustee. In
the couraa of obtainine cl~ar title for the transfer of
Hr. Chris Cut.I'o
RE: 'rime Extensions
PaeE' 2..
true, I"ncl, !'lOin!: ll!:rects were found. Unfort.unatelv, in
order t.o cure these defects liti~ation has become
necessary. This litigation is stil I ongoing. In the
meantime. we are unable to close on the propert.v and.
therefore. proceed with act.ive development.
However. at the time of the original approval. we did
receive some specitic requests trom the residents ot
Stonehaven PUD which abuts the property to the west.
There were several large australian pines located alon!!
this portion of the proper tv which the nei~hbors
consldered to be a danger to adlacent propertv.
lmmediatelv upon approval of this proiect we contracted
with Arbor Tree Service. Inc. who removed said trees.
Anv further preparation of the site wil require us to
resolve the above noted leRal issues..
2. Knut.h Road Planned Commercial Development - A revised
master plan. site plan and preliminarv plat for Knuth
Road PCD have been submitted to City staft for review.
The matt.er Is scheduled to be heard bv the Plannlng and
Development. Board on Mav 12. 1992 and the City Council
on June 2. 1992. Assuming approval at this time. the
proiect will then commence final platting. The proiect
is anticipated to be developed as a phased proiect with
the construction of a sinale outpar.ce~ initial Iv and
the remainder ot the project to develop as economlC
times allow. However. with the filing of the first.
plat. it is our understanding that all further timing
requirements of the Ordinances will be met.
3. Tara Oaks Planned Unit Development - Tara Oaks PUD is
currently in the process of platting for Phase I.
Specitical Iv. a portion of the PUD was master planned
for the utilization of the church at the corner of
Woolbrlght Road and Knuth Road. The applicant has
entered into contract with the church who wishes to
construct on said property. In this case. the
construction of Woolbright Road was necessary in order
t.o provide proper access to the church paree I.. NI)w
that this road has been constructed. the applicant. has
tiled all necessary permits tor the constructlorlot
Knuth Road alon~ the church's frontaee. The church
WII I then subsequently file for a Phase I plat for the
utilization af thJS propertv. It is anticipated that
the plat should be recorded far the site prior to the
(~nd ot 1 HY:d..
11r. Chris Cut.ro
RE: Time Extensions
Palle 3.
After havine a chance to review this letter. we will be
happy to answer any additional questions which either you or
your statt may have. I would appreciate your outllnine the
proper procedure requirements for obtainine said time
ext.ensions. As you can see from this letter. these time
extensions should be adequate to allow for the resolution ot
the issues contained within each proiect.
Sincerelv..
~
Kieran J.
KJK/lsk
c. c.
Mr. Bill Winchester
Fi Ie: 799.5
F i Ie: 799.9
Fi Ie: 799.10
~ b:
~ ~ IJ.J
> Cl
-f ..,. C)
~ ... .~
~ Z Z
~ < Z
-, :5
~ 0.
'r J,h
----
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 91-008
January 12, 1991
TO: J. Scott Miller
City Manager
FROM: Vineent A. Finizio
Administrative Coordinator of Engineering
BE: City Manager Memorandum No. 9l-ol1
Boynton Beach P.C.D.
Knuth Road P.C.D.
I am in reeeipt of the above refereneed memorandum and provide you the following
information to support my opinion that the Boynton Beaeh P.C.D. and the Knuth
Road P.C.D. should not be eonsidered exempt from adherenee to the Palm Beaeh
County Traffie Performanee Standards and all assoeiated Munieipal Ordinanees
governing the subject properties.
In aeeordanee with the provisions set forth in our City's Code of Ordinanees,
speeifieally Appendix "A" - Zoning, Seetion F, "Planned Commereial Development
District", subseetion F8. "Proeedures for Zoning Land to Planned Commereial
Development", requires a formal submission of geoteehnieal (soils) test data as
refereneed in Seetion F8a3. whieh states the applieant must submit Subdivision
Master Plan Requirements Not Listed Above. Appendix "C", Subdivision and Platting,
Seetion 4. "Master PIan", subseetion4C(15), requires the applieant to submit the
results of geoteehnieal tests for the subjeet properties. This required submission
as refereneed in Appendix "A" is a requirement for the applieation proeess for
zoning property to P.C.D. The applieant failed to submit the required test data as
evideneed by the May 10, 1990 Report of Geoteehnieal* Investigation eondueted by
Nutting Engineers after February I, 1990. This report is available for your review
and supports my opinion that the applieant failed to submit the required data
within the threshold date eontained within County Munieipal Ordinanees.
Refereneed the aforementioned Appendix "A" submission requirements relative to
Master Plan requirements set forth in Appendix "c" Subdivision and Platting.
Artiele VIII, Section 4D, (Traffie lmpaet Analysis) the applieant submitted the
T.I.A. to this Offiee on April 17, 1990. The T.I.A. eondueted by K.S. Rogers,
Consulting Engineers dated the report 1/31/90*. The required submission doeument
for zoning property to P.C.D. was reeeived by this offiee approximately one and
one half (I 1/2) months after the County's threshold date and again supports my
opinion that the applieant failed to submit the required data within the threshold
date eontained within eounty Munieipal Ordinanees.
*Engineering Department Memorandum No. 90-102, transmitted to you, Item #l of the
April 17, 1990 Technical Review Board Comments, speeifieally indieates that the
soil test data whieh is a required submission for zoning property to P.C.D. elearly
indieates that the data was not provided this City prior to February I, 1990.
Additionally, it is elear that Item #3 of Engineering Department Memorandun No.
90-102 (eross-referenee Engr. Dept. Memo No. 90-103) eonfliets with Item #5. The
intent of this confliet was to doeument that at the time of submittal, a Traffie
lmpaet Analysis was omitted and was immediately submitted to my offiee the day the
T.R.B. comments were being typed and that is why the eomplianee statement eontained
w thin Item #5 appears at the end of the TRB eomments whieh eoneurs with the Traffie
E 'gineers statement that the subject properties shall eomply with County Traffie
p'rformanee Standards and applieable Ordinanees. Additionally, this offiee never
r c.e.LVed a Market Feasibility Study as refereneed in Appendix "A".
1 should also be noted that Planning Department memorandum No. 278, dated
A gust 2l, 1990, and the subsequent Planning Department memorandum No. 313, dated
o tober 16, 1990, regarding fully exempt and partially exempt projeets, did not
e ntain any reference whatsoever to the subjeet P.C.D.'s being exempt.
Planning Department memorandum No. 368, dated December 20, 1990, reeently included
the subjeet properties, furthermore requesting a review of the attaehed exemption
list by my department relative to the formulation of objeetions to any projects
eontained therein. 1 requested the presenee of the City Engineer, Consulting firm
of Gee & Jenson, but W. Riehard Staudinger, P.E. did not attend and as the Planning
Department requested an immediate and expeditious written reply to this issue, 1
formulated one based on information available within the public reeords of this
City.
can't...
...............
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 91-{)08 eon' t .
RE: Boynton Beach P.C.D. & Knuth Road P.C.D.
As an employee of this City, it is my obligation to diselose my knowledge of
faetual information regarding all pub lie matters, as(it is my opinion)for me to
knowingly withhold information whieh would eonfer a speeial privilege unto others
(ie. traffic exemptions, ete.), would be improper and not in the best interest
of the eitizens of Boynton Beaeh, Florida.
In response to your Memorandum No. 91-011 relative to the administration of these
artieles regarding traffie and drainage exemptions, I respeetfully request that
you re-visit Seetion 19-87(e) (e) whieh indieates to me that it is my offiee who
determines whieh projeets are vested for traffie and drainage exemptions and 1
therefore take exeeption to Paragraph #2 and Paragraph #7 of City Mananger's
Memorandum No,. 91-011.
(Cross-referenee Seetion 19-88(d)(I), Ordinanee 90-18)
In the spirit of intergovernmental eoordination, I meet, speak to and transmit
information on a eontinuing basis to the County Engineer, Engineering Dept. Planner,
Roadway Produetion Department, the Attorney's offiee and the County Speei~l
Projeets Administrator as a normal eourse of my duties. As Administrator and
Coordinator of Engineering 1 hold membership on the MPO's Teehnieal Advisory
Committee, where side by side, City and County Offieials strive to improve over
eapaeity roadway lengths, many of whieh are loeated within this City.
1 feel my aetions in this matter were neither inappropriate or improper as you
are well aware 1 eoordinate with the aforementioned County offiees on most all
transportation, master plan and platting issues. As you are well aware, I have
always eopied you on eorrespondenee sent to County offiees and 1 take exeeption
that 1 am being singled out for transmitting this speeifie memo when 1 feel 1 am
properly performing my publie duties in the best interest of our City. During
diseussions held in your offiee on January II, 1991, you voieed your support for
me relative to these two projeets eontributing to a improved roadway system and
it pains me to know you wrote the County Engineer requesting he ignore the publie
doeument I sent to him, when in faet you have never requested he ignore the dozens
of other doeuments sent by me to the County offiees.
1 should never have been invited to a staff meeting to determine whieh projeets
are exempt and whieh are not, espeeially when the end result of my honest opinion
(seemingly eontrary to others) was the generation of an embarrassing letter, sent
by you, to Mr. Charles Walker, Jr.
Respeetfully submitted,
L~A,b'
Vineent A. Finizio ~
Administrative Coordinator of Engineering
R.ECEIVED
JAN 14 ql
PLANNING DEPT.
VAF/ek
ee: Christopher Cutro, Direetor of Planning
Central Files
Engineering File - Knuth Road P.C.D.
Engineering File - Boynton Beaeh P.C.D.
I Note:
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
Seetions of the Coneurreney Management Ordinanee relative to issuanee of
Land Development Orders is in direet eonfliet with Appendix "c" Subdivision
2nd Dlatting Regulations and furthermore exempts all non-residential uses fru~
providing proper levels of serviee for potable water, sanitary sewer, solid
waste and parks and reereation faeilities.
...............--
VI. LEGAL
B.21
cc: Bldg, Plan
Eng, Utll
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-346
FROM:
J. Scott Miller, City Manager
~~ "
Chr~stopher Cutro, Plann~ng D~rector
TO:
DATE:
November 29, 1990
SUBJECT:
Boynton Beach Boulevard (PCD) Text Amendment
As part of the Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD land use plan
amendment it is necessary to amend a portion of the support
document for the Future Land Use Element. This section of the
document known as "Land Use Problems and Opportunities, Planning
Area 7, 7.k." must be amended to delete specific language
regarding future land uses for the subject site.
This annexation, land use/zoning/text amendment was reviewed by
the Planning Department staff and denial was recommended. The
Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the petition.
On June 19, 1990 the City Commission forwarded this petition to
the Florida Department of Community Affairs by a 4 to I vote.
The Department of Community Affairs commented negatively on this
request. Their comments were based on degradation of traffic
levels of services as well as the need for this type of land use.
The petitioner has given staff information that answers the
latter comments but no information has been forthcoming regarding
traffic.
For this reason staff recommends denial of this amendment to the
support documents of the Future Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
CC:cp
A:Boynton
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-199
TO: J. Scott Miller, City Manager
THRU:
Timothy P. Cannon, Interim Planning Director ~
FROM: James J. Golden, Senior City Planner
DATE: June 18, 1990
SUBJECT: Mall Corner, Inc., Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD and
Knuth Road PCD - Requests for Annexation, Land Use
Element Amendment and Rezoninq
Attached you will find a copy of the correspondence from Palm
Beach County concerning the above-referenced requests. Said
correspondence should be included in the City Commission agenda
packet for the Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road PCD
requests.
.?~
ES#J. GOLDEN
JJG:frb
Ene
cc: Central File
Ii-I.". l'iU.
.lUll .Lf I:;JV "':;0""11 r.v.L
,
BOard of Count)' Commlulonera
Cirol J. Elmquist, Chairman
Karen T. Marcus. Vlc~ Chair
Carol A, Rub"rl'
Ron Howard
Carole Phillip,
COllntr Admlnlltrator
Jan Wlnler.
Department or Planning. Zoninll Ie ."Udlnll
I
~
,
I
I
I
'~C8~~ILE COVER SKBET
TO THE ATTENTION OFI
-:S,..., (,-. \d.. N
'ROM I
q.~v~ ",",o"'"'e\' I ~L..ANN.'"
DATE 1
6//.r/fO TIIUII
10; <.\ $"
NUMBBR 01 P~GE8 (INCLUDING COVBR SHBBT'I~
COMMENtS: A Olf)\(t\~V ~ <t +hi \L..)"6 ~~t'\i
fP'C~' ~.,,;t..."""-> ~,,\, \nr ~T 0.......-\ ~~"'i'
E81j&4 FILE:J3/1ACBIMLB
800 t lth Street. WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIJ)A U4\l1i .(401) 6"-4001
palm Beac:ll cOIJ-nty comprehensive Plan Lllnd V..e Atllls
,...... ,"'....
"'\,All ~ I 1,;.0..... ,&...,.,..:.. I. J..L
Junl;l 12, 1990
James J. Golden, Senior City Planner
city of Boynton Beach
100 ~a6t Boynton Beach Boulevard
P. O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33435-0310
Re: Reque6t by Charlene Boynton, Donald Low€! and the University
of Florida Foundation. Inc. for voluntary annekation of
14.76 acres into the city of Boynton Beach.
Dear Mr. Golden:
Th" Planning, zoning and Building Department has coordinated the
review of the proposed annexation of 14.76 aore5, genorally
located on the South side of Boynton B"aoh Blvd. approximately
950 feet West of Congress Avenuo. County etaff comments are as
followg:
1. fLANNlHG ~lVISION: SL~von Morales, Planner
1'ht~ pl"nnin9 divi..i<>n has undergone a review aC the propOGed
ann",,,..t ion in aoool;danae with cho.pter 171, Florida Statues
and Pa 1m l'gaoh County t 3 Interim Annexation Review polley.
TIH' pr<'pos:od anne>lation ie contiguous to the city of Boynton
Boach, r(lanonably compact, substantially decreases the size
of an Q,;i",ting' service provi..ion enclave, and lies within
the city's future annexation area. However, a small enclave
of l~nd adjaoent to the propo5e~ annexation still exists.
Boynton Deach :shOUld contact the property owners in the
enolf\ve and annex this property as SOon as possible.
The land u,,'" proposed (Or ~he site ls in conflict with the
Palm eeach County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Atlas
I t.L I'U.
Jun l(.~U LL.Q( ~.UL
f
Page 2 of 4
June 12, 1990
designation. The 1989 eomprehensive plan designate!) this
property as High Residential 8 allowing a maximum of 8
dwelling units per one acre. The proposed land use for the
site is planned commercial Development. Please be advised
that upon annexation the property is subject to county
development reQulations until the property is rezoned by the
city (171.062, F.S.).
2. nNVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT' aob Kraus, Environmen-
tal Analys:t
'l'h", majority of the Gite app(lars to b.. vegBtat..d by GKotie
spocios: including Melaleuea, Brazilian Pepper and Australian
toJne". Wetland" exis:t on-sita particularly in the northoast
<"orn,,!:' of tho "it". culvcorts: wcore ob..erved alon9 Boynton
l'<i>"ch Dlvd., which disoharge stormwatGr from the road onto
'~,he property. Should any development be proposed for this
property, a wetlande jUrlediotional dete):'minatlon will be
required by this Depar.tment. The site is not located within
a Well field Protection Zone.
). t'IRJ::-RBtl<~; Kathy owen5, Bpecir21 projects Coordln"tor
hi though there will be a loss of revenue to Palm O..ach
county Fire Rescue, as a result of this annel<atlon, the
resIdents will receive better service 1! annexed. Boynton's
titatlon #2 is 1.8 miles away trom this area as compareO ~o
palm Beach county which ls J mlles away. AOditional1y, thls
annexation WOUld remove a county pocket and alleviate
problems of contusion in service providers.
4.
;3HERIFF'S OEPARTMEN'f:
Pll1nner
Diana Newcomer, Criminal Justice
Annexation of this vacant par.cel decreases significantly the
existing pocket. However, inClusion of this parcel into the
city creates an enclave of the industrial area located on
the southeast side. The only access available to the
Sheriff'S Office to provide service is through the city of
Boynton Beach on 31 TerraCe s. This can result in potential
hazards for either city or county emergency responding
vehicles.
The Palm Beach Sheriff's Office
Boynton Beach pursue alternatives
hazards for law enforcement.
recommends the City of
that eliminate potent ial
,
Page J or 4
June 12, 1990
5.
TRAfFIC ENGINEERING: Allan Ennis, Development Review
Eng neer
since the application for a city development order was not
complete prior to February 1, 1990 (based on our reading of
city correspondence to applicant), this project is considered
to be subject to 1990 countywide Traffic performance stan-
dards (County Ordinance 90-6 and 90-7).
To Comply with these eounty ordinances, new trafHc reports
need to be submitted by the applicant to your office as well
as our office for review.
If till! ontparcels on each of the Shopping center site plans
wi.ll be specificall)( limited to restaurant and financial
institution use, their trip generation should be separately
calculated at thl!! highl!!r rates that are rl!!prl!!sentative of
tho!Oe land uses rather than included as pal:'t of the general
rotail cOlllmorcial arol\.
Undnr t.(."L #1 of tho nQW countywidG Traffic standal:'c! (..hh:h
i~ comparabl~ to tho pr~viouG unincorporated area Gtandard-
county Ordinance B7-1S), significant project traffic would
occu:: on two link" of Boynton Beaoh BOUlQvard that ar~
projeoted to exoeed their exietin~ and committed capaoities.
No improvementB are reoommended for either of theBe two
link~ (Hilitary Trail to El Claire Ranch Road and Old Boynton
Road to InterBtate 95). without BOlDe oommitment from theBe
developers to improve these two links the traffic standard
i6 violated.
Ii.
l1T [l,ITII!:S:
Division
Lorraine peter6on, civil Engineer, l;ngineer Ing
110 comment.s not in IWO'S service area.
.,. l"lNANelAL MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DEPARTMENT: Rlcnara
Roberts, Assistant Director
The proposed annexation results in the loss of ad valorem
taxes of $1,527 as the above city does not participate in
fj re Rer;clle MSTU P ;md the Library Taxing Olstr iet. No
estimate c<ln be made as to the dollar value of the services
that are no longer provided by the county. In "ddiUDn,
certain revenue sources, i.e., utility service t~x,
franchise fl!!es, sales tax and state shared revenues may be
marginally reduced but cannot be estimated from available
intormation. Therefore, the overall fiscal impact cannot be
dl!!tl!!rttlined.
"'''''' ,&.1 I"'V "-I.. ....... I IV'"
,
page 4 of 4
June 12, 1990
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to these
actions. Please include these comments with your backup materials
for all meetin~s and hearings where this annexation is discussed.
The Planning Division would appreciate it it you could please
provide this office with final annexation ordinances so staff can
adjust the County's maps accordingly. Feel tree to contact this
office if you have any questions.
sincerely,
Dennis R. Folt2, AICP
Planning Director
Attachment
onl Board of County CommiG&lonQr~
Bob weisman, Administration
Lee Rosenthal, County Attorney's orrica
Donna Kristaponis, planning, Zoning and Building
Dob jlraUI'l, ERM
Kathy Owens, Fire/Rescue
Diana Newcomer, Sheriff's Department
Allan Ennis, Traffic Engineering Division
Lorraine Peterson, water utilities
Richard Roberts, OFMB
Keith Stahley, zoning Division
RiChard F. Morley, Planning Division
Anita Gonzalez, Planning Div1s1on
Steve Morales, Planning Division
FILE: ANNEX2/ANNXBB. RS6
.......11 "" I....V 6-6.. ........ I .VW
..' to
Boal.d of C~u"t). COllll..isoionen
Count)' .\dmlnlo,r.IOr
Jan W"lt~r.
Llfu) J. !'llllll";>!' <:h~l"\l,\ll
"-.ul'n T. MoUnl", Vin' Ch.lir
C.HO! :\, Ruhl'l t,
1<011 1 fO\\'drd
C"f.'k Phil I,!"
...-
OCl'ot'rnCI\\ or Planning. ~"ni"g & Huiltllnll
~_"''V''lII'''''-.
June 12, 1990
James J. Golden, Senior city Planner
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Post Office Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 334J5-0310
Re: Req,uest by the Winchester famHy for voluntary annexation
of 13.87 acres into the City of Boynton Beach.
Del'll: Hr Golden:
The Pl1tlllling; zoning and Building Department has CoordInated
t;he review of the pro}?osed annexation of 13.87 acres, gnneral-
ly located at the southwest corner of Knuth Road and Boynton
Beadl Boulevard. County staff comments arA as follo~'l':
1. l'LI\.NNIH!:i,_,DTlfTHIOt{: steven Morales, Planner
The Planning Divislon has undergona a review of the
proposed annexation in accordance \o1ith Chaptel' 171,
Florida statutes and Palm Beach County'~ Interim
Annexation :Review Policy_ Th.. proposod annoxation j..
contiquous to the city of Boynton Beach, reasonably
compact, and lies within thQ city'" future annexation
area. .
TIH' lanu u"" propo...ad for the Bite i5 in conflict with
the Palru Boach county Comprehen~ive Plan Land U5e Atla6
desi9nation enclosed. The 1999 comprehensive Plan
desiqnate.. the Northern half of the proporty as
co~maroial Hiqh Intensity and the Southern halt as
800 11th S'rl!cl. WEST PALM I\I;ACIl, n.OnmA 33406. (407) 6'7.4001
f')J 1"*""(/('" f,:C,.C/('c/ ('.'s.t'"
I L..L. l'1U.
JUII J. r I::7V ~~..JV r. vu
.
Page 2 of ~
June 12, 1990
Commercial Recreation. commercial Recreation provides
tor outdoor 8nd indoor recreational racllities, golf
courses, parks and recreation, limitea excavation, and
accessory tacilities and activities that are an integral
part and supportive ot the recreational facilIty. The
proposed use is Planned commercial Development. Please
be advised that upon annexation the property is subject
to county development regulations until the property is
rezoned by the city (171.062, F.S.).
2.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT:
Environmental Analyst
The property has been cleared ot significant vegetation
with the exception of scattered slash pine along the
western half of the property. The site is not located
within a Wellfield Protection ~one. Scattered piles of
rubble were noted, apparently the remnants of former
bUildings.
Bob Kraus,
3. F1RE-RESCUE: Kathy Owens, Special Projects Coordinator
This area is currently being provided fire rescue service
trom Palm Beach County Fire Rescue Station 51 which is
2.8 miles away. If annexed, Boynton Beach would serve
the e.rea from its station # 2, approximately 2 miles
away. As the area is contiguous to Boynton, we
anticipate few operational problems. There will be,
however, a loss of revenue to Palm Beach County Fire
Rescue.
4. SHERIFF'S nF.PAa~MENT: Diana Newcomer, Criminal Ju~tice
!"lanher
Annexation 01: this vacant parcel will not hindQ!:, gervicQ
levels for the Palm Beach Sheriff'S Office to surrounding
unincorporated areas, nor for the City of Soynton Beach.
The Sheriff'S Office does not find issue with this
requ..st. .
5. ~RAFFIC ENCIN~E~: Allan Ennis, oQvelopment Review
En9in....r
sinoQ tho applioation for a oity developm~nt order Wh~
not complQto prior to February 1, 1990 (ba15cd on OUr
roading of oity correspondenoe to ~pplicant), thiB
proj ..ot is oonsidered to be subj eat to 1990 Countywide
'rr..ffio Performanoe Standards (county Ordinance 90-6 and
90-7) .
.' . "'.., ..........."" " ""
,
PagQ 3 of 4
Juno 12, Ul90
To Comply with these County Ordinances, new trarric
reporta need to be 5ubJUi. ttecl by the applicant to your
ottica as well as ou~ ottice tor review.
I t' the outparcel5 on each Dr the shopping center s1 'te
plans will be 5peci1:ically limited 'to restaurant and
1:inanoia1 institution use, their trip generation shoull1
be separately calculated at the higher rates that are
repre5entatlve ot these land. uses ratner enan inClUded
as part ot the venera1 retail commercial area.
Under test U or the new countywi<l.e Trarric Standard
(WhiCh is comparable to tne prev10us unincorporated area
slandara - couney Or(l1nance 87-18), significant project
traffic WOUld. occur on two links Of Boynton Beach
Boulevard. that. are p;:-ojected. to exceed their existing
ana committed capac1 'ties. NO improvements are recorn-
lnended. tor elt:ner or tnese two linlts (Military Trail to
~l Claire Rancn Roaa and Old Boynton Road to Interstate
9~) . without some commitment from these developers to
1mprove t:hese two linkS the traffic standard is violated.
6. UTILITIES: Lorraine peterson, Civil Engineer,
Engineering Division
No comment - Not in WOO's Service Area
7.
fINANCIAl, MANAGEMENT AND BUOGE'f l)!';PARTMENT:
Roberts, Assistant Director
The proposed annexation results in the loss of ad valorem
taxes of $23.00 as the above city does not participate
in Fire Rescue MSTU #3 and the Library
Taxing District. No estimate can be made as to the
dollar value of the services that are no longer provided
by the county. In addition certain revenue sources,
i.e., utility service tax, franch1se fees, sales tax and
state shared revenues may be marqinally redUced but
cannot be estimated from available information. There-
for~, the overall fiscal impact cannot be dBtermined.
Richard
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to thege
actions. Please include these comments with your backup
Page 4 of 4
.:rune 12, 1990
materials for all meetings and hearings where this annexation
is discussed. The Planning Dividon would appregiate it if
you could please providl!! this orrico with rInal annexation
ordinances so staff Oan adjust tho County'. mapa aooordingly.
Feel free to contaot this ottica if you havo any qu..tiono.
Sincerely,
DQ~~AICP
Planning D~~:~:!r
Attaohment
001 Board of County Commiosioners
Bob weisman, Administration
Lee Rosenthal, Co~nty Attorney's office
Donna ~ri8taponis, Planning, Zoning ana Building
!:lob Kraus, ERM
Kathy Owens, Fire/Rescue
piana N~woomer, Sheriff's oeparcmenc
Allan Ennis, Traffic Engineering Division
Lorraine Peterson, water Utilities
Richard Roberts, OFMB
Keith stahley, zoning DiVision
Richard ~. Morley, Planning Division
Anita Gonzalez, Planning Division
steve Morales, Planning Division
FILEl ANNEX2/ANNXBB.RS7
--" .....,-- :-...
.
paqe 3 ot 3
June 12/ 1990
6.
~:
01vTSIOn.
Lorraine Peteraon, Civil Enqin..r, EnginQsX'ing
No comment - Not in WUO's Servioe Area
,. fINANCIAL MANAGEMEN'l' AND BUDGET DEPARTMENT: IHchard
Roberts, Assistant Director
The proposed annexation resul till in the 10&& of ad valorem
taxes of $867.00 as the above city do.~ not participate in
Fire Rescue MSTU #3 and thQ Libra.ry Tax in", Distriot. No
estimate can be made as to the dollar value of the eervicea
that are no lonqer provided by thCll count.y, :In addition
certain revenue sources, i.e., utility service ta~, franchise
fees, sales tax and stato sharod revenues may he marginallY
reduced but cannot be ostimatod from available information.
Theretore, the overall fisoal impact oannot be determined.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to these
aotions. Please inolude thClDCI oommQnts with your b~ckup materi8l&
for all meetings and heari~9c whorCl this annoxation ia discuBsed.
The Planninq Division would apprCloiata it. if you could plealle
provide this otfice with final annexation ordinances so st8tt oan
adjust the County's mapa .ooo~din9ly. Feel free to contact this
office if you havo any qUClctiona.
Sincar.,ly,
Dennis R. F ~ICP
Planning oirClotor
At:t..,ohm..nt
COI Board of county Commissioners
Bob Weisman/ Administ.ration
L..e Roscnthal, county Attorney's ottice
Donna Kristaponis, Planning, zoning and Building
Bob l<raus/ ERM
Kathy Owcns, Fire/Rescue
Diana Newcomer, 3herlrt'S Department
Allan Ennis, Trattic Engineering Division
Lorraine Peterson, water Utilities
aiehard ~obBrts, OTMB
Keith Stahley, zoning Division
Richard F. Morley/ Plann1nq Division
Anita GOnZalez, Planning DiVision
steven Morales, Planning Division
FILE:ANNEXZ!ANNXHB.RS3
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-146
TO:
James Cherof, City Attorney
Timothy P. Cannon, Interim Planning Director y-~
Tambri J. Heyden, Assistant City Planner
THRU:
FROM:
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
1, 1990.
~fi.J~
TAMB~ J. H EN
TJH:frb
Encs
C:PM90-146
PLANNING DEPT. MEMO~ANDUM No. 90-363
TI-I'
,J. '3l~Ott ~1i , "1>2i-', ci'ty Manager'
~(t.-_'-u. - ~
ehr'i stopher' Cutro j AIC~~'
PlanninSI Dir'ector
FRm1 :
DATE:
December' 1'.,1990
~. UB..! ECT:
Planning Depat~tm0nt ReCOITlnlendation - Land Use
~mendm0nts for" BOYilton Beach planned Commer'ci,31
Development (peDl and Knuth Road peD
Based on the Platlning Department1s r'€view of additional data anti
analysis regar'ding thE abovE f'eferenced applicatioil, the
Department has reversed its recommendation of denial to a
reconlm;:;:ndat-;on of appr-ova'l.
Additional infcrmation re'lewed included the applicants response
to the [Iepartment of Comnlunity Affair'sl objections,
Recommen,Jations, and Comm~nts repor.t~ the f'2vi3ed tr'sffic stlJdy,
the methodolcSY utilized in the Comprehensive Plan for analyzing
the supply/demand for commercial land within the City, and other
r'ecnmmeild3tions in the cornprellensive plan Fu.tuf'e Land Use Support
Document regarding the addition of commercial land uses.
The Staff's recommendation to approve this application is based
on the following;
1) The revised traffic study concludes that the traffic levels
of 5el"vice establ'ished in the City's Compl"ehensive plan I.dll
n'.Jt b>e exc8-:-rled ~
21 The Countf's Complehensive Plan Economic Element has
pr'oj~cted a shortage of commercial designated pr"~perty
within the service area of the proposed amendments. Tn
support of this projection, it was concluded that the market
area used in 1-h~ CitY'3 ComPt"~hensive Plan to analy?e the
:supply/demand uf cammer'cial land was based on the limit tc.
westward boundary e~pan5ion-Lawrence Road-which was
:3ubsequentl Y' ch,S111'3ed tr, extend out to the [-3 Cai)al. The
projected demand by the County should be taken into
consid2ration, anj the City's analysis should be revised to
i'eflec;t t~le l'~cation of market ar"eas tllat 3tfect cammer'cial land
use within the City, as well as those areas to be anne~ed,
3) After considerlng the potential imparts of high density
reside~tial development (as currently recommendedl on the
.3djacent land ',se;. combined I.lith the fact th3t this w",ster'r'
area of the citv could be considered a regional activity
centerj due to the existing mixtur'e of residen"tial and
cnmmercial densities and developments, it was determined
thElt ilComrner'ci' alii i:3 ,:3 mor'e appropr'i ate I and USE categor'l/,
and
4) Cognizant of the two sites pr0~imity to a state arterial and
majol"' and minor" i!ltet'sections, site should design should
3ur"ely facilitate pr"oper access and safe traffic
c;;r"cul.:ati'on.
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM 90-035
TO:
J. Scott Miller, City Manager
Timothy P. Cannon, Interim Planning Director V-~
THRU:
FROM: James J. Golden, Senior City Planner
DATE: February 23, 1990
SUBJECT: Applications (6) Submitted by Kilday and Associates
For Annexation, Land Use Element Amendment and Rezoninq
The Planning Department has notified the applicant that the
above-referenced applications are incomplete (see attached
correspondence dated February 13, 1990). Whether the
applications are complete is important, with respect to meeting
the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance,
since only previously approved projects and complete applications
received before February I, 1990 are exempt from this ordinance.
If the City processes these applications, it is possible that the
City will be challenged by Palm Beach County, insofar as
exemption from the Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance is
concerned. In addition, it appears likely that several of these
applications either separately or when considered together, may
constitute a Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
With respect to the above, the eity Commission should consider
requesting a binding letter from DCA regarding DRI status. The
reason for this request is that the site exceeds one of
thresholds set forth in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes for a DRI
(40 acres for retail uses, or 30 acres for office uses).
~~I.~
ES ,. GOLDEN
JJG:frb
Ene
cc: Central File
PM90-035
.'
C\l 1.i
...: ~
"
':.0
c '- ;' t'~,
l. ' ~I , ,
:3i ", , v '1" I '\
\ < , :Il
~ ~
-' ~ i I
.1 I
, ~I .,-
..I .
, . - ;
I .\.;
v ! '
. ..
-:Ii:; " ,
- 0
..l. - , I
I .~ ,~..
"jlv. ,...,Iv "
, ~I ' . 1 · 1~
0.. ' .. c~
, ,<,," .n,~
,",UII ., . ~ "o...,,L
Juri ! (, ~U .:.: ;;)1 t".U'::f
I
,.
"
~ :
;",'
~
;~~
t~ '~t~~
.>-
,11>, !
T'
(\J
~ltF
.:, i. ~
~
I~U .
Duarel ur CUllnt)' Cummi..ion",'.
C,unll. 1'1"1<1"1.1, Ch~lrll\JIl
K,u,'n r. M,llUI', Vile <:1101"
Cunl A. I~nhl'rt'
Hon lIu\\',ml
(.",le Phillip,
Counl)' Admlnlatrator
J~II Wimer.
Department or Planning. 2'..,ning (\ Bulldlnll
June 12, 1990
James J. Golden, Senior city planner
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
post Office BOX 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33435-0310,
Re: Request b~' Mall corner, Inc. for voluntary annexation of
1.34 acres into the City ot Boynton Beach.
Dear Mr, Golden:
The planning, zoning and Building Department has coordinate~ the
review of the proposed annexation of l.34 aores, generally located
at the southwest corner of old Boynton Road and Mall l{oad.
County stafr comments are as tollows:
1. PLANNING DIV~IQH: steven Morales, Planner
The Planning Division has undergone a review of the proposed
annexation and finds it in compliance with Chapter 171,
Florida statutes and Palm Beach County's Interim Annexation
Review POlicy. Annexation of this parcel redUces the size
of an existing unincorporated enclave area, is contiguous
to the City'S current boundaries, and is located within the
City's future annexation area.
2. E.tlVIRONMENTAL REilClURCJl:il Mll,NAGF.MF.NT: Bob Kraus, Environmen-
tal Analyst
~hi~ property appears to have been recently cleared of all
vegetation. An above-9round tank waQ noted on the property.
This site is not looated within a Wellfield Proteotion Zone.
3. FIRE-RESCUE: Kathy Owens, Speoial Projeots Coordinator
This proposed annexation will remove B County pooket inaide
Boynton BeBoh Bnd will be c10Ber to Boynton's Fire Station
t2 by one mlle. Although Palm Beach county Fire Resoue will
..o. I _LJ _~ _ ~ .......i___...__ J.L. ou_'___
Parcel Existing Proposed
Reference Owners Acreage Zoning Zoninq
A Bill Ray Winchester
Elsie A. Winchester
Ernest Klatt 49.44 AR C-3
B Bill Ray Winchester
Elsie A. Winchester 0.80 AR C-3
C Mall Corner, Inc.
(c/o Schroeder & Larche) 1. 34 AR e-3
D Bill R. Winchester
Elsie Winchester
William A. Zeiher
Michael A. Schroeder 2.44 AR C-3
E Charlene Boynton
Donald Lowe
University of Florida
Foundation, Inc. 14.76 AR PCD
F Winchester Family
Partnership 13.87 AR PCD
Tot a I: 82.65 ac.
.\
CITY of
BOYNTON BEACH
~
'~'
100 E. Boynton Beech Blvd.
P. O. Box 310
Boynton Beach. Florida 33435.0310
(4071734.8111
,
OFFICE OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
February 13, 1990
Kilday & Associates, Inc.
Attn: Kieran J. Kilday
1551 Forum Place, Bldg. lOOA
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Dear Mr. Kilday:
. ,
Please be advised that the Planning Department
six applications submitted on January 31, 1990.
as follows:
has reviewed the
Our comments are
I.
. .
proposed Service Station (.80 acres) at southwest corner of
North Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road owned by Bill
Ray Winchester and Elsie A. Winchester (applications for
annexation, land use element amendment and rezoning).
The following items must be submitted in order to complete
the above-referenced applications:
(I) Since the proposed zoning category does not comply wi:t};l
the text language for planning Area 7 of the Future
Land Use Element Support Documents, an application for
a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment.
(2) An additional copy of the property owners' list, tax
maps (photocopy acceptable) and affidavit.
(3) The water/sewer impact statement required pursuant to
items 6 and 7 on pages 4 and 5 is based on comparison
of existing and proposed zoning categories and not '
existing and proposed land use categories. The
statement also does not indicate that calculations are
based on the standards adopted by the Palm Beach
County Health Department.
I
, .
TO: Kilday & Assoc
-2-
Feb. 13, 1990
~-- II-"-oc-~i!I;'9PQs.ecJ..-Mall South-~Parcel.s (49.52 acres total) located on
the east and west sides of Winchester Park Boulevard
between Old Boynton Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard, owned
by Bill R. Winchester, Elsie A. Winchester, and Ernest
Klatt (applications for annexation, land use element
amendment and rezoning).
The following items must be submitted in order to complete
the above-referenced applications:
(1) Since the proposed zoning category does not comply with
the text language for Planning Area 7.f of the Future
Land Use Element support Documents, an application for
a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment.
( 2) An additional copy of the property owner~ I _ list, tax
maps (photocopy acceptable) and affidavit.
(3) pursuant to item c(l) on page 3 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, written consent to the
processing of this application from Ernest Klatt.
. \
(4) pursuan~ to item d(3) on page 4 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, a tree survey which
ll\eets the requirements of the City of Boynton Beach
Tree Preservation Ordinance.' "
( 5 )
Pursuant to item h on pages 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Land
Use Element Amendment/Rezoning application, a compari-
- son of the impacts that would be' created by develop-
ment under the proposed zoning with the impacts that
would be created by development under the existing
zoning, which shall include:
(a) A. comparison of the potential square footage or
number and type of dwelling units under the existing
zoning with that which would be allowed under ~h~
proposed zoning or development.
(b) A statement of the uses that would be allowed in
the proposed zoning or development, and any particular
uses that would be excluded.
. .
(c) Proposed timing and phasing of the development.
(d) A comparison of traffic which would be generated
under the proposed zoning or development, with' the
traffic that would be generated under the current
zoning; also, an analysis of traffic movements at the
intersections of driveways that would serve the
property and surrounding roadways, and improvements I ,
TO: Kilday & Assoc.
. .
-3-
Feb. 13, 1990
that would be necessary to acconunodate such traffic
movements. For proposed developments which would
generate three-thousand (3,000) vehicle trips per day
or more, or two-hundred fifty (250) or more
single-directional vehicle trips within a one (I) hour
period, a traffic impact analysis shall be required.
Said traffic impact analysis shall include proj ected
trip generation for the development, for all major
roadways and intersections within one and one-half
(L 5) miles of the subject parcel, as well as traffic
that would utilize local streets through residential
zoning districts. Said traffic impact analysis shall
compare traffic levels between the existing zoning and
the proposed zoning or development of the subject
parcel, and shall take into consideration all
development that would be possible under the current
zoning within the City, adjacent cities, and within the
unincorporated area of Palm Beach County within' a
radius of five (5) miles. For those parc~ls lying in
the unincorporated area of Palm Beach County, which are.
not currently zoned for urban land uses, the potential' .
land uses according to the Palm Beach County
comprehensive plan shall be used. Where said parcels
are shown on the Palm Beach County comprehensive plan
under residential land use categories, the midpoint of
the density range shown on the County comprehensive
plan shall be used. Where a county-wide study of
traffic generation at build-out has been adopted or is
utilized by Palm Beach County, the levels of traffic
that are projected by said study shall in all cases be
used to project background traffic in the traffic
impact analysis submitted by the applicant. ,The format
and standards used in the traffic impact analysis shall
be the same as those which are required by Palm Beach
eounty, with the exception of the requirements listed
above. Such traffic impact analysis shall include
recommendations for the mitigation of traffic impacts,
consistent with the standards which have been adopted
by or are utilized by Palm Beach County.
(e) For parcels larger than one (I) acre, a comparison
of the water demand for development under the proposed
zoning or development with water demand under the
existing zoning. Water demand shall be estimated using
the standards adopted by the Palm Beach County Health
Department for estimating such demand, unless different
standards are justified by a registered engineer.
Commitment to the provision of improvements to the
TO: Kilday & Assoc.
-4-
Feb. 14, 1990
. ,
water system shall ,also be included, where existing
facilities would be inadequate to serve development
under the proposed zoning.
(f) For parcels larger than one (I) acre, a comparison
of sewage flows that would be generated under the
proposed zoning or development with that which would be
generated under the existing zoning. Sewage flows
shall be estimated using the standards adopted by the
Palm Beach County Health Department for estimating such
flows, unless different ,standards are justified by a
registered engineer. ' Commitment to the provision of
improvements to the sewage collection system shall also
be included, where the existing facilities would be
inadequate to serve development under the proposed
zoning.
(g) For parcels larger than one (1) acre, a comparison
of sewage flows that would be generated under the .
proposed zoning or development with that which would be
generated under the existing zoning. sewage flows . ~ .
shall be estimated using the standards adopted by the
Palm Beach County Health Department for estimating such
flows, unless different standards are justified by a
registered engineer. Commitment to the provision of
improvements to the sewage collection system shall also
be included, where the existing facilities would be
inadequate to serve development under the proposed
zoning.
(h) For proposed residential developments larger than
one (1) acre, a comparison of the projected population
under the proposed zoning or development with the
projected population under the existing zoning.
Population projections according to age groups for the
proposed development shall be required, where more tha~
fifty (50) dwellings, or 50 sleeping rooms in the case
of group housing, would be allowed under the proposed
zoning. Applications for rezoning to commercial or
industrial zoning districts which exceed one (1) acre
in area shall also provide projections for the number
of employees. I
I I
TO: Kilday & ASSOC.
-5-
Feb. 14, 1990
III. proposed Mall Corner Restaurant (1.34 acres) at the
southwest corner of Old Boynton Road and Winchester Park
Boulevard owned by Mall Corner, Inc. (applications for
annexation, land use element amendment and rezoning).
The following items must be submitted in order to complete
the above-referenced applications:
(1) Since the proposed zoning category does not comply with
the text language for Planning Area 7.f of the Future
Land Use Element Documents, an application for a
Comprehensive plan Text Amendment.
(2) A standard City of Boynton Beach application form for
the Land Use Element Amendment/Rezoning application
(the reproduction submitted is not acceptable).
(3) An additional copy of the property owners' list, tax
maps (photocopy acceptable) and affidavit.
(4) signature of applicant (owner) on page 6 of the
Annexation Application.
,
. ,
(5) Pursuant to item h(l) on page 4 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, the potential square
footage which would be allowed under the proposed
zoning.
. "
(6) Pursuant to item h(8) on page 6 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, projections for the
number of employees.
IV. Proposed Retail/Oil Lube (2.44 acres) at the northeast
corner of West Boynton Beach Boulevard and Winchester Park
Boulevard owned by Winchester, Winchester, Zeiher and
Schroeder, a Florida General partnership (applications for
annexation, land use element amendment and rezoning).
The following items must be submitted in order to complete
the above-referenced applications:
(1) Since a portion of the proposed zoning category does
not comply with the text language for Planning Area 7.f
of the Future Land Use Element Support Documents, an
application for a Comprehensive plan Text Amendment.
(2) An additional copy of the property owners' list, tax
maps (photocopy acceptable) and affidavit.
"
TO: Kilday & Assoc.
-6-
Feb. 13, 1990
(3) Correct "Proposed Zonin~ff on page 3 of Annexation
applicaticSn,'as-a:-county land use category has been
indicated instead of the proposed City zoning category.
(4) Pursuant to item h(l) on page 4 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, the potential square
footage which would be allowed under the proposed
zoning.
(5) Pursuant to item h(8) on page 6 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, projections for the
number of employees.
V. Proposed Knuth Road Planned Commercial Development (13.871
acres) at the southwest corner of West Boynton Beach
Boulevard and Knuth Road owned by the Winchester Family
partnership, Ltd. (applications for annexation, land use
element amendment and rezoning). I
The fOllowing items must be submitted in order to complete
the above-referenced applications:
(1) The correct fee for rezoning to PCD is $1,000 pursuant
to the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Fee
Schedule (a check in the amount of $900 was submitted).
(2) Since a portion of the proposed land use and zoning
.. categories does not comply with the text language for
Planning Area 7.j of the Future Land Use Element
Support Documents, an application for a Comprehensive
Plan Text Amendment.
(3) An additional copy of the property owners' list, tax
maps (photocopy acceptable) and affidavit.-
(4) Signature of applicant is missing from page 6 of ,
Annexation Application (copy of owner's authorization
signed by Bill R. Winchester).
(5) A tree survey which conforms to the requirements of the
City oflBoynton Beach Tree Preservation Ordinance (see
section 7.5 - 6.I(b) of Article I of the Environmental
Regulations).
(6) Pursuant to item hIll on page 4 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, the potential square
footage which would be allowed under the proposed
zoning (total for entire PCD).
,
. ,
"
I
TO: Kilday & Assoc.
.7-
Feb. 13, 1990
(7) pursuant to item hIS) of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, projections for the
number of employees.
(8) Pursuant to item h(ll) on page 7 of the Land Use
Element Amendment/Rezoning application, conformance
with the requirements for Unified Control outlined in
Section 6.F.3 of Appendix A-Zoning and submittal of a
subdivision master plan pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 4 of Appendix C-subdivisions, platting.
VI. Proposed Boynton Beach Boulevard Planned Conmmercial
Development (l4.76 acres) on the south side of West Boynton
Beach Boulevard owned by University of Florida Foundation,
Inc. (applications for annexation, land use eleme~t
amendment and rezoning).
The fOllowing items must be submitted in order to complete
the above-referenced applications:
(1)
The correct fee for rezoning to PCD is $1,OOO pursuant.
to the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Fee
Schedule (a check in the amount of $900 was sUbmitted).
, I
Since the proposed land use and zoning category does
not comply with the text language for Planning Area 7.k
of the Future Land Use Element Support Documents, an
application for a Comprehensive plan Text Amendment.
(2)
. .
(3) An additional copy of the property owners' list, tax
maps (photocopy acceptable) and affidavit.
(4) A tree survey which conforms to the requirements of the
City of Boynton Beach Tree Preservation Ordinance (see
section 7.5 - 6.1 (b) of Article I of the Environmental
Regulations.
(5) Pursuant to item h(l) on page 4 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, the potential square
footage which would be allowed under the proposed
zoning (total for entire PCD).
(6) Pursuant to item h(8) on page 6 of the Land Use Element
Amendmeht/Rezoning application, projections for the
number of employees.
(7) Pursuant to item h(ll) on page 7 of the Land Use
Element Amendment/Rezoning application, conformance
with the requirements for Unified Control outlined in
\ ,
, J
TO: Kilday & AsSOc.
-8-
Feb. 13, 1990
Section 6.F.3 of Appendix A-Zoning and submittal of a
subdivision master plan pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 4 of Appendix C-Subdivisions, Platting.
(8) Signature of Owner/Trustee is missing from page 7 of
the Land Use Element Amendment/Rezoning application.
Pursuant to 'Chapter ).63.3187 F. S" none of the applications
submitted meet the criteria for small scale development
activities as a result of the text amendments that are necessary
and the fact that an amendment cannot involve the same property
more than once a year or the same owner's property within 200
feet of property granted a change within ap~~~od of 12 months.
- I .'- -.'".--. - -. - -. --.- .-- - - -- - - --~. - .
It appears likely that several of these applications, either
separately or when considered together, may constitute_a
Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Therefore, a description
of the petitions, a map showing same, and a tabulation of the
acreages will be forwarded to the City Commission. The
Commission will need to decide whether a binding letter should 'be
requested from DCA regarding DRI status.
" ,
If the City Commission approves the transmittal of these
applications to DCA, you will be required to submit to the
planning Department, prior to transmittal, a description of the
availability of and demand on pUblic facilities pursuant to
9J-II.006(1)(b)4 of the Florida Administrative Code.
If 'you have any questions concerning the above, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
J::7~H
JAMES J. GOLDEN
Senior City Planner
JJG:frb
cc: City Manager
Central File
Kilday
MEMORANDUM
16 June 1988
TO:
Peter L. Cheney, City Manager
FROM:
Carmen S. Annunziato, Planning Director
RE:
Knuth Road - Sample Agreement with Palm Beach County
Attached please find documents and correspondence used by Delray
Beach to secure funding for a local road improvement from county
road impact fees.
This is the format that we can employ in connection with the
funding of Knuth Road.
(1_ _ /L ~ _ ~,
CARMEN S. ANN ZIATO
/bks
cc:
City Engineer
Central File
RECEIVED
JUN 21 1988
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
-
r
(
\ ..
( \ ,,\
'.......>
[ITY OF DELROY n~R[H
H)lJH\.V)<;IJ\\,FNln
.
lli IHA'o' Hl /\CII, rL\lIl1[),~ ::;->H,\ . XXX~:XX:::Xl
(305) 243-7340
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
August 6, 1987
_ """ {\ " 11 "
'/--1,'=:1.0 - ~'.'L^, \~Q,~~<""
,. ,\A..\
- ~~-^-\ \0""1: "\ ~
c";) ~~" '" (I' ,'+,.."
Mr. Charles R. Walker, Jr., P.E.
Director - Traffic Division
Palm Beach County Engineering Department
P. O. Box 2429
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Re: Realignment of Germantown Road at SW lOth St.
Use of Fair Share Impact Fees
City of Delray Beach, FL
Ref: Your Letter Dated Augsut 3, 1987
!
Dear Mr. Walker:
For the past several years, the City of Delray Beach
and the eounty have been working on a joint project
for the realignment of Germantown Road at SW lOth
street. Your preliminary plans were submitted to us
several months ago and the realignment shown for Ger-
mantown Road was within the existing 80' right-of-way.
This impacted the property at the corner where parking
spaces for a store were reduced. We met with the owner
P ahd_as a result of our discussions, we considered the
option of acquiring the entire property and realign
Germantown Road to connect into SW lOth Street at
S.W. lOth Avenue (see enclosed sketch). This proposed
realignment was approved by the City Commission.
The City had the property appraised and at this time,
we would like to proceed with the acquisition. Also
it is requested that the County prepare final plans in
accordance with the sketch submitted.
In order to fund the project, we request the use of
Fair Share Impact Fees collected in Zone 31.
/lIlG, \ 1 IgB1
-;
,.
::
~
Mr. Charles R. Walker, Jr., P.E.
August 6, 1987
Page ,two
The estimated cost for the realignment project is as follows:
Acquisition of property $ 250,000
Road construction 50,000
Traffic signal 30,000
Contingencies 20,000
Total c 350,000
"
Would you kindly review this proposal and subject to your
approval, prepare an agreement so that the Fair Share Im-
pact Fees may be committed to this project? As an alter-
nate, since Germantown Road is a County ro~d, it may be
appropriate for the County to handle this project entirely.
Should you have any questions, please cont~ct me.
Very truly yours,
.
~~.c
Gerald B. Church, P.E.
City Engineer
GBC:mrc
Enclosure
~
cc: Herb Kahlert
James L. Pennington
:e
,\
~
,
:s.
$,
'"
)'
Ii
,
l
\..
~
~'.
:c
b'
T""
\ ~~-~
, ( --
\.. - =--- ~ - --------
~ ------"
,,3
,cr)
SN-J. '\01\-\ S1:
\
'\
Q
~.,
,0;
ce.
~
o
, J.::. -
~
~
(:t.
&.:
(!)!
~,:
0)'
x"
l.Jj
\
/~
/
!
I
!,
--\
\
\ '
.
I
I
.. ~
.~
,
I
I
, '
.-r
"SC....LE.: ,\" ~40
--.-. .
I
I '
J
M-87-O
~.J
f
,
~::
'.I,
'<
Ca:ro! A. Roberts, Chair
Kenneth M. Adams, Viee Chairman
Karen T. Marcus
Carol J. Elmquist
Dorothy Wilken
~t>
...,."
~1
\
County Administrator
Jan Winters
.
I,'foar<! of C'.ilUnty .Commissilmers
..'
,
,
August 3, 1987
Department of Engineering
and Public Warks
H.F. Kahler'
County Engineer
Mr. Gerald B. Church, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
SUBJECT: FAIR SHARE IMPACT FEES - CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
Dear Mr. Church:
In accordance with your letter of July 17, 1987, please find the following
summary of impact fees collected within the City of Delray Beach as of March
31, 1987 in Zone 28 and 31 which have not been expended or assigned.
ZONE
28
31
AMOUNT
$ 2,000.00 I
$ 304,000.00
The majority of the funds in the accounts have been assigned to the
construction of Congress Avenue between Linton Boulevard and the L-30 canal.
Regarding the release of impact fee funds to the City, I would request that
you send me a formal proposal detailing the projects to be constructed.
Estimated costs for the construction should be included.
Upon our receipt of this information, I will request that funds be set aside
in the amounts needed to accomplish the proposed projects.
It will be necessary for the City and County to enter into an agreement
whereby the County would release the funds directly to the City, with the City
being responsible for contracting the construction.
If I can be of further assistance to you, please feel free to contact this
office.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF THE COU~) ,)NGINEER
/)1. ;) /M-
Cha~lke;: Jr., P.E.
Director, Traffic Division
CRW/ASH/jd
cc: Mr. Joe Bergeron, Director - Fiscal Management
File: Municipalities "Delray Beach"
II An Equal Opportunity ~ Affirmative Action Employer
BOX 2429 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402-1989 (305) 684-4000
I
"
,
,
"
";:"
".({.
.
11l .,
it-
~ '...
..-""
, _".dO
.....,-.......
~,~. .
... .
It
,~"t-.
, .
-.
,/"
...'
1:,.
-.Jt:
""
"
.5:'''~
:~~
,:~
.;
.
.~ ;,-. ...~-+
~,%:~.
'~:' ,
. ;
: .
:~'< ' .
~
-:{.
~,' 'Board de County CommissioncL._
Carol A. Roberts, Chair
Kenneth'M, Adams, Viee Chairman
Karen T. Mareus
Carol J. Elmquist
Dorothy Wilken
County Administrator
Jail Winters
Department 01" Engineering
and Public Works
I L F, Kahler!
CClunty FlIgillt'('r
November 17, 1987
--
'RECEIVED
JUN 16 1988
p\.ANNING 0\:1'1.
Gerald B. Church, P.E.
City Engi neer
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
~-~_..-
-
RE:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING
REALIGNMENT OF GERMANTOWN ROAD AT S.W. 10TH STREET
Dear Mr. Church:
In response to your August 6, 1987, 1 etter, enclosed are: four (4) dup 1 i cate
original Intergovernmental Agreements between th~ Board of County
Commi ss i oners of Palm Beach County and the City of Del ray Beach. Pl ease
review thi s Agreement and if it meets with your approval, have the Mayor
execute a 11 four (4) ori gi na 1 s. Upon execut i on, return to th i s offi ce for
submi ss i on to the Palm Beach County Board of County Commi ss i oners for thei r
consideration.
1 f you have any quest ions concern i ng the above, please do not hes itate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF THE'COUNTY ENGINEER
ehJA/$
Charles R. Walker, Jr., P.E.
Director - Traffic Division
CRW:KMW
Enclosure: Intergovernmental Agreements (4)
cc:
Richard-A. Graddock, Chief Deputy County Attorney
File -~unicipality "Delray Beach"
- Intersection "S.W. lOth St. & Germantown Rd."
\.<:', ~,~'-",' ",.J
l.
"An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer
BOX 2429 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402-1989 (305) 684-4000
"I
'/,';":!
...'
,':'.'.1:
,I
,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
AND THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA CONCERNING .
REALIGNMENT OF GERMANTOWN ROAD AT S.W. 10TH STREET
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into the dates set forth below by and between:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, Florida, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "County"; and
THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Florida, a municipal corporation existing under the
laws of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "City".
WIT N E SSE T H
WHEREAS, the City has requested that the County participate in the realignment
of Germantown Road at S.W. lOth Street as shown on ithe attached Figure 1,
hereinafter referred to as the "project", which is made a part hereof, and
,
WHEREAS, the City has requested the use of Fair Share Impact Fees existing in
Zone 31, and
WHEREAS, the City has participated with the County in the Traffic Impact Fee
Program from its inception, and
WHEREAS, funds in Impact Fee Zone 31 are collected primarily in the City of
Delray Beach, and
WHEREAS~ the estimated cost for this project is as follows:
Acquisition of Property
Road Construction
$250,000
Contingencies
50,000
20,000
$320,000
TOTAL
WHEREAS, there are sufficient unencumbered funds in Impact Fee Zone 31 to fund
this estimated cost.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, and
representatives herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. The above facts are true and correct.
2. The City hereby agrees to:
a. Provide the construction plans and right-of-way documents required
to accomplish this project.
b. Provide all supervision and administration necessary to let
contract and to construct this project.
c. Obtain all permits required for this project.
1
........,../
" ~.
t \
,-.....
(
~
d. Acquire right-of-way necessary for this project.
e. Assemble and disperse funds necessary for the financing of this
project.
f. Upon receipt of bids for the subject project, provide the County
with documentation of the recommended bidder.
g. As funds are required, invoice the County for cost related to this
project for plans, right-of-way, and construction for an aggregate amount not to
exceed Three Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($320,000.00).
3. County hereby agrees to:
a. Provide, upon receipt of invoices from the City, funds in an
aggregate amount not to exceed Three Hundred Twenty Thousapd Dollars ($320,000.00)
from Impact Fee Zone 31. These funds will be provided to the City within thirty
(30) days of receipt of the appropriate invoices and documeAtation.
b. Provide the installation of a traffic signal at this location to
be coordinated with the project which will be activated to full stop-and-go
operation upon satisfying the necessary signal warrants.
c. Inspect project for conformance to aforementioned plans.
d. Have no further obl igations or responsibil ities concerning this
construction other than providing of funds, signalization and inspection in "a",
r
"b", and "c" above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, it is the intention of the parties hereto that this
, .
Agreement shall not become bi ndi ng unt 11 the date executed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Florida.
ATTEST:
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
City Clerk
ATTEST:
JOHN B. DUNKLE, Clerk
By:
Mayor
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By:
Chair
Deputy Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
City Attorney
County Attorney
2
. - .
ORDINANCE NO. 88-,2.'2.
--"
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 80-19 OF SAID
CITY BY REZONING A CERTAIN PARCEL OF
LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
FLORIDA FROM R-1AAA (SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL), TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT WITH A LAND USE INTENSITY OF
4 (PUD LUI= 4), SAID PARCEL BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AMENDING
THE REVISED ZONING MAP ACCORDINGLY;
PROVIDING THAT ALL DEVELOPMENT OF SAID
PROPERTY SHALL PROCEED IN STRICT
COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AS
SUBMITTED AND APPROVED AND ALL
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF , ,L1I)
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA; PROVIDING A rnr'jr
CONFLICTS CLAUSE, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, (\,'0 I
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER ~iYV' ~,\v"
PURPOSES. 0
WHEREAS, the City Commission' of the Cit,1{ of Boynton
Beach, Florida, has heretofore adopted Ordinance No. 80-19
in which a Revised Zoning Map was adopted for said City; and
WHEREAS, Land Design South, as agent for the owners of
the subject parcel, has heretofore filed a Petition with the
eity of Boynton Beach, Florida, pursuant to Section 9 of
Appendix A - Zoning of the Code of Ordinances, City of
Boynton Beach, Florida, for the purpose of rezoning a
certain parcel of land consisting of approximately 20.16
acres (t) located within the municipal limits of said City,
said property being more particUlarly described hereinafter,
from R-1AAA (Single Family Residential), to Planned Unit
Development with a Land Use Intensity of 4 (PUD LUI 4); and
WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it advisable to
amend the aforesaid Revised Zoning Map as hereinafter set
forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA:
Section 1:
That the following described land,
located in the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, to wit:
See attached Exhibit "A"
be and the same is hereby rezoned from R-1AAA (Single Family
1
Residential), to Planned Unit Development with a Land Use
Intensity of 4 (PUD LUI 4), which intensity is determined to
be appropriate under the circumstances represented to the
City in said application and in conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida.
Section 2: That the aforesaid Revised Zoning Map of
the City shall be amended accordingly.
Section 3: That the application of the owners and
agents of the subject property for rezoning is hereby
granted for the purpose of permitting the development of
said land as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) specifically
in accordance with staff comments attached hereto as Exhibit
"B".
Except as provided herein, the Applicant shall proceed
in strict accordance with all ordinances of the City of
Boynton Beach, including but not limited to its zoning,
electrical, plumbing, subdivision, planning and zoning
codes, and all rules and regulations of the State of
Florida, Department of Environmental Regulations.
Section 4: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 5: Should any section or provision of this
Ordinance or any portion thereof be declared by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall
not affect the remainder of this Ordinance.
Section 6: This Ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon passage.
FIRST READING
1988.
this M day of
/Ykr
,
2
SECOND, FINAL READING and PASSAGE THIS ~4/. day of
-elu.Ylt'/
, 1988.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
)-I! Q<U'Cln l",
Ma
4t~ ~~~
c~Z.JJ fu~
Commissioner
~ ~0)Q~
Commissioner
ATTEST
~~~.
City Cl k
3
...- .- ~_._--
EXHIBIT "A"
Tracts 121, 104 and 89 less the west 25.0 feet thereof;
Tracts 90, 103 and 122 less the East 260.0 feet thereof;
Tract 72 less the north 60.0 feet and less the West 25.0
feet thereof; Tract 71 less the North 60.0 feet and less the
East 260.0 feet thereof; All being a portion of Palm Beach
Farms Company Plat No.8, recorded in Plat Book 5, at page
73, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida.
Containing 20.16 acres, more or less (gross and net)
Also described as follows:
A parcel of land in Section 30, Township 45 south,
Range 33 east, Palm Beach County, Florida, being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the south quarter corner of said section,
run thence north 01"10'26" east along the north-south
quarter section line 40.0 feet; thence east 40.0 feet to the
point of beginning of the herein 'described parcel; thence
continue east 351. 64 feet; thence north 01"04' 28" east
2513.64 feet, to a point in the south right-of-way line of
Lake Worth Drainage District Canal L-25 as same is recorded
in Official Record Book 2063, at page 1416, Public Records
of Palm Beach County, Florida; thence south 38049'00" west,
along said right-of-way line 347.30 feet to the easterly
right-of-way line of a road right-of-way as is recorded in
Official Record Book 2075, at page 572, Public Records of
Palm Beach County, Florida; thence south 01"10'26" west,
along just said right-of-way line 2512.61 feet to the point
of beginning.
Containing 20.16 acres, more or less (gross and net).
4
EXHIBIT "B"
MEMORANDUM
18 April 1988
TO:
Peter L. Cheney, City Manager
Carmen S. Annunziato, Planning Director
Knuth Road - Tara Oaks Rezoning
FROM:
RE:
At the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of April 12, 1988 the
Board conducted a Public Hearing on the proposed Lakes of Tara
rezoning from R-1AAA to a Planned Unit Development. The proposed
PUD provides for the construction of 78 single-family detached
homes on 20Z acres. The gross density is 3.9 dwelling units per
acre.
The primary point of discussion concerned the construction of
Knuth Road as a collector roadway between Woolbright Road and the
entrance to Banyan Creek - a total of approximately 3,700! linear
feet of which 1,100 feet lies north of the proposed project. At
the hearing, the developer, Mr. Barson, objected to the unusually
burdensome requirement of having to construct Knuth Road along
this entire frontage (2600 linear feet) on the basis of 78
dwelling units. This requirement is, however, consistent with
the City's adopted policy which requires the construction of
public roadways adjacent to proposed projects (see attached)
inclUding crossing of LWDD canals.
As a follOW-Up to the meeting, discussions were held between the
City's staff and the developer and the City's staff and the Palm
Beach County Traffic Engineer's Office. Conclusions reached were
as follows:
1. Knuth Road is not a County Thoroughfare Collector and that it
can be permitted and constructed by the City and to City
standards.
2. Because of the unusual configuration of Mr. Barson's
property, 2600Z feet of frontage on Knuth Road plus an
additional 300+ feet to cross LWDD canals and to tie into
Woolbright Road to the south, the cost per unit of roadway
improvements was unusually high.
3. Road impact fee monies may be available to assist in the
'.~E~~
'"
-
~
PU
,.J
ellA/AI...
Il..
Lj
'0
MILES:
1/8
1/4
,\
'0 .400. '800.
1600'FEE;T
O'.AAJU,..I.'. ""e~" ...fA"
I ......
-)\
tf9~.
'TT
\\lll1
. .. '\' . .,
, " " . ., h-
.~ ,,- . .. . , "
, " ' .' .< ,.. ~ . _' " " .'. . C"... t
.;.:;..;~'" ," ~ . . l ,-- ('< Ie...: ~.,....c:") ".' 1>,
i'".', '., ,~'{ <.~ 1',0~;iL:', r"'" \
:~ ' .Q\fI,i\.. f<loGE" " " \-(,I .: ~~l~" .. .).\. ~.. \
,'.'.' ; ..... " .." 'r., c..>.-_..' .
~ ' , .,' . " . '1/ .'" .' ,... ~~l .
" . / ;;,;.;/ ~ ~ \,' "..-- ~~'i<! " \
F';;' .~~ \ i . ,', .' .
:, ,. .?l ~ ~..\\=\. I l ) \\. . ~llf~"./' ::;:;:.,.;
': ::'~' r--="OY'" , I J'" '. \ . ,I/".~', ~
., ..... ' \'n../ / ."'-
. " . -"v' . ,
~~A~~~ Q"" ,~~u.:lcY\ ''f'1 1 ,,11 \.\ " " "", .~, "
, -==-- ~ . / 1 .U' c..-
_" . '. . . = " " 'TV"
. ' . ;,~:r
. 1_ ......' ~ -,.....'.1 \' ~
o
-'
'0 400: 80b WOO ~~~}..,,' M"' .1.: \ " ~ t;- ",,, '
~,----r
.,.~~ vi
~"n_' 'T ~~,., ,. ~~'
...._ ,',' ., ~'.. ~' d.' ,J I
:r "d, . i\ 1\ ;";tN..\~ '.i~' \~' . . . ,.~ '.
.. ...,,'" ,.~..' ,"", c ,', l' ',a" ..'-t' r .
, , " ' :,;," . 1::" \..t. .y~' ,'""': .'
. '. ." .: ,'" ~.. ~ "'i::;I~.:l ,. .', ,,'
,~ ' , '. :::.. ;'.~,;;'<::: ::--J~ ~~' E :.. :~-; < 2-~ ~ ,. \ .,;, ,....:
" . . ;1 C' .' ' ' . ,. . .
. ' " ",. ., ' ,!':' , .. .
\ .' .. ." ,'~" ..' '
'. '. :.:..:L':.~~ rA rrB.....~~~~ '. .,' ," .
_ . . lo"" IJ
. .' ',: .1 \(':(' 1 ":...., " , (
"."" !:l\.'....rr. I,'
. ,'V : .... \"~~ \:1, ~'i.J" \~
". ;;";(~\~u=-!/~ ~~'\~~."~..f~""~' \'(\\Y , ::" ~\\
. ,'" . ~C<;:::., -." :~, " I I'" ,,:' '"
, L .,,~' I.. "
. --,. ,,,. ..'" ",," ' . .. .. .," ~
.'7 'S!: ....-;:<.. /"~ ~~~.." .,,' ',. ~." ..
""". ~ .' ,,-.;: .' ." .'
,I · .. · ~. .' .'. ' ,
,~ ~Ol ~~:L Jti'f.ti.,!:;I'\"~"" ,<: ...
! a U ~ ~." -el" ,\~: '".... >- \ '
;.~. .. a 'lil '. . ' '. ..~' "):~~"'t~'"!T "
. . . ., ^'. 7 ,,' " \\.' ,','
. Q \) , l\ ~. .-*' . . ~ . .
..- '" > . - ,'"..""" ,,~'., .
. ,,"- ' .' ,,""""" ~ "
. ~:"\ , ,.*;l' :~ i ~';,fi~1it,: " ."
" ; , . ' "",. ,lIr.\'-;;\f . ~ ~"" 1'Ji\';A~'
. \\ "'\ "".', .., <, " 0,1" ,,'~J'I'" ~
, ..-:V>-" .:. ~ '\' ~~:'~ ,.;"........
i.- __. ~ I \)::., I . ~ ~ . ,pi O' Ie: '} .,. ,.....
" -:-.."1'.' [j"""'''' -,. '-~~"'-' II' r..\JU4. ..\, ;'
::. - /,,;, , ' , CO", ~ :;:" ........,~
,::\~.I \~~~ .~',~~:~:;e~
Cll-f':
LVCp-:noN Mf>..-:'
l' f>..Rf>..O f>..\ZS pDO
-. ,~.:;X.N
&":"
\ '\..
\':. < :
f
j~
~
~
~ .'. \,.
~ ," ~\ ,
, \ \ lC
'j.
1 ~l'-""
-..: .'
"'"
""
~
III
::....... u
::;:0. LL::.D!. f:
- to
::... ........\~
In
ti"
~\:::.~
1::1 :--:
'f-
.,
o
construction of Knuth Road. Based upon the abovementioned
considerations, an agreement in principle was reached as
follows:
a. The City of Boynton Beach will issue permits for the
construction of Knuth Road consistent with the City's
standards for roadway construction.
b. Mr. Barson agrees to prepare plans and specifications for
the construction of Knuth Road from Woolbright Road to
the entrance to Banyan Creek.
c. Mr. Barson agrees to pay road impact fees in connection
with the construction of the proposed 78 dwelling units.
d. Mr. Barson will construct Knuth Road from Woolbright Road
to the southerly limit of LWDD Canal #25.
e. The City will solicit assistance from Palm Beach County
to utilize road impact fee monies to construct Knuth Road
from the southerly limits of Knuth Road to the entrance
to Banyan Creek.
This proposed agreement addresses the issues raised at the Board
hearing and approval is recommended, subject to the agreement
where it conflicts with previous comments and sUbject to other
previously transmitted recommendations.
~s: a ~
CARMEN s-:' AN~
-
/bks
,..-,
~ ,--------
AV~ and S.I:. 1U Ave.'
which abut this street.
will be borne by the developers of the properties
3.5.8.12. Construction of Roads--bv Develooers (new section)
The fol lowing roads should be constructed by developers and at
the expense of developers, wherever possible:
3.5.8.12.1. Connect Meadows Blvd. to Lawrence Road at two
locations. The two rights-of-way which presently extend west from
Meadows Blvd. (In the Meadows 300 P.U.D.) should be extended through to
Lawrence Road as public roads. Construction of these roads Is desirable
In order to more fully Integrate future developments Into the City.
These roads should be constructed by the developers of the properties
which lie to the west of the Meadows development.
3.5.8.12,2. Construct Knuth Road as a collector. from Old
Boynton Road to ~oolbrlght Road. Construction of Knuth Road wi I I serve
to relieve congestion on congress Avenue and will provide access to the
property which lies along the western City Ilmll. between Boynton Beach
Boulevard and ~oolbr Ight Road. Knuth Road should be bull t as an urban
col lector In a minimum 60 foot right-of-way, between Old Boynton Road and
the L-25 Canal, and an 80-foot right-of-way between th L-25 canal and
~oolbrlght Road. The costs of acquiring the right-of-way and
construction of the road should be borne by the developers of the parcels
which lie along this corridor.
3.5.8.12.3, Construct S.~. Congress Blvd. from Congress Avenue
to the future Knuth Road corridor, as a pUblic street.
3.5.8.12.4. The recommendation that S.~. 8th Street be provided
as a collector road between ~oolbrlght Road and ~est Ocean Drive has been
deleted. since these this road would cross an area which Is the subject
of a pending lawsuit.
3.5.8.12.5. The recommendation that a public collector road and
railroad crossing be provided to serve the Industrial property east of
the Seaboard Airline Railroad. between Boynton Beach Boulevard and
~oolbrlght Road has been deleted. since this road would cross an area
which Is the subject of a pending lawsuit.
3 . 5 . 8 . 1 2 . 6 . Co n s t rue t the f 0 I I ow I n g S t r e e t sin the nor the a s t ern
port Ion 0 f the C I t Y : N. 1:. 4 t h S t r e e t from N. 1:. 1 6 t h A ve. toN. E. 20 t h
Ave.. N.I:. 17 Ave. to N.I:. 4th Street.
3.5.8.12.7. Construct S.~. 2nd Street from S.~. 31st Ave to S.~.
34th Ave.
3.5.8.12.8. ~Iden the right-of-way and pavement on the street
which runs along the esst side of the new Post Office. where this street
197
----
,. .,.~
M E M 0 RAN DUM
March 28, 1988
TO: Mr. Jim Golden
Senior City Planner
FROM: Tom Clark
City Engineer
RE: Master Plan, Tara Oaks
COMMENTS:
I. A right turn storage lane should be provided on Knuth Road
at the intersection with Woolbright Road.
2. The sidewalk construction in Knuth Road should continue to
Woolbright Road.
~, ee!
VO~ - ~
Tom Clark
TACjck
r
'. .
Utilities Department
Ith'91.~:~H ~ /1/
Developer to dedicate a
30 by 30 foot wide parcel
for the proposed lift
station
\-11-: rl~Y ,
'" II~rn.~
~.
, .
'.
---"-'.
.-",..
'''i'''"''4~~'
:~.:. ~l\:'
" .~'
M E M 0 RAN DUM
;;':c;,..
,-:;,
March 29, 1988
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
FROM: CARMEN S. ANNUNZIATO, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: TARA OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-
STAFF COMMENTS
Please be advised of the Planning Department's comments in
connection with the above-referenced rezoning request:
1. Right-of-way for S.W. Congress Blvd. and Knuth Road
to be dedicated to the City of Boynton Beach within
sixty (60) days of zoning approval.
2. It is recommended that the intersections of S.W. Congress
Boulevard/Knuth Road and Woolbright Road/Knuth Road be
constructed to provide for right and left turning lanes.
3. Developer to construct Knuth Road and S.W. Congress
Boulevard in accordance with policies set forth in the
Traffic and Circulation Element of the City of Boynton I
Beach Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
4. Developer to complete the roadway improvements outlined
under no. 2 and no. 3 above prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
5. Project signage requires site plan approval.
6. A detailed landscape plan must be submitted at time of
preliminary plat approval for review by the Technical
Review Board and Community Appearance Board.
7. It is recommended that the applicant receive credits
against his road impact fees because of the substantial
off-site improvements required.
("- ~ 11~
CARMEN S. ANNu6zIATO
CSA:ro
cc Central File
IH.l..L,}Q.:,.~ IJ' II' 1/ /
-
\ . )J
ri~
)-~
---
" ,
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Carmen Annunziato, Planning Director
FROM:
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Horticulturist
DATE:
March 29, 1988
RE:
Tara Oaks
This memorandum is in reference to the above project.
There are numerous Live Oak and Scrub Oak trees
throughout the site which require the applicant to
submit a written Tree Management Plan. This plan
should include:
I. a listing of all existing non-exotic trees with
dimensions of height, diameter and quantities.
2. a plan showing what trees will be preserved,
transplanted, available to the public and removed.
3. a report in this plan of the flaura and fauna
inventory on the site.
4. a determination that the site requires a 25%
preservation, due to the comprehensive plan
requirements.
5. the plan follows all the 'on-site requirements of
the Tree Preservation Ordinance >>8l-21.
6. the above information should be provided by the
applicant to the Planning Department prior to the
final plat submittal.
. ~,-,,~'/f2~I,hl' /,~
Ke ~n J. Ha ahan '
Forester/Horticulturist
KJH:ad
RECEiVED
DOC:TARAOAKS
MAR SO 1988
PLANNING DEPT.
Itj I I 1 \..J.,.? H' ~ 1//-
. '--l-.;.:J ,..,. t
, i~"r"IS \ \\ ' I,
\' II ' 11~':~l. ''''fft~l~
::'; ,
MEMORANDUM
18 April 1988
RE:
Peter L. Cheney, City Manager
Carmen S. Annunziato, Planning Director
Knuth Road - Tara Oaks Rezoning
TO:
FROM:
At the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of April 12, 1988 the
Board conducted a Public Hearing on the proposed Lakes of Tara
rezoning from R-1AAA to a Planned Unit Development. The proposed
PUD provides for the construction of 78 single-family detached
homes on 20+ acres. The gross density is 3.9 dwelling units per
acre.
The primary point of discussion concerned the construction of
Knuth Road as a collector roadway between Woolbright Road and the
entrance to Banyan Creek - a total of approximately 3,700! linear
feet of which 1,100 feet lies north of the proposed project. At
the hearing, the developer, Mr. Barson, objected to the unusually
burdensome requirement of having to construct Knuth Road along
this entire frontage (2600 linear feet) on the basis of 78
dwelling units. This requirement is, however, consistent with
the City's adopted policy which requires the construction of
public roadways adjacent to proposed projects (see attached)
including crossing of LWDD canals.
As a follow-up to the meeting, discussions were held between the
City's staff and the developer and the City's staff and the Palm
Beach County Traffic Engineer's Office. Conclusions reached were
as follows:
1. Knuth Road is not a County Thoroughfare Collector and that it
can be permitted and constructed by the City and to City
standards.
2. Because of the unusual configuration of Mr. Barson's
property, 2600! feet of frontage on Knuth Road plus an
additional 300+ feet to cross LWDD canals and to tie into
Woolbright Road to the south, the cost per unit of roadway
improvements was unusually high.
3. Road impact fee monies may be available to assist in the
construction of Knuth Road. Based upon the abovementioned
considerations, an agreement in principle was reached as
follows:
a. The City of Boynton Beach will issue permits for the
construction of Knuth Road consistent with the City's
standards for roadway construction.
b. Mr. Barson agrees to prepare plans and specifications for
the construction of Knuth Road from Woolbright Road to
the entrance to Banyan Creek.
c. Mr. Barson agrees to pay road impact fees in connection
with the construction of the proposed 78 dwelling units.
d. Mr. Barson will construct Knuth Road from Woolbright Road
to the southerly limit of LWDD Canal #25.
e. The City will solicit assistance from Palm Beach County
to utilize road impact fee monies to construct Knuth Road
from the southerly limits of Knuth Road to the entrance
to Banyan Creek.
This proposed agreement addresses the issues raised at the Board
hearing and approval is recommended, subject to the agreement
where it conflicts with previous comments and subject to other
previously transmitted recommendations.
~s: a ~
CARMEN s-:' AN~
-
/bks
Ave.. and S. E. 1\.J Ave.'
which abut this street.
wi I I be borne by the developers of the properties
L
G
tE
3.5.8.12. Construction of Roada--bv Develooera (new section)
[
The fol lowing roads should be constructed by developers and at
the expense of developers. wherever possible:
[
[
[
3.5.8.12.1. Connect Meadows Blvd. to Lawrence Road at two
locations. The two rightS-Of-way which presently extend west from
Meadows Blvd. (In the Meadows 300 P.U.D.) should be extended through to
Lawrence Road as public roads. Construction of these roads Is desirable
I n order to more fu II y I ntegrate future deve I opments I nto the Ci ty.
These roads should be constructed by the developers of the properties
which I Ie to the west of the Meadows development.
3.5.8.12.2. Construct Knuth Road as a collector. from Old
Boynton Road to ~oolbrlght Road. Construction of Knuth Road wi I I serve
to relieve congestion on congress Avenue and will provide access to the
property which lies along the western City limit. between Boynton Beach
Boulevard and ~oolbrlght Road. Knuth Road should be built as an urban
collector In a minimum 60 foot right-Of-way. between Old Boynton Road and
the L-25 Canal. and an 80-foot right-Of-way between th L-25 canal and
~oolbrlght Road. The costs Of acquiring the right-Of-way and
construction of the road should be borne by the developers of the parcels
which I Ie along this corridor.
~
3.5.8.12.3. Construct S.~. Congress Blvd. from Congress Avenue
to the future Knuth Road corridor. as a pUblic street.
3.5.8.12.4. The recommendation that S.~. 8th Street be provided
as a collector road between ~oolbrlght Road and ~est Ocean Drive has been
deleted. since these this road would cross an area which Is the subject
Of a pending lawsuit.
3.5.8.12.5. The recommendation that a public collector road and
railroad crossing be provided to serve the industrial property east of
the Seaboard Ai r line Rail road. between Boynton Beach Boulevard and
~oolbright Road has been deleted. since this road would cross an area
which Is the subject of a pending lawsuit.
3 . 5 . 8 . 1 2 . 6 . Co n s t rue t the f 0 I I ow I n g S t r e e t sin the nor the a s t ern
portion of the City: N.E. 4th Street from N.E. 16th Ave. to N.E. 20th
Ave.. N.E. 17 Ave. to N.E. 4th Street.
3.5.8.12.7. Construct S.~. 2nd Street from S.~. 31st Ave to S.~.
34th Ave.
3.5.8.12.8. ~Iden the right-Of-way and p~vement on the street
which runs along the east side of the new Post Office. where this street
197
M E M 0 RAN DUM
April 1, 1988
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
FROM: CARMEN S. ANNUNZIATO, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: TARA OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-REZONING REQUEST
INTRODUCTION:
Land Design South, agent for Barry Barson (Lakes of Tara
Development Corporation), Trustee, is requesting that a 20.16
acre parcel of land be rezoned from R-1AAA, Single-Family
Residential, to a Planned Unit Development with a Land Use
Intensity=4 (PUD with LUI=4). The Future Land Use Plan
designation for this parcel is to remain unchanged (Low Density
Residential). The property is rectangular-shaped with 2,512.61
feet of frontage on Knuth Road extended and lies between the
L.W.D.D. L-25 and L-26 canals, immediately west of the Lakes of
Tara Planned Unit Development (see attached location map in
Exhibit A). Currently, the subject parcel is undeveloped and
there are scattered oak and scrub oak clusters existing on-site.
The proposed use of this property, if rezoned, would be to
develop it as a Planned Unit Development consisting of 78
single-family detached units (see master plan in Exhibit B).
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING (see attached location map):
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 L.W.D.D. L-25
Canal, are single-family detached homes in the Stonehaven Planned
Unit Development. 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 Cover; 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. 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.
PRESENT ZONING: The present R-IAAA zoning would allow for the
development of approximately 48 large lot single-family detached
homes. The R-1AAA zoning requires a minimum 12,500 square foot
lot with a 100 foot frontage. These lots could be developed so
as to face away from Knuth Road and, in fact, both Palm Beach
County and City policies would prohibit residential driveways on
this thoroughfare. Access would be provided to these lots by way
of S.W. Congress Boulevard extended, similar to that proposed for
the Planned Unit Development.
-2-
PROPOSED REZONING (see attached master plan in Exhibit B ): The
applicant is proposing to rezone from R-1AAA, Single-Family
Residential, to a Planned Unit Development with a Land Use
Intensity=4 (PUD w/LUI=4). The uses proposed in the PUD and the
acreages devoted to each are as follows:
USE
ACRES
11.98
1.69
2.75
2.04
1.70
20.16 TOTAL
Residential-78 units
(3.87 units/acre density)
Dry Water Retention
Landscaped Buffers
Public right-of-way
(Knuth Rd./S.W. Congress Blvd.)
Private right-of-way
Proposed setbacks for the single-family detached units are 25
feet front, 15 feet rear, and 7.5 feet each side. These setbacks
are comparable to other single-family projects within Planned
Unit Developments, including Lakeshore and Heatherlake at the
Meadows 300 PUD. The proposed lot frontage (55 feet) is also
comparable to these projects, while the proposed lot depth is
approximately 110-120 feet, as opposed to 100 feet in Lakeshore
and Heatherlake.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Recreation: The developer is not proposing to dedicate land for
public parks and recreation purposes or to provide private
recreation facilities. Therefore, full payment of the parks and
recreation dedication fee would be required, as set forth in
Section 8 of Appendix C, SUbdivisions/Platting.
utilities: Water service will be provided by construction of a
16 inch water main in the Knuth Road right-of-way. The proposed
16 inch water main will connect onto a proposed 16 inch water
main located to the south in the Woolbright Road right-of-way,
and an existing 16 inch water main which lies to the north in
the existing right-of-way for Knuth Road. Sanitary sewer service
will be provided by an on-site gravity system which will tie into
the existing Lakes of Tara System to the east. A lift station
will be provided adjacent to the westward extension of S.W.
Congress Boulevard, to enable connection to the Lakes of Tara
system. The proposed water and sewer systems should be adequate
to serve the proposed PUD.
Drainaqe: A schematic drainage plan has been submitted by the
applicant which proposes a system of swales, pipes, and dry
retention areas. Based on the information submitted, it appears
that the project can meet the requirements of the regulatory
agencies.
Topoqraphy, Vegetation and Soils: The site upon which this
proposed PUD is to be constructed exhibits a land elevation of
approximately 14 feet throughout. 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 central and southern portions of the
parcel. Based on available information, there should be no
impediments to the development of the site owing to environmental
-3-
constraints. However, care should be taken to preserve the oaks
and scrub oaks, less exotics, as noted in the correspondence in
Exhibit D from the Forester/Horticulturist.
Traffic: The applicant was not required to submit a traffic
impact analysis in that the proposed PUD does not generate in
excess of 3,000 vehicle trips per day or 250 single-directional
trips in the peak hour. Information supplied by the project
engineer indicates that the projected trip generation is 780
trips per day or about 78 single-directional trips in the peak
hour. This level of traffic generation falls within the background
traffic anticipated by the existing Low Density Residential Land
Use. Comprehensive Plan policies require the developer to
construct Knuth Road as a collector and extend S.W. Congress
Boulevard westward to Knuth Road. The required construction of
Knuth Road will extend 3,678 feet northward from Woolbright Road to
the entrance of Banyan Creek (Stonehaven Drive) where the existing
pavement terminates, and will include the construction of canal
crossings over the Lake Worth Drainage District L-25 and L-26
canals and the construction of an eight (8) foot wide concrete
bikepath on the east side of the right-of-way. S.W. congress
Boulevard will be constructed as a two land collector from the
existing terminus within the Lakes of Tara PUD westward to Knuth
Road (approximately 350 feet).
Based upon a recommendation from the Planning Department, the
project engineer has submitted an analysis of the intersections
in the immediate vicinity of the project to determine if any
roadway improvements are necessary to serve this project at
buildout. The project engineer, based on his analysis, is
recommending that a westbound left turn lane be constructed at
S.W. Congress Boulevard and Knuth Road and a northbound right
turn lane be constructed at Knuth Road and S.W. Congress
Boulevard. These recommendations assume that at project
buildout, the westward extension of Woolbright Road and the
northward extension of Knuth Road will not have been completed.
The Planning Department is recommending that full right and left
turn lanes be constructed at the intersection of Knuth Road and
WOOlbright Road and Knuth Road and S.W. Congress Boulevard.
However, in lieu of the substantial roadway improvements
required, the Planning Department is recommending that the
developer be granted credit against payment of his traffic
impact fee.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-FUTURE LAND USE MAP: The Future Land Use Plan
shows this property to be under the "Low Density Residential"
category. Therefore, an amendment to the Future Land Use Plan
would not be necessary, as the proposed density is less than 4.82
dwelling units per acre.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-TEXT: The following Comprehensive Plan
pOlicies are relevant to this rezoning request:
"Provide an adequate range of housing choices." (p.6)
"Provide a suitable living environment in all neighborhoods."
(p.6)
"Preserve the present stock of sound dwellings and
neighborhoods." (p.6)
"Provide a range of land use types to accommodate a full range of
services and activities." (p.7)
"Eliminate existing and potential land use conflicts." (p.7)
"Encourage the development of complementary land uses." (p.7)
"In presently undeveloped fringe areas encourage low to moderate
density planned developments having flexible development programs
and phasing schedules, and which minimize the need for external
trips." (p.39)
-4-
The subject parcel, as well as the abutting neighborhood to the
east, fall within Land Use Conflict Area 6 of the City's current
Comprehensive Plan (see map in exhibit C).
This section reads as follows:
Area 6
Western City Limits North of L-26 Canal
This area immediately west of Area 5 was formerly
zoned for high density residential uses. Its
development for high density use is undesirable
due to the excess traffic and service impacts as
well as conflicts with adjacent moderate and low
density residential uses which could result. In
conformance with recent development approval, the
bulk of this area should be developed for moderate
density residential use as a planned unit development.
The remainder of the area outside the proposed devel-
opment and adjacent to the low density desiqnated area
in the Reserve Annexation Area should remain in a low
density residential desiqnation as indicated on the
Land Use Plan Map.
ISSUES/DISCUSSION:
1. Whether the sUbject parcel is physically and economically
developable under the existing zoning.
As outlined in the section entitled "Present Zoning",
the property could be developed for approximately
48 large lot single-family homes under the existing
R-1AAA zoning. Also permitted in the R-lAAA zoning
district are churches, City-owned and operated
facilities, and private golf courses and associated
clubhouse facilities. Primary/secondary schools,
seminaries, colleges and universities are permitted
as a Conditional Use. No conclusion has been reached
regarding the economic feasibility of developing this
parcel for large lot single-family homes, but it would
appear to be unfeasible, owing to the configuration of
the parcel and its proximity to Knuth Road and the
higher density residential projects which lie to the
east (Banyan Creek and Clipper Cove Apartments/
Lakes of Tara), and the high development costs
associated with the required roadway improvements.
The required roadway improvements include the
construction of a 3,678 section of Knuth Road
as a two lane collector from Woolbright Road to the
existing terminus at Stonehaven Drive, including two
canal crossings, construction of right and left turn
lanes at Woolbright Road and S.W. Congress Boulevard,
and the construction of an eight (8) foot wide concrete
bike path on the east side of the right-of-way. Also
required is the westward extension of S.W. Congress
Boulevard from the existing terminus within the
Lakes of Tara PUD to Knuth Road as a two lane collector
(approximately 350 feet).
2. Whether the infrastructure in place or proposed is
sufficient to support the uses proposed in the PUD.
As outlined in the section entitled "Intrastructure",
the existing infrastructure and that proposed to
be constructed by the applicant and the pUblic is sufficient
in size and/or capacity to serve the proposed PUD.
-5-
3. Whether the proposed PUD would be compatible with the
existing residential land use in the vicinity.
The proposed PUD consists of 78 detached single-family
units. The average lot size is 55 feet by 110 feet
which is similar to that found in the Lakeshore (Tract K)
and Heatherlake (Tract L) projects at the Meadows 300
Planned Unit Development. Abutting the sUbject parcel to
the east are two rental apartment projects (Banyan
Creek/Clipper Cover) and a single-family detached zero lot
line Planned Unit Development (Lakes of Tara). Abutting
the subject parcel to the west is Knuth Road, which is to be
constructed by the developer as an 80 foot collector. A
20 foot wide landscaped buffer is proposed between Tara Oaks
and the residential projects which lie to the east.
A 30 foot wide landscaped buffer is proposed on the west
side adjacent to Knuth Road. The Lake Worth Drainage
District L-25 and L-26 canals abut the subject parcel
to the north and south respectively. Based on the above,
it can be concluded that the proposed PUD would be
compatible with the existing residential land use in the
vicinity.
4. Whether the approval of this proposed Planned Unit
Development furthers the intent and purpose of the
policies reflected on the Future Land Use Map or
stated in the Comprehensive Plan.
As previously noted under the heading "Comprehensive
Plan-Future Land Use Map," an amendment to the Future
Land Use Plan would not be necessary, as the
proposed density for the Tara Oaks PUD would be 3.87
dwelling units per acre. The City's Low Density
Residential Land Use category would permit a maximum
of 4.82 dwelling units per acre. In addition, Land
Use Conflict Area 6 of the City's current Comprehensive
Plan recommends that the bulk of the area west of
Congress Avenue between the Lake Worth Drainage District
L-25 and L-26 canals should be developed for moderate
density residential use as a planned unit development.
This area has in fact since been developed for moderate
density land use, with the exception of the Lakes of
Tara Planned Unit Development, which has been developed
for Low Density Residential land use. The language for
Land Use Conflict Area 6 further states that the
remainder of the area outside of the proposed development
and adjacent to the low density designated area in the
Reserve Annexation area (i.e., Tara Oaks) should remain in
a low density residential designation as indicated on the
Land Use Plan map. In presently undeveloped fringe areas,
the Comprehensive Plan encourages low to moderate density
planned developments having flexible development programs
and phasing schedules, and which minimize the need for
external trips. With respect to the above, approval of this
proposed PUD furthers the intent and purpose of the policies
reflected on the Future Land Use Map or stated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
-6-
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION: Rezoning of the subject parcel to a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) would not create a conflict with
surrounding land uses and would be consistent with applicable
Comprehensive Plan policies. In addition, the existing
infrastructure and that proposed by the developer and the public
is sufficient to support the uses proposed in the PUD.
Therefore, it is the Planning Department's recommendation that
the application for rezoning to a Planned Unit Development with a
Land Use Intensity (LUI)=4 be approved subject to the staff
comments which accompany this memorandum as Exhibit D.
C", .../1 .:::7'
CARMEN S. ANNUNZI~O
CSA:ro
cc Central File
MEMORANDUM
Date:
Carmen Annunziato, Director of Planni~
John A. Guidry, Director of Utilitie
March 18, 1988
To:
From:
Subject:
TRB Review - Tara Oaks Master PIan
We have the fol1owing comments regarding this project:
1. The proposed lift station must be relocated to an accessible
area. Connection eastward to the L.S. 612 system may be a
better alternative.
2. Connection to the L.S. 612 sewer system may require upgrading
of pumps or appurtenances at the current lift station. Any cost
of this nature must be borne by the developer.
3. Adequately sized easements must be provided to allow mainten-
ance and possible excavation of the mains in the future. It
appears that the sanitary sewer on the north end of the project
will be unserviceable as presently proposed. Easement size for
gravity sewers may be calculated as twice the depth, plus 14
feet.
4. The water mains must be reconfigured to al10w looping of the
water mains throughout the cul-de-sacs. The length of the
cul-de-sacs does not lend them to internal looping, there-
fore, connections back to the 16" main will most 1 ikely be
required. Easement size shall be a minimum of 20 feet on side
easements.
5. The 16" water main must be extended northward to the point of
connection with the existing main north of the L-25 canal, and
southward to the proposed 16" main on Woolbright Road.
dmt
bc: Peter Mazzella
MEMORANDUM
March 18, 1988
TO: BOB BENTZ, LAND DESIGN SOUTH
JAY FOY, SHALLOWAY ENGINEERS, INC.
FROM: JAMES J. GOLDEN, SENIOR CITY PLANNER
RE: TARA OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-
STAFF COMMENTS
1. Right-of-way for S.W. Congress Blvd. and Knuth Road
to be dedicated to the City of Boynton Beach within
sixty (60) days of zoning approval.
2. It is recommended that the intersections of S.W. Congress
Boulevard/Knuth Road and Woolbright Road/Knuth Road be
constructed to provide for right and left turning lanes.
3. Developer to pay cost of construction for Knuth Road and
S.W. Congress Boulevard in accordance with pOlicies set
forth in the Traffic and Circulation Element of the City
of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and
Appraisal Report.
4. Developer to complete the roadway improvements outlined
under no. 4 above prior to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
5. It is the recommendation of the Technical Review Board that
a concrete sidewalk be constructed on one side of the
private access roads and that sidewalk connections be made
to the Knuth Road bike path in the vicinity of the proposed
cul-de-sacs.
6. Project signage requires site plan approval.
7. A detailed landscape plan must be submitted at time of
preliminary plat approval for review by the Technical
Review Board and Community Appearance Board.
8. Typical lot detail to be modified to include minimum
setbacks for screened enclosures and swimming pools.
-2-
9. The traffic report should be modified to include an
analysis of all intersections in the immediate vicinity
of the project at project buildout to determine specific
turn lane needs in connection with item no. 3.
10. It is recommended that the applicant receive credits
against his road impact fees because of the substantial
off-site improvements required.
J='JI ~~
JJG:ro
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Carmen Annunziato, Planning Director
FROM:
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Horticulturist
DATE:
March 29, 1988
RE:
Tara Oaks
This memorandum is in reference to the above project.
There are numerous Live Oak and Scrub Oak trees
throughout the site which require the applicant to
submit a written Tree Management Plan. This plan
should include:
I. a listing of all existing non-exotic trees with
dimensions of height, diameter and quantities.
2. a plan showing what trees will be preserved,
transplanted, available to the public and removed.
3. a report in this plan of the flaura and fauna
inventory on the site.
4. a determination that the site requires a 25%
preservation, due to the comprehensive plan
requirements.
5. the plan follows all the on-site requirements of
the Tree Preservation Ordinance *81-21.
6. the above information should be provided by the
applicant to the Planning Department prior to the
final plat submittal.
~~~./ (i~ 1'//4 '" -~
Ke ~n J. Ha ahan
Forester/Horticulturist
KJH:ad
RECEIVED
DOC:TARAOAKS
MAR 30 1988
PLANNING DEPT.
M E M 0 RAN DUM
March 28, 1988
TO: Mr. Jim Golden
Senior City Planner
FROM: Tom Clark
City Engineer
RE: Master Plan, Tara Oaks
COMMENTS:
1. A right turn storage lane should be provided on Knuth Road
at the intersection with Woolbright Road.
2. The sidewalk construction in Knuth Road should continue to
Woolbright Road.
~, dZ!
V~~'~- ~
Tom Clark
TAC/ck
MEMORANDUM
--------
March 18, 1988
TO:
Carmen S. Annunziato, Planning Director
THRU:
Peter L. Cheney, City Manager
FROM:
Raymond A. Rea, City Attorney
RE:
Tara Oaks PUD - Unified Control Documents
In regard to the above entitled matter, I have reviewed all
of the documents which you submitted and find that they do comply
with Appendix B, Section 6. I herewith return to you all of the
,aid documents foe youe fiie,. ~ ~
- ~'~~
Raymond ~. Rea, City Attorney
RAR/r
Enc.
.,..,
RECIUVED
lHI>" -ICW-
fYIIV{ ~,~
PLANNING DEr>T.
.-
MEMORANDUM
March 29, 1988
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
FROM: CARMEN S. ANNUNZIATO, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: TARA OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-
STAFF COMMENTS
Please be advised of the Planning Department's comments in
connection with the above-referenced rezoning request:
1. Right-of-way for S.W. Congress Blvd. and Knuth Road
to be dedicated to the City of Boynton Beach within
sixty (60) days of zoning approval.
2. It is recommended that the intersections of S.W. Congress
Boulevard/Knuth Road and Woolbright Road/Knuth Road be
constructed to provide for right and left turning lanes.
3. Developer to construct Knuth Road and S.W. Congress
Boulevard in accordance with pOlicies set forth in the
Traffic and Circulation Element of the City of Boynton
Beach Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
4. Developer to complete the roadway improvements outlined
under no. 2 and no. 3 above prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
5. Project signage requires site plan approval.
6. A detailed landscape plan must be submitted at time of
preliminary plat approval for review by the Technical
Review Board and Community Appearance Board.
7. It is recommended that the applicant receive credits
against his road impact fees because of the substantial
off-site improvements required.
C'- L- x-.~
CARMEN S. ANN~ZIATO
CSA:ro
cc Central File
utilities Department
Developer to dedicate a
30 by 30 foot wide parcel
for the proposed lift
station
! '
MEMORANDUM
15 June 1988
TO:
Peter L. Cheney, City Manager
FROM:
Carmen S. Annunziato, Planning Director
RE:
Knuth Road - Tara Oaks Rezoning
On Tuesday, June 14, 1988 the City Engineer and I met with Mr.
Morrow, President of the Banyan Creek Homeowners Association to
discuss the future Knuth Road as it relates to Banyan Creek Plat
I. At the meeting, Mr. Morrow expressed concern as to the
alignment of Knuth Road and the impact that it would have on
those property owners to the east. Given these concerns, it is
suggested that the City per sue an alignment which moves the
centerline of Knuth Road adjacent to Banyan Creek Plat 1 to the
west so that the western edge of pavement of the road will be ten
(10) feet east of -the west right-of-way line. This will allow
for an eight-foot wide area between the proposed bike paths and
the east right-of-way line. This eight feet can be bermed and
landscaped in order to reduce the impact of Knuth Road.
In our discussions, another opportunity became apparent. The
Banyan Creek property owners own fifty (50) feet of private
right-of-way east of and adjacent to the east right-of-way line
of Knuth Road. The western eight+ (8) feet of this fifty (50)
foot private right-of-way is grassed swale. If the property
owners could dedicate an easement over this eight (8) feet for
landscape purposes, it could be joined with the eight (8) feet in
Knuth Road to form a sixteen (16) foot wide landscape buffer.
Two further items discussed which could be accomplished with the
Knuth Road construction were a southbound left turn lane at the
entrance to the Banyan Creek development and streetlighting. If
the City commission agrees with these changes, Staff will work
with Mr. Barson (Tara Oaks developer) to incorporate these
changes. One problem which may result from these changes is
assigning a party to be responsible for the construction and
maintenance of the landscaping. The County has verbally agreed
to assist in the construction and they may agree to pay for the
landscaping. If not, another party must be identified to
construct and maintain the landscaping improvements.
~V~_ 0~ ~
CARMEN S. ANN ZIATO
/bks
cc:
City Engineer
Mr. Morrow
Central File
7A3
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD PCD
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING/TEXT AMENDMENT
-----
VI. LF"-'L
B. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
ee: Bldg, Plan, Eug, Util
/'
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM No. 90-348
FROM:
J. Scott Miller, city Manager
~~k ~-
Christopher cutro, AICP
Planning Director
TO:
DATE:
November 29, 1990
SUBJECT: Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD and Knuth Road PCD -
Ordinances for Annexation, 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 applications are
summarized below.
Bovnton Beach Boulevard PCD Kieran J. Kilday, agent for Elsie A.
Winchester, Trustee, is requesting that a 13.87 acre parcel be
annexed in the City, rezoned from Agricultural Residential in
Palm Beach county to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development, and
that the Future Land Use plan designation for this parcel be
amended from "Commercial 3" in Palm Beach county to "Local Retail
commercial", in the City. In addition, the applicant has
submitted an application for a Text Amendment to Area 7.j of the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element support Document to
allow commercial land use designation on the entire site.
Knuth Road PCD Kieran J. Kilday, agent for Michael A. schroeder,
Trustee is requesting that a 14.76 acre parcel be annexed into
the City, rezoned from Agricultural Residential in Palm Beach
county to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) and that the
Future Land Use designation for this parcel be amended from
"Residential 8" in Palm Beach county to "Local Retail Commercial"
in the City. In addition, the applicant has submitted an
application for a Text Amendment to Area 7.k of the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Element support Document to allow commercial
land use designation on the entire site.
The Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD applications were approved by the
Planning and zoning Board subject to staff comments and the
continued negotiations with adjacent property owners, on June 12,
1990, and then approved by the City Commission for transmittal on
June 19, 1990, with the rezoning subject to staff comments and
representations made by the developer.
The Knuth Road PCD applications were approved by the Planning and
zoning Board subject to staff comments, followed by the approval
to transmit the applications by the City Commission on June 19.
The land use amendment applications were then forwarded to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review. The
results of the review by DCA can be found within the attached
Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
As indicated in the attached ORC report, the State's review of
both sets of applications was based upon consistency with the
City's Comprehensive Plan, the state Comprehensive, and the
Regional Comprehensive policy Plan. Essentially, the DCA's
objections to the application involved the following: the lack
of a justification for the increase in density based in part on
the projected surplus of land designated for commercial
development, the levels of service for area roadways will be
exceeded, and the incompatibility of commercial development with
adjacent residential land uses.
TO:
PM90-348
-2-
November 29, 1990
The planning Department continues to recommend denial of these ~
applications. Reinforced by the objections from DCA, traffic ~
levels of service will be exceeded by the combined impacts of
these proposals. The applicant has provided a response to DCA's
remaining objections; however, it is the opinion of the Planning
Department that the applications provided traffic analysis that
demonstrates that traffic levels of service will not be lowered
beyond Level of Service "D".
MWR:
Enc.
A:COMENT.PCD
STAFF COMMENTS:
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD PCD
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-157
TO: Chairman & Members
Planning & Zoning Board
THRU: Timothy P. Cannon
Interim Planning Director
FROM: James J. Golden
Senior City Planner
DATE: June 7, 1990
SUBJECT: Requests for Annexation, Future Land Use Element
Amendment, Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment Submitted by Kilday & Associates for
Michael A. Schroeder, Trustee
(Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD) - File No. 493
Summary: Kieran J. Kilday, agent for Michael A. Schroeder,
Trustee, is requesting that a 14.76 acre parcel be annexed into
the City, rezoned from AR (Agricultural Residential) in Palm
Beach County to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) and that
the Future Land Use Plan designation for this parcel be amended
from "Residential 8 (units per acre)" in Palm Beach County to
"Local Retail Commercial" in the City. In addition, the
applicant has submitted an application for a Text Amendment to
Area 7 .k. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element
Support Documents, which currently reads as follows:
7.k. Unincorporated Parcels on South Side of
Boynton Beach Blvd.
These parcels constitute an unincorporated
pocket which should be annexed. The first
row of lots lying to the west of the present
City limits, having an east-west dimension
of approximately 300 feet should be placed
in the General Commercial land use category
and C-4 zoning district. These parcels
should be required to dedicate right-of-way
and construct the adjacent street consistent
with the requirements that were placed on the
U.S. Post Office. The commercial parcels
should be developed so as to be compatible
with the future residential use of the
property which lies to the west. Those
parcels which lie further west should be
placed in the High Density Residential land
use category. Commercial development on
this parcel should not be permitted since
a single-family subdivision lies immediately
to the west and adequate commercial property
exists elsewhere in the vicinity. Furthermore,
building heights on this parcel should be
limited to 2 stories (25 feet) within ISO feet
and 3 stories within 400 feet of these single-
family lots.
The amendment to Area 7. k. would be necessary to allow for the
issuance of a Development Order, pursuant to Chapter 163 of the
Florida Statutes, since the proposed development is not
consistent with this section of the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
The subject parcel occupies 656 feet of frontage on West Boynton
Beach Boulevard, between the U.S. Post Office and the Stonehaven
PUD, a/k/a Banyan Creek (see attached location map in Exhibit
"A"). Currently, the property is heavily vegetated and is
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-157
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 7, 1990
Page 2
occupied by substantial muck deposits. The property is also
occupied by an existing single-family residence. The proposed
use of this property, if rezoned, would be to develop it for a
120,000 square foot shopping center, including two outparcels
(see attached master plan in Exhibit "B").
Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning (see attached location map in
Exhibit "A"): Abutting the subject parcel to the north is a 120
foot wide right-of-way for West Boynton Beach Boulevard.
Abutting the subject parcel to the east is the Boynton Beach Post
Office zoned PU (Public Usage), a self storage and vehicle
storage facility zoned LI (Light Industrial) in Palm Beach
County, and a vacant parcel approximately one acre in size, zoned
AR, which lies south of the parcel zoned LI. Abutting the
subject parcel to the south is Congress Middle School, zoned PU,
and the Stonehaven Planned Unit Development, which consists of
single-family zero lot line detached units (a/k/a Banyan Creek).
Abutting the subject parcel to the west is Banyan Creek Circle, a
local street within the Stonehaven Planned Unit Development.
Single-family zero lot line units front on the west side of
Banyan Creek Circle across from the subject parcel.
Proposed Rezoning (see master plan in Exhibit "B"): According to
Section 6-F.I of Appendix A, Zoning, the purpose of the PCD
zoning district "is to provide a zoning classification for
commercial developments that will better satisfy current demands
for commercially zoned lands by encouraging development which
will reflect changes in the concepts and technology of land
development and relate the development of land to the specific
site, to conserve natural amenities and to allow for the
mitigation of negative impacts which result from land
development" .
The proposed development is a 120,000 square foot retail shopping
center which includes two outparcels: a financial institution
and a restaurant. A ten foot wide greenbelt is provided along
West Boynton Beach Boulevard, the eastern property boundary and a
portion of the southeast property boundary where the subject
parcel abuts non-residential zoning categories. A twenty-five
foot wide greenbelt is provided along the southwest and west
property boundaries where the subject parcel abuts the Stonehaven
PUD. The proposed perimeter greenbelt conforms to the
requirements of the PCD zoning district regulations. Access is
provided by two driveways onto West Boynton Beach Boulevard.
Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Map and Text: The property
in question is currently shown on the Future Land Use Element for
the Reserve Annexation Area as "High Density Residential," so an
amendment to the Future Land Use Element to "Local Retail
Commercial" as requested by the applicant, would be necessary.
In addition, Area 7.k. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Element Support Documents contains the following language:
7.k. Unincorporated Parcels on South Side of
Boynton Beach Blvd.
These parcels constitute an unincorporated
pocket which should be annexed. The first
row of lots lying to the west of the present
City limits, having an east-west dimension
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-157
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 7, 1990
Page 3
of approximately 300 feet should be placed
in the General Commercial land use category
and C-4 zoning district. These parcels
should be required to dedicate right-of-way
and construct the adjacent street consistent
with the requirements that were placed on the
U.S. Post Office. The commercial parcels
should be developed so as to be compatible
with the future residential use of the
property which lies to the west. Those
parcels which lie further west should be
placed in the High Density Residential land
use category. Commercial development on
this parcel should not be permitted since
a single-family subdivision lies immediately
to the west and adequate commercial property
exists elsewhere in the vicinity. Furthermore,
building heights on this parcel should be
limited to 2 stories (25 feet) within ISO feet
and 3 stories within 400 feet of these single-
family lots.
The applicant has submitted an application for a Comprehensive
Plan Text Amendment to Area 7.k. above. The proposed amendment
reads as follows:
7.k. Unincorporated Parcels on South Side of
Boynton Beach Blvd.
These parcels constitute an unincorporated
pocket which should be annexed. The first
row of lots lying to the west of the present
City limits, having an east-west dimension
of approximately 300 feet should be placed
in the General Commercial land use category
and C-4 zoning district. These parcels
should be required to dedicate right-of-way
and construct the adjacent street consistent
with the requirements that were placed on the
U.S. Post Office. The commercial parcels
should be developed so as to be compatible
with the future residential use of the
property which lies to the west. -~heee
~areeie-wh~eh-i~e-r~reher-weee-ehe~ia-~e
~iaeea-~ft-ehe-H~~h-Befte~ey-Ree~aefte~ai-iafta
~ee-eaee~ery~--eemmereiai-deYeie~mene-en-ehie
~areei-ehe~id-ftee-~e-~ermieeed-einee-a-ein~ie-
ramiiy-e~~diYieien-iiee-~mmed~aeeiy-ee-ehe-weee
afta-aae~~aee-eemmereiai-~re~erey-exieee-eiee-
where-~ft-ehe-Y~einiey~ The parcels which
lie further to the west may be utilized for
future commercial development subject to
rezonings to Planned commercial Development
districts and the establishment of adequate
buffers adjacent to a single family sub-
division which lies immediately to the west
of these parcels. Furthermore, building
heights on this parcel should be limited
to 2 stories (25 feet) within 150 feet and
3 stories within 400 feet of these single-
family lots.
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-157
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 7, 1990
Page 4
An amendment to Area 7.k. would be necessary, given the proposed
nature of the development.
Procedure: These applications for annexation, amendment to the
Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, text
amendment, and rezoning are being processed consistent with State
Statutes 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:
Resolutions.
Procedures for Adoption of Ordinances and
3. F.S. 171.011: Municipal Annexation and Contraction Act.
4.
Boynton
3A5(e) :
Beach Code of Ordinances,
Boundary and Zoning.
Appendix
A,
Section
5. Boynton Beach Ordinance #79-24.
6. Boynton Beach Resolution #76-X: Procedures for Annexation.
7. Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Section 9.C:
Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Rezonings.
8. 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/Text, and rezone.
These procedures take approximately 8 to 9 months to complete.
Planned Commercial Development Standards: There
standards listed in the PCD regulations which affect
and ability to serve from a planning perspective.
standards are:
are three
the location
These three
1. Relation to Major Transportation Facilities
Standard number one suggests that PCDs should be located
where access to major roadways is afforded and where traffic
levels generated in residential areas will be acceptable.
The proposed PCD does in fact meet this criteria.
2. Roadway Improvements and Utility Extensions
Standard number two suggests that the applicant shall be
responsible for constructing and dedicating all
infrastructure necessary to serve the site, including the
dedication of additional rights-of-way and the maintenance
of roadway capacity when applicable. It can be assumed that
the applicant will construct all necessary water and sewer
mains which are needed to serve the site. In addition, the
applicant is proposing to construct separate left, through,
and right turn lanes for the driveway at the intersection of
West Boynton Beach Boulevard and Winchester Park Boulevard.
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-157
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 7, 1990
Page 5
3. The Physical Character of the Site
Standard number three is concerned with the environmental
aspects of the site. The geotechnical report submitted by
the applicant indicates that there is a substantial quantity
of peat and muck on the property, with a depth of up to 16
inches, which must be removed and replaced with compact
fill. Concerning vegetation, the site is primarily occupied
by dense exotics and open grass area. However, there is an
area in the northwest corner of the site which contains some
Royal Palms, Queen Palms, Citrus, Avocado and Orchid Trees,
which must be preserved, relocated, or replaced, in
conformance with the requirements of the Tree Preservation
Code. Taking into account the above, it can be reported
that the site is appropriate for the suggested development
from an environmental point of view.
Economic Standards: In connection with the Planned Commercial
District Regulations, two types of economic analyses are
required: A market study and employment projections. The market
study concludes that the proposed development is economically
feasible (see Exhibit "C"). The employment projections indicate
that approximately 290 employees will be needed for the proposed
shopping center.
Issues/Discussion: Section 9.c.7 of Appendix A, Zoning, 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 would
~esult 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 reqyire-
ments 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 land use amendment/rezoning would not be consistent
with Area 7.k. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element
Support Documents. However, the applicant has submitted an
application for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Area 7.k.
to amend the existing language to accommodate the proposed
development, as outlined in a previous section of this memorandum
entitled "Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Map and Text".
The Discussion of Supply and Demand for commercial Land in the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents
(Volume No. I) indicates that there may be up to 198 acres of
excess commercial land at build-out. However, this figure may be
reduced to a surplus of only 30 acres when certain adjustments
are taken into consideration. Thus, it was concluded that the
supply of commercial land in the Boynton Beach market area will
match the demand. In addition, this section of the Plan also
states the following:
"The Future Land Use Plan which is proposed for the City and
areas to be annexed by the City will accommodate all of
anticipated demand for commercial land through build-out.
Therefore, the City should not change the land use to
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-157
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 7, 1990
Page 6
commercial categories, beyond that which is shown on the
proposed Future Land Use Plan, except for minor boundary
adjustments, small infill parcels, or commercial uses of a
highly specialized nature, which have special locational or
site requirements, and therefore cannot be easily
accommodated on already designated commercial areas."
(page 40)
POlicy 1.19.6 of the Comprehensive PIan states: "Subsequent to
Plan adoption, do not allow commercial acreage which is greater
than the demand which has been projected, unless it can be
demonstrated that a particular property is unsuitable for other
uses, or a geographic need exists which cannot be fulfilled by
existing commercially-zoned property, or no other suitable
property for a commercial use exists for which a need can be
demonstrated, and the commercial use would comply with all other
applicable comprehensive plan policies". The proposed rezoning
would not be consistent with this policy.
Concerning the location of commercial land, this section of the
Plan states the following:
"Commercial land uses west of Interstate 95 are dominated by
the regional mall, and its satellite stores and offices.
Neighborhood shopping centers and office buildings are
located in the vicinity of most major intersections. The
City should continue its policy of encouraging commercial
uses to be located at intersections, and discouraging strip
commercial development, due to the aesthetic and traffic
safety problems that strip development creates. Further-
more, allowing additional commercial land use in the
vicinity of the Boynton Beach Mall would be likely to cause
traffic levels on roads in the vicinity to fall below
established levels of service. commercial development
beyond that which is shown on the proposed.,und use plan
should be permitted only if the City, or the applicant for
development applies for a lower level of service, by seeking
to have properties in the vicinity approved as a regional
activity center and an Areawide Development of Regional
Impact." (pp. 40-41)
In addition to the above, there will be a further discussion
concerning consistency with applicable Comprehensive Plan
pOlicies in subsequent sections of this memorandum. At the
end of this memorandum, in the section entitled, "Project
Approval", the Planning Department shall recommend limitations
and requirements which should be imposed on subsequent develop-
ment of the property, if this request is approved, in order to
comply with pOlicies contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
Concerning consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan, the
Palm Beach County Planning Division has been notified of the
proposed annexation. However, comments have not been received as
of this date.
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
distnicts, or would constitute a grant of special
privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted
with protection of the public welfare.
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-157
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 7, 1990
Page 7
As outlined in Area 7.k.l of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land
Use Element Support Documents, "Commercial development on this
parcel should not be permitted, since a single-family subdivision
lies immediately to the west and adequate commercial property
exists elsewhere in the vicinity". In addition, the section of
the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents
that discusses the location of commercial land states the
following with respect to further commercial development in the
vicinity of the Boynton Beach Mall:
"The City should continue its policy of encouraging
commercial uses to be located at intersections, and
discouraging strip commercial development, due to the
aesthetic and traffic safety problems that strip development
creates. Furthermore, allowing additional commercial land
use in the vicinity of the Boynton Beach Mall would be
likely to cause traffic levels on roads in the vicinity to
fall below established levels of service. Commercial
development beyond that which is shown on the proposed land
use plan should be permitted only if the City, or the
applicant for development applies for a lower level of
service, by seeking to have properties in the vicinity
approved as a regional activity center and an Areawide
Development of Regional Impact". (pp 40-41)
with respect to the above, the proposed rezoning would be
contrary to the established land use pattern and would arguably
constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property
owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare.
c. Whether changed or changing conditions make the
proposed rezoning desirable.
There has been
vicinity of this
Plan which would
no significant change in conditions in the
property since the adoption of the Comprehensive
make the proposed rezoning desirable.
d. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with
utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities.
The proposed rezoning would be compatible with water and sewer
systems. Pursuant to the Traffic Impact Review prepared by
Walter H. Keller, Jr., Inc., dated May 29, 1990, a revised
traffic impact analysis should be submitted which includes a
revised analysis based on all assured construction projects, an
appropriate assignment to Lawrence Road and Military Trail; an
analysis of Mall Road (Winchester Park Boulevard) and revised
peak hour turning movements on Figure 5. The applicant's
analysis should also address the finding by the Palm Beach County
Engineering Department (see letter dated June 5, 1990) that
Boynton Beach Boulevard from Military Trail to EI Clair Ranch
Road would be over capacity. With regard to the County
Engineer's comment that the link of Boynton Beach Boulevard from
Old Boynton Road to 1-95 will be over capacity, it should be
noted that this link will be improved by Palm Beach County,
however, this link will still be over capacity according to the
findings in Mr. Keller's report. In addition, the proposed
rezoning wil1 consume road capacity that will be needed to allow
for commercial development of other parcels in this area of the
City which are designated for commercial land use on the Future
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, as outlined in the
attached supplement dated June 6, 1990, from Walter Keller in
Exhibit "D".
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-157
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 7, 1990
Page 8
consistent with various policies contained within the Traffic
Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, a copy of the
developer's traffic impact analysis was submitted to Palm
Beach County for courtesy review and comment. Among other
issues, the County does not consider this application to have
been complete prior to February 1, 1990, the adoption date of the
Municipal Implementation Ordinance (see attached copy of
correspondence dated June 5, 1990 from the Office of the County
Engineer in Exhibit "D").
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 in Policy 1.17.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, the
language for Area 7. k., and the discussion concerning supply,
demand and location of commercial property in the Future Land Use
Element Support Documents, the proposed rezoning would not be
compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby
properties. Since the proposed development would have a negative
impact on property values in the Stonehaven PUD (a/k/ a Banyan
Creed), due to the activities that take place at the rear of a
shopping center. Typical characteristics of shopping centers
that would be incompatible with nearby residential uses include
noise from trucks, noise from loading and unloading acti vi ties,
noise due to unloading of dumpsters and removal of compactors,
noise from mechanical equipment, odors from dumpsters (which can
be detected up to 200 feet away), glare from parking lot
lighting, trash and litter accumulation, and the unpleasant
aesthetics that are typical for the rear of a shopping center.
f. Whether the property is physically and economically
developable under the existing zoning.
Under the existing Agricultural-Residential Zoning in Palm Beach
County, the property could be utilized for a variety of
agricultural or conservation purposes. single-family dwellings
are permitted on a minimum lot area of 5 acres.
If annexed and developed as a multi-family residential
subdivision or planned unit development, consistent with the
current "High Density Residential" land use designation in the
City, the property could be developed for a maximum of 159
dwelling units.
Concerning whether the property is economically developable under
the City's "High Density Residential" land use designation, the
applicant has not submitted any documentation that indicates that
the property could not be developed economically for 159
multi-family dwelling units. Therefore, it is assumed that the
property could be economically developed for a multi-family
residential development.
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.
Based on the discussion in item "a" concerning Area 7.k. and the
analysis of supply, demand, and location of commercial land uses
in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element support
Documents, it is arguable that the proposed rezoning is not of a
scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the
neighborhood and the City as a whole. Furthermore, approval of
additional retail development in this area of the City may limit
and compete with redevelopment in the Central Business District
along U.S. 1, and along Boynton Beach Boulevard east of 1-95.
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-157
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 7, 1990
Page 9
h. Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City
for the proposed use, in districts where such use is
already allowed.
As outlined in the discussion of supply and demand for commercial
land in the Future Land Use Element Support Documents of the
Comprehensive Plan, "the Future Land Use Plan which is proposed
for the City and areas to be annexed by the City will accommodate
all of the anticipated demand for commercial land through
build-out". This paragraph of the Plan further states that "the
Ci ty should not change the land use to commercial ca tegor ies ,
beyond that which is shown on the proposed Future Land Use Plan,
except for minor boundary adjustments, small infill parcels, or
commercial uses of a highly specialized nature, which have
special locational or site requirements, and therefore cannot be
easily accommodated on already designated commercial areas".
This discussion is formalized in Policy 1.19.6 of the
Comprehensive Plan. A further detailed analysis of the supply
and demand of commercial land is contained within the Future Land
Use Element Support Documents (Volume No. I) of the Comprehensive
Plan.
conclusions/Recommendations: The Planning Department recommends
that the requests for Future Land Use Element Amendment, Rezoning
and Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment submitted by Kieran J.
Kilday for Michael A. Schroeder, Trustee, be denied. This
recommendation is based on the following summary of findings
contained within the staff report:
1.
The proposed land use
be consistent with
Comprehensive Plan
Documents;
element amendment/rezoning would not
the policy for Area 7.k. of the
Future Land Use Element support
2. The Discussion of supply and Demand for commercial Land in
the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support
Documents indicates that there may be anywhere from 30 to
198 acres of excess commercial land at build-out. Thus, the
supply is expected to match the demand. This section of the
Plan and policy 1.19.6 also state that the Future Land Use
Plan for the City and areas to be annexed by the City will
accommodate all of the anticipated demand for commercial
land through build-out and, therefore, the City should not
further change the land use to commercial categories, except
for minor boundary adjustments;
3. The discussion for the Location of Commercial Land in the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents
states that further strip commercial development should not
be allowed in this area of the City due to the aesthetic and
traffic safety problems that are created and that traffic
levels on roads in the vicinity would likely fall below
established levels of service. This section of the Plan
further states that commercial development beyond that which
is shown on the proposed land use plan should be permitted
only if the City, or the applicant for development applies
for a lower level of service, by seeking to have properties
in the vicinity approved as a regional activity center and
an Areawide Development of Regional Impact;
4. The proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established
land use pattern and would arguably constitute a grant of
special privilege to an individual property owner as
contrasted with protection of the public welfare;
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-157
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 7, 1990
Page 10
5. There has been no significant change in conditions in the
vicinity of this property since the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan which would make the proposed rezoning
desirable;
6. Pursuant to the Traffic Impact Review prepared by Walter H.
Keller, Jr., Inc., dated May 29, 1990, a revised traffic
impact analysis should be submitted which includes a revised
analysis based on all assured construction projects, an
appropriate assignment to Lawrence Road and Military Trail;
an analysis of Mall Road (Winchester Park Boulevard) and
revised peak hour turning movements on Figure 5. The
applicant's analysis should also address the finding by the
Palm Beach County Engineering Department (see letter dated
June 5, 1990) that Boynton Beach Boulevard from Military
Trail to EI Clair Ranch Road would be over capacity. With
regard to the County Engineer's comment that the link of
Boynton Beach Boulevard from Old Boynton Road to 1-95 will
be over capacity, it should be noted that this link will be
improved by Palm Beach County, however, this link will still
be over capacity according to the findings in Mr. Keller's
report. In addition, the proposed rezoning will consume
road capacity that will be needed to allow for commercial
development of other parcels in this area of the City which
are designated for commercial land use on the Future Land
Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan;
7. The proposed rezoning would not be compatible with the
current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, as
outlined in Policy 1.l7.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, the
language for Area 7.k, and the discussion concerning supply,
demand, and location of commercial property in the Future
Land Use Element Support Documents.
8. The property is physically developable under the City's
current High Density Residential land use designation for
159 dwelling units, and the applicant has not furnished
documentation that this land use would constitute an
economic hardship;
9.
It is arguable that the proposed rezoning
scale which is reasonably related to
neighborhood and the City as a whole;
is not of a
the needs of
the
10. Approval of additional retail development in this area of
the City may limit and compete with prospects for
redevelopment in the Central Business District, along U. S.
1, and along Boynton Beach Boulevard east of 1-95; and
11. As outlined in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Element Support Documents and formalized in POlicy 1.19.6 of
the Comprehensive Plan, there are adequate sites elsewhere
in the City for the proposed use, as well as in the City's
Reserve Annexation Area.
PROJECT APPROVAL
If it is the desire of the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend
approval or the City Commission to approve these requests, it is
recommended that approval be contingent upon the following:
Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Area
7.k. as modified below:
1.
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-157
TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board
June 7, 1990
Page 11
7.k. Unincorporated Parcels on south Side of
Boynton Beach Boulevard.
These parcels constitute an unincorporated
pocket which should be annexed. The first
row of lots lying to the west of the present
City limits, having an east-west dimension
of approximately 300 feet should be placed
in the General Commercial land use category
and C-4 zoning district. These parcels
should be required to dedicate right-of-way
and construct the adjacent street consistent
with the requirements that were placed on the
U.S. Post Office. Those parcels which
lie further west should be placed in the Local
Retail Commercial land use category and should
be developed as a Planned Commercial Development
(PCD). The following restrictions should be
placed on the development of the property to
minimize adverse impacts on the adjacent
single-family subdivision:
a. Building heights should be limited to one story
(maximum 25 feet).
b. Pole-mounted lighting should be provided instead of
building-mounted lighting, and lighting fixtures should
be properly shielded and directed so as to minimize
glare on adjacent residences.
c.
Screening and noise mitigation is to
all exterior mechanical equipment,
equipment be roof-mounted.
be provided for
and all such
d. The architectural treatment at the rear of the shopping
center is to match the front of the shopping center.
e. Trees planted in the perimeter greenbelt are to be
placed 20 feet on center with canopies above the 6 foot
high concrete block wall that is required adjacent to
residential zoning.
2. The staff comments contained within Exhibit "E" of this
memorandum.
/t:;)J ~
v ,
.7dL
/
GOLDEN
JJG:frb
Encs
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.
A:PM90-157
EXHIBIT "A"
L0CA TION MAP
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEV ARD PCD
A
'" ~
:>
-- . . 1
'" ~,. .
-
, ~'
-. .
9 " ~I i J
';.^ i
7
l
....... ... J
II
~II
~' I I J
uti
... ...
::::
J-,
-
[~
"'C
n
, ,
. .
, ,
.
,
,
~
(
rn-:
.
i
\ '
, ,
, ,
, ,
.' '
, "
\W.!
1-
, J
'.
-J
.
, .
T ,I
oj ~/.
.'. -I
i!._--~' ....c..,....
" '0 1/8
~ T\ \ \ \ ' \ \ -
:::: '0400. '800
~
"SO~ TO~
~l
J
<u
~'
~
r
^
.
~( t)
VI
"
<
I 011 ' I
L~
,~
".
.
.-.' .
to
*
p
C
D
NO,"
IN
CITY .,
['; "
. I'
, ~
"
", ".
-]
1
.
:J
__ nl ~
{ (~~
,Ie
.1/
fl' I'T
-' .
. '... "
"., ..... \
l
ce
p
it
lie
'1 1TTrr
I'; 'i'\ i
".Iu ;{~.
.( ,n ~~ ,~
<; , J:\6>/.? -1 \
_; ~. _ ',' ;r,l' JIj~ SITE
~" ~ -', ..... -=:il .
"~ ~, ~
rr~lil _ --' ' N '--"
".r~-~ 1__ ~ ,.F \' ,
. Ci. - D \ E: L. ,;1;: ': .i\. ~
;" ~!l,./ ..; ..,]J./,
I" ;;;; . . ,
-.. . ~ oooohcoo CPnEg \
~~( , 8! p ~~~.o~ : i ~.
,~- ~,i)i ">.~ } t3~ ~', u ~ 0..,.0 __ I, ~'\~\- \\1~ 0 ~ ~
~,\ r~ II ~. c \\g ~.,'.\~o 0\, ~~~ 0 ~
r-\l ~l...~1: . (Q (jQ(s'; u '~I ~
8 / c ' -\1 f'rl. l!.. : ~D
...... _ ! j, ~ / i ..,.0 B~ ~ ,....-s OF T~ ~ .
_ IU EijVj t l::lW '.. --- . ..' v ..
:.. i- : ~ ;(1->- _r::- ,~
~' .' ~ ;.i
I-- i.- . -:::-;; \!l1!J [l -i ' ~
~....... e~"'- '-L,; \I ~
) I"" I' -, I I ·
.' ,:pO~"}l~ f?D_ ,-
~ ) I -' CI:a-
-... i\ .".,.......~,). .
0- )::
. ,
c-~'__ ',-:1
. _ n::........il
I ............... 4 \ .
"Ill~ 1-
. &;...,... l' _,- .J. __.' "i .
____ au ....-li;',....-..'. ' .'~~--,.
~
~ ~ f}J,
-
r..F
,
,~
~ <t"
: ~tfJ
I~': ': 1\ iJ
.; .. 1IIJv
ro' -' ()
~ B
~(j>Q
~
MILES
114
I '\
1600 FE~T ~
PLANNIN~ "",_or, {'/90' o.<>~~tl
EXHIBIT "B"
"
,
J t"L__.
( I, I
1_'___ (- .-.f30YNTONBEACI-IBOULEVARD,.M ::' , --I - --'-i.--~~-- - - .
la;"lUl ~.lV'O~_ --~n - !!t.'4 ~~~- -~~ 'IU ~ '14.12 ",,-=---
'I; t(!~ it_..._~.__ ~--o-. '...,__-- _ ~l. ~'l._jC\.Il. ~ 6?;?~_ =-_-=-_4"___"6 -"'- -~ ~I-" ,.,r-::--
- - -~.:""~ ...a ~. - - I
.. -~. __ _~:.::~ _ D: l' I f:r~:::---~~:-:~--u--.._---_-~.-"'- l:i r~~ .
: r J i r I nlllTL r= u I [ ~ C r'~---' I I ! I
f _ i llllL
[... .U]!" ,~- ,fu'j: I U ['~~ 1\
, I ~ I l ~ -- 0 \
---',' 't, .. i ~- ':7 --I::.----:r-'t':----.,--"t------~...:",...f)
':' 'i I "f" :j :;; ;'
I ~ b: 101 . J>:-tNf II i Illrmflll i I i'lll rrlPtrllTl1 UllTlrTO
. ; I l ; "P H;~ ;-'
I r "
:~i, r:"{~' tl.. ~ill!filll!~~lllli.;illll~HGlillJ.D<1JjiIHu
, t r ~ : I tl i III I II ! II fill; I I I III i j ~ QHJ 11 Ii i ! II! [ J ~ J
:~~i~:1 r.LC~ ill., Iii" .~t)II;'1 : :~I I r~ff)f I (lrl;'~): ~;I'~~ri ',",:
:~ I; i 1 ~ j I 1 D n I
I ~ i I; I i l: - J ' III r-6 I ~1" I I co ~ j , --=-I L - " t. 1 rv :' k!
I'~I ~I:t. l \j tP11 -JJ_, 'ID _-[J, ,ill ,III /' :I~
,~, 'i, '>" 1 f,l 11 '11"1 'J1 - [I 1'1' ell ",
()'Sl" ii-' .. j' l (f';/ I l' '. ", L ,> II' i I -'IS ': ~
~. I ']1 i ,. . j Ie", 1 I, 1 '1' ' I' ~
'f""i 1.. -.- ,- C~; ~I'j!; ,I'L [il ~l!r "J)" K- ; '.
I Iii, I ~ r _, ~ I "I - r - ,
,- ( -I':" I I 11 - ,I 'h' 1; ,I
, I Ii, - I I 11 L - f' 'I
~~ r<,~ (10<6 I' , 1 I "l [- I ~l'
r I ~ j I J rr]1' 1
-- '\0<> 1'\0 I' ,--' r I L,
"t. ,', - Y""" L I I .,.1 '"
I, r>~1f-1J _1'-)'
')' l:r~~1'1L,~~~--1 :
,} (.-6 - , J t ' I I - r I
~~~ 11:[ II ':I'}U
, ( ~ II _] , ' f! I I
_ . ) "1 L - 1,.1 f' " r ~
.,'--- (.I~ (lL 1;- ~l I
. t' --1l1 I
" () r~ iA
-',I I
" ,-
.....!:'.t
I
,
\. : 'I ~ :[\:I~~' ~ II
"'...~~ ,:_Ie'>' _"",'_"'tl.L./ .J
. ,iI,. .
~. r; b. ~
r.. b tt... _ ..:.. -
,
'I
,I
I
,~
, <
'r. .~
-'F'
~Z~
~' 1;
C,~
~\'
.
,
"
~
,
~~'M
~~~
'~ ~
$. ~
(-'-,
'r.l~
~ R
, <;
~
'; ~
~~,~
~~~
...
',""
J
...
_a."'~.,~ . ~~-:;~
IJl - 5." PI"!' 47 :'6' IV':' 656.514
~-n~
fi;~6-;!! 'lb. ~,,><,.,.. PL...r 'lOtf11jl,ve,j
,
g;;
~h <)
I.ll~l
i'~
"
- 7
'i'!f'
''','
EXHIBIT "C"
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD P.C.D.
Commercial Market Analysis
May, 1990
Prepared for':
Bill R, Winchester
Prepared by:
THOMPSON CONSULTING, INC.
560 Village Boulevard
Suite 315
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: 407/697-2581
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy/CONCLUSIONS............ ................
I NTRODUCT I ON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SITE ANAL YS IS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .
RET A I L MARKET ANAL YS IS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . .
Reta i 1 Trade Area...................................
Population/Demographic Characteristics..............
Retail Space Demand (Trade Area)....................
GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS............... ...............
ADDENDUM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . , . . . . . . . .
PAGE
1
3
5
6
6
9
18
22
23
LIST OF EXHIBITS
PAGE
EXHIBIT 1
Site Location Map 4
EXHIBIT 2
Retail Trade Area Map 7
EXH I BIT 3
Summary of Demographic Characteristics 9
EXHIBIT 4
Existing Retail Centers Map (Trade Area) 13
EXHIBIT 5
Existing Retail Centers List (Trade Area) 14
EXH I BIT 6
Approved/In Process Retail Centers Map (Trade Area) 16
EXHIBIT 7
Approved/In Process Retail Centers List (Trade Area) 17
EXHIBIT 8
Retail Space Demand (Trade Area) 18
EXHIBIT 9
Supportable and Existing Commercial Space (Trade Area) 19
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The data and analyses upon
included in this report.
and conclusions associated
for convenient review:
which our conclusions are based are
A brief summary of the salient points
with this project is presented below
Palm Beach County is a rapidly growing and increasingly
significant economic factor in the growth of Southeast
Florida. The County contains approximately 892,500 people,
representing an 55 percent increase in population since 1980.
In addition, the population is expected to reach over
1,000,000 by 1995.
Consistent employment gains in the past decade in such
sectors as manufacturing, finance, trade and government
confirm the growing diversity of the area's economy, hence,
lessening dependence on tourism as the County's primary
economic base.
Per capita income in
an 85% increase since
power for retail goods
1990 for the trade area is $14,108 -
1980, translating into increased buying
and services.
Based on a 1990 population in the trade area of 79,692 and
supportable square feet per capita figures derived from data
available from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Florida and The Urban Land Institute CULl),
approximately 3.93 million square feet of retail space can be
supported.
Existing and
space in the
square feet.
approved/in process/under construction
trade area totals approximately 3.14
retail
million
- Adding the 120,000 square feet of retail space proposed
for Boynton Beach Boulevard P.C.D. (as well as the 120,000
square feet proposed for the Knuth Road P.C.D.) to the total of
3.14 million square feet cited on the preceding page, yields a
figure of 3.38 million square feet, which indicates that even
in base year 1990, an additional 555,168 square feet~ of retail
space can be supported in the trade area.
With projected increases in population and the additional
attendant buying power in the trade area, approximately 4.58
million square feet of retail space, comprised of the general
categories surveyed, can be supported by 1995.
2
INTRODUCTION
This report presents findings and conclusions relating to the
market demand for a commercial retail development in the amount
of approximately 120,000 square feet on 14.76 acres +. The total
site development concept includes a large anchor store of
approximately 49,000 square feet and ancillary retail in the
amount of 61,375 square feet. In addition, 9,625 square feet is
proposed on two (2) outparcels intended to accommodate one (1)
restaurant, and one (1) financial institution.
This well-anchored center will be in a strong market position to
attract other miscellaneous convenience as well as shoppers
goods/comparison stores as co-tenants. It is well documented
that generally speaking, anchored centers fare much better than
unanchored strip and specialty centers. Neighborhood centers
such as the subject center generally exhibit the highest
occupancies, with this trade area being no exception.
The subject site is located on the south side of Boynton Beach
Bou 1 eva rd, between Cong ress Avenue and Knut h Road. (See Exhi bit
1) . The factors affecting the existing and future market which
would support a neighborhood retail development at this location
are examined in this study.
3
Exhibit
Site Location
MARTIN COUNTY
..
---'---'-'-'-j
,
I
.
I
r
I
j
-."........-._._.J
/"
I
\.-
"
-ElROWARO
COUNTY
,
}
j
f,O,!'ToC'
--.I
o~.~ .
.. ,
!
I
,
I
I t,o.
j nl(~"l'"
i hU
I
i
j r'-'
. ,
t..._o_.I
.. " n.
~
..
,c" ..,
"
f "
.. ..,
.n '.. ".
'"
, ,~ "
.. ~ .6
... ~
i i
! "
,
..
...
H
.
1
HI.'
f
i
0,01'
.
:.c......o
j
;...
.to . I
~'l~=7
..... I
. . .
._._,=:t
.. . .
4
h
'-i
r--
h
'"
'-i
-
C)
o
C)
"l
h
~
...........
-tlb-
SITE
SITE ANALYSIS
The subject site falls within unincorporated Palm Beach County.
The predominant and developing land use pattern in the immediate
area is commercial, with the Boynton Beach Boulevard/Congress
Avenue commercial intersection (including commercial development
to the direct north on Congress Avenue, proximate to the Boynton
Super Regional Mall), dominating the land use pattern along those
major arterials in the area,
Major roadways which provide access to the site are Boynton Beach
Boulevard, Congress Avenue, and Military Trail. Population and
demographic information pertinent to the general trade area which
generally conforms to the suburban as well as Boynton Beach
proper area (See Exhibit 3).
The population in the area for 1990 is estimated at 79,692.* In
addition, based on 1990 figures, average household size is 2.17
persons and the median age is 55.1. 1990 per capita income of
$14,108, although slightly less than the County median, is
generally comparable to the County, while the median age figure
indicates an older population in the area than found countywide
(55.1 in the trade area versus 42.3 in the County).
Although the population projections utilized in our analysis are
those of a well known national firm, this firm is unfamiliar with
the dynamics of sub-area/local situations. Statistically, the
estimates for area polygons of the County which are developing at
a rapid pace, are less than estimates for the same area by local
government (i .e., Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning
Organization). Hence, our demand estimates are conservative.
*Based on Urban Decision Systems, Inc, projections.
5
RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS
Retail Trade Area
The subject center will be designed to capture a share of
existing as well as new purchasing power in a growing area of the
County. The trade area's population has increased by
approximately 50% since 1980 and is expected to increase by some
16% by 1995 (projections by Urban Decision Systems).
The center proposed will have characteristics of a neighborhood
center, providing for the sale of convenience goods (foods,
drugs, aQd sundries) and personal services (laundry and dry
cleaning barbering shoe repairing, etc,) for the day-to-day
living needs of the immediate neighborhood. However, it is
conceivable that the subject center will provide a wider range of
facilities for the sale of soft lines (wearing apparel) and soft
lines (hardware and appliances), hence, potentially exhibiting
characteristics most often associated with a community center.
Exhibit 2 depicts the trade area boundaries for the proposed
retail space. As indicated earlier, the boundaries generally
conform to the suburban as well as Boynton Beach proper area.
For a neighborhood type center, the ULI recommends a trade area
determined by a one (1) to three (3) mile radius from the subject
site. This is appropriate, in terms of a generalization,
however, when determining actual markets, factors such as
physical barriers to access and existing competitive uses must be
taken into account. With this factored in, the trade area is
defined for the subject site.
All existing shopping center retail
process retail space was included in
area.* The boundaries are as follows:
as well as approved/in
the survey of the trade
North:
South:
East :
West:
Hypoluxo Road
One (1) mile south of Golf Road~
U.S. 1
El Clair Ranch Road
Centers included in the retail space survey are found in Exhibits
4,5,6,& 7.
*F'i;;;ld-;;;:;;::;:;;;;y by Thompson Consulting, Inc., 1990; Palm Beach
County Department files; Boynton Beach Planning Department.
6
h
"-i
i ,...
h
, ! <:
! "-i
-
<)
" ~ il""... ~
f .,
-.
" 'lI"r ..,
f "
,. ..,
... "
..,
,~ " 0
<)
.., '"
1 h
! :;:
.
!
...
.
i
i
E'l
ell.' .~.
Exhibit 2
Trade Area
MARTIN COUNTY
/
/
/
.....I..'~.. ""
-------'---'--1
,
I
,
I
,
r
,
J
i
-',._.-____.1
BROWARD
\ "
,
\
\
,
"
f f
i
..-.......
-ill>-
7
~~--"--_.._--.,.,-----._-----
Population projections (as prepared by Urban Decision Systems,
Inc.) for the trade area are as follows: 1980 53,102; 1990
70,692: 1995 - 92,801. Based upon these figures, it is estimated
that the population, hence purchasing power will experience
steady growth in the next five years.
The estimated purchasing power of the resident population of the
trade area was used as the basis for determining supportable
retail space. However, it is important to note that a
substantial number of "daytime" persons in the area and their
attendant buying power were not factored into our analysis. All
those persons brought into the trade area each day as employees
of other commercial retail and office developments in the area
represent a substantial secondary purchasing power base.
8
EXHIBIT 3
Summary of Demographic Characteristics
Owner occupied (%)
Renter occupied (%)
1980
Trade Area Pal m Beach Co.
53,102 576,863
18.4 21.3
7.2 9.8
18.1 23.6
7.6 9 . 3
14.7 12. 6
34.0 23.3
53.3 40.2
76.5 75.3
23.4 24.7
2.31 2.42
68.5 58.1
10. 7 21.2
$ 7,646 $9,017
Characteristic
Total Persons
Age Distribution
0-17
18-24
25-44
45-54
55-64
65+
Median Age
Households
% Two or more persons
% Single person
Persons/Household
Per Capita Income
Source: Urban Decision Systems, Inc.
9
EXHIBIT 3 continued
Summary of Demographic Characteristics
1990
Characteristic
Trade Area
Palm Beach Co.
Total Persons
79.692
892,357
Age Distribution
0-17
18-24
25-44
45-54
55-64
65+
Per Capita Income
15.9 18.4
5.7 7.3
19,8 27.2
8.4 9.7
15. 8 12. 9
34.4 '24.0
55.1 42.3
74.5 73.8
25.5 26.2
2.17 2.27
68.5 58.1
10.7* 21.2
$14,108 $15,653
Median Age
Households
% Two or more persons
% Single person
Persons/Household
Housing Units
Owner occupied (%)
Renter occupied (%)
Source: Urban Decision Systems, Inc,
*Constant is assumed over time from 1980 Census data.
10
EXHIBIT 3 continued
Summary of Demographic Characteristics
1995
Characteristic
Trade Area
Palm Beach Co.
Total Persons
92,801
1,043,469
Age Distribution
0-17
18-24
25-44
45-54
55-64
65+
Owner occupied (%)
Renter occupied (%)
15. 7 1 8 . 3
5.3 7.3
19.1 26.8
1 0 . 5 11.6
15. 6 12.4
33.8 23.6
54,5 43.3
74.0 73.4
26.0 26.5
2.13 2.22
68.5 58.1
10.7* 21,2*
$17,452 $21,655
Median Age
Households
% Two or more persons
% Single person
Persons/Household
Per Capita Income
Source: Urban Decision Systems, Inc.
*Constant is assumed over time from 1980 Census data.
11
EXHIBIT 3 continued
Summary of Demographic Characteristics
(Trade Area Only)
Characteristic
1990
Total Persons
79,692
Per Capita Income
$14,108
Median Age/Population
55.1
Average Size/Household
2.17
Source: Urban Decision Systems, Inc.
12
Trade Area
1995
92,801
$17,552
54,5
2.13
Re~ai\ cen~er$ (Trade Area)
S~hibit 4 - S~i$tin9
\
J
<1\
d,
,
\
,
,
~~,
l;l
o
-.
\-\'I?OL\))l.O
j
Cl
e:::
~
l;l
Vi 0
'" _rl.!>-N'nc-'
o
e:::
e:::
'"
l-
e:::
6-
tJ
~{
<;::\~
..;\
\
~
\
,
~
,
~ - --..,
t. ~ >-:",e!:~-"\'
" C4,,,~,,,;j ,
'} c'..~ \c.\..\~'t
V.
~ -
6 5'8
-
~
c:::
l-
,..
c:::
.c(
.S
~
p.,\Je
U}lTO~l 61..'10
......co~s.
-----
ute -0
f
\\~
v;:.o
,-.
v
'"
c:::
C
2
C
<.:
LA~"
\0>'
,e..l\.;..tl1\C
LowSON BLvD
0\.\10
""
?
u~rl'ON -<',.
(o""",,>"~Oi'''''~
ro? . .....
"!:
t,,."': .,J
.'
'"
c:::
C
2
C
t)
I'
i
i
I I
'" I
e;:' i
.
SCl9
=.
~
,} \ ~,
...... :"
C\,.\~T
...
v
'"
"'0 0
0'1 u
1'/0 <
,,0
c:::
13
. 8.;~,,:on
'. /nret
..
'-
..'
" ...
. ~ .
~ . ,.
'. .
:' .. .:' :.~. c .
. . ~- . .":" ;"
.<0'/::>;"'>;'
l' ',~':. ..... .
. :,"...:...~. ~:'.-:~ -~~'.
\ ....:/:~ ;:\:; :...."~
y .<.<~(:':}::n:.
'l"
":" . .
.~. .' ./;':.~:~::~'
,.~
~-
~, -~-----_..-..-_.,-
- ------.-- ---
EXHIBIT 5
Map
f'..e..f.. 1;
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
EXISTING RETAIL CENTERS
(Trade Area)
.N..9..rTie.!"l,..9.",.9..1:..l.."..r1.
Meadows Square
(S.W. corner-Hypoluxo/Congress)
Catalina Center
(W. side Congress/No of Boynton Mall)
Boynton Beach Promenade
(W. side Congress/front of Boynton Mall)
Boynton Beach Walk (Herman's Plaza)
(W. side Congress/front of Boynton Mall)
Lionel Playworld
(W. side Congress/front of Boynton Mall)
Greentree Plaza I & II
(N. side B.B. Blvd/W. of Congress)
Oakwood Square
(E. side Congress/No of B,B, Blvd.)
Villager Plaza
(N.E. corner-B.B. Blvd/Congress)
Leisureville Plaza
(S.E. corner-B.B. Blvd/Congress)
Boynton Plaza
(3. W. corner-B. B. Bl vd/Congress)
Gateway Center
(S,W. quadrant-B.B. Blvd/I-95)
Cross Creek Center
(N. side B.B. Blvd/W. of I-95)
Boynton Trail Center
(N.E. corner-B.B. Blvd/Military)
Boynton West Center
(N.W, corner-B.B. Blvd/Military)
Applegate Plaza
(3.E. corner-B.B. Blvd/Military)
Village Square
(N,E. corner-Golf Rd/Military)
Westlake Hardware
(W. side Con~ress/S. of Woolbright)
World of Furniture Plaza
(3. W. corner-Hypo 1 uxo/U. 3. 1)
14
.?i..?;..e.!.?.:...f...,.
96,300
162,000
7 6,940
42,300
36,600
28,000
168,200
17,700
88,000
102,500
27,200
20,000
233,000
151,400
25,500
80,000
25,000
50,000
(EXHIBIT 5 CONTINUED)
Map
.R.€t.f...,....J!
19-
20-
21-
22-
23-
TOTAL
1'J."..'!.!.€tLl-,.9.."."..t;59C'.
Sam's Wholesale Club
(S.E. quadrant-I-95/Hypoluxo)
Yachtsman Plaza (N & S)
(E. side U,S, 1/S. of Hypoluxo)
Boynton Beach Plaza
(N.E. corner-Boynton Beach Blvd/U.S. 1)
Sunshine Square
(S.W. corner-U.S. l/Woolbright)
Causeway Square
(S.E. corner-U.S. l/Woolbright)
15
?.i..Z...€tL?....,.:f...,..
107,000
38,320
52,500
146,570
110,000
1,885,030
Exhibit 6 _ Approved/In Process Retail Centers (Trade Area)
>-
c::
<
>-
LAKE
10.\
. 8o.'\nron
, inlel
HY?OLUXO -'-"
1
'.
(;)
o
--,
~!
\
OLD
80y~nO~1 VI RD
BLVO
i
'T
S'o'i 21,,0
~
,
~
j
,.
,
0
e::
<
c::
>-
<,
V'
'"
c:
C
Z
C
u
'.'
;;,
n
-\,
~
l
,
I
,
:! - --.,
~ 54 )..:'.~:""\I
: C~'~~::-j I
.~ C1.l" tCLL'lT
~
(;)
\'/ 0
ATLANTiC'"
o
c::
e::
\.:J
l-
e::
<(
u
AVE
ATLANT1C
LOWSON BLVO
BLVD
"'
>
LINTON <
'0 s."fO~>
~!;'rI>'
FO
','
LINTON
,.
.',. .
'.'
.,'
~
;;
~
).
::
::z: "
I'
. ,;
. "-"
RD
CliNT
. . .~~ ~ ':.";~ .>
. . ~ .~. : '. " -. -.
I '
. . .. :'. .'.. :. ~-. :"::',- . ~
. -. ,': '." ~ ;,. "',,".; :
:::,;~:..;:.:~' ..: ':' .-....~..::..;.-;;
.....
.;......
:::.: ~: .,,:.~..,.. . T .: '.~'
. :.' '.
809
.. ..::
c:
-
"
-
'"
s;
.'
~/
....
,..... "..
-----
. .'
16
----.------....--. ~-- - "~-----~-_._---
EXHIBIT 7
Map
R.~..t..,......1+.
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
TOTAL
APPROVED/IN PROCESS RETAIL CENTERS
(Trade Area)
N..9..n:l.~.l.bg.~.."..1=.Jg.r1.
Hypoluxo Shopping Center
(S.E. corner-Hypoluxo/Military)
Boynton Lakes Center
(S.E. corner-Hypoluxo/Congress)
Trails End Plaza
(E, side Military/S, of Hypoluxo)
Cocoplum Plaza ,
(E. side Military/S. of Hypoluxo)
Aberdeen Square
(N.W. corner-Military/Le Chalet)
Village Shoppes of Boynton
(N,E. corner-N.W. 22nd/Congress)
Catalina Center
(W. side Congress/H. of Boynton Mall)
Woolbright Plaza
(S,W. quadrant-I-95/Woolbright)
Grove Shopping Center
(N.E, corner-Old Dixie/U.S. 1)
?J.z...~['?..,..:L.,.
87,000
133,700
100,000
13p,OOO
71,400
175,600
80,100
315,580
160,020
1,253,400
Source: Survey research by Thompson Consulting, Inc. 1990.
17
EXHIBIT 8
Retail Space Demand (trade area)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ESTIMATE OF SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL SPACE
GENERATED BY RETAIL SPENDING PATTERNS
Estimated Retail
Space Needs Per
Retail Category* Capita (sq. ft.)
1990 Demand
For Space
(sq. ft.)
1995 Demand
For Space
(sq, ft.)
Food
Eating/Drinking
Gen'l Mdse
Apparel
Drug Store
Furn/Appl
Lumber/Hardware
Automotive
Cinema/Theater
9_t.~.~.r............. .................
TOTAL
5.05 402,445 468,645
7.05 561,829 654,247
8.85 705,274 821,289
3.17 252,624 294,179
1 ..72 137,070 159,618
5.69 453,447 528,038
4.38 349,051 406,468
1.68 133,883 155,906
2.11 168,150 195,910
..........m.~...,.9..9.............................m.......7..9.~.,.?~?......_.?..9...9..t...4.?.?.
47.81 3,933,598 4,580,758
*Categories consist of the following subcategories:
FOOD: Grocery store: meat markets, poultry; seafood dealers;
vegetables/fruits; bakeries; delicatessens; candy, confectionery,
sundries.
EATING/DRINKING; Restaurants, lunchrooms, catering services; and
taverns, night clubs, bars and liquor stores.
GENERAL MERCHANDISE: Department stores; variety stores; limited
specialty retail; dry goods.
APPAREL: Clothing stores, alterations; shoe stores.
DRUG STORES: Drug stores; pharmacies-apothecaries.
FURNITURE/APPLIANCES: Furniture stores (new and used); household
appl iances, dinnerware, etc.; music stores, radios, television,
record/tape shops and electronic supplies.
LUMBER/HARDWARE: Hardware, paints, light machinery; bicycle
shops; decorating/painting/papering/drapery; lumber/building
materials, fabrication/sales of windows, doors, cabinets, etc.
AUTOMOTIVE: Auto accessories, tires, parts, auto A/C, etc.
CINEMA/THEATER: Movies and other admission charging business.
OTHER: Second hand stores: antique shops: store and office
equipment; barber and beauty shops; cosmetics; reducing salons;
book stores; dry cleaning linen and laundry; tobacco shops;
florists; gifts; cards, novelty, hobby, stationery and toy
stores; magazines, post cards, brochures; photo and art equipment
and supplies, art galleries, etc.
Source: Retail sales and use tax business classifications;
Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida,
and year end retail sales for Palm Beach County - 1987. Dollars
and Cents of Shopping Centers, 1987, The Urban Land Institute.
18
EXHIBIT 9
SUPPORTABLE AND EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE
Retail Category
Food
Eating/Drinking
Gen'l Mdse
Apparel
Drug Store
Furn/Appl
Lumber/Hardware
Automotive
Cinema/Theater
Other
TOTAL
Vacant space
TOTAL
1990 Demand
For Space
(sq. ft.)
402,445
561,829
705,274
252,624
137,070
453,447
349,051
133,883
168,150
769,825
3,933,598
3,933,598
1995 Demand
For Space
(sq. ft.)
468,645
654,247
821,289
294,179
159,618
528,038
406,468
155,906
195,910
896,458
4,580,758
4,580,758
1 9
1990 Existing
Retail Totals
(sq. ft.)
271,240
168,070
327,500
77,230
102,865
116,820
110,550
4,260
22,000
264,625
1,465,160
267,770
1,732,930
Based on the methodology utilized in this analysis, as evidenced
by the information contained on the preceding page, an additional
2,200,668 square feet can be supported by the population in
the trade area in 1990. However, the above figure does not
reflect any of the approved/in process nor non-retail space
(financial institutions and office users that also occupy space
in these facilities) in the trade area.
Approved/in process retail center developments within the trade
area are also examined since, upon completion, each will also be
competing with the subject site for certain retail customers.
(See Exhibits 6 & 7 for these centers). An additional 1,253,400
square feet of commercial/retail uses have been approved but not
yet built/completed within the trade area. In addition, there
are 152,100 square feet of non-retail space within existing
centers in the trade area.
To account for this space, the total approved/in process space,
as well as the non-retail space referenced above, should be added
to the total retail space in existing shopping centers.
Combining inventoried existing competitive space total
(including vacant space) of 1,732,930 square feet (as well as the
152,100 square feet of non-retail space in existing centers) to
the approved/in process space total of 1,253,400 square feet,
yields a total existing and committed commercial/retail space
figure of 3,138,430 square feet. By adding the retail space
proposed for development at the subject site (i.e., 120,000
square feet as well as the 120,000 square feet proposed for the
Knuth Road P.C.D.), the total of existing, approved/in process
and that proposed for the subject site is 3,378,430 square feet.
This total is below the 1990 estimated demand of 3,933,598 square
feet and indicates that an additional 555,168 square feet can be
supported in the trade area in 1990 (over and above that proposed
for Boynton Beach Boulevard P.C.D.).
In addition, with projected population increases to 92,801
persons by 1995, an estimated 4,580,758 square feet could be
supported in the trade area.
20
Examining the individual categories of retail presented in
Exhibit 9 indicates that in no category does supply exceed
demand. It is important to note that the supply side total does
not include the Boynton Beach Mall. It was not included because
this super regional center serves an area which extends into
southern Delray Beach on the south and West Palm Beach on the
north. In addition, the anchors and on-line merchants of a super
regional center do not directly compete with nearby tenants that
are located in neighborhood, community and unanchored centers.
Super regional centers attract destination oriented trips to the
major anchors with spin-offs for the "national chain" shops. The
super regional centers come closest (currently) to reproducing
shopping facilities and customer attraction once available in
Central Business Districts (CBD's).
In addition, those competing shopping centers located near the
periphery of the trade area were not discounted (in terms of the
ratio of population within the Boynton Beach Boulevard P.C.D.
trade area to the population within the trade area of those
competing shopping centers located a good distance away from the
subject site). The further away a competing shopping center
facility is, the less direct competition it represents to the
subject site.
In summary and conclusion, the subject 120,000 square foot
neighborhood center proposed on Boynton Beach Boulevard, between
Knuth Road and Congress Avenue, is in a favorable market position
in terms of location, visibility, access and timing (particularly
with projected population increases in the trade area in the near
future) .
21
GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS
Every reasonable effort has been made to insure that this report
contains the most accurate and timely information possible, which
is believed to be reliable. However, no responsibility is
assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by developer, developer's
agents or any other sources.
Contractual obligations do not include access to ?r ownership
transfer of any electronic data processing files, programs or
models completed directly for or as a by-product of this research
effort.
This report may not be used for any purpose other than for which
it is prepared. Possession of this report does not carry with it
the right of publication and its contents shall not be
disseminated to the public through advertising media, sales
media, or any other public means of communication without prior
written consent and approval of Thompson Consulting, Inc.
22
ADDENDUM
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD P.C.D.
(May, 1990)
23
Name:
Map Reference:
Tenant By
Retail Category:
Food
Eat/Drink
Gen'l Mdse
Apparel
Drug Store
Furn/Appl
Automotive
Lmbr/Hrdwr/
Bldg Supply
Financial
Theater
Prof/Med
Offices
Ot he r
Vacant
TOTAL
EXISTING RETAIL CENTERS
Meadows
Square
1
Catalina
Center
2
43,000
7,000
4,710
77,000
5,000
7,650
12,000
2,000
4,710
1,300
9,000
8,830
12,000
21,950
5,000
37,150
96,300
162,000
B. Beach
Promenade
3
11,540
22,315
11,540
5,385
26,160
76,940
Name:
Map Reference:
Tenant By
Retail Category:
Food
Eat/Drink
Gen'l Mdse
Apparel
Drug Store
Fu rn/ App 1
Automotive
Lmbr/Hrdwr/
Bldg Supply
Financial
Theater
Prof/Med
Offices
Other
Vacant
TOTAL
EXISTING RETAIL CENTERS
Boynton
Beach Walk
4
2,100
7,680
10,280
9,240
10,200
2,800
42,300
Lionel
Playworld
5
36,600
36,600
Greentree
Plaza I & II
6
4,200
8,400
1,400
2,800
9,800
1,400
28,000
Oakwood
Square
7
29,450
21,900
10,100
20,900
5,050
28,600
19,350
21,900
10,950
168,200
Name:
IVlap Reference:
Tenant By
Retail Category:
Food
Eat/Drink
Gen'l Mdse
Apparel
Drug Store
Furn/Appl
Automotive
Lmbr/Hrdwr/
Bldg Supply
Financial
Theater
Prof/Med
Offices
Other
Vacant
TOTAL
EXISTING RETAIL CENTERS
Villager
Plaza
8
1,700
1,700
850
850
7,560
5,040
17,700
Leisureville
Plaza
9
13,300
6,000
3,800
16,000
1,900
41,300
5,700
88,000
Boynton
Plaza
10
36,000
8,500
1 ,500
10,500
4,100
5,550
9,600
13,600
7,050
6,100
102,500
Gateway
Center
1 1
4,290
1,430
8,580
4,300
8,600
27,200
Name:
Map Reference:
Tenant By
Retail Category:
Food
Eat/Drink
Gen'l Mdse
Apparel
Drug Store
Furn/Appl
Automotive
Lmbr/Hrdwr/
Bldg Supply
Financial
Theater
Prof/Med
Offices
Other
Vacant
TOTAL
EXISTING RETAIL CENTERS
Cross Creek
Center
1 2
3,400
),200
12,200
1,200
20,000
Boynton
Trail Center
1 3
48,000
27,000
10,000
24,000
40,000
9,000
6,000
18,000
51,000
233,000
Boynton West
Center
14
2,700
21,600
65,000
2,700
2,700
8,200
13,500
35,000
151,400
Applegate
Plaza
15
3,190
6,380
1,590
9,550
3,190
1,600
25,500
Name:
Map Reference:
Tenant By
Retail Category:
Food
Eat/Drink
Gen'l Mdse
Apparel
Drug Store
Furn/Appl
Automotive
Lmbr/Hrdwr/
Bldg Supply
EXISTING RETAIL CENTERS
Village
Square
1 6
38,000
1,200
12,000
1,200
Westlake
Hardware
17
25,000
World of
Furniture Pl
1 8
7,500
40,000
Sam's Whole-
sale Club
19
107,000
Financial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Theater
1,820
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prof/Med
Offices
3,640
Other
-----------------------------------------------------------------
11,400
2,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vacant
TOTAL
10,740
80,000
25,000
50,000
107,000
Name:
Map Reference:
Tenant By
Retail Category:
Food
Eat/Drink
Gen'l Mdse
Appa re 1
Drug Store
Furn/Appl
Automotive
Lmbr/Hrdwr/
Bldg Supply
Financial
Theater
Prof/Med
Offices
Other
Vacant
TOTAL
EXISTING RETAIL CENTERS
Yachtsman
Plaza
20
7,100
8,520
3,550
3,550
4,260
5,680
5,660
38,320
Boynton
Beach Plaza
21
20,000
7,300
2,400
6,000
6,000
1,200
7,200
2,400
52,500
Sunshine
Square
22
40,000
7,800
17,600
10,000
10,000
6,000
6,500
11,700
36,970
146,570
Causeway
Square
23
1,250
60,000
15,000
3,750
1,250
3,750
25,000
110,000
Name:
Map Reference:
Tenant By
Retail Category:
Food
Eat/Drink
Gen'l Mdse
Apparel
Drug Store
Furn/Appl
,A,utomotive
1mbr/Hrdwr/
Bldg Supply
Financial
Theater
Prof/Med
Offices
Other
Vacant
TOTAL
EXISTING RETAIL CENTERS
TOTAL
271,240
168,070
327,500
77,230
102,865
116,820
4,260
110,550
26,920
22,000
125,180
264,625
267,770
1,885,030
EXHIBIT "D"
Walter H. Kelle.. Jr., Inc.
TRAFFIC II< TRANSPORTATION. PLANNING. ENGINEERING. LAND DEVEWPMENT
May 29, 1990
Mr. Timothy Cannon, Acting Director
City of Boynton Beach Planning Department
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
Re: Traffic Impact Review. Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD
Dear Mr, Cannon:
As per the City's request, the review of the Traffic Impact Study for the above
referenced development is complete, The proposed commercial development is
located at the southwest corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Mall Road
(Winchester Drive) and includes the construction of 120,000 square feet of retail
space, The site is currently located in unincorporated Palm Beach County but is
proposed for annexation by the City of Boynton Beach.
The review and traffic impact study are based on conformance with the Palm Beach
County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance #87-18 which was in effect at the
time of submission. The analysis of conformance to County Standards is based on all
roadways in the study area. The review is also based on the provisions provided for
in the Boynton Beach Traffic Circulation Element to the City's Comprehensive Plan
and is applicable to roadways within City boundaries,
The results of our analysis indicates the project is subject to the completion of a
number of roadway improvements and will not meet City or County standards on
Boynton Beach Boulevard from Old Boynton Road to 1-95. A summary of our review
is provided in the following text.
Existing Conditions - The Applicant's analysis of existing traffic volumes is based on
1989 traffic counts and is consistent with data provided by Palm Beach County and the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The analysis of traffic conditions is
based on the LOS "c" capacities as provided in both the County Traffic Performance
Standards and the City's Traffic Circulation Element. The analysis shows three over
capacity roadway links including Boynton Beach Boulevard between Old Boynton
Road and 1-95, Boynton Beach Boulevard between Military Trail and EI Clair Ranch
Road and Military Trail south of Golf Road.
Programmed Improvements - There are a number of programmed and planned
improvements located in the Applicant's study area, most of which have been
identified in the traffic impact study, Table 1 provides a summary of these
improvements and indicates whether these projects are considered assured per
County standards.
continued....
10211 W, SAMPLE ROAD. SUITE 204 . p,o, BOX 9740
CORAL SPRINGS, FLORIDA 33075-9740
(305) 755-3822. (407) 732-7844 (palm Beach)
Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc.
Mr. Timothy Cannon
May 29, 1990
page two
Table 1, Programmed Roadway Improvements
Roadway
Section
LODst Kespons
Imprvmnt Date Agency Assured
Boynton Beach Blvd Acme Dairy Rd to Jog Rd +2L(4LD) FY 90191 FOOT Yes
Jog Rd to Military Tr +4L(6LD) FY 90/91 FOOT Yes
at Florida' s Turnpike Interchange FY 90/91 FOOT Yes
Old Boynton Rd to 1.95 +2L(6LD) FY 90/91 Coonty Yes
Military Tr Hypoluxo Rd to Boynton Beach Bd +2L(6LD) U/C County Yes
Boynton Beach Bd to Stiener Rd +2L(6LD) FY 91192 County Yes
Old Boynton Rd Military Tr to Knuth Rd +2L(4LD) FY 91192 County Yes
Congress Ave Miner Rd to NW 22nd Ave +2L(6LD) 1990 Devel No
NW 22nd Ave to Boynton Beach Bd +2L(6LD) 1991 Devel Yes
L28 Canal to L30 Canal +2L(6LD) FY 91/92 County Yes
Woolbright Rd Military Tr to Congress Ave NC(4LD) FY 90/91 County Yes
Congress Ave to 1-95 +2L(6LD) 1991 Devel No
Source: Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc. Note: DIe - Under Construction
Palm Beach County Engineering Balded projects not analyzed by
Florida Department of Transportation Applicant
The Table shows two developer improvements which have not been assured including
Woolbright Road from Congress Avenue to 1-95 and Congress Avenue from Miner
Road to NW 22nd Avenue, Note the improvement on Boynton Beach Boulevard from
Jog Road to Military Trail is for six lanes as opposed to the four lane improvement
discussed in the Applicant's Study.
Trip Generation - The Applicant's estimate of project trip generation indicates a total
of 8,365 total daily trips including 3,547 captured trips from existing traffic and 4,818
new external trips. The PM peak hour is estimated to generate a total of 685 trips,
336 entries and 349 exits, These estimates are based on the 4th Edition of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual and are acceptable.
Trip Distribution and Assignment - The Applicant's analysis of trip distribution and
assignment is reasonable, however the assignment of traffic to Lawrence Road is
heavy compared to Military Trail. The Applicant shows a significant number of project
trips accessing Military Trail via Boynton Beach Beach Boulevard, Lawrence Road
and Old Boynton Road. The shortest and most convenient path for this traffic is
Boynton Beach Boulevard direct to Military Trail. A revised assignment would cause
Military Trail from Boynton Beach Boulevard to NW 22nd Street to be considered
"Significant" per the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards.
continued....
Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc.
Mr. Timothy Cannon
May 29, 1990
page three
Background Traffic Analysis - The Applicant's analysis of background traffic is based
on a 1993 buildout year, a historical traffic count analysis and committed traffic per the
Aberdeen, Palm Isles, Rainbow Lakes, Sun Valley, and Quantum Park developments.
The results of the background traffic analysis are acceptable and indicate a significant
amount of traffic growth on all roadways.
Projected traffic on Boynton Beach Boulevard is excessive considering expected traffic
diversion once the extension of Woolbright Road from Congress Avenue to Military
Trail is complete. An analysis of traffic diversion should reduce volumes on Boynton
Beach Boulevard,
Traffic Impacts - A summary of projected traffic conditions is provided on Table 2. The
Table for the most part is based on the traffic projections provided in the submitted
study, Some revisions were made due to the results of this review. These changes
include:
. ...the addition of two significant roadway links, Mall Road from Old
Boynton Road to Boynton Beach Boulevard and Congress Avenue from
Woolbright Road to Golf Road, which are not included in the Applicant's
analysis of significant links.
. ...an analysis based on all assured construction projects.
Note also two Military Trail links, from Boynton Beach Boulevard to Old Boynton
Road and from Old Boynton Road to NW 22nd Avenue should be added to the Table
per comments made under the Distribution and Assignment subtitle,
The results of the projected roadway analysis indicate off-site roadway improvements
will be required based on LOS "C" standards. Improvement is needed on Congress
Avenue from NW 22nd Avenue to Old Boynton Road and on Boynton Beach
Boulevard from Old Boynton Road to 1-95, The results show both links will exceed
their improved six lane capacity by 1993, Note the Applicant also states Military Trail
is expected to be over capacity but no analysis is provided.
The Applicant should also provide an analysis of Mall Road. The Mall Road daily
traffic estimate shown on Table 2 was estimated by Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc. based on
peak hour traffic volumes shown in the Appendix. This estimate was calculated for
review purposes only, The Applicant should provide a traffic count or support the
turning movement data with field data,
continued....
Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc.
Mr, Timothy Cannon
May 29,1990
page four
Table 2, Analysis of Significant Links
1993
County
Exist Back Proj Total LOS D
Roadway From To ADT ADT ADT ADT Cap V!C
Boynton Beach Bd Jog Rd El Clair Ranch Rd 10,500 13,327 198 24,025 30,000 0.80
E1 Clair Ranch RdMilitary Tr 20,636 17,717 243 38,596 46,500 0.83
Military Tr Lawrence Rd 24,420 7,232 1,083 32,735 46,400 0.71
Lawrence Rd Knuth Rd 27,365 8,104 1,890 37,359 46,400 0.81
Knuth Rd Mall Rd 27,365 8,104 2.083 37,552 46,400 0.81
Mall Rd Congress Avenue 27,365 8,104 2,256 37,725 46,400 0.81
Congress Avenue Old Boynton Rd 31,922 12,337 929 45.188 46,400 0.97
Old Boynton Rd 1-95 43,886 16,933 794 61,613 46,400 1.33
Congress Avenue NW 22nd Ave Old Boynton Rd 29,808 19,263 535 49,606 46,400 1.07
Old Boyntoo Rd Boynton Beach Bd 29,808 15,770 580 46,158 46,400 0.99
Boynton Beach Blvd Woolbright Rd 25,170 11,414 698 37,282 46,400 0.80
Woolbright Rd Golf Rd 25,170 1l,414 490 37,074 46,400 0.80
Lawrence Rd NW 22nd Ave Old Boynton Rd 8,680 2.912 384 11,976 13,100 0.91
Old Boynton Rd Boynton Beach Bd 8,680 2,912 512 12,104 13,100 0.92
Mall Rd Old Boynton Rd Boynton Bch Bd 1,991 480 2,471 30,000 0.08
Old Boynton Rd Military Trail Lawrence Rd 11,383 3,261 138 14.782 30,000 0.49
Lawrence Rd Mall Rd 11,383 3,261 145 14,789 30,000 0.49
NW 22nd Ave Military Tr Lawrence Rd 6,412 5,768 192 12,372 13,100 0.94
Source: Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc. Note: Bolded links are significant links not
K.S. Rogers, Consulting Engineer, Inc. analyzed by the Applicant.
Italicized volumes estimated by WHK
Site Access - The proposed site is provided two access drives, one unrestricted and
signalized while the other unsignalized and restricted to right-in/right-out access.
The Applicant analysis indicates exclusive turn lanes will be provided for westbound
lefts, and northbound -lefts, -throughs and -rights at the Mall Road access.
Additional improvement should include the restriping of one of the southbound lefts to
a through lane and the provision of an eastbound right at the western access drive.
Note the Applicant has overestimated peak hour traffic by 33 exiting trips on Figure 5.
continued....
Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc.
Mr. Timothy Cannon
May 29, 1990
page five
Conformance to City and County Standards - The Applicant does not meet County or
City standards. Under the County Standards, and based on Table 2, improvement is
required on Congress Avenue from NW 22nd Avenue to Old Boynton Road and on
Boynton Beach Boulevard from Old Boynton Road to 1-95. However, both roads will
be built out at six lane divided and a reduction in project size (-42%) would be
required to meet County Standards.
Under City Standards the results are the same except for Congress Avenue from NW
22nd Avenue to Old Boynton Road where LOS "D" is acceptable. LOS "D" is also
acceptable on Boynton Beach Boulevard from Old Boynton Road to 1-95 but this
standard is also exceeded.
Summary - The traffic impact study for the proposed project does not meet the
performance standards requirements of Palm Beach County or the City of Boynton
Beach. The Applicant may wish to revise the analysis of projected traffic to account
for diversion on Boynton Beach Boulevard due to the extension of Woolbright Road, If
a revised analysis meets LOS "D" requirements, the project may meet City
Standards, County standards may be met under the new concurrency system if there
is available capacity on the two links identified in this analysis. Also note that under
the current Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards the Applicant's radius
of influence is reduced to 2 miles and other links impacted by more than 1 % capacity.
A revised analysis should address comments contained within this letter including: a
revised analysis based on all assured construction projects; an appropriate
assignment to Lawrence Road and Military Trail; an analysis of Mall Road and
revised peak hour turning movements on Figure 5.
If you have any questions please contact me at (305) 732-7844,
StJ1J1. ~
Walter H. Keller Jr., PE, AICP
President
WHK/us
_"",>1 ,<."" II'" "
_ fl. ~r!,~fi!'-"tonL!,~~!d"
755 3866
,'(lljl:' L 01 )
. ___..Jlual!!J!:i!..nd"L-.
101", .HI" '., '" '.1 I 'j
June 6, 1990
Mr. Jim Golden,
PlanningDepartment
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425.0310
Re: Traffic Impact Review
Knuth Road PCD
Boynton Beach Blvd PCD
Dear Mr. Golden;
As per your request, the traffic impact of the proposed rezoning of the above
referenced sites on projected 2010 traffic has been reviewed. Table 1 below indicates
the cummulative impact of rezoning the Boynon Beach Boulevard site (Residential
10.8 to Commercial) and the Knuth Road site (Residential 7.2 and Commercial to
Commercial) would increase projected traffic by approximately 6,000 trips.
Table 1. Inerc...cd Trip Projection E.timate.
r
,
Current Zoning
, Proj eel
Size
Units
Trips
I Proposea I '.
New Exl
! Trip~ Difference'
I :
I I
i I
4,818
4,818 I
1,998 I
4,017 i
"
6.014 .
Knuth Rd PCD
77 MP DU
41,380 Sqft Com
517
2,303
2.820
801
rotal Knuth Rd
Boynton Beach BldPCD 130 MP DU
Total Impact
I
, I
Source: Walter H. KellerJr., Inc.
Exhibits A and B attached, show the individual rezonings would also increase
on roadways projected to be over capacity. The Knuth Road rezoning
impacts a;-e less than 1% in all locations e.xcept for Lawrence Road.
traffic
however,
If you have any questions please contact me at (305) 732.7844.
Sincerely,
Walter H. Keller Jr., PE, AICP
President
WHK/us
Attachment
RTirTiIVTID
.L- '-...JJ.-.-<o
JUN 7 1990
. r I ;Yf
Plt ll, w,-I .
Ii";,,
-
755 3866
t'dye.) UI J
Quatitij: Standard
'0. UUyil\ullIH"" '" , "1.., 0'.
From: Abalon Inter l"H
_._.~--_..
lilli, ....:J1l I. 1_ '.HJ '1:)') i'~VJ
h~~k cd
E.hibit A. AD81Ylil of RozoninR oKaBOD Ron 2010 Volume.
I ,
,
I iAdd!n'l Rev
I
I 2010 2010 20101 Proj 2010 2010
I Roadway FrOlD To Cap ADT V/C I ADT ADT vie
i Boynton B..c. Bd Knutb Rd M.II RJl 46.400 :'15500 U.7i I 1.068 36.568 0.79
Mall RJl Con2rmAvenue 46.400 35.500 0". I 1.008 36.508 0.79
"II
Conp;esi Avenue Old Boynton Rd 46.400 42,400 0.91 I 385 42.785 U.92
Old Boynlon RJl 1.95 55.800 5MUO 1.02 r 329 57.12" 1.02
I
I CO~2:re$sAve!]ue NW 22nd Ave Old Boynton RJl 55,800 56.300 1.01. 222 56,n2 1.02 i
, Old Boynton Rd Boynton Beach Bd 55,SOU 56.500 l.Ol I 253 5f;,i53 1.02 :
BaInton B..ch Blvd W oolbri2ht Rd 46.4OU 50,700 1.09: 349 51.U" 1.10 :
Woolbridlt Rd GolfRd 46.400 56,700 1.2, 2U3 56,90: W:
i La\\'reoc.eRd NW 22ndAve Old Boynton Rd 13.100 15,100 1.15 159 15.25" Llti I
, Old Boynton Rd Boynton Beach Bd i3.100 15.100 1.15 19~ 15.296 . ,
l.11 I
I Military Tr LawrenceRd 30,000 13,900 (UA 'ill 13.980 f(4.: '
NW 22nd Ave
,
,
SOurce: Walter H. Keller Jr., [nc.
K.S. R02en. Conaulling Engineer, Inc. I
IlIhibil B. !JoJY'" iol.,
A.aIVli. of Rezo~in2 BJl.r;abln Blvd PCD on 2010 Volu:ne.
I I
,
I Addtn'l Rev Rev 1
I 2010 2010 20101 Proi 2010 2010 :
, From To ADT V/C i
I Roadway Cap vie p1IT ADT
. Boynton Beacn Bd Knuth Rd MallRd 46,400 35,500 o.nl 21147 3'i,N7 0.81
I Mall RJl Con21'essAveoue 46.400 35,500 0.77 2.027 37,527 031 :
ClongreslPlvenue Old Boynton RJl 41\.400 42,400 I 775 43,175
U.91 1 0.92 I
Old Boynlon RJl [,95 55,SOO 56,800 1.02 ; 662 57,402 U13,
I
I C:)!'l~res~ Avei1ue NW 22ndA ve Old Boynton Rd 55,800 56,500 1.01 #6 56.Y46 1.02
I Old Boynton RJl Boynton Beach Bd 55.800 56,500 1.01 5(lQ 57,009 1.0~
BOlnton B..ch Blvd Woolbridlt Rd 46.400 50,700 1.09 702 51.402 1.1,
Woolbri~ht Rd GoURd 46,400 56,700 1.22 4U9 57,109 1.2:
: Law"enceRd NW 2lodAve Old Boynton Rd 1:'.:00 15,100 1.15 320 15.420 1.18 ;
Old Boynlcn Rd Boynton BescnBd 13. lOll 15,100 1.15 3Q4 15,494 1.18 :
I
NW 22ndAve Military Tr La\'TenceRd 30,000 13,900 0.46 160 14.060 O.4i
Source: Walter H. Keller Jr., Inc.
K.S. Ro2ert, Clonsultlng BDl!lneer, Inc.
City of Boynton B..ch Comprehensive Plan ..~ .
r::'
.lUN I I..
r ,.
CITY of
BOYNTON BEACH
@
OFFICE
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
P. O. Box 310
Boynton S.ach. florlda 33435.0310
14071 734.8111
OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
April 3, 1990
Palm Beach County Engineering Dept.
Attn: Mr. Charles Walker
PO Box 2429
West Palm Beach, FI 33401
RE: Traffic Impact Analysis For Two Shopping Centers Proposed on
The South Side of Boynton Beach Boulevard West of Congress
Avenue
Dear Mr. Walker:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the traffic impact analysis and
master plan for the following annexation, land use element amend-
ment and rezoning requests to Planned Commercial Development
(PCD) :
1. Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD
2. Knuth Road PCD
These projects were submitted to the City on January 30, 1990 and
are being reviewed by the City's traffic consultant for consis-
tency with the Traffic Circulation Element of the City of Boynton
Comprehensive Plan.
Please forward any comments that you may have by May 31, 1990 for
incorporation in the June public hearing proceedings.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
t~~ f - J;A..,
JAMES . GOLDEN
Senior City Planner
JJG:frb
Enc
cc: Timothy
A:CWalker
Cannon
Board at' Cou..ty Commlulon...
Carol J, Elmquist. Chairman
Karen T, Mareu., Vl~e Chair
Carol A. Robert.
Ron Howard
Carole Phillip'
County Admlnw..tol'
J In Winters
June 5, 1990
Department of Eftgif1ec:ring
.nd Public Work.
JamlU J. Golden
Slnlar City Planner
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
P. O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33436-0310
REI TRAFFIC IMPACT AIlAL YSES FOR
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVAkD peD AND KNUTH ROAD PCD
Dear Hr. Golden:
As requested by your letter of April 3, 1"0, the Palm Beach county Traffic
Divislon has reViewed the traffic reports for the two proposed shopping centers
entitled Boynton Beach Boulevard peD and Knuth Road PCD. The following comments
are submitted for your consideration:
1) Based upon copies of correspondence from your office to the applicant's
agent (Kilday &. Associates, Inc.) dated February 13, 1990, we do n.gJ,
consider the applications for these projects to have been complete prlor
to February I, 1990 and therefore vested against the new Countywide Traffic
Performance Standards (County Ordinance 90-7) as per the Municipal
Implementation Ordinance (County Ordinance 90-6). To comply with these
county Ord1nances, new traffic reports need to be submitted by the
applicant to your office as well as our office for review.
If the outparcels on each of the shopping center site plans will be
speCifically limited to restaurant and financial Institution use, their
trip generation should be separately calculated at the higher rates that
are representative of these land uses rather than included as part of the
general retail commercial area.
Z)
3}
Under Test #1 of the new Countywide Irafflc Standard (which i~ comparable
to the previous unincorporated area standard - County Ordinance 87-18),
significant project traffic would occur on two links of Boynton Beach
Boulevard that are projected to excelld their eXi~tin9 and committed
capacities. No improvements are recommended for either of these two links
(Military Trail to El Claire Ranch Road and Old Boynton Road to Interstate
95). Without some commitment from these developers to improve these two
links the traffic standard is violated. RE
Cnn7ED
o IJIlnf. an 'W'f,1N pap.,
JUN 5 1990
"An Equd OppOrtunity' Affirmative Action Employer"
BOX 2429 WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA mOM429 (407) 684~~NNING DEPT.
-
James J. Golden
Pille 2
Jun. 4, 151510
Your transmittal of th9se traffic reports for our review ;s appreciated. Please
do not hesitate to t:ontact me if you have any questions concerning these
comment.s.
Sinc'r,ly,
COUNTY -'INEER
~~
'11n A. Ennis, P.E., AICP
Development Review Engineer
AAE: sb
cc: Audrey Wolfe, Special Projects Coordinator - County Engineering Dept.
File: General - TPS - Municipalities - Traffic Study Reviews
Intersection: "Boynton Beach Blvd. & Knuth Road'
Genera' - TPS - Municipalities - Vesting Determinations
aae\BB&KnPCD
o. ~ . .' ,....
CITY of
BOYNTON BEACH
@
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
P. O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435.0310
1407> 734.8111
I
OFFICE OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
February 13, 1990
Kilday & Associates, Inc.
Attn: Kieran J. Kilday
1551 Forum Place, Bldg. 100A
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Dear Mr. Kilday:
please be advised that the Planning Department
six applications submitted on January 31, 1990.
as follows:
. ,
, ,
has reviewed the
Our comments are
I. proposed Service Station (.80 acres) at southwest corner of
North Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road owned by Bill
Ray Winchester and Elsie A. winchester (applications for
annexation, land use element amendment and rezoning).
The following items must be submitted in order to complete
the above-referenced applications:
(I) Since the proposed zoning category does not comply wtt~
the text language for Planning Area 7 of the Future
Land Use Element Support Documents, an application for
a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment.
(2) An additional copy of the property owners' list, tax
maps (photocopy acceptable) and affidavit.
(3) The water/sewer impact statement required pursuant to
items 6 and 7 on pages 4 and 5 is based on comparison
of existing and proposed zoning categories and not
eXisting and proposed land use categories. The
statement also does not indicate that calculations are
based on the standards adopted by the Palm Beach
County Health Department.
TO: Kilday & Assoc
-2-
Feb. 13, 1990
II. Proposed Mall South Parcels (49.52 acres total) located on
the east and west sides of Winchester Park Boulevard
between old Boynton Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard, owned
by Bill R. Winchester, Elsie A. Winchester, and Ernest
Klatt (applicftions for annexation, land use element
amendment and rezoning).
The following items must be submitted in order to complete
the above-referenced applications:
(1) Since the proposed zoning category does not comply with
the text language for Planning Area 7.f of the Future
Land Use Element Support Documents, an application for
a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment.
( 2 ) An additional copy of the property owners' list, tax
maps (photocopy acceptable) and affidavit.
(3) Pursuant to item c(l) on page 3 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, written consent to the
processing of this application from Ernest Klatt.
, ,
(4) Pursuant to item d(3) on page 4 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, a tree survey which
meets the requirements of the City of Boynton Beach
Tree Preservation Ordinance.
(5) Pursuant to item h on pages 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Land
Use Element Amendment/Rezoning application, a compari-
son of the impacts that would be created by develop-
ment under the proposed zoning with the impacts that
would be created by development under the existing
zoning, which shall include:
(a) A comparison of the potential square footage or
number and type of dwelling units under the existing
zoning with that which would be allowed under th~
proposed zoning or development.
(b) A statement of the uses that would be allowed in
the proposed zoning or development, and any particular
uses that would be excluded.
(c) Proposed timing and phasing of the development.
(d) A comparison of traffic which would be generated
under the proposed zoning or development, with the
traffic that would be generated under the current
zoning; also, an analysis of traffic movements at the
intersections of driveways that would serve the
property and surrounding roadways, and improvements I I
TO: Kilday & Assoc.
-3-
Feb. 13, 1990
that would be necessary to accommodate such traffic
movements. For proposed developments which would
generate three-thousand (3,000) vehicle trips per day
or more, or two-hundred fifty (250) or more
single-directional vehicle trips within a one (I) hour
period, a traffic impact analysis shall be required.
Said traffic impact analysis shall include projected
trip generation for the development, for all major
roadways and intersections within one and one-half
(1.5) miles of the subject parcel, as well as traffic
that would utilize local streets through residential
zoning districts. said traffic impact analysis shall
compare traffic levels between the existing zoning and
the proposed zoning or development of the subject
parcel, and shall take into consideration all
development that would be possible under the current
zoning within the City, adjacent cities, and within the
unincorporated area of palm Beach County within. a
radius of five (5) miles. For those parcels lying in
the unincorporated area of Palm Beach County, which are.
not currently zoned for urban land uses, the potential' .
land uses according to the Palm Beach County
comprehensive plan shall be used. Where said parcels
are shown on the Palm Beach County comprehensive plan
under residential land use categories, the midpoint of
the density range shown on the County comprehensive
plan shall be used. Where a county-wide study of
traffic generation at build-out has been adopted or is
utilized by Palm Beach County, the levels of traffic
that are projected by said study shall in all cases be
used to project background traffic in the traffic
impact analysis submitted by the applicant. The format
and standards used in the traffic impact analysis shall
be the same as those which are required by Palm Beach
County, with the exception of the requirements lis~ed
above. Such traffic impact analysis shall include
recommendations for the mitigation of traffic impacts,
consistent with the standards which have been adopted
by or are utilized by Palm Beach County.
(e) For parcels larger than one (I) acre, a comparison
of the water demand for development under the proposed
zoning or development with water demand under the
eXisting zoning. Water demand shall be estimated using
the standards adopted by the Palm Beach County Health
Department for estimating such demand, unless different
standards are justified by a registered engineer.
Commitment to the provision of improvements to the
~----------,--_.__._-----
TO: Kilday & Assoc.
-4-
Feb. 14, 1990
water system shall also be included, where existing
facilities would be inadequate to serve development
under the proposed zoning.
(f) For parcels larger than one (1) acre, a comparison
of sewage flows that would be generated under the
proposed zoning or development with that which would be
generated under the existing zoning. Sewage flows
shall be estimated using the standards adopted by the
Palm Beach County Health Department for estimating such
flows, unless different standards are justified by a
registered engineer. Commitment to the provision of
improvements to the sewage collection system shall also
be included, where the existing facilities would be
inadequate to serve development under the proposed
zoning.
(g) For parcels larger than one (I) acre, a comparison
of sewage flows that would be generated under the "
proposed zoning or development with that which would be
generated under the existing zoning. Sewage flows '\,
shall be estimated using the standards adopted by the
Palm Beach County Health Department for estimating such
flows, unless different standards are justified by a
registered engineer. Commitment to the provision of
improvements to the sewage collection system shall also
be included, where the existing facilities would be
inadequate to serve development under the proposed
zoning.
(h) For proposed residential developments larger than
one (I) acre, a comparison of the projected population
under the proposed zoning or development with the
projected population under the existing zoning.
Population projections according to age groups for the
proposed development shall be required, where more tha~
fifty (50) dwellings, or 50 sleeping rooms in the case
of group housing, would be allowed under the proposed
zoning. Applications for rezoning to commercial or
industrial zoning districts which exceed one (I) acre
in area shall also provide projections for the number
of employees.
I I
TO: Kilday & Assoc.
-5-
Feb. 14, 1990
III. Proposed Mall Corner Restaurant (1.34 acres) at the
southwest corner of old Boynton Road and Winchester Park
Boulevard owned by Mall Corner, Inc. (applications for
annexation, land use element amendment and rezoning).
The following1items must be submitted in order to complete
the above-referenced applications:
(1) Since the proposed zoning category does not comply with
the text language for Planning Area 7.f of the Future
Land Use Element Documents, an application for a
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment.
(2) A standard City of Boynton Beach application form for
the Land Use Element Amendment/Rezoning application
(the reproduction submitted is not acceptable).
(3) An additional copy of the property owners' list, tax
maps (photocopy acceptable) and affidavit.
(4) Signature of applicant (owner) on page 6 of the' ,
Annexation Application.
(5) Pursuant to item h(l) on page 4 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, the potential square
footage which would be allowed under the proposed
zoning.
(6) Pursuant to item h(8) on page 6 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, projections for the
number of employees.
IV. Proposed Retail/Oil Lube (2.44 acres) at the northeast
corner of West Boynton Beach Boulevard and Winchester Park
Boulevard owned by Winchester, Winchester, Zeiher and
Schroeder, a Florida General Partnership (applications for
annexation, land use element amendment and rezoning).
The following items must be submitted in order to complete
the above-referenced applications:
(1) Since a portion of the proposed zoning category does
not comply with the text language for Planning Area 7.f
of the Future Land Use Element support Documents, an
application for a Comprehensive plan Text Amendment.
(2) An additional copy of the property owners' list, tax
maps (photocopy acceptable) and affidavit.
TO: Kilday & Assoc.
-6-
Feb. 13, 1990
(3) Correct "proposed Zoning" on page 3 of Annexation
application, as a County land use category has been
indicated instead of the proposed City zoning category.
(4) Pursuant to item hIll on page 4 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, the potential square
footage which would be allowed under the proposed
zoning.
(5) Pursuant to item h(8) on page 6 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, projections for the
number of employees.
V. Proposed Knuth Road Planned Commercial Development (13.871
acres) at the southwest corner of West Boynton Beach
Boulevard and Knuth Road owned by the Winchester Family
Partnership, Ltd. (applications for annexation, land use
element amendment and rezoning).
The following items must be submitted in order to complete
the above-referenced applications:
(I) The cor~ect fee for rezoning to PCD is $1,000 pursuant
to the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Fee
Schedule (a check in the amount of $900 was submitted).
( 2)
(3 )
(4 )
( 5)
( 6)
,
, ,
since a portion of the proposed land use and zoning
categories does not comply with the text language for
Planning Area 7.j of the Future Land Use Element
Support Documents, an application for a Comprehensive
Plan Text Amendment.
An additional copy of the property owners' list, tax
maps (photocopy acceptable) and affidavit.
Signature of applicant is missing from page 6 of
Annexation Application (copy of owner's authorization
signed by Bill R. Winchester).
A tree survey which conforms to the requirements of the
City of Boynton Beach Tree Preservation Ordinance (see
section 7.5 - 6.1(bl of Article I of the Environmental
Regulations).
Pursuant to item hIll on page 4 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, the potential square
footage which would be allowed under the proposed
zoning (total for entire PCD).
I
TO: Kilday & Assoc.
-7-
Feb. 13, 1990
(7) Pursuant to item h(8) of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, projections for the
number of employees.
(8) Pursuant to item h(ll) on page 7 of the Land Use
Element Amendment/Rezoning application, conformance
with the requirements for Unified Control outlined in
Section 6.F.3 of Appendix A-Zoning and submittal of a
subdivision master plan pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 4 of Appendix C-Subdivisions, Platting.
VI. Proposed Boynton Beach Boulevard planned Conmmercial
Development (14.76 acres) on the south side of West Boynton
Beach Boulevard owned by University of Florida Foundation,
Inc. (applications for annexation, land use element
amendment and rezoning).
The following items must be submitted in order to complete
the above-referenced applications:
( 1)
( 2)
(3 )
( 4)
The correct fee for rezoning to PCD is $I,OOO pursuant,
to the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Fee
Schedule (a check in the amount of $900 was sUbmitted).
, ,
Since the proposed land use and zoning category does
not comply with the text language for Planning Area 7.k
of the Future Land Use Element support Documents, an
application for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment.
An additional copy of the property owners' list, tax
maps (photocopy acceptable) and affidavit.
A tree survey which conforms to the requirements of the
City of Boynton Beach Tree Preservation Ordinance (see
section 7.5 - 6.1 (b) of Article I of the Environmental
Regulations.
, ,
Pursuant to item h(l) on page 4 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, the potential square
footage which would be allowed under the proposed
zoning (total for entire PCD).
(6) Pursuant to item h(8) on page 6 of the Land Use Element
Amendment/Rezoning application, projections for the
number of employees.
( 5)
(7) Pursuant to item h(ll) on page 7 of the Land Use
Element Amendment/Rezoning application, conformance
with the requirements for Unified Control outlined in
----------~_.-
TO: Kilday & ASSOC.
-8-
Feb. 13, 1990
Section 6.F.3 of Appendix A-Zoning and submittal of a
subdivision master plan pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 4 of Appendix C-Subdivisions, Platting.
(8) Signature of OWner/Trustee is missing from page 7 of
the Land Use Element Amendment/Rezoning application.
Pursuant to Chapter l63.3187 F.S., none of the applications
submitted meet the criteria for small scale development
activities as a result of the text amendments that are necessary
and the fact that an amendment cannot involve the same property
more than once a year or the same owner's property within 200
feet of property granted a change within a period of 12 months.
It appears likely that several of these applications, either
separately or when considered together, may constitute a
Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Therefore, a description
of the petitions, a map showing same, and a tabulation of the
acreages will be forwarded to the City Commission. The
Commission will need to decide whether a binding letter should 'be
requested from DCA regarding DRI status.
If the City Commission approves the transmittal of these
applications to DCA, you will be required to submit to the
planning Department, prior to transmittal, a description of the
availability of and demand on pUblic facilities pursuant to
9J-II.006(1)(b)4 of the Florida Administrative Code.
,
, ,
If you have any questions concerning the above, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF BOYNT?N ~~ACH
r/~'~
JAMES J. GOLDEN
Senior City Planner
JJG:frb
cc: City Manager
Central File
bcc: Alan ~hhi~, PBCty Traffic Dept
Kilday
"
CITY of
BOYNTON BEACH
@
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
P. O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435.0310
(407)734.8111
OFFICE OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
7 June 1990 .
Mr. Alan Ennis
Palm Beach County
Engineering Department
P.O. Box 2429
Building S-1170rPBIA
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
RE: Traffic Impact Analysis for Boynton Beach Blvd. PCD
and Knuth Road PCD
Dear Mr. Ennis:
Please be advised that the City staff found the applications for
the Boynton Beach BoUlevard PCD and Knuth Road PCD to be complete
as of the submittal date of January 30, 1990. The City considers
any application which is sufficiently complete to allow process-
ing through the staff and various city boards to be a complete
application. In the case of' both of the above-mentioned
applications, the items listed in the letter to the applicant,
dated February 13, 1990, were minor in nature. The only
missing item which could be possibly considered substantial in
nature were the requirements for a subdivision master plan,
however, since these sites will each be developed as a single
shopping center, the lack of subdivision plans did not constitute
a major ommission. All of the improvements which would be
required for a subdivision were shown on the conceptual site
plans for the PCD's, or would be constructed as a part of the
shopping center site.
Since the City considers the two applications to have been
complete as of the submission date, the City will continue to
process these applications, subject to the applicant demonstrating
that the roadway levels of service, as set forth in the City's
Comprehensive Plan, would be maintained, as well as applicable
levels of service in the unincorporated area. The provisions
of the City's Plan and Code Ordinances which were in effect at
the time these applications were submitted require that a
traffic impact analysis be submitted when property is rezoned,
using the methodology and standards utilized by Palm Beach County,
but subject to the levels of service set forth in the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
,.
TO:
Mr. Alan Ennis
Page Two
6/7 /90
If you have any questions with regard to these applications,
please feel free to contact me. The City appreciates your review
and comments regarding the traffic studies which were submitted
for these two projects. The Planning Department will recommend
that the approval of these applications be conditioned upon
maintaining the adopted levels of service within the City, as
well as the adopted levels of service in the unincorporated
area.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
~7~
Timothy P. Cannon
Interim Planning Director
TPC/cmc
cc: J. Scott Miller, City Manager
James Cherof, City Attorney
Vincent Finizio, Engineering Dept.
EXHIBIT "E"
STAFF COMMENTS
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD PCD
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING/TEXT AMENDMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
See attached memorandum
CITY ATTORNEY:
ENGINEERING:
See attached memorandum
See attached memorandum
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-l71
TO:
Chairman & Members
Planning & Zoning Board
Timothy P. Cannon ~C
Interim Planning Director
THRU:
FROM: James J. Golden
senior City Planner
DATE: June 7, 1990
SUBJECT: Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD
Conditions of Zoning Approval
with respect to the above, please be advised of the fOllowing:
1.
A master plan modification will be required
restaurant is proposed at the outparcel
6.F.5.a and 6.F.13 of Appendix A-Zoning).
if a drive-thru
site (Sections
2. Roadway improvements recommended by K. S. Rogers, Inc. in
the Traffic Impact Analysis dated January 30, 1990 (page
10), and the modifications recommended by the City's Traffic
Consultant, Walter H. Keller, Jr., Inc., in the Traffic
Impact Review dated May 29, 1990 (page 4), should be bonded
prior to final plat approval. The bonding of said roadway
improvements should be coordinated with the City's
Engineering Department.
3. Right-of-way to be dedicated, if necessary, in accordance
wi th the Palm Beach County Right-of-Way Thoroughfare
Protection Map and Policy 2.6.3 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Said right-of-way dedication should include any right-of-way
that is necessary for expanded intersections.
4. Pursuant to the Traffic Impact Review prepared by Walter H.
Keller, Jr., Inc., dated May 29, 1990, a revised traffic
impact analysis should be submitted which includes a revised
analysis based on all assured construction projects, an
appropriate assignment to Lawrence Road and Military Trail;
an analysis of Mall Road (Winchester Park Boulevard) and
revised peak hour turning movements on Figure 5. The
applicant's analysis should also address the finding by the
Palm Beach County Engineering Department (see letter dated
June 5, 1990) that Boynton Beach Boulevard from Military
Trail to EI Clair Ranch Road would be over capacity. With
regard to the County Engineer's comment that the link of
Boynton Beach Boulevard from Old Boynton Road to 1-95 will
be over capacity, it should be noted that this link will be
improved by Palm Beach County, however, this link will still
be over capacity according to the findings in Mr. Keller's
report.
~A.MJ~,
-{AMES p. GOLDEN
JJG:cp
A:PM90-171
I" , _)~I 1 J.. -J ,_,-,: h._' Mo'd...' 1~:""f<,LI'j
Il_~_ I.,., _'U'J '11-4':1.:.._,
;~':Jt.l t-'U.:.
}
IIBXORUDUN
TO:
Timothy P. Cannon, Interim Plannin~ Director and
Tambrl J. Heyden, Assistant city Planner
Scott A. Elk. Assistant City Attorney ~
June 1, 1990
Determination of Unified Control for Tara Oaks PliO,
Boynton Beach Boulevard peD and Knuth Road PCD
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
In response to your memorandum dated May 15, 1990 to, James A.
Cherof, city Attorney, upon my reviow of the &bovo roferenoed
Land Use Amendment and/or R"~onin9 Applications, I find that the
applioations for the Boynton Beach Boulovard, PCD and the Knuth
Road PCD oontain affirmativo statements aqreeing to the Unified
Control provisions of $eotion 6, Boynton Beaoh Code, which will
allow the city in the future to implement All requirement15
provided tor under this Seotion. PleAse note thAt in both
statements of Agreement to Unified Control, Paragraph c, there is
a typographioal error Which refers to .Sub Secticn 3AB and should
refer t.o "Sub Seotion. A".
A similar aqreement. to the Unified Control provisions ot Section
6, Boynton Beach Code, should be obtained from the applicant tor
Tara Oaks PUD, to insure that the city of: 5oynton Beach may
implement: all Unified Control RequlreJaents of section 6, and
implement all necessary Agreements, Contracts, Deed Restrictions,
and Sureties, acceptable to the City When appropriate.
please note that this Memorandum does not constitute an
examination by the city Attorney or all Agreements and evidence
or Uniried control, nor a Certification by the City Attorney that
any such Agreements and Evidence of Unif1ed Control llIeet the
requirements or 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 t.he same
and provide all comments and revisions, prior to my final
ExaDination and Ceritification.
If I may be of any further assistanoe to you, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
SAE/kem
BOYNTON
HEM02
CCI James A. Cherot, City Attorney
.1'"~'D
........-r..o:r.. ,--\
rlELJL~l . l'.. .
JUt4 .:, 1000
PLANNING DEPT.
~
-
. .
I
EN3INEEIUNG DEPM'lMFNr MEMOMNDUM NO. 90-102
April 17, 1990
TO: J. Scott Miller
City Manager
FRCM: Vincent A. Fini7:io
Acting Assistant to the City Engineer
RE: 'f,R.B. Callnents
Master Plan - lJoyntc~1 lleach Boulevard P.C.D. (armexation)
Hossi & Malavasi Engineers, Inc.
Kilday & Associates Landscape Architects, Plarmers
1n accord;:mce with City of BoynLon [leach, Florida, Code of Ordinan"""
Appendix "C", Sulxlivision and Platting, SecUon 4 "Master Plan", the
applicant for the above referenced project shall subnit the followin(J
Lec1mical data, infonnaLion and plan corrections:
I, l'nw iele a ['cport eletai linq a plan of action for the removal of IInsui t-
able soils necessury in order to develop this property. Append Lx "A",
7.onin'], Secion 6F4 (c) "Physical Character of the Site". The SUlllli lted
repot:t. once approved, shall be considered a condition of approval by
the "~IIC)ineer.ing Department, Appendix "C", Sulxlivision and PlattillC),
At-tiele VIII, Section 4C (15) "Location and Results of Subsurface Tests".
Provide allgeoteclmical data.
2, Provide a statE'lnent on the master plan specifying that all utili ties are
available and have been coordinated with all required utilities. Article
VIII, Section 4C(l7).
'\' 'Ih~ ap!Jficants sUbllitLal did not contain a traffic impact analysis and is
therefore incanplete. 'l'he Engineering Department may have additional
call1'cnts which shall be considered as conditions of approval, upon rec'eipt
and review of said analysis.
4. Survey shall indicate existing bodies of water, marshes, etc. thut are
currently on site, Article VIII, Section 4C7, '''ropographical Conditions".
5, In accOl"dance with the suLlllitted traffic impact analysis which identifies
thl s site as a "Significant Project", place the following note on the
master plan "Boynton Bc;:tch Blvd. P.C.D. SI1A/4L cx:MPLY WITH 111E REQUIREMENl'S
\ SEl' FOlml WITHIN PAlM I3EAQI COONI'Y TRAFFIC PERFOIlMANCE SfANDARDS,
: ORDINANCE 1187-18.
"
'.
"
':',
VAF/ck
'.
cc: Jim Golden, Senior City Planner
Ut.n .~
~ ~ iii
l r.- :......" - 1 0
l?t, _~~_D 'H'
J"-T I
: f= '~~llli'
E ~~ .
-L__ -~>I..g 3 i
~-~ ~ 11 g -
:ml~ I t=
I !r I ~
~.. T"+~
it-ft ~
, r--_
, 'I r.-=.
A 1---
I ' I I '-,
I, ~ f ~ H~ ~!~
. L
~ ...
~ I ~
..
.'
Lf" ~.
. 0
- -
V>
~
;'j~
'1
~,.
",<
~
~=
:...~
,.
~
- 1; i
I fl'1:
:" ~~~j ,; .
ir i, I I I.. :
I II I . = I
I I " v
I ~ I 7
I I
I ~ I
! I,ll
I ~. I
I !~. I
! i I
,
, I
...J30YNTON BEAG/-< BOU.EVARD~ 1'-'
-"lU7 or"" ....,.. 'l6.n I
,
,.
,
~
~74
.,.,64 ,
....~
. eq- ~ f:. 65;.68'
-~ .. If
p
-c ----~-
,
.
000)
U I ~ [~~~ 1\
o ,
-- L--=~ '.J
I
I. I ~i'i
i ~~
I ~~2
:!'1li
""
~<;>
--~- '---
l!! ->
~ tr~T~~~
it <= <= 'I
~I I' I 'B." '#H-HI" "il [}#I HtDt' I n tiffi1i1. I'"
", I i ~41t 1.' , ' I I
Ii: ,I i II U" ,. ,II ill U
! ! ,~U I illlJ Jill ilil'lillill] ~lll',' 7Ji il W) I
rl(-~C"d~~ vS) / ul1
I ~-.! ~ I'.~--- ~I U ,. ~~
~ , l --=s., . _" J 1 /1 ;1:,
II _ ~
. :g
'-' ,., -:1"' J' '( --r:L J.
'" C3/~ I' _ -Jz~-:'ll~~~ -,f-2< ] :
,( _]'L , [I 11 U , -
~ '~ ":;"L- 'l ,I -" s-:::.:-- I I
r' ,~, C2.~ ,II. {11.. ft'- -'..l_ . ~ i
\. ". c1:i ~;' i -- --"'I -- 11.1
(, )".. - ,
, I '1 ~~" ,-;r; . I
,r.,) (T~~~'" ," ~~::' i I
", ,--./ ~~ I -~~~.! i
" '{,' ( I -. '.'1::-. - , i
, _. \... c3. ~- " II;: r~ 'I
.... ,.~, -, . I
----.----- ~ .-
1;!' ,
t:l1ffi i I-r-"
~~~ ~ ~~t1
,'",,- .... :, II
. , .' rill n ~ -r', '1 rT~ " ! I
" \. I" P , I I I: '
'to ~ ~ -- ~- "': ~ -....~I ~~n. 'oj ~. I,'; _... : L~.~ ~
-- -- --
'!i ~
~ ~
:Pr:J>
~l<ii{
~ "
~ ~
"
~
...
~.
",. ,
'''-\,
",""',
" ,\ ~
, ,f
.~:;r
" "/
r ,'/
F'
;!~
,
\, ,
\,
'~ (""'Rtf Nflt~ T"'~
VI - 5.'" Bq. 4'2' 26" \:;: 656.5
;'j,,~
~!r,.?~ ou:. COlltl:Q Pl....., ~T~Vf?1
CII--\~5
~'ll<~
'!1:'
~ti
~~'"
~;
;' .
LC"CA TION MAr
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEV ARD PCD
f:i .";;~III" I " , ~" III I
IJ. . C~Jf _:' I
~ ~ [ . 1 r On-Ill! III
~. " [ l[ Dii I ~ll.ll~:+
'" ~f'" ( ] [ . n JD++ ~: II
~- r II I :VII i: IT ~
~'ir.- ~ . ~ IlEi~ P
c-...Il ~ ..nn1:BLLLlli"a1 ~ c
.t$T'. \0 ..p'- --.' L..wii a
: -:- i : t.alWml1IllIl '
, 7- ~ ': ~lllrnm 7"-;r:;: 1
~ ~ ~~-."...,/'\
,.,., ~&- m \
1/:-'. .l~ r
. . ,..'.., ~'1 ~,~ ' ""'IL-
I. '.,.,., W' ~oyt.1ro;;.. ~1f-AI;.f/ 52-VD,
I
,Jl
)<:
If'\ ~ . -:; . -\ fT g 1= U
J .~ .-',. Blj
J~" r-----: _ ~ Nr' '....
I . ~ J:= ~ ;t:' ..
. Cl I; .-J .9 \:::,. . :~. ~ ti t-'j ~ .
: I il ,'" T" . . : ~ ~r
.!' ...~ '. l' - oooo1J:oci J'..%:.' rc:
\:":M f tn~\'l DOi/'O~! 'n.~@D~ ,\1 ~ .
~ U II" i ~~~ ~ p g ~nl 0 If". , f:~ ~
I ~ · · ,. u " o' ~ , '\iltrJ
, 1: .:"."...~' (l ~ I ~ ' D 1\0G. '~,' )0 \ 0 l, ' '..~I:::Q 00
, ~. ~ II 1;: ~ "r~ ~ -
~ _ '. fi 6()~ ~:' (0. ,,_.~:J-=o '.; :o[ 1/
~, ..; ,~,~ ~ i1 ~ " U'-' "':>''(Jh ~ ~
8~ -:: J,.: iJ .'~.. ~~~~ '~v ~~~AAf...:t - .'
_ - v f3; ~ t .. .,,-" - ..
~ ~ ' Q __ );~8l~ ".".I~ '
:~~>;.;t-~"'- . - ~-. I I ~
'!T~OLl3f{I~.:IIj1 RD, -
,.1 '-
r-- ......~ :::--- ' ~ =>. , :: Cl-"
". ~'~(JIl' i"""'- t\''''''~:) It'i
1/4 MILES '~) .:~~ ~ 0 ~ }i:
1\ ~~.~~t? ~ I ~"~~I.'.~. r;;
1600 FE~T ~' , '. . /', I
PI.ANNIN/: __ _ ,:. ~~:.. t:l~l;)gl'l", 1:1 ..'. Ii '.; .'~Jo-: 1 "-"
...
3
E
a
7
I. .
,.
.' ..
~1 , J
. .
"
....,... .. IJ
PlI
II'
f!TI ,I
U.
~
;:;:.
n
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, .
,
J~
::::
llj
c
r,n=:
;
I
I ,
,
1 I
. 1
I
, ,
r..) ~
',. ,
".
w
:j
'.
T-J
E
j'- -
"'0 1/8
~ 'n \ \ \ \ \ '
;:: '0 400.800
!J
~ '
"BOY' TON
~l!
'Ii
:.. .
"l:
,
,
OJ
1lI
iii
< .
I III .
C~ I
,~
--
...
r
)1
^
~..
NC:r
IN
CITY .
.:,12:
:
, \
c'
~ '.,
I
~., g. L
~ ~1
-,~!
B
. " In
( I~-
::1"'1'
c";
'I
p
il
,
. ~
AGREEMENT
This AqrQ$ment entered into this day of June, 1990, by
and between STONEHAVEH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCnTION, INC., a. F1Qrida
corpora.tion ("Association") ancl BILL R. WINCHESTER ("Winchester")
and MICHAEL A. SCHROEDER, TRUSTEE ("Schroeder").
WHEREAS, there are ourrently pending before the City of
Boynton Beach, Florida, applications for Annexation, Future Land
Use Element AllIendlnent, Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Text
Am.endm.ent for projects known as "Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD" and
"Knuth Road PCD" and an application for Future Land Use Element
Am.endment from "Low Density Residential" to "MediUlll Density
Residential" and rezoning from PUD with a Land Use Intensity of
four (4) to PUD with a Lan~ Use Intensity of five (5) to allow
for the construction of 192 mUlti-falllily dwelling units and a
church with respect to the project known as "Tara Oaks PUD": and
WHEREAS, Schroeder is the APplicant with respect to the
application, known as "Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD" pending
!:lefore the City of Boynton Beach, Florida and is the Contract
Purchaser of the property which is the subject of the Boynton
Beach Boulevard application: and
WHEREAS, Winchester is the Applicant with respect to the
application known as "Knuth Road PUD" pending before the City of
Boynton Beach, Florida and as a general partner of the
Partnership which owns the property Which is the subject of the
Knuth Road POD application can bind the owner of same: and
WHEREAS, Winchester is the Applicant with respect to the
application known as "Tara Oaks PUD" pending before the City of
Boynton Beach, Florida and is the Contract Purchaser of the
property Which is the subject of the Tara Oaks PUD application:
and
WHEREAS, .Association represents the property owners
the residential development known as "stonehaven PUD"
within the City of Boynton Beach, Florida: and
within
lying
WHEREAS, Association is entering into this Agreement after
having a membership meeting at which a quorum was present and
having received the approval of a substantial majority of its
members as evidenced by a signed petition; and
WHEREAS, Association and its members have had the
opportunity to review the various applications and to make such
inquiries with respect to same as they deemed appropriate
including meeting with representatives of the applicants: and
WHEREAS, Association is opposed to the development of the
property which is the subject of the "Boynton Beach Boulevard
PCD" as high density residential and to the development of the
,
property which is the subject of the "Knuth Road PCD" property as
moderate density residential as contemplated by the current
comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Association wishes to evidence its support for the
approval of the application with respect to "Boynton Beach
Boulevard PCD", "Knuth Road peD", and "Tara Oaks PUD" provided
the Applicant with respect to each of same agrees to assure the
Association that such Applicant will, subject to the terms and
conditions set forth below, cause certain improvements (described
below) to be made on the real property which is the subject of
such application and on the real property of the Association
adjacent thereto; and
WHEREAS, Winchester and Schroeder wish to assure the
Association that they, resp.actively, will, subject to the terms
and conditions set forth below, cause such improvements to be
made.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
herein set forth, the parties agree as follows:
r. "Bovnton Beach Boulevard peD".
A. Schroeder agrees that, provided the requisite
final government approvals for the Boynton Beach BOUlevard peD
application are obtained, he, as the developer/owner thereof,
shall make, or cause to be made, the following improvements and
other arrangements in connection with the development of the
property which is the subjeot of the Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD
application:
(J.) The installation of a' lIIinilll\JJll twenty-five
(25) foot wide landscape buffer between the project and
Stonehaven PUD along the entire length of the adjacent property
lines. Buffer shall include:
(a) . Four (4) foot high berm;
(b) Six (6) foot high masonry wall lOcated
in the center of the buffer;
(e) Barbed wire barrier on top of the wall
subject to City of Boynton Beach approval;
(d) Landscaping which consists of a minimum
of two (2) rows of shade trees twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet
in height at time ot planting, located on thirty (30) foot
centers. One row shall be placed on each side of the wall. Tree
location shall be staggered to provide the effect of fifteen (15)
feet on center separation.
-2-
(e) Construction of wall and berm shall
occur eimultaneously with site preparation and prior to the
commencement of construction of any buildings.
(2) Maintenance of the wall, berm, and
landscaping on both sides of the wall shall remain the obligation
of the developer/owner.
. (3) All Australian Pines wi;hin fifty (50) feet
of the stonehaven l?t1D property line along Banyan creek Circle
North and within the southernmost ten (~O) acres of the Boynton
Beach Boulevard PCD shall be removed by the developer/owner upon
initial approval of the application by the City commissioners or
Boynton Beach, Florida.
(4) Entry into and maintenance in effect of a
contract to provide continuous rodent and pest control, such
contract to be entered into prior to commencement of closing/site
work to cover all of the property which is the sul:>j ect of the
Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD application.
(5) Building heights will be limited to one story
(maximum 25 feet) for anchor store only, balance of shopping
center to be maximum of twenty-two (22) feet high.
(6)
shall be shielded
and rights-of-way.
(7) The architeotural treatment at the rear of
the shopping oenter is to match the front of the Shopping center.
All lighting shall be of low intensity and
and directed away from surrounding properties
(8) Screening and noise mitigation is to be
provided for all exterior mechanical equipment and to be located
at ground level it approved by the city coromission, city of
Boynton Beach, Florida.
B. J:n consideration ot the foreg-oing promises, the
Association endorses the "Boynton Beach BOUlevard PCD"
application and requests that the members of the City Planning
and Zoning Board and city Commission approve it.
II. "Knuth Road PCD".
A. Winchester agrees that, provided the requisite
final government approvals for the Knuth Road PCD application are
obtained, he, as the developer/owner thereof, shall make, or
oause to be made, the following improvements and other
arrangements in connection with the development of the property
which is the subject of the Knuth Road PCD application:
(1) A six (6) foot masonry wall shall be built
-3-
adjacent to the east right-of-way line of Knuth Road from
stonehaven PUD'd north property line (adjacent to office
b~ildin9) south along the north right-of-way line of the LWDD L-
25. The Association agrees to assist the developer in obtaining
approval to include this wall section in the development plllns
for Knuth Road PUD subject to appropriate impact fee credits.
However, if impact fee credit can not be obtained, the
developer/owner shall construct this wall from his funds. Where
said walls meet at Knuth Road and Stonehaven Drive the placement
bf said walls shall be done in manner reasonably suitable to the
Association. It is the intention of the Association that these
walls conform with the exi15ting layout of the present entrance
into Stonehaven PUD and to accommodate location of guard gates.
[See II.A.(4) (c) below.]
(2) The Knu~h Road PCD property owner shall be
required to provide maintenance for said walls for five (5)
years.
(3) Construction of the wall shall occur
simUltaneously with site preparation and prior to the
commencement of construction of any buildings.
(4) The owner of the Knuth Road POD property will
participate as follows in providing additional security of
Stonehaven PUD:
(a) Assist in preparing applications and
seeking approval for the abandonment by the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida, of Stonehaven Drive from Knuth Road to LWDD L-Z5
to secure the safety, well being and property values of the
residents of Stonehaven PUD. These applications will commence
upon approval of this project by the City Commission of Boynton
Beach, Florida,
(b) conetruotion of the following masonry
wall segments which shall occur simultaneously with site
preparation and prior to the commencement of construction of any
buildings and (which will not be subject to any impact fees
credits) :
1. A section of a six (6) foot high
masonry wall identical to wall in II-A- (~) fifty (50) feet in
length extending from the east right-of-way of Knuth Road
adjacent to the existing office building parking area along the
north property line of Stonehaven PUD.
2. Construction of a six (6) foot
masonry wall identical to wall in II-A-(~) along the north right-
Of-way line of LWDD L-25 from a point parallel with the east
property line of "Tara Oaks PUD" easterly to the west right-of-
way line of stonehaven Drive. Said wall section shall commenoe
-4-
from the termination :point of the wall section referenced in
Section III below and will be the obligation of tlTara Oaks PUDtl.
3 . Construction of an identical wall
extended frOm the east right-of-way of stonehaven Drive along the
north right-of-way line of LWOO L-25. This wall shall be of an
appropriate length, not to exceed fifty (50) feet, in order to
create a suitable accented entry.
4. Provide landsoaping to the extent
l>Ossible adjacent to the wall sections subject, to a final
determination of land area available. Provide landscaping in the
form of twelve (12) to fourteen (14) foot shade trees on thirty
(30) foot center in those areas where adjacent property is
available within Stonehaven PUD and agrees to provide maintenance
tor said walls for five (5) .years.
(0) Upon a successful completion of the
abandonment of Stonehaven Drive, the developer/owner of the Knuth
Road peD property contribute to the cost of the construction of
guard gates at the north and south entrances to stonehaven PUD up
to a maximum of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00). Type
and style of guard gates along with the type ot: electronic
entrance systems to be used with these guard gates will be
determined by the Association. Upon compl~tion of construction
of all walls require~ to be built pursuant to this Agreement, the
developer/owner of the Knuth Road PCb property shall deposit into
escrow, with an escrow agent reasonably acceptable to the
parties, the Thirty-Five Thousand Dollar ($35,000.00) amount
contemplated by this Agreement. These funds shall be held in an
interest bearing account. Func1s shall be disbursed from this
account, in an amount up to Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars
($35,000.00), in satisfaction of the Knuth Road peD property
owners obligation to contribute toward guard gate construction
costs as set forth in this paragraph. Upon completion of
construction or disbursement of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars
($35,000.00), in the aggregate, the remaining funds shall be
released to the Knuth Road PCO property owner.
(5) Installation of a traffic light in accordance
with governmental requirements at the intersection of Boynton
Beach'Boulevard and Knuth Road.
B. In consideration of the foregoinq promises, the
Association endorses' the "Knuth Road peD" application and
requests that the members of the city Planning and Zoning ~oard
and City commission approve it.
III. "Tara Oaks PUD".
A. Winchester agrees that,
final government approvals for the Tara
l>rovided the requisite
Oak5 PUD application are
-5-
obte.ined, he, as the developer/owner thereof, shall make, or
oause to be made, the following improvements and other
arrangements in oonnection with the development of the property
which is the subject of the Tara Oaks PUD applioation:
(1) Construction of a six (6) foot masonry wall
along the north right-of-way line oi LWDD L-25 from the east to a
point parallel with the east property line of "Tara Oaks PUD".
It is the intent that his wall section conneot with the
stipulated wall section contained in the conditions of "Knuth
Road PUD". This wall shall be landscaped in the same manner as
the wall in II-A-(4)-(b)-4 and developer agrees to provide
maintenance for said wall for five (5) years.
(2) Creation of a twenty-five (25) foot wide
landscape buffer along the .north property line adjacent to the
south right-at-way line of the LWDD L-25 Canal. That buffer will
consist of landscaping which consists of a minimum of two (2)
rows of shade trees twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet in height
at time of planting located on thirty (30) foot centers. Tree
location shall be staggered to provide the effect of fifteen (15)
feet on center ~eparation.
(3) No buildings shall be located closer than
forty (40) feet from the north property line of "Tara Oaks PUD".
~his setback creates a minimum separation of one hundred seventy-
five (175) feet from the most northerly building to the closest
individually owned south property line of Stonehaven PUD.
B. Based on the foregoing, the Association endorses
the "Tara Oaks PUD" application ~nd request5 that the melllbers of
the city Planning and Zoning Board and city COl1llllission approve
it.
IV. Miscellaneous.
A. Walls contemplated by this Agreement shall be
masonry walls provided by Anchor Wall Systems, or similar
construction, including pilaster caps on all columns with the
Assooiation approving the color and texture on all such walls.
. B. Winchester and Schroeder agree to pay reasonable
attorneys' fees incurred by the Association for its law firm to
review this Agreement.
V. Acn-eelllent to Run with Land. It is the intention of the
parties that the obligation to make the improvements and other
arrangements described in this Agreement, with respect to each of
the real properties which are the subject of the applications,
shall if the applications are approved, become covenants Funning
with the land and shall be binding upon the initial
developer/owner of the property and each property owner
-6-
..
thereafter so long as that person or entity shall have an
ownership interest in the property. Nei ther Winchester nor
Schroeder shall be under any personal obligation to make, or
cause to be made, the improvements and other arrangements
provided for in this Agreement with respect to the real
properties which are the subject of the Boynton Beach Boulevard
PCD, the Knuth Road PCD and the Tara Oaks PUD applications if the
provisions of this Agreement with respect to all of suoh
improvements and other arrangements are, by the filing of
appropriate instruments, made covenants of record running with
the land and binding upon the person or entity having fee simple
title to such real properties. The Association shall be entitled
to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction and to obtain
. aftirl1lative injunctive relief to enforce specifically the full
and timely performance ot the obligations set forth in this
Agreement concerning the ma,king of such improvements and other
arrangements and to enforce any such covenants of record. Any
provision hereof to the contrary notwithstanding, neither
Winchester nor Schroeder shal1 have any per50nal or other
obligation to make, or cause to be made, the 1mprovements or
arrangements provided for in this Agreement as to any of the
properties, which are the subject of the referenced applications,
unless the applioation pertaining to the property in question
receives all final requisite government approvals and final
ordinances are adopted by the city of Boynton Beach with respect
to same.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:
STONEHAVEN HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
a Florida oorporation
By:
ROGER H. BENNETT
:Its president
AS TO STONEHAVEN HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
BILL R. WINCHESTER
AS TO BILL R. WINCHESTER
MICHAEL A: SCHROEDER, TRUSTEE
AS TO MICHAEL A. SCHROEDER,
TRUSTEE
(Winchester\stonel.Agm\06/19/90)
-7-
.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDA nONS AND COMMENTS
FOR
BOYNTON BEACH
AMENDMENTS 90-2 and 90S1
'~
October 22 1990
Division of Resource Planning and Management
Bureau of Local ~Ianning
Thi. report I, prepared punuant to Rul. GJ-ll.010'
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-II.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
L 9J-5.006C21 Cb14.
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 IS, 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
amounc 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-5.006r31rbll.. Dlrc13. and r41: and 9J-5.007r311b12.
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-5.0061311b14.. r311c16. and 141
;.
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-5.006(31 (c17. and (41
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
I. 9J-5.013(11(b1
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, 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. Obiectives and policies
2. 9J-5.0IJ(21(bI4. and (21(cI5.
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-5.01J(1) (b).
B. COMMENTS
None
STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. OBJECTIONS
4
.
1. 9J-5.021111
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 pun 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-5.021111
".
proposed Plan Amendment 90-2 does not adequately
address and further the fOllowing Regional Policy Plan
goals ana 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 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
".
c
C"
, 'a~,.'
_I... _.... _..
.-"
I LL.... 1,"_,. ....._,_, ...._,,_,._, ,-.., _,,_,
DRAFT
PALM BEACH COUNTY
CO~~~RCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USE REQUIREMENTS
Prepared for
I :.;..M BEACH COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING, AND
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Prepared by
CH2M HILL
800 Fairway Drive, Suite 350
Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441
February II, 1989
SEF21076.GO
. H~J. I I '_''':':
. '~.' '''~ -. "- .~,,".,",
r
Ci
o
CONTENTS
Executive Summary and Conclusions
1
Introdllction
Purpose of Land Use Analysis and Forecasts
Issue of Excessive Commercial Development
Possible Actions
Approach to the Project
Contents and Organization of the Report
2
Land Use Analysis Methods
":'verview of Procedures
Sources of Data and Land Use Estimates
Land Use Categories
Coverage and Other Development Conditions
Vacancy
Independent Variables
3
Land Use Coefficients and Forecasts
Land Use Coefficients
Comparison between planning areas
Comparison with other areas
Forecast Land Use Requirements
4 Re.ferences
APPENDIX A. TABLES
DBT107/026
ii
_._-_..__._----~
Page
ES-l
I-I
1-1
1-1
1-3
1-4
1-5
2-1
2-1
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-10
3-I
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
4-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~ND CONCLUSIONS
c'
The land L:,t, requirements analysis was conducted as pare of
the Palm Beach county Economic Planning Study, the purpose
of which is to assist the County in setting economic goals
and formulating, selecting, and implementing policies and
programs to achieve the goals. The land use requirements
analysis examined the amount of land used for various pur-
poses with regard to population and industrial employment,
and projected land use requirements for the years 1990,
1995, 2000, and 2010.
(-
, .
Earlier phases of this project resulted in a base study of
the County's economy, a forecast of future economic condi-
tions based on alternative development scenarios, and a fis-
cal impact analysis of the effect each of the scenarios would
have on the County's operating budget. The five scenarios
included a base case, and four modifications corresponding
to low growth, high growth in manufacturing sectors, high
levels of tourism, and high retiree in-migration. Due to
the positive characteristics associated with the high manu-
facturing ". .~e, it was selected as a preferred development
scenario.
The projected land use requirements in this study correspond
to the high manufacturing scenario. The high manufacturing
scenario will help ensure that the availability of land would
not he a constraint on the growth of employment in this
relatively high wage sector.
c
This report indicates that if the Palm Beach County economy
grows aloYl., the lines indicated by the high manufacturing
scenario, approximately 14,000 acres of commercial land and
8,200 acres of industrial land will be needed by the year
DBTl07/027
ES-I
(
2010. These forecasts represent increases of about 67 per-
cent for each category over the land actually in use for
these purposes in 1999.
Consideration has been given to the use of the forecasts in
tllis report as 11 standard to restrict further conunercial
developmBn~ in the county. Economic and social problems such
as blight and loss of property value have been said to be a
result of excessive commercial development. Further study
would be needed to determine the extent to which Palm Beach
County is suffering from problems caused by excessive com-
mercial development. If it were determined that excessive
commercial development creates adverse economic and social
conditions, the forecasts presented in this report could be
used to set limits on the conversion of land to commercial
purposes.
c
C..,
.~'.
DBTI07/027
ES-2
..__...._m__.___.....__~
c
Section I
INTRODUCTION
\It\~f(
The analysis of land use requirements for commercial and
industrial purposes is the fourth major component of the
Palm Beach County Economic Planning Study, an effort designed
to produce economic development and management goals and
objectives, and policies and tools to be implemented by
County gov rr.ment to achieve those goals.
PURPOSE OF LAND USE ANALYSIS AND FORECASTS
C'
An assessment of land use requirements provides the County
government with the information necessary to anticipate the
land use needs of future development and thereby to
effectively manage the County's growth. This information
will help the County to avoid inadvertently constraining
desi~able development or land uses and will enable the County
Planning D~~artment to more closely match future land use
allocations to the demand that is anticipated to occur. It
will have direct application in the preparation of future
updates of the Future Land Use Element of the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
The study was undertaken for two primary reasons; one, to
insure that an adequate supply of land is reserved for manu-
facturing development; and two, to address the concern of
the County rommission over possible overdevelopment of
commercial property in Palm Beach County. This issue of
excessive commercial development is discussed below.
ISSUE OF EXCESSIVE CO~~ERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Cj
Some observers in Palm Beach County maintain that the County
is experiencing excessive commercial development that is
DB'l'107/028
1-1
c
,
believed by some analysts to ca~se problems in the communities
in which it occurs. A high vacancy rate resulting from ex-
cessive d~v~lopment is sometimes said to cause blighted
areas, leQp-frogging of development leading to higher service
costs, loss of property value of lands adjacent to commercial
development, and potential imbalance in land use designations
leading to land use incompatibility and other potential
problems. The existence of these problems has not been doc-
umented in Palm Beach County, but relatively high vacancy
rates have occurred, although they have declined in recent
months.
c:
There are ~,veral possible explanations for excessive
commercial development. First, real estate markets are by
nature cyclical in nature, especially with regard to commer-
cial property. It could be that periodic high vacancy rates
are the result of the normal operations of the market. How-
ever, there are also several factors that may contribute to
over-development over a longer term.
Federal income tax laws have historically provided an
incentive for the development of commercial property through
accelerat~u depreciation and interest deductibility. Recent
tax law changes reduce the incentive somewhat, but not
entirely. At any rate, Palm Beach County is not able to
control this influence.
.0
Another incentive to develop commercial property is provided
by property tax assessment procedures. Since the appraised
value of a parcel is, in part, a function of the highest and
best use of the parcel, property taxes tend to be higher for
parcels tha~ may ultimately be developed for a commercial
use. Therefore, a holder of an undeveloped parcel with
commercial designation may be forced to pay higher taxes
without earning a correspondingly high level of income. The
extra incentive to develop could be removed if the Property
DBTI07/028
1-2
I......... 1"_" .'_'_'
"- -, ;--
. . \~ ;~~'J':j":'..'.,~7'~
c
Appraiser focus"d solely on the ourrent use of a parcel,
instead of considering the potential use, when setting the
assessed value.
An additional incentive to develop commercial property is an
expectation of future constraints on rezoning and permit
issuance. rf developers expect more stringent restrictions
on commercial development they will be encouraged to develop
prior to tpe time when their facilities are likely to be
absorbed. After the institution of the restrictions they
could expect to earn an above-market return since potential
competitors would be prevented from entering the market.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
(~
The exist~r~e of relatively high vacancy rates has been
confirmed in Palm Beach County. However, it has not yet
been confirmed that high vacancy rates are causing economic
or 'social problems. I f subsequent investigations confirmed
that the County were experiencing problems resulting from
excessive commercial development, County Government could
pursue any of several alternatives
o The County could rely on market forces to provide the
appropriate amount of commercial development to serve
the r'::8ctS of the County' s population. The County could
attempt to mitigate the incentives for overbuilding
discussed above and allow the market to provide the
correct supply.
o
The County could base land use designations on projected
buildout demand for commercial development, allowing
all development and rezoning requests to occur (subject
to all other requirements) until the buildout levels
had be8n reached.
o
DBT107/02S
1-3
o
The County could allow redesignation of land to com-
mercial purposes only up to the level that was expected
to be absorbed within a specified time period, say
5 years. Five years of inventory would be necessary to
allow for permitting, construction, and marketing
activities.
(~-
o The County could require rigorous market studies to
confirm the economic viability of proposed projects.
o The County could adopt some combination of these
approaches.
APPROACH TO THE PROJECT
('
Previous phases of the Palm Beach County economic planning
project have provided economic base study informationl
modeled alternative economic growth projections; and esti-
mat~d the impact of the alternatives on County Government
operations. The land use forecasting process is based
partially on these prior efforts. The forecasts are also the
result of two land use mapping efforts undertaken by the
County Planning Division staff.
The approach taken to forecast land use requirements
involved the following basic steps:
o Estimate the amount of land in Palm Beach County
dev8:.~ed for each of three economic categories:
industrial, retail, and finance & services
o Estimate vacancy rates for each of these categories
o
Estimate the relationships between land use and one
of two independent factors, either population or
manufacturing employment
o
DBTI07/028
1-4
o
Apply projections of the independent faotors to
forecast land use needs
(r-"
CONTENTS AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Section 2 describes the methods applied in analyzing commer-
cial land uses in Palm Beach County. This section explains
how the three categories of commercial property were related
to independent factors, and how the amount of future use was
forecast using economic forecasts prepared earlier in the
Economic Planning Study and other data. Section 2 also de-
scribes the sources of the data used in the study and the
three lanti use groups are described.
C,
-".'
Section 3 presents the land use coefficients calculated for
1988 and the forecasts for 1990, 1995, 2000; and 2010. Ad-
justments for historical and expected socioeconomic trends
are explained. The differences between planning areas and
be~ween different areas of the country are discussed. Ref-
erences consulted are listed in section 4. The tables are
presented in Appendix A.
Both in tables and in the text, values are often given to
several more digits than are significant. Generally, numbers
provided in this report and, for that matter, any economic or
demographic study, have no more than two, and often only one
digit of significance. values are carried to more digits of
precision in the report to maintain the accuracy of totals,
and to permit tracking of information through the analysis.
o
DBTI07/028
1-5
C)
.~
Section 2
LAND USE ANALYSIS METHODS
This section describes the methods applied in analyzing ~and
use patterr', existing in Palm Beach County during the study
period. An overview of procedures is followed by discussions
on the data, land use categories, independent variables, and
vacancy rates.
OVERVIEW OF PROCEDURES
c'
The first step in analyzing land use patterns was to estab-
lish planning areas for which land use statistics cou~d be
calculated. The planning areas were established with the
assistancb uL county Planning Division staff. criteria for
selection of p~anning area boundaries included simplicity,
ease of administration, and the desire to establish meaning-
ful economic subsets of the county. Figure 1 is the
.
planning area map.
The second step was to estimate the amount of land in Palm
Beach County that has been developed, according to economic
function. Three economic categories were selected to
comprise mcst "business" activities: industrial, retail, and
finance and services. Specific business enterprises were
allocated to these categories according to a functional
classification system developed in cooperation with the
Planning Division staff.
Later in the process, two of the categories were combined to
more closely match the land use and zoning categories in Palm
Beach County. Retail and finance and services land uses
were combined to create a forecast of commercial land use
needs.
o
DBTl07/029
2-1
c
Land use data were assembled and analyzed to calculate the
total area in the each traffic analysis zone dedicated to
each type ~f use. From this database, subtotals of land use
according to planning area were calculated.
These estimates represent the amount of land that had been
developed for each of the various uses by the middle of
calendar year 1988. A parcel was included in the inventories
if it was built and ready for use or currently in use. The
entire parcel was included in the estimates, including areas
used for parking, screening, or open space.
The next step in the process was to estimate vacancy rates
for each of the three categories. This was necessary to
estimate the amount of land actually being used for each of
the three broad purposes identified above during 198B. Land
that was not in use needed to be removed from the totals.
r,
'"." .
As Qiscussed below, data on vacancy rates, while apparently
in abundance, proved to be narrow in scope and somewhat
difficult to interpret. Most of the available data focused
on relativ~cY small segments of the market for commercial
space. Data on certain types of property were not available.
In general, more data was available for newer and more
expensive properties than for older and less expensive
properties.
After adjust~ng the land use estimates downward to reflect
unused space, factors expressing the relationships between
the land actually in use and an independent predictor vari-
able were calculated. These factors were later used to
forecast land use needs. Population was used as the inde-
pendent factor fot retail and finance and services land use,
while manufacturing employment was used for industrial land
use.
I")
{~d)
DBTI07/029
2-3
1_._ '- J.
,~...... "_" 1_-' ,,___'_ ~,
-';,"
c
Forecasts of industrial land requirements were made by
multiplying projections of industrial employment from the
earlier phases of. the economic planning effort by the factors
expressing the current relationship between manufacturing
employment and industrial land use.
r.
,
The use of population as the independent variable for the
prediction of retail and finance and services land use re-
quired one additional step. Since employment in these sec-
tors has been growing faster than population, and is expected
to continue to do so, it is expected that commercial land
use will also grow at a faster rate than the rate of popula-
tion increase. Therefore, population projections were com-
pared to projections of commercial employment, and the
commercial land use factor was multiplied by the ratio of
forecast employment to forecast population. The resulting
adjusted commercial land use factor was multiplied by fore-
cast population to yield forecasts of commercial land use
neelis.
The product of the above steps is
land use needs for commercial and
years 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2010.
presented in Tables II and 12.
a series of projections
industrial purposes for
These projections are
of
the
SOURCES OF DATA AND LAND USE ESTIMATES
The primary source of data describing land use patterns in
the County was the County Planning Division's "master data
file" for the unincorporated area of the County collected in
December 1988. Data were collected by traffic analysis zone
and aggregated into planning areas. Co~parable data for the
incorporated parts of the county were not readily available,
50 an interpolation process was used.
.;'0
" ...)
..'.
DBTl07/029
2-4
'"-'.""'-"-"."
c
A countywide database originally created by the South Florida
Water Management District, and later updated by the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council, was updated by County staff
during a field survey in 1986. Information on the unincor-
porated County from this database was compared to data from
the master data file and it was determined that the master
data file was significantly more accurate. The differences,
however, were systematic enough to allow interpolation from
the old dd,abase based upon its relationship to the master
data file.
c
For each planning area, for each type of land use, the ratio
of the estimate from the master data file to the estimate for
the unincorporated area from the old database was calculated.
This ratio was multiplied by the incorporated area estimate
from the old database to yield current estimated land use
totals for the incorporated County. These estimates were
combined with the unincorporated estimates from the master
dat~ file to yield estimated land use totals for the entire
County. Table 1 contains these estimates for commercial and
industrial purposes, within each of the 12 planning areas,
and for the entire County.
LAND USE CATEGORIES
The land use categories were designed to segregate uses by
economic function, to facilitate updates of the forecasts by
County staff, and to take advantage of the best available
land use data. A minimum number of categories was desired
both for'simplicity and to increase the reliability of the
forecasts. The use of relatively broad economic categories
will allow the forecasts to be useful even as the County's
economy evolves away from its present configuration.
C'
'1
..,/
Ultimately, the forecasts are presented in two categories,
industrial and commercial. The industrial category includes
DBTI07/029
2-5
."~",--,'.',,' ,
c'
land uses devoted to manufacturing and wholesale trade,
(generally SIC codes 20-39 and SO-51). The commercial oate-
gory represents the sum of three sub-categories: retail
trade, (generally SIC codes 52-59): finance, insurance, and
real estate (SIC codes 60-69): and services (generally SIC
codes 70-89). The forecasting process distinguished between
the retail trade and the finance and service sub-categories,
but the combination corresponds better to the land use
planning and zoning designations.
c
The data in Table 1 and throughout this report do not include
every catc,c;"ry of commercial land use in the County. Some
categories of cow~ercial activity were excluded to restrict
the focus of this study to activities most commonly perceived
as commercial or industrial. Land requirements for these
excluded uses must be determined independently of, and in
addition to, this forecasts in this analysis. In particular,
land used or planned for the excluded uses must not be con-
sidered to contribute toward the availability of land for
.
commercial and industrial purposes as defined in this
report.
Most of the land excluded from the commercial totals in this
report us used for "commercial recreation". This category
is dominated by golf courses, but also includes some parks
and fairgrounds. Other excluded uses include, government,
education, utilities, schools, religious, airports, land-
fills, agriculture, mining, and household enterprises. Also
excluded are the commercial uses that occur in Planned unit
Developments.
COVERAGE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
o
coverage requirements and all other development conditions,
both legal requirements and natural conditions, are assumed
to remain constant in this analysis. If County or municipal
DBT107/029
2-6
'.,".,.
c
coverage, setback, or other density requirements were changed
to allnw less development per acre, the forecasts in this
report would need to be increased propnrtionately.
A related consideration is the actual utility of the parcels
of land currently designated commercial or industrial. For
the purpoSeS of this study, it is assumed that no parcel
which is not developable due to environmental or other re-
strictions would receive a commercial or industrial designa-
tion. This is primarily a concern with regard to industrial
parcels which may include wetlands, or otherwise usable
sections which are surrounded by wetlands and are therefore
inaccessible.
VACANCY
r
Due to the cyclical naturp. of commercial development, turn-
over, possibly overbuilding, and the overall rise and decline
of ~reas in the County, some buildings (and sites) are always
unoccupied. Therefore, to estimate the land actually in use
during the study period, the stock of land in each category
had to be reduced by an estimate of the amount which was
unoccupied.
Research illto the available information on vacancy rates in
the County revealed that no government nor private body main-
tains comprehensive statistics on vacancy rates. Some data
are available, but there are three types of imperfections:
differences in time, space, and type of land use.
1.
Differences in time--Data are available for certain
points during and around the stUdy period, but the data
are not all of the same timeframe.
",
2.
Differences in space--None of the available data are
completely compatible with any of the planning areas
o
DBTI07/029
2-7
r
CJ
., ,<.,~. ""'''.'
established for the study. Some planning areas are
fairly well covered by some of the data while other
planning areas are mostly ignored. More data tend to
be available for central business districts or city
limits of the larger cities in the County. Some data
are available for some metropolitan areas.
3.
Differences in type--The data which are available tend
to be focused on narrow subsets of the three land use
categories. For example, the data on vacancies in re-
tail space tend to be limited to major shopping malls.
This information is not easily generalized to apply to
all retail uses since different types of retail property
are likely to have different vacancy rate characteris-
tics. The data on industrial and "office" vacancy
rates are similarly limited, tending to apply only to
"Class A", competitively leased space. This ignores
the m~jority of the commercial space in the county, and
introduces bias with regard to income, size, and
ownership.
Data on vacancy rates were collected from a number of
sources, primarily published, but including some personal
interviews. Two sources proved to be the most comprehensive
and useful: Coldwell Banker's quarterly market surveys, and
the annual office market survey by Laventhol & Horwath and
Robert Wilmoth Associates. The Coldwell Banker data exclude
all owner occupied buildings, all single tenant buildings,
and all buildings under 10,000 square feet. The Laventhol &
Horwath/Wilmoth data include single tenant buildings, but
exclude all buildings under 20,000 square feet. Other sources
have similar, but less well defined deficiencies with respect
to the needs of this study.
Ci
Since many of the data focus only on competitively leased
space, an adjustment must be made to account for single
DBTI07/029
2-8
_"'..........,..':t~!.'.:.. ~,..." !'.L)b.
II
tenant and owner occupied buildings. It is reasonable to
expect th~ competitively leased space would, on average,
have higher vacancy rates than single tenant or owner occu-
pied space. For this reason, the vacancy rates calculated
from published data have been adjusted downward slightly to
more accurately reflect the population of all space in the
County.
r
The fact that the data focus primarily on "Class A'" office
space may also be a source of bias. Vacancy characteristics
of commercial and industrial space according to cost are not
known, but it is reasonable to expect some differences.
c.
Researchers examlnlng vacancy r~tes tend to focus on one or
two local markets, rather than on the entire County. Each
researcher divides the County into subareas based upon proj-
ect goals and data availability. Some studies describe
their area boundaries only in very general terms. Estimates
fro~ all sources were mapped and applied, to the extent
possible, to the planning areas.
Table 2 contains the vacancy rates estimated for each of the
three types of land uses, for each of the twelve planning
areas in the County. The estimates were created by reviewing
and combining the available data, and interpolating where
necessary.
Application of the vacancy rates in Table 2 to the land use
estimates in Table 1 yields estimates of occupied acres by
type of use and planning area, shown in Table 3. Estimates
of the portion of the developed commercial property devoted
to r.etail trade and to finance and services uses were made
based upon information obtained from a separate set of de~
tailed land use estimates by the County Planning Division.
For application of estimates of vacancy rates, 25 percent of
.0,
,
: '~~,
DBT107/029
2-9
!'L:;.Li-.:.i- 0:._' l~.,-I,-, IJj..r.tU"",
I t.L IjlJ; 4'::c-'-HJUo l:.n I ...;.1.;.0
H:J'!. t-Z(i
c
commercial development waG assumed to be retail trade, and
75 percent was assumed to be related to finance and services.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
The primary independent variables used in the foreoasting
process were employment and population. Population estimates
for the unincorporated County were from the same master data
file that provided land use information. Estimates for the
incorporated parts of the County were made by the Metro-
politan Planning Organization (MPO). The combined population
estimates and projections by planning area appear in Table 4.
t.
""-
Historical information on employment in Palm Beach County
came from the Department of Labor and Employment Security's
ES-202 program. Forecasts of employment in retail trade and
finance and services are from "Economic Impact Analysis",
CH2M HILL, October 1986. These forecasts appear in Tables 5
and,6.
r,
'0..
DBTI07/029
2-10
:~:~;,::;f,;'i'~!;
,.t~, ;~~,.j,i;,.;j
:J' ,~",,.,:f:l::",':
,,; ;li?*!;',~~':
,ltf~ ,t~~~:;'~f i,
~,t ':~~ .,' ,
.')1' .j.ty"i!,,',
r: ".r,!,,':!'"
, .,f," ~,
:"r"~
~.~;1~C;' " !
~" i
1:{1'i~ ~
i'!'
c'
"""'J
~J
LAND USE COEFFICIENTS
Section 3
LAND USE COEFFICIENTS AND FORECASTS
The land use coefficients presented in Table 1 relate land
use need~ tc the level of an independent variable in Palm
Beach County during 1988. The coefficients for commercial
development represent the number of acres of commercial
property in use in each planning area per permanent resident
living in the area. The industrial coefficients represent
the number of acres in use in each planning area with respect
to the nuncber of manufacturing employees in the area.
Projections of commercial land use needs based on population
forecasts and the coefficients in Table 7 could result in a
shortage ot land available for commercial development. This
is because employment has been increasing at a faster rate
than population, and because the trend is expected to con-
tinue. Table S presents projections of the relationship
between commercial employment and population in Palm Beach
County. These projections are from the "Economic Impact
Analysis", CH2M HILL, 1986. Since industrial land use needs
are related to a measure of employment, this type of
adjustment is not necessary.
The factors in Table B are used to adjust the commercial
coefficients in Table 7 for each of the forecast years (1990,
1995,2000, and 2010). Table 9 contains the adjusted com-
mercial coefficients and the industrial coefficients, which
are constant over time.
DBTI07/030
3-1
-_.~-.-~-^...
-~--~-_._-
c
COMPARISON_.!3..F.TWEEN PLANNING AREAS
The 12 plannillg areas exhibit markedly different coefficients
which correspond to the different types and amounts of de-
velopment which have occurred in the past. With a coefficient
of 0.0194, planning area 6B, metropolitan Boca Raton, has
the highest amount of commercially developed land per resi-
dent, while planning area 7, the area west of West Palm
Beach, has the lowest commercial coefficient, with
0.004 acres per resident. Industrial development. per employee
is the hic.;~"'!Jt in planning area 2A, generally west of Palm
Beach Gardens, (0.349 acres per manufacturing employee), and
the lowest in area SA, west of Delray Beach and Boynton
Beach, (0.007 acres per manufacturing employee).
c'
In general, the commercial coefficients are higher in the
eastern planning areas, and lower in the west and northern
planning areas. The industrial coefficients vary widely, and
are ,highest in planning areas 2 and 7. The differences in
the commercial coefficient.s between planning areas essen-
tially refl~ct the degree to which a planning area has a
residential or commercial nature. The differences in the
industrial coefficients reflect the different needs for labor
relative to land by the industries in the County.
c;
The differences in coefficients between planning areas are
forecast to diminish somewhat over time. As growth occurs in
the commercial sector, areas with relative~y little commer-
cial development will experience higher growth rates, while
more developed areas will experience lower growth rates.
For this reason, the average coefficient.s for the whole
County were used to calculate the additional acres of land
use needed for each planning area. The current conditions
were taken as the baseline in each case, and additional
needs were forecast based on the change in the level of the
independeht variables.
PBTI07/030
3-2
COMPARISON WITH OTHER AREAS
Comparison of this type of information between different
areas of the state or nation is difficult due to a lack of
current land use data for many other places, and differences
in data collection and land use classification procedures.
The information that is available tends only to confirm that
different areas of the state and country have different land
use needs, according to local economic and social conditions.
c
Estimates of commercial development per capita for Palm Beach
County and for nine different areas appear in Table IO. Be-
cause unoccupied property was not removed in the other
studies, the Palm Beach County figure shown includes all
developed commercial property, whether vacant or not. In
'-
addition, the population basis in all cases is permanent
population, which excludes the impact of tourism and part
time residents.
Palm Beach County ranks near the middle of the distribution
in Table 10, with 11.1 acres of developed commercial property
per thousand permanent residents. The highest ratio is
16 acres per thousand residents for Volusia County, Florida
in 1987, auu the lowest is 3.9, for San Diego County,
California, in 1986.
The importance of these comparative statistics should not be
overemphasized for several reasons. First, because of the
difficulties inherent in calculating these ratios and the
many assumptions that have to be made, in it is impossible to
guarantee that the results are truly comparable.
o
Second, in comparing statistics it is sometimes implied that
there is one "right answer" for commercial development, but
no two counties or cities have exactly the same economic,
environmental, and social conditions. Therefore, it does not
DBT107/030
3-3
, -~._~....._~-,---~-
c
follow that just because other areas have more or less com-
mercial development per person, Palm Beach County should
strive to increase or reduce its own ratio.
FORECAST LAND USE REQUIREMENTS
Forecasts of con~ercial and industrial land use requirements
appear in 'l'ables II and 12, respectively. The forecasts
indicate a need for a total of about 14,000 acres of cOmmer-
cial land and about 8,200 acres of industrial land by the
year 2010.
(',
If these land use forecasts are to be used as a guide for
the determination of the amounts of land that will be per-
mitted to be redesignated or rezoned to commercial and indus-
trial categories, an adjustment must be made. To allow for
the time rB(,uired to actually develop property, an additional
five year inventory of land in the commercial category
shou~d be allowed. Due to the comparatively large size of
industrial requirements, an additional 10- or even 15-year
inventory of industrial land should be provided.
-For example, 10,225 acres, the total commercial land needed
in 1995, should be permitted to be developed in 1990. . In
addition, at least 6,709 industrial acres should be provided
in 1990, that being the total amount of industrial land
needed in LUOO. The allowed acreage should increase each
year until in 1995, when the commercial needs for 2000 and at
least the industrial needs for 2005 should be provided.
0,'
,.:,
. ,
If the forecast amount of land in a given planning area were
in excess of the amount that is desired by developers, or in
excess of the amount of undeveloped space, the difference
should be allocated to the closest planning area in which the
desire for development exceeds the amounts set forth in these
forecasts.
nBT107/030
3-4
",
~ ,'- ...."..'...-..... .. .~'..:r,",;"...,,, '":~'''''
" Ii
C
Section 4
REFERENCES
Bruss, Robert J. "Rules Cut Property Buying Incentives",
Atlanta Journal and Constitution. February 7, 1988.
CE2M HILL. Economic Base Study, Economic Impact Analysis,
and Fiscal Impact Analysis for Palm Beach County. March,
1987.
Chapin, F.
Planning.
1979.
Stuart, and Edward J. Kaiser.
University of Illinois Press.
Urban Land Use
Third Edition.
Coldwell Banker.
Estate Overview.
Northern Palm Beach County Commercial Real
March 15, 1988.
r
Retail Market Overviews, Boca Raton and West
Palm Beach. 1987 and 1988.
South Palm Beach County Office Market.
August 1987.
Cornell, Gary. Personal Communication.
Georgia Planning Department. December,
Gwinett County,
19B7.
Csar, Frank. Personal Communication. Panel, Kerr, Forster.
March, 1988.
Doran, John F. Realtors Inc. Personal Communication. April,
1988.
.c.~
~
Erikson, Michael. Personal Communication. Coldwell Banker.
March, 1988.
DBTI07/031
4-1
.~
('
Fields, Cregg.
Rate in U.S."
"Boca Posts Highest Suburban Office Vacancy
The Miami Herald. July 21, 19B7.
"',::
Fischer, R~tert A. Personal Interview. Fischer-Greta-
Cromwell. April 198B.
Gruen, Nina; Claude Gruen, and Richard
Labor's Role in the Workspace Market".
February 19B7.
Novak. "Forecasting
Urban Land.
Holmes, Michael. Personal Communication. Volusia County
Planning Department. November 1987.
Karrh, Al.:l;.. Personal Communication. Coldwell Banker.
February 16, 1988.
,A.
(
"
Kelley, Jeff. Personal Communication. Coldwell Banker.
March 1988.
Kling, John L., and Thomas E. McCue. "Office Building
Investment and the Macroeconomy: Empirical Evidence, 1973-
1985", Journal of the American Real Estate and Urban
Economics As~ociation. Vol. 15, No.3, Fall 1987.
Kolody, Tracy.
Sun Sentinel.
"Office Glut Appears to be Dwindling".
September 22, 1988.
~
Laventhol & Horwath and Robert A. Wilmoth and Associates.
Office Market Survey of Palm Beach County, Florida.
October 31, 1986.
Lopez, Ed. "Developers Undaunted by Glut". The Miami
Herald. JG~e 13, 1988.
(""I
",,'J
Porcher, Hank. Personal Communication. Coldwell Banker.
April 1988.
DBT107/03l
4-2
c
r--
(
c;
,...~",
paige, Tim. Personal Communication. Coldwell Banker.
March 1988.
Saef, Scott.
Seach Post.
"Vacancy Rates Stubbornly High".
January 25, 198B.
The Palm
Several sections in: "The State of Commeroial
Real Estate". The Palm Beach Post. December 12, 1988.
Society of Industrial and Office Realtors. "Office Real
Estate Market Survey", 1987-1988.
Swarthout, Robert K., Inc.
Quantity of Commercial and
County. November 19B7.
Comparative Analysis of the
Industrial Land in Broward
Urban Land ~nstitute. Industrial Development Handbook.
1975.
Welsh, Richard. Personal Communication. Metro Dade County
Planning Department. December 1987.
Witten, G. Donald. "Riding the Real Estate Cycle", Real
Estat~ Today. August 19B7.
DBT107/031
4-3
'C
APPENDIX A
TABLES
C,.
.,)
o
~ , :
.,...
"J
Cj
o
Table 1
ESTIMATED 1988 LAND USE BY PLANNING AREA
(ACRES)
Planning
Area Commercial Industrial
1 A 214 474
1 B 240 34
2 A 91 112
2 B 731 891
3 1,678 520
4 A 437 12
4 a 1,327 151
5 A 267 12
5 B 1,245 366
6 A 894 46
6 B 1,328 408
7 222 839
Total County 8,673 3,865
Source: Calculated from data supplied by PBC Planning,
Zoning, and Building Department
DBTI07/012
c
Table 2
ESTIMATED 1988 VACANCY BY TYPE AND PLANNING AREA
Finance and
planning Retail Services Industrial
Area ('Ii) (%) (%)
1 A 5.0 17.0 5.0
I B 5.0 17.0 5.0
2 A 5.0 17 .0 5.0
2 B 5.0 17.0 6.0
3 5.0 17.0 B.O
4' A 5.0 17.0 7.0
4 B 7.0 17.0 4.0
5 A 5.0 20.0 14.0
5 B 5.0 20.0 14.0
6 A 5.0 24.0 20.0
6 B 5.0 20.0 20.0
7 5.0 15.0 5.0
Source:
Estimated by CH2M HILL from published and
\' '1publ ished sources.
c
o
DBTI07/013
'-- ,,- ''--
c
Table 3
ESTIMATED OCCUPIED ACRES BY TYPE & PLANNING AREA
Planning
Area Commercial Industrial
I A 184 450
I B 206 33
2 A 79 107
2 B 629 837
3 1,443 478
4 A 376 12
4 B 1,134 145
5 A 224 10
5 B 1,042 315
6 A 722 37
6 B 1,112 326
7 194 797
Total County 7,345 3,547
Source: Calculated from Tables 1 and 2.
o
": '
,.
.~ i " ;:
! .,'J
o
DBTI07/014
~"\'';;'~.~~- :,'. ,": .,'.. ". -.' .~,
Table 4
(> ESTIMATED AND PROJECTED POPULATION
BY PLA!\INING AREA
Planning
}\reo. 1988 1990 1995 2000 2010
1 A 27,617 37,368 61,744 71,734 91,715
1 B 27,898 34,741 51,849 56,297 65,191
2 A 14 ,553 22,590 42,684 52,354 71,695
2 B 84,388 87,779 96,256 101,293 111,367
3 107,223 110,708 119,422 123,638 132,071
4 A 71,277 74,562 82,774 86,915 9S,l95
4 B 92,370 93,546 96,487 99,040 104,147
5 A 40,906 48,405 67,153 93,445 146,029
5 B 127,951 133,806 148,443 156,055 171,280
6 A 82,375 91,756 115,208 126,870 150,195
6 B '57,209 58,866 63,009 64,928 68,766
7 48,528 58,566 83,660 110 , 971 165,594
Total
County 782,294 852,692 1,028,689 1,143,541 1,373,245
Source, Calculated from data supplied by Palm Beach County
Planning, Zoning, and Building Department, and the
Metropolitan Planning Organization. .
{!
..... .~.
~,' "
.
o
DBT107/015
,..'~'"" ~
" ~"I , \ .
Table 5
(' mSTlMAT~D ~ND PROJECTED COMMERCIAL
EMPLOYMENT BY pLIIl'lNIl'IG AREA
Planning
Area 1986 1986 1990 1995 2000 2010
1 A 1,~69 1,341 1,492 1,769 2,889 4,595
1 B 4,591 5,029 5,467 6,198 6,002 5,866
2 A 998 1,115 1,n3 1,448 3,124 5,828
2 B 24,970 27,632 30,294 35,073 33,157 30,701
3 49,133 52,758 56,364 61,795 72,700 90,210
4 A 3,911 4,329 4,747 5,485 9,128 14,636
4 B 21,448 22,956 24,463 26,571 29,409 34,046
5 A 2,177 2,812 3,446 4,878 9,272 15,934
5 B 28,309 33,777 39,244 50,866 59,369 74,044
6 1\ 6,292 8,053 9,813 13,787 19,218 27,499
6 B 20,960 23,472 25,985 30,775 28,452 25,021
7 4,614 5,785 6,956 9,608 13,551 19,290
Total
County 168,593 189,058 209,524 248,213 286,271 347,670
Sou:o'ce: County total projections are from CH2M Hill "Economic Impact
Analysis", October, 1986. Allocation to planning areas is based
on employment projectiona by MFO.
o
G,
. i
';ot!,.
DBTI07/016
TABLE 6
r, ESTIMATED & PROJECTED MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT
BY PLANNING AREA
Pla.nning
Area 1986 1988 1990 1995 2000 2010
1 A 5,111 5,694 6,254 6,881 7,878 9,449
1 B 501 537 570 576 573 549
2 A 306 328 348 351 3,317 8,682
2 B 5,682 6,098 6,462 6,535 7,877 10,086
3 4,796 5,194 5,553 5,740 6,319 7,172
<I A 679 729 772 781 691 502
4 B 2,115 2,266 2,397 2,412 2,800 3,421
5 A 1,594 1,700 1,801 1,821 1,569 1,048
5 B 4,404 5,343 6,307 8,019 9,697 12,465
6 A 754 809 857 867 771 566
6 B 8,206 10,434 12,762 17,239 18,352 19,779
7 2,770 3,618 4r5lO 6,280 6,413 6,439
Total
County 36,907 42,750 48,593 57,502 66,257 80,388
Source: County total projections are from CH2M Hill "Economic
Impact Analysis", October, 1986. Allocation to
planning areas is based on employment projections
C by MPO.
C,:
DBTl07/017
c
Table 7
1988 LAND USE COEFFICIENTS
Planning
Area
Commercial
Acres per
Resident
Industrial
Acres per
Manufacturing
Employee
1 A
I B
2 A
2 B
3
4 A
4 B
5 A
5 B
6 A
6 B
7
0.0067
0.0074
0.0054
0.0075
0.0135
0.0053
0.0123
0.0055
0.0081
0.0088
0.0194
0.0040
O.OBS
0.065
0.349
0.147
0.100
0.017
0.069
0.007
0.072
0.049
0.040
0.288
County
Average
0.0094
0.096
<:J · Source: Calculated from data in Tables 3 and 4.
o
DBTI07/019
_'" ;,';~<Y."J
c'
Table 8
PROJECTED RATIO OF COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT TO POPULATION
(COUNTY TOTALS)
Year
Ratio
1988
1990
1995
2000
2010
0.2417
0.2450
0.2500
0.2560
0.2630
Source: Tables 4-6 and CH2M HILL, 1987
C'.
. ,
"
,~
o
DBT107/018
(',
(
"
o
f<
~~
rolE-<
tJj
;;:~
i:JE-<
"'8z
01~
~s
5
..
....
~
E-<~~
o
~~
r;;@
<.:>
<>:
2
t:"". i'
~
....
'"
.",
....
+l
Ul
"
'"
c:
OH
ri
o
Nrl
'"
.,-j
u
....
~
o
u
l':
o
H
~
o
0.
&;
rl
'"
.",
....
+l
III
"
'8
OH
o
o
Nri
'"
...
u
....
"
~
o
u
ri
trJ
...
....
jJ
III
.g
c:
IllH
'"
'"
........
'"
-,-j
u
....
i
8
t:l
rol
8
~
~
rl
'"
...
....
jJ
"
.g
c:
0..,
'"
'"
ri....
'"
.",
U
....
"
~
U
'"
...
~ m
.. ~
....
0.
eo\f)m,....or--mf"o.N~OC::O
CD\D'o;;tl"l$fO"I.OOf"o.'I:Jl'l:2'CO
OOMr4.....tOOOOOON
I. .,., "' .
000000000000
NOm.-f\p~'dt(hC'lI.l)NM
"""OOlflCOoqll/')MLf)(X) O'\rio::J!
OOoO~OI"""iOaaNO
000000000000
I . . . . . . . . . .. .
000000000000
(DlJ)(Tlf'or-..mI-NO'\Oo::l
<X)\O<qI"ltOr-t\DOC-~"l:tCO
OO,.,r-4rlOOOOOOC'i
. I . I . , . . . . . .
000000000000
t-ltOc-..(T'\t"")I.OOCOI.OMI.ON
("'-r--Ulr'"-<q'VlMVJ(DmO~
ooOo~O~OOONO
000000000000
. . I I . . . . . I I .
000000000000
aJLI\C!'t""'Of'-O"Ir-Nc;tIO(l)
<X)\O'tfIIlifO.-l\DOt'"'-~"ltCO
oOr"'Jl"'4rlOOOOOOM
. . . . , . . . . . . .
000000000000
(J\\O\Or-O'IIJ1f'o.r--or;fMr"iW"'4
1,/),....1I)r--f"")1nNLf)<X)O"'IO~
OOOOf""tOMOOONO
000000000000
. . . I . I . . I . . .
000000000000
CDLnmr-o,......mf-N(ftO<<>
"""'......0...."'01"......""
OOMM~OOOOOO~
. . I . .. . . . . . . .
000000000000
t'ln\/"l \.0\0"=1' 'lltu"l
l,()t'--Ll't("-.MUiNui
OaOOrfOMO
00000000
. . . . . . I .
00000000
1"0
"'...
riD
00
. .
00
M'"
ww
00
00
. .
00
~0)~1'l
.-fl""lNN
~0)<l;0)<l;0)
M I"
~~U'lU'1\O\C
III
'"
o
o
.
o
..
>.'"
<J '"
c: ....
" ..
8;(
'"
'"
o
o
N
o
....
o
.
o
'"
'"
o
o
'"
'"
o
o
.
o
'"
a-
o
.
o
....
'"
o
o
.
o
""
il
'"
I"
III
~
~
E-<
Q
....
..
+l
..
'<:I
!l
....
'><
'<:I
..
jJ
'"
....
"
o
....
..
U
o'
N
~
o
.-i
E-<
gj
ID
'"
o
.
o
..
..
U
....
"
o
OJ
c
r
:,
Ci
Table 10
commercial Aoree per Thousand Population
Acres per
Thousand
Place Year Population
-
1. Volusia County, Florida 1987 16.0
2. Gwinett County, Georgia 1984 15.3
3. Seminole County, Florida 1975 12.7
4 . Broward County, Florida 1987 11.8
S. Palm Beach County, Florida 1988 11.1
6. Brevard County, Florida 1980 10.9
7. Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee 1980 7.7
8 . City of Atlanta, Georgia 1980 7.3
9. Dade County, Florida 1985 5.3
10. San Diego County, California 1986 3.9
Sources: (1, 3, and 6) Holmes, 1987; (2) Cornell, 1987;
(4, 6, 7, 8, and 10) swarthout, 1987;
(5) calculated from Tables 1 and 4; (9) Welsh, 1987.
DBTI07/023
,.... c
Table 11
r: PROJECTED COl1MERCIAL"LAND USE ~EEDS
(acres)
Planning
Area 1990 1995 2000 2010
1 A 290 541 654 891
1 B 285 461 513 617
2 A 163 369 477 696
2 B 694 782 837 950
3 1,550 1,640 1,687 1;782
4 A 428 512 558 652
4 B 1,203 1,233 1,261 1,317
5 A 310 502 783 1,363
5 B 1,153 1,303 1,388 1,559
6 A 851 1,093 1,222 1,485
6 B 1,164 1,227 1,248 1,292
7 304 562 856 1,459
County Totel 8,415 10,225 11,484 14,052
Source: Calculated from Tables 4 and 9, adjust.ed for
equilibrium vacancy.
C
,. 'I,' '
.
O~. ,
'j"-
DBTl07/021
~.L __ ._'._ ._,_...1
1....L... "'-, '_'_ ,_' _ _ ,-,.. _ _
.,"
~ 1- ,
0 Table 12
PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL LAND USE NEEDS
(acres)
Planning
Area 1990 1995 2000 2010
I A 588 651 752 910
1 B 41 42 42 39
2 A 116 117 416 957
2 a 958 965 1,100 1,323
3 579 598 656 742
4 A 22 22 13 22
4 B 181 182 221 "284
5 A 33 35 33 33
5 l3 523 696 865 1,144
6 A 49 50 40 49
6 B 802 1,254 1,366 1,510
7 1,012 1,191 1,204 1,207
County Total 4,903 5,802 6,709 8,221
Source: Calculated from Tables 6 and 9, adjusted for
p equilibrium vacancy.
!
0
()
DBT107/022
.,,,._.""....,,,--,','.,,...............
The spending from these sources creates demand for goods and services in other
sectors.
Palm Beach County also has two other basic industries: tourism and seasonal ........
residents; and a large number of retired persons. Neither of these is typically}
classified as an industry group like manufacturing or retail trade. However,
each of these is a basic industry because its demand for goods and services is
generated through forces originating outside the local economy and the funds
used to purchase goods and services locally are derived from outside the local
economy. Along with agriculture and manufacturing, tourism and seasonal
residents and the retirement community constitute the basic driving forces in
the Palm Beach County economy.
There are clearly limits to the extent to which Palm Beach County can affect
its economic future. Important forces beyond the County's control include the
overall health of the international, natIonal, state and regional economies;
national economic, fiscal and monetary policy; actions of other governments that
compete with Palm Beach County for economic ~owth; the County's position
with respect to markets for its goods and services; regional transportation
systems; and the cost of living. Despite these limitations, some actions may
still be taken in the County to improve economic conditions. They are presented
in the plans and policies of the Economic Element.
The Economic Element presents an overall economic goal for Palm Beach County,
a set of specific, measurable objectives, and for each objective, implementable
policies designed to assist the County in achieving its objectives and overall
economic goal. The overall goal of this Element is to continue orderly ~rowth
in three of the basic sectors: manufacturing; tourism and seasonal reSidents;
and the retired population. Opportunities for growth in agriculture are very
limited in Palm Beach County due primarily to increasing scarcity of land for
crop& and livestock, and environmental constraints. The County's economic
growth must be cultivated in the other basic sectors, especially manufacturing.
.-}
. ,
'- ./
As a result of research conducted for preparing this Element, five different
economic development scenarios were developed for the County: a reference
case based on moderate development; a low-growth scenario reflecting a sluggish
overall economy; high manufacturing, based on relatively high growth in the
manufacturing sector; high tourism scenario, reflecting rapid growth in this
sector; and high retiree in-migration scenario, reflecting a high rate of growth
in the County's population of retired persons. Based on an analysis of these
alternatives, the preferred course of economic development is the high manufac-
turing scenario. This choice is fundamental to the Economic ETement and
serves as the basis for several of the Element's objectives and policies.
In some cases, objectives and policies presented in the Economic Element conflict
or compete with other economic policies or, in some cases, objectives and
policies of other Plan elements. For example, the Economic Element supports
measures intended to limit property tax rates by, among other measures, im-
plementing a comprehensive Impact fee system. On the other hand, the Econom-
IC Element recognizes the importance of controlling construction costs, which
may be adversely affected by such impact fees. Another example is that the
Economic Element sUPl?orts strong growth in manufacturing industries, which
could compete with objectives in the Conservation Element to maintain the
cleanest possible environment. The occurrence of these types of conflict and
~~~~~~~0;laa:::~~e~~~~t~r~~~:~lfo~1i~~~\1~~~~s~~~ci~:ot~a~~: ~laa;.h~~i~e~ "r)
however, hi~hlight the need for continued vigilance and refinement in the ". .
implementatIon of the County's economic and related policies.
2-EC
r--
I
('
,...,.....
~: . )
........:~'
B. Key Economic ConUltions and Forces in Palm Beach County
The Economic Goal, Objectives, and Policies are based on findings from a series
of economic, fiscal and business studies conducted since 1986. Important findings
from these studies include the following:
o The Pratt and Whitney Company and IBM have dominated the manufactur-
ing industry group in recent years, but both firms have reduced their
staffs and payroll, highlighting the importance of strengthening and
diversifying the County's relatively high wage and salary manufacturing
industry group. The manufacturing sector provides an important element
of stability to employment, income and governmental revenues in Palm
Beach County;
o Employment and payrolls in Palm Beach County are hi~hly seasonal, with
total employment during the summer months (excludmg school system
employees and agriculture) declining by over 11 percent from winter levels.
The employment and income seasonality, occurring mainly in the retail
trade and service sectors, is due to seasonality in tourist and seasonal
resident populations, which contribute significantly to the County's economy
but only during the late fall, winter and early spring months;
o Wages and salaries are relatively low in the retail trade and service sectors
that are affected by seasonality factors, further depressing personal income
in these sectors. Nonetheless, these sectors are expected to continue
growing at a higher rate than other industry groups;
Population growth has been and is forecasted to remain strong, especially
in the over-65 age group, which creates demand for ~oods and services
and hence employment in support sectors. Since thIS demand is year
round, it helps to stabilize the seasonality effects of tourism and seasonal
residency;
o
Housing prices are rising rapidly in Palm Beach County, driven by a number
of factors including increasing scarcity of developable land and higher
development costs. With growth in the low wage and salary retail trade
and service sectors, the County may face a shortage of housing affordable
to a large segment of its work force;
While there has been rapid growth in the retail trade, finance, insurance
and real estate, and semce sectors during the last few years, the develop-
ment of commercial properties has outstripped demand, causing an over-
supply condition to develop;
The County's economy will expand rapidly during the next two decades.
This will require that sufficient land be made available for commercial
and industrial development; and
Small, minority and women business enterprises have as a group been only
modestly successful in Palm Beach County.
The Economic Element is based largely on results from the following studies:
o
o
o
o
o Economic Base Study, Economic Impact Analysis and Fiscal Impact Analysis
for Palm Beach County; CH2M Hill, March 1987;
o
Palm Beach County Minority Business Study; Arthur Young, May 1987;
3-EC
o Economic Impacts of Proposed Traffic Performance Standards in Unincor-
porated Palm Beach County; CH2M Hill, August, 1987; and
o
Co=ercial and Industrial Land Use Requirements in Palm Beach County,
CH2M Hill; February, 1989.
~."
\',.JJ
II. GOAl.., OBJECTIVES AND POliCIES
It is the GOAL of Palm Beach County to support and promote balanced and
orderly economic growth that provides viable employment opportunities for
present and future residents.
OBJECTIVE 1
Balanced Economic Growth Implementation
Palm Beach County shall maintain and seek-{-e exrand a diversified economy
inelu4ffig-the--basia-inffiiwies--t>f by: 1) implementIng land use policies which
promote and encourage the continuance of agriculture.; 2) achieving the levels of
growth in the manufacturing sector set forth in Objective 2,: and 3) reducing to
9% seasonality of employment in retail trade and service sectors serving tourism
and seasonal residents and retired persons. mafil4a~l"-ing;-{-el:H'ism--aoo~easonal
rtl5H:leney;-llftd~eetefS~ei'\1ing-l"etifeG-pel"-sens~
Policy I-a: Palm Beach County shall aetively support a strong public
education system; moderate local tax rates; adequate utility systems, port
and airport facilities; good parks and recreational facilities; sound health
care systems; and effective public safety programs, transportation and
housing systems, tbeTeby-ma-j.Ht-a4R-i-ng-a-&-a-ttI"-ae+j.ye-~u!H+ty-4-lif&.- ~
implementing the programs set forth in the:
.Q Public Education Element
.Q Economic Element
.Q Infrastructure Element
.Q Aviation and Related Facilities Element
.Q Recreation and Open Space Element
.Q Health and Human Services Element
.Q Traffic Circulation Element
.Q Mass Transit Element
.Q Housing Element
.0'..
<,.
OBJECTIVE 2 Increased Growth in Manufacturing
Palm Beach County shall encourage the expansion of its manufacturing industry.
Manufacturing employment Countywide shall reach 38,000 by the year 1990;
48,000 by the year 1995; and 58,000 by the year 2000. The accomplishment of
this objective IS dependent on economic externalities and the effectiveness of
the County's policies to achieve high manufacturing growth.
Policy 2-a: The County shall ensure that an adequate amount of land
will be available for industrial use by providing an inventory of land zoned
for industrial use equal to the acreage estimated to be absorbed during the
ensuing 10-year period. Such industrially zoned land, estimated to be
4,903 acres by the year 1990, 5,802 acres by 1995, 6,709 acres by the year
2000 and 8,221 acres by 2010, shall be apportioned throu~out the Urban
Service Area. Industrial land uses may be assi~ed outSide of the Urban
Service area pursuant to the Growth Management Study. Policy 1-g of the
4-EC
~"'''''''
.....
'. ,;/
(
Land Use Element. bo~;-t:e,;-ffi-{.ft&-nef'fllef"ii;--ceRtf"'Ql;-seutllern--anQ
We5teRrpllfts.,
Policy 2-b: The County shall continue supporting the Palm Beach County
Development Board in Its effort to attract and retain manufacturing
businesses. Joint efforts in preparing comprehensive incentive plans are a
key element.
Policy 2-c: The County shall develop programs to encourage and
facilitate the expansion or relocation of basic industry and to expedite
such development, including. but not limited to:
Q ensuring land availability for manufacturing uses:
Q reviewing the Land Development Code to identify where stream-
lining the approval process can be accomplished: and
o workin~ With the Palm Beach County Development Board to
facilitate better relations between government and the manufac-
turing sector.
Policy 2-d: The County shall address the impacts of the imposition of
a utility tax on basic industry~ s.so that the imposition of such tax does not
interfere with the achievement of this Elements' Objectives. the County
shall:
Q impose the electric and gas portion of the tax on a sliding
scale. and
Q phase in the electric and gas portion of the tax.
(
OBJECIlVE 3
.
Reduced Seasonality in Employment
Seasonal fluctuation in employment in the retail trade and service sectors shall
be reduced from the present level of approximately 11.0 percent of peak employ-
ment to 9.0 percent by 1995.
Policy 3-a: By October, 1990, more than 50 percent of the funds gener-
ated by the ''bed tax" shall be conveyed to the Tourist Development Council
for the purpose of promoting tourism during off-peak periods.
Increased Opportunity for Small, Minority and Women
Business Enterprises
Palm Beach County shall support efforts to increase opportunities for small,
minority and women business enterprises to enable these enterprises to compete
more effectively in sectors in which they currently operate and to expand into
other business sectors.
OBJECIlVE 4
r
~j
Policy4-a: The County shall maintain staffing within the Office of
Equal Opportunity, which shall be responsible for collecting, developing
and disseminating information related to small business opportunities, and
minority and women business enterprises.
Policy 4-b: The Office of Equal Opportunity shall establish a monitoring
program to determine if the goals set forth in the Strategic Plans of the
Minority, Women~ and Hispanic Business Studies are being met. If these
5-EC
contracting goals are not met over a one-year period, the County will
establish a program to ensure that the goals are met.
OBJECIlVE S
0..
""'~~' i,
Encourage Balanced Growth in Retail Trade and Services
through Land Use Pl>mning and Zoning
Growth in the retail trade and service sectors shall be controlled and supported
at ~ sufficient levels to meet consumer demand. as measured by the ratio of
land designated Commercial to population. and by maintaining at least a five-
year-inventory of land designated Commercial on the Land Use Map.
Policy S-a: The County's Future Land Use Plan Map shall designate
sufficienHHBeUFIt5-ef Commercial land to meet the County's retail trade
and service needs. as determined by the ratio of Commercial land to
population identified in this Element.
Policy Sob: The County shall determine whether there is a need to
regulate rezoning of land for commercial uses to prevent over-commitment
of retail properties.
Policy S-c: The County shall designate the Commercial land reQllired to
meet the projected 2010 demand for land designated Commercial pursuant
to the County/Municipality Commercial Land Allocation Study (Policy S-b
of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element) in order to discourage
urban sprawl. support coastal redevelopment. and meet individual community
needs.
Minimize Local Tax Burden on Taxpayers while Funding
Facilities and Services Needed to Support Economic Growth
Palm Beach County shall minimize the property tax payer's burden by shifting
the burden of the costs of County l\overnment facilitIes and services to the
groups or individuals for whom the faCIlities and services are provided.
OBJECIlVE 6
~"'.
(: '.
.... ,"
Policy 6-a: The County shall endorse the principle that growth should
pay its own way by adoptm& impact fees and continuing to pursue other
revenue sources for financmg the construction or purchase of capital
facilities necessary to service new development.
Policy 6-b: The County shall continue t& J*tfSl:Hl--tke--~offilftities-fOF
financing a portion of County government functIons through user fees.
OBJECIlVE 7
Availability of Affordable Housing
In order to accommodate the housing needs of the Coun~ts labor force, affor-
dable housing shall be available to persons earning a livelihood or choosing to
reside in Palm Beach County.
Policy 7-a: The County shall implement the affordable housing programs
identified in Gbje-etwe--;!.-of the Housing Element which addresses the
needs for affordable housing of the labor force. to-meet--tfte-affOFooble-
beusing.neeas-ef-tbe-laOOr-f~,
().
6-EC
.... ..._.~:-".'..-~
OBJECI1VE 8
Availability of Educational and Training Opportunities
Palm Beach County shall promote excellence in education in order to encourage
industry to locate and expand within the County.
Policy 8-a: The County shall aggressively pursue and encourage the
establishment of a major, nationally recognized university in Palm Beach
County.
Policy 8-b: The County shall encourage existing colleges and training
institutes to provide education and research programs that meet the needs
of basic industry.
r
m. EXISTING CONDmONS
A Description of Economy
Estimates of the County's total population and employment by industry group
for 1986 are shown in Table 1. The population estImate is from the University
of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. The employment
estimates are from the State of Florida Department of Labor and Employment
Security's monthly employment data program.
TABlE 1
1986 EMPLOYMENT, BY INDUSIRY GROUP
1"'""';
'-er._ .'
Permanent Population
Employment
Agri, Forestry & Fish
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Trans, Corom & Pub Utilities
Wholesale & Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
Services
Fed, State & Local Governments
Total Employment
752,115
16,172
26,925
36,907
10,716
78,445
25,957
79,313
36.367
310,802
SOURCE:
CH2M Hill, 1989
Palm Beach County's permanent population was estimated by the BEBR to have
reached approximately 790,000 In 1987. During winter months, the County's
population expands due to the influx of seasonal residents and tourists. The
County has about one-third more of its residents over the age of 65 than the
state average, with correspondingly fewer people under the age of 25.
Estimates calculated from monthly data provided by the State of Florida Depart-
ment of Labor and Employment Security indicate that Palm Beach County's
annual average employment had reached about 326,000 by 1987. Almost 50
7-EC
-.
1",,-:.;
percent of total averag.: employment is in two industry groups, services and
retail trade. Most of the remllining employment is accounted for by: manufac-
turing; construction; finance, insurance and real estate; and local government.
Palm Beach County has twice the state's average percentage of agricultural ,J"
employment and lower percentages of employment in transportation, communica-
tions, utilities, wholesale trade and total government.
B. Analysis
Analysis of historical and current conditions in Palm Beach County reveals
several important demographic and economic trends. The most striking demogr-
aphic trend is the County's rapid and consistent population growth, averaging
more than four percent per year during the last decade. Most of the County's
growth has come through in-migration rather than natural increase, although
natural increase has become a more important factor in recent years. Growth
still remains strong in the over-65 age /Voup, indicating that Palm Beach County
continues to attract large numbers of retired persons.
Employment levels have also risen consistently during the last decade. The
recessionary period of the early 1980s had little effect on employment expansion
in Palm Beach County, suggesting that the County's economy has enjoyed a
measure of insulation from national economic conditions.
The two largest employment groups in Palm Beach County, retail trade and
services, have grown faster than other sectors during the last few years. As
noted above, together they account for approximately 50 percent of total
employment in Palm Beach County; however, employment is quite seasonal in
both these sectors. The third largest industry group is manufacturing, account-
ing for about 12 percent of the workforce. Manufacturinft employment has ,r"""
~rown approximately in proportion to growth in total emp oyment. Another , )
Important economic sector, construction, accounts for about 9 percent of the
total workforce. While employment in this sector is not especially seasonal, it
is subject to cyclical fluctuation, generally lagging somewhat behind changes in
general economic conditions.
Wages and salaries, the principal components of personal income, vary con-
siderably from the Countywide average which was approximately $20,600 per
year in 1987. Wages and salaries in the manufacturing sector exceed the average
by over 50 percent, while the highly seasonal agricultural and retail trade wage
rates are only about 70 percent of the average. The gap between average
manufacturing wage rates and agricultural and retail trade wa~e rates has
widened somewhat during the last few years, accentuating the differences in
the standard of living of residents of Palm Beach County.
These findings and related analyses provide a part of the basis for the County's
economic growth plan presented below. The studies focus on the 12 coastal-
oriented planning areas since Planning Area 8, with its unique economic base,
represents a statistical anomaly and is the subject of a separate Priority
Economic Development Zone.
The area west of Twenty Mile Bend, known as the Glades, is one of special
concern. Its distance from the coastal communities tend to isolate the Glades
from eastern Palm Beach County not only I?hysically, but economically because
of its primarily agricultural base. HistOrically, the Glades has experienced
negative recognition due principally to this single-faceted economy and the
social ramifications inherent with an underemployed population. The cities of
Belle Glade, Pahokee and South Bay have made significant strides to combat
,-....
,,,.V,
8-EC
.,_.,.,.,......:. ...
r-
;
\
these problems, with the assistance of the County's Housing and Community
Development Department.
In light of the extreme need for economic development in Elf the Glades area, it
is the desire of Palm Beach County to foster economic diversification and
development by designating it as a Priority Economic Development Zone. Under
the PEDZ program, the County shall encourage economic development~ t~~il.
tbe5e-~t~-6I:Ifffile&-j.&-HH5--E1emeM;-bltt- recognizing the uniqueness and dIf-
ferent needs of the PEDZ; and seeking to encourage, rather than restrict,
economic development in the Glades area. A-fe-eYaluatten4th~.pEDbpregffrlR
wilJ.-tak~i*aee-wben-tbe-ill'ea-~O€n~-withffi.411e-P-EDz.-e*l*rieRees--a-W-PefE.:eflt
eT-FFlGfe-afHuHu-gFflWtfl-i"-ilte. The PEDZ program is delineated in ObieCtlve 3 of
the Interfovemmental Coordination Element. which addresses the isolation/
growth 0 the Glades.
C. Levels of Service
Land use is closely related to economic activity. Continued growth and health
of the business community requires that adequate amounts of land be available
for commercial and industrial use. Commercial land is used by retail, finance
and services enterprises, while industrial land is used primarily for manufacturing
and wholesale trade activities.
/""'
During 1988, there were approximately 7,345 acres of commercially zoned land
in use in the County, constituting approximately 0.009 acres per permanent
resident. This estimate represents land in use for purposes such as; retail
trade, services, and finance, insurance and real estate. Functions classified as
"commercial recreation", such as golf courses, are excluded from the commercial
category.
There were approximately 3,547 acres of land used for industrial purposes in the
County, representing approximately 0.096 acres per manufacturing employee.
Both the industrial and the commercial land use estimates exclude land occupied
by vacant buildings and land that is planned and zoned for such use but not yet
built.
.
A detailed analysis of the commercial acres in use and population is shown by
Economic Planning Area in Table 2. Industrial acres in use and industrial
employment are shown in Table 3. Coefficients indicating the amount of
commercial land requirement per capita and industrial land requirement per
employee are also shown in Tables 2 and 3.. respectively. The boundaries are
shew&.ffi-the--P-lanBing--Af'ea--Map of the Econonuc Planning areas are shown on
Map 34.
rJ
'~.>J
9-EC
TABLE 2
OCCUPIED COMMERCIAL
ACRES BY PlANNING AREA, 1988
Planning Commercial Acres
Area Acres Population Per Capita
1A 184 7,617 0.007
1B 20 27,898 0.007
2A 79 14,553 0.005
2B 629 84,388 0.007
3 1,443 107,223 0.013
4A 376 71,277 0.005
4B 1,134 92,370 0.012
5A 224 40,906 0.005
5B 1,042 127,951 0.008
6A 722 82,375 0.009
6B 1,112 57,209 0.019
7 194 48.528 ~
Total County 7,345 782,295 0.009
o
SOURCE: CH2M Hill, 1989
TABLE 3
OCCUPIED INDUSTRIAL
ACRES BY PLANNING AREA, 1988
"~
~'x-7
Acres Per
Planning Industrial Industrial Industrial
Area Acres Employment Employee
lA 450 5,111 0.088
IB 33 501 0.065
2A 107 306 0.349
2B 837 5,682 0.147
3 478 4,796 0.100
4A 12 679 0.017
4B 145 2,115 0.069
5A 10 1,584 0.007
5B 315 4,404 0.072
6A 37 754 0.049
6B 326 8,206 0.040
7 797 2.770 ~
Total County 3,547 36,908 0.096
SOURCE: CH2M Hill, 1989 ()
10-EC
N. FUTI1RE CONDmONS
A. Forecasted Economic Conditions
An economic study completed in 1987 by CH2M Hill, examined the effects on
the County.:s. economy of five alternative scenarios of growth. Each scenario
represents a different yet plausible direction in which the County's economy
rrught proceed during the next 20 to 25 years.
The five scenarios are:
o Reference Case, a scenario corresponding to moderate growth rates in each
of the industries currently promment in Palm Beach County, but with a
stable awiculture sector, corresponding to the Governor's Office's moderate
population forecasts;
o Low Growth Scenario, reflecting lower growth rates than the Reference
Case;
o Hi~h Manufacturing Scenario, a modification of the Reference Case in
whIch faster growth would occur in the manufacturing sectors. In Palm
Beach County, the five largest manufacturing sectors are: transportation
equipment; machinery except electrical; electrical equipment and supplies;
printing and publishing; and food and kindred products;
o High Tourism Scenario, a modification of the Reference Case with faster
growth in industry sectors directly affected by tourism and seasonal
residency; and
/-
,
,
o
High Retiree In-migration Scenario, similar to the High Tourism Scenario,
l1ut with faster growth in most support sectors such as wholesale and
retail trade and services.
B. Analysis
An input-output model was used to forecast economic and demographic conditions
for each scenario. The input-output model simulated economic relationships
between industrial sectors in Palm Beach County, which enabled forecastinll of
future conditions based on the five alternative scenarios. The model was denved
from a national input-output model using procedures routinely used for applying
a broader model to a regional economy.
The model was executed to simulate the Reference Case and four alternative
economic scenarios. The Reference Case corresponds to the Florida Governor's
Office's moderate-case population forecasts for the County. The other four
scenarios are defined according to their differences from the rReference e.0lse.
c)
Forecasts of employment by industry group for the years 1990, 1995, 2000 and
2010, along with total population for the County, are shown in Table 4. The
population figures shown in Table 4 are a combination of Planning Division
forecasts for the unincorporated County and Metropolitan Planning Organization
forecasts for the incorporated County. These figures are not inconsistent with
the population figures associated with the hHigh mManufacturing s~cenario from
the input-output analysis. Table 5 presents lorecast income by industry group
for the same year.s..
ll-EC
.. ... ~. .........""':~.~:~:fI:..""Y!.'\ll'\..;;.....
The forecasts are based on the High Manufacturing Scenario, the scenario
preferred by the County Commission and the Economic Development Citizens
Advisory Committee. The forecasts, developed in 1986, are based on assumptions
of I?articularly strong growth in employment in the manufacturing sector
begmning in the mid-1980s. The forecasts describe an economic scenario that
would produce attractive economic conditions for the County. As such, the
forecasts are not predictions of economic development, since strength in the
manufacturing sector cannot be assured. In fact, since the mid-1980s the
manufacturing sector has failed to grow at the rates assumed in the High
Manufacturing Scenario. For this reason, the earlier estimated manufacturing
growth forecasts for 1990 will not be realized, requiring the reduction of Palm
Beach County's manufacturing employment objectives for 1990, 1995 and 2000 to
levels below those shown in Table 4. The manufacturing employment objective
for 1990 is only to recover to 38,000, approximately 10,000 below the 1990
figure of the High Manufacturing Scenario. Objectives for 1995 and 2000 were
reduced by approximately the same number, yielding achievable yet ambitious
objectives for the County. The recent decline in manufacturing highlights the
need for strengthening programs to promote and encourage manufacturing, since
the County appears to be losing ground in this key industry group.
TABLE 4
FORECAST EMPWYMENT BY INDUSTRY GROUP
mGH MANUFACIURING SCENARIO
. ""'. .
, .)
, .Y
l22!2 1m. .2QOO .m1J1
Perma.nent Population 852,692 1,028,689 1,143,541 1,373,245 0
Industry Group
Agriculture, Forestry & Fish 17,862 18,367 18,863 19,665
Contract Construction 26,667 27,515 28,340 29,671
Manufacturing 48,593 57,502 66,257 80,388
Trans, Comm & Pub Utilities 11,722 12,574 13,411 14,763
Wholesale & Retail Trade 105,752 128,434 150,750 186,749
Finance, Insur & Real Estate 27,467 31,563 35,588 42,085
Services 93,712 109,416 124,746 149,575
Fed, State & Local Gov't 33.636 34.149 34.653 35.467
Total Employment 365,411 419,520 472,608 558,363
SOURCE: CH2M Hill, 1989
'"".,
~
12-EC
(
TABLE 5
FORECAsr INCOME BY INDUS1RY GROUP
mGH MANUFACI1JRING SCENARIO
(millions)
122Q ..l.m. 2000 1.Q1Q
Industry Group
Agriculture, Forestry & Fish $213.4 $219.5 $225.4 $235.0
Contract Construction 477.0 492.0 506.8 530.6
Manufacturing 1,368.7 1,629.5 1,885.9 2,299.7
Trans, Comm & Pub Utilities 272.5 292. I 311.5 342.7
Wholesale & Retail Trade 1,327.7 1,612.5 1,892.7 2,344.7
Finance, Insur & Real Estate 550.5 632.6 713.3 843.7
Services 1,465.0 1,705.4 1,940.5 2,321.0
Fed, State & Local Govt 599.4 612.9 626.1 647.5
Total Income $6,274.2 $7,196.5 $8,102.2 $9,564.9
SOURCE: CH2M Hill, 1989
o
Forecasted land use needs for e~ommercial land for 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2010
are shown in Table 6. The forecasts are derived from the Hiltil Manufacturing
Scenario and are based on the land use coefficients described above. Table 7
shows forecasted land use needs for ilndustrialland for the same years.
0....
o.
13-EC
TABLE 6
COMMERCIAL LAND USE NEEDS
mGH MANUFACIURING SCENARIO
(acres)
o
Planning
Area 1990 1995 2000 2010
lA 290 541 654 881
1B 285 461 513 617
2A 163 369 477 696
2B 694 782 837 950
3 1,550 1,640 1,687 1,782
4A 428 512 558 652
4B 1,203 1,203 1,261 1,317
SA 310 502 783 1,363
5B 1,153 1,303 1,388 1,559
6A 851 1,093 1,222 1,485
6B 1,184 1,557 1,248 1,292
7 304 562 856 1.459
Total County 8,415 10,225 11,484 " 14,052
SOURCE: CH2M Hill, 1989 "
o
14-EC
, '. '.,.,,\C" -,',',C;; ,'~"'''''',_1''''''''''''''
c~
TABLE 7
INDUSIRIAL LAND USE NEEDS
mGH MANUFACIURING SCENARIO
(acres)
PLANNING
AREA
1990 1995 2000 2010
588 651 752 910
41 42 42 39
116 117 416 957
958 965 1,100 1,323
579 598 656 742
22 22 13 22
181 182 221 284
33 35 33 33
523 696 865 1,144
49 50 40 49
802 1,254 1,366 1,510
l...Q12. l...l21 .l.2JM 1.207
4,903 5,802 6,709 8,221
1A
1B
2A
2B
3
4A
4B
5A
5B
6A
6B
7
Total County
r
SOURCE: CH2M Hill, 1989
V. PLAN DESCRIPTION
Palm Beach County's plan for economic growth consists of the goal of achieving
a preferred course of economic development and a series of programs structured
to support that goal. This section summarizes the characteristics of the
County's preferred course of economic development, focusing on its benefits to
the County's residents, and the programs the County will implement to achieve
its economic development goal.
A Preferred Economic Development
The County's preferred course of economic development is the High Manufactur-
ing Scenario. This scenario is formulated around generally balanced economic
growth in those basic industries in which Palm Beach County is currently
strong: manufacturing, tourism and seasonal residency, and residency of retired
persons, but with particularly strong growth in manufacturing. While agricul-
ture is expected to remain an important part of the County's economy, it is not
expected to grow significantly due mainly to lack of land available for expansion.
o
The High Manufacturing Scenario is preferred because it offers several important
economic and fiscal advantages over other potential types of development. Its
most fundamental advantage is that it generates higher wages and salaries than
other potential courses of economic growth. The positive effects of these
higher wages and salaries are experienced in many areas of the economy and
government budgets, especially the following:
15-EC
o Increased expenditures in support sectors such as retail trade and services;
o
Leveling of seasonality in employment and household incomes in tourism-
related sectors; and
Increased tax base and County and municipal government revenues.
o
o
B. Reco=ended Programs
In order to achieve these benefits, the County will implement a series of
programs designed to enable Palm Beach County to pursue faster industrial
growth than would otherwise occur, while maintaining balanced and orderly
~rowth throughout the economy. These programs, described below, are reflected
m the County's economic objectives and policies.
1. Balanced Economic Growth
Palm Beach County's economic future lies primarily in maintaining balance in its
economic growth by supporting those sectors that currently provide the basis
for the County's econormc strength. Maintaining and increasmg the vitality of
the economy requires nurturing and improving conditions that are considered
attractive to the business community. Unfortunately, control over many of
these conditions lies beyond the purview of local governments. Such conditions
include the relative cost of living, relative wage and salary rates, climate, and
proximity to raw materials and markets for finished goods.
However, there are several conditions that County government can affect which
individually and collectively improve the general business climate. These
conditions include the following:
o
~ strong public education system;
,""""
\..,)
o Moderate local tax rates;
o Adequate utility systems, surface transportation, port and airport facilities;
o Adequate parks and recreational facilities;
o Adequate health care systems;
o Effective public safety programs;
o A constructive working relationship between government and business; and
o Controlled costs of housing, co=ercial and industrial development by
moderating government-induced costs for new construction.
While other factors certainly affect the quality of life and social conditions,
these- the above conditions are viewed by business persons as important in
determining where to locate or expand, and they are conditions over which
local governments have considerable influence.
2. Increased Growth in Manufacturing
As noted above, strength in the manufacturing sectors is very important to the
economic vitality of Palm Beach County. Palm Beach County can support
continued development in these .tl!is. sectors through implementation of three
important programs: ensuring the availability of land and necessary support
~:)
16-EC
("
facilities for industrial oevelopment; supporting a focused and well-organized
program for attracting and retaining manufacturing businesses; and striving to
develop other programs to encourage and facilitate expansion or relocation of
basic industries in Palm Beach County.
Estimates of industrial land requirements have been made for the High Manufac-
turing Scenario. These estimates, which will be revised every two years, are
based on relatively high employment forecasts in the manufacturing sectors.
The forecasts show that the demand for industrial properties would increase
substantially above current levels during the next twenty years. While the
forecasts of industrial land requirements were prepared for each of 12 Planning
Areas, it is not necessary that the land be made available in each Planning
Area to the extent forecasted. However, it will be important in the County's
land use planning and zoning programs to ensure that industrial parcels" are
available in a somewhat dispersed pattern to allow geographically balanced
growth and dispersed job opportunities and traffic impacts.
Preliminary estimates of land currently zoned for industrial use indicate that
the greatest portion of land currently available for industrial development is
situated in the north-central part of the County. It will be necessary, therefore,
to allow additional lands to be zoned for industrial use in the central and
southern parts of the County and to ensure that adequate amounts of land are
designated for lindustrial use in the Land Use Plan. These lands should be
located in areas served by public facilities, including roads, water and sewer.
A maior direction for the identification of such industrially zoned land within
the County will derive from the growth management strategies and other
interrelated studies to be undertaken as an early stage of implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan. The broad pUl:pose of these studies is to develop strategies
that balance the location of iobs and housing: reduce trips generated by travel
for work. shopping and recreation. while maintaining areas of green space.
agriculture and conservation: investigate the potential of such strate&ies to limit
urban sprawl. concentrate growth and promote cost-effective provision of
services: and assess the economic impact of such strate&ies.
In addition to ensuring the availability of land for industrial development, the
County will also take steps to expedite the relocation or expansion of basic
industries such as manufacturing in Palm Beach County. Programs such as
assigning a high priority to zoning and building requests and assistance in
movin~ such industries through the development process would ease what is
often VIewed as a laborious process for key businesses.
The County currently supports growth of manufacturing business through
financial contributions to the Palm Beach County Development Board, a privately
chartered organization dedicated to attracting and retaIning primarily manufac-
turing firms to Palm Beach County. While another organization could represent
the County in its effort to build the manufacturing base, the Development Board
is currently oq~anized and well qualified to serve this purpose. The County will
therefore continue and possibly expand its support, encouraging the Development
Board to serve as a focal and coordination point for efforts to attract and
retain manufacturers.
17-EC
"oV.:~.~._r' __ ...
$4.000 of the monthly bill. 2% of the next $2.000. and 1% of the remainder.
Al~o. ~he el~ri~ ~d ~l~n~f ~he ~ i~~~d in ~v~r ~r~ ~e~ with
th fi t $4. e" ~ t 5 t e fi y the e on y r 10%
thereafter.
~')
3. Reduced Seasonality in Employment
Palm Beach County currently experiences significant swings in employment each
year. The fluctuations occur principally in four sectors: government, agricul-
ture, retail trade, and services. Fluctuation in government employment may be
disregarded because it is caused mostly by the summer break in the school
system. Seasonality in agricultural employment is virtually impossible to affect
significantly because employment in this sector is a function of cropping
patterns, climate and harvesting requirements.
It is possible, however, for the County to reduce employment seasonality in
retail trade and services, which is caused mainly by seasonality in the County's
tourism businesses and the large number of seasonal residents.
Two programs can reduce employment seasonality in retail trade and services:
strengthen sectors with more constant employment levels, especially manufactur-
ing; and increase off-season tourism business. The former program is addressed
in the preceding subsection. The second program, increasing off-season tourism,
is difficult due to climate factors and the competition of other parts of the
country for tourism during the warmer months. Nonetheless, there are oppor-
tunities to build and promote tourism in Palm Beach County during the warmer
months.
Palm Beach County presently supports the Tourist Development Council, a
publicly chartered organization responsible for accomplishing the task described
by its name. The Tourism Development Board receives proceeds from the
CountY's "bed tax," which is levied on motels and hotels. The County should
continue its support of the Tourism Development Board, but with the under-
standing that Its contributions be used to promote tourism during off-peak
periods.
4. Increased Opportunity for Small, Minority and Women Business Enterprises
During the last decade the vast majority of new jobs nationwide have been
created by small businesses. There is no indicatIOn that this condition will
change in the foreseeable future; therefore, Palm Beach County will implement
programs to increase the opportunity for small businesses, including those owned
by minorities and women, to compete effectively.
Three programs will provide meaningful assistance to these businesses: a
program to provide busmess information, including market conditions and business
opportunities, to small businesses; a monitoring program to ensure that objectives
for County contracts with small, minority and women business enterprises are
met; and a bonding and revolving loan program to support small businesses that
contract with the County.
The business information program, to be implemented within the County's Office
of Equal Opportunity, will include compilation of information on general business
conditions, specific opportunities for small businesses, available financing, and
statistics concerning the success and failure of small, minority and women ~."
business enterprises. This information will be developed and maintained for ~ .)
each of the County's Economic Planning Areas. The information will be dissemi-
nated to small, minority and women business enterprises to assist them in
.-....
18-EC
.;'.,.,"".....,..~....::.'";';~.".,~-=J>:''''-
c
evaluating business opportunities and markets. In implementing this program,
the Office of Equal Opportunity will draw on informatIon developed by Florida
Atlantic University and other organizations with interests in small business
growth.
The second program conducted by the Office of Equal Opportunity will monitor
ofthe number and dollar amount of County contracts awarded to small, minority
and women business enterprises. The monitoring program will include an annual
assessment of the extent to which the County's target contracting levels are
being met. If after one year the office concludes that contracting is falling
below target levels, the County will establish a program to ensure that the
target levels are achieved.
The third program is designed to assist small, poorly capitalized businesses in
initiating work with the County. The program will include a provision for
making advanced payment of contract amounts to allow small businesses to meet
payroll and expenses prior to receiving funds under standard billing cycles. A
second provision of the program will be an option to waive bond requirements
where obtaining such bonds presents a hardship.
5. Control and Direct Growth in Retail Trade and Services through Land Use
Planning and Zoning
Achieving the economic benefits of the County's preferred economic development
scenario will require the availability of substantial amounts of land designated
and zoned for commercial use. The land must be available in reasonable
proximity to residential properties to avoid lengthy travel requirements and
associated traffic con~estion. Conversely, it also may be important to limit the
amount of commercial property to be developed. ExceSSive development of
commercial property is said to cause several short-term problems:
o High vacancy rates and blighted areas;
~
r
\
Excessive and unnecessary leap-frogging of development and consequent
higher costs of providing services; and
Excessive and unnecessary loss of property values adjacent to commercial
developments.
In the lon~er run, over-development of commercial property could cause an
imbalance In land use that would require redesignation of commercial property
to residential or another use, causing serious land use compatibility and planning
problems.
o
o
C"
Two programs will assist the County in managing development of commercial
properties: designate sufficient land for commercial use in each Economic
Planning Area; and establish a program for assessing the effects of over-develo-
pment of commercial properties and, if appropriate, limit the amount of land
that can be developed for commercial use at any point in time.
The first of these programs will be implemented through the Land Use Plan,
wherein commercial land requirements forecast for the preferred economic
development scenario will be met through approl?riate land use designations.
These commercial land requirements forecasts'J'roVlded for each of 12 Economic
Planning Areas and presented in Table 2, shoul be revised every two years.
Second, as part of the County's program to develop economic performance
standards, an analysis of the problems associated with over-building of commer-
19-EC
cial properties will be conducted. Documentation of such problems will be used
to evaluate the need for and effectiveness of a County policy to restrict
rezoning.
6. Limit Local Tax Burden on Existing Taxpayers While Funding Infrastructure
Needed to Support Economic Growth
~]
.J
The costs for infrastructure, including roads, utilities, parks and recreation
facilities, schools and general government, needed to support growth are high
and growing. At the same time, the County must make every effort to control
tax rates in order to avoid placing excessive financial burdens on County
taxpayers which may place the County at a competitive disadvantage for
attracting and retaimng businesses. To deal with these apparently conflicting
needs, the County must seek to shift some of the costs of new infrastructure
and of some services to those groups and individuals most responsible for
causing the costs to be incurred.
In addition to state and federal grants or other funding sources, two basic
avenues are open to the County for shifting costs in this fashion: impact fees
assessed on new residences and, in some cases, businesses; and user charges
levied on those persons receiving County services.
At the present time Palm Beach County assesses an impact fee on all developers,
both residential and non-residential, for roads and water and wastewater utility
services. Fees are under consideration for certain general governmental func-
tions and the public school system. Important principles underlying each of
these fees are that the funds paid must be used to serve those persons from
whom the fees are collected. The impact fee cannot exceed the actual cost of
providing services. Currently, it is not clear that existing and 'p'lanned fees are
set as high as allowed under these principles, so the County WIll reassess these "'"
fees to ensure their appropriateness. Moreover, additional opportunities for ' J
shifting the cost of new infrastructure to new residents through impact fees
and other potential funding means will be studied with respect to legality,
revenue potential and economic impacts.
The County will also continue to examine the opportunity to fund additional
County services through user charges. At the present time the County derives
a considerable amount of revenue through charges levied directly on persons
receiving specific services from the County. The County will contmue to
address additional potential user charges, assessing their revenue potential,
economic impacts and ease and cost of administration.
7. Availability of Affordable Housing
Housing prices throughout most of Palm Beach County are rising. At the same
time many of the new jobs being created in the County are of a relatively low
wage ~ causing growing difficulties for members of the local work force to
find affordable housing in the County. This difficulty causes two problems:
Fiirst, many persons in low and moderate wage and salary sectors must accept
a lower standard of living or live outside the County and commute relatively
long distances to their jobs. Also, high housing costs prevent retired persons
with limited financial means from residing in Palm Beach County or force such
persons to accept a lower standard of living.
NRo~de of th7she co I nsequednceds ifs ll!-t~racdtivel' frlom a~ eclonomhic perspectived. r""
eSI ents WIt a ow stan ar 0 Ivmg 0 Itt e to stImu ate t e economy an \.jJ
may instead place a net burden on 80vernmental services. Workers living
outside the County spend the majorIty of their wages and salaries close to
20-EC
"- .' '. ;".., -..,,--~ .:.,;
{';
where they reside, so Paun Beach County loses the additional economic benefits
associated with their residency. Moreover, persons working in Palm Beach
County and living elsewhere must co=ute to and from work on a limited
number of arterial roads, causing increased traffic congestion and a series of
other problems stemming from traffic congestion. These problems further drive
up the cost of living in Palm Beach County, creating additional barriers to
persons with lower wage and salary jobs to reside in Palm Beach County. For
these reasons and because the cost of new housing is expected to continue to
rise, it is important for Palm Beach County to adopt a program to help provide
housing affordable to low and moderate wage and salary workers in the County.
Two basic types of programs for increasing the availability of affordable housing
are available to the County: housing subsidies and programs designed to
encourage construction of lower priced housing. At the present time the County
operates a housing subsidy program which is able to provide relatively few new
housing units each year, and it is oriented to serve only very low-income
households. Expansion of this program to meet the need Identified would be
very costly.
A much less costly approach to increase the availability of affordable housing is
to encourage its development through innovative developmtlftt assistance programs
SU€h-as-es-mblishiR~-9:-.!~n&~Hking~-;;ystem to develop publicly owned lands for
low and moderate-Income housing; .1Q. establishiag a Housing Trust Fund for land
acquisition and construction of affordable housing; and .1Q. pursue public and
private partnerships and federal funds for housing development. The County's
affordable housing program will include a periodic review of the demand for and
availability of affordable housing in order to make appropriate adjustments in
housing policies. This program, conducted by the Department of Planning,
Zoning and Building, will be initiated with an analysis of the demand for
affordable housing. Details on affordable housing can be found in the Housing
Element.
r-
(
~~.
~j
8. Availability of Educational and Training Opportunities
Strong growth in manufacturing will require commensurate strong growth in
the County's institutions of higher education. At the present time County
residents and businesses have access to four schools providing college-level
curricula: Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton; Boca Raton College; and
Palm Beach Junior College in Lake Worth, and Palm Beach Atlantic Colle~e in
West Palm Beach. Growth in manufacturing and other highly technical bUSIness
will necessitate expansion of these south and central County facilities. Develop-
ment of a new university to serve the northern part of the County, a school
that would also serve residents of rapidly developIng Martin County, is recom-
mended.
The County's programs for higher education should proceed at two levels:
study ways to attract and establish a major university for the northern part of
the County; and encourage development and extension of curricula to address
the training requirements of basic industries.
C. Monitoring Program
The Planning, Zoning and Building Department will monitor the County's progress
and success in implementing the programs described above and the economic
policies derived from these prow.ams. A report will be prepared every second
year indicating the extent to which each pro~am has been implemented and by
whom, the extent to which specific objectives have been accomplished, the
21-EC
general level of effectiveness of each program and policy, and recommended
changes in objectives and policies.
FILE:
BACKUP:
REVISIONS:
LU4\ECONELEM.NAN 0220989 nd, 031489 ws spellechecker run,
032189 ws final edits
TANDON SYSTEM C:\elements\econelem.nan
Margie 8/04/89 9:00, Donna 8/23/89 SEellcheck run,
Donna 8/23/89 4:00 p.m., Donna 9/01/89 2:30 p.m.
22-EC
J
o
o
""
ffi.LM BE,4.::.J ?O~7 /oM?~,jt51vE: /tAj
ECONOMIC
1 IN1RODUCIlON
r
~'" .
A Purpose
C:.;
'"..'
The Economic Element is an optional element under Rule 9J-5, FAC. Palm
Beach County decided to prepare this optional element due to its recognition of
the importance of managing the County's economic development to achieve
preferred growth. This Element complies with the requirements of Rule 9J-5,
F AC, for optional elements.
Palm Beach County began a series of analyses of the County's economy in 1986.
These studies included an economic base study, a set of economic forecasts,
assessment of the fiscal implications of alternative types of economic develop-
ment and commercial and mdustrial land requirement forecasts. These studies
were conducted in response to the County's concern for and recognition of the
importance of planning for the County's economic future and a commitment to
developing and implementing policies to guide economic growth toward a prefer-
red development scenario.
The economic studies identified a number of problems as well as opportunities
for Palm Beach County's economy. Problems associated with the employment
base included the outlook for strongest growth in relatively low-wage and
salary sectors and seasonality in employment. The resultant need for stimulating
growth in manufacturing and other non-seasonal, hi~h wage and salary industry
sectors was determined. Another key problem area Identified was a shortage of
affordable housing. These findings led to the development of the objectives and
policies of this Economic Element.
Most 'of the economic activity in Palm Beach County falls into the following
industry groups:
o Agriculture;
o Construction;
o Manufacturing;
o Transportation, Communication and Public Utilities;
o Wholesale and Retail Trade;
o Finance, Insurance and Real Estate;
o Services; and
o Government.
o
Two of these industry groups, agriculture and manufacturing, are basic industries.
Basic industries are those the demand for whose products and services is
generated primarily outside the local economy. Basic industries generate demand
for local goods and services through both the purchase of inputs for their
production processes and the spending of wages and salaries by their employees.
l-EC
Kilday & AlIlIOCiatu
Landscape Architectsl Planners
1551 Forum Place
Suite 100A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(407) 689-5522 . Fax: (407) 689-2592
REQUIREMENTS G. & H.
BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD
PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Requirements tgl and thl of the Land Use Amendment/Rezoning
Application require a justification and a comparison of
impacts between existing zoning and proposed zoning.
Currently, the Comprehensive Plan of Boynton Beach designates
the property as High Density Residential. The Palm Beach
County Comprehensive Plan designates the property High
Residential 8 tUR8l. The petitioner is requesting the entire
site be designated as Commercial Local Retail under the
Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan.
This property is adjacent to the Post Office and Industrial
property to the east. The petitioner has designed a Planned
Commercial Development for the site which orients the active
area towards these intensive land uses. The buildings would
then serve to buffer adjacent residential uses to the west
and school to the south. This site is located in an area
that is primarily commercial and the proposed land use would
be consistent with uses surrounding this property.
The comparisons required in Requirement H. are as follows:
1. The current zoning tAR-Agricultural Residentiall in the
County allows for one dwelling unit per five acres which
would allow two homes to be built on the property.
The current City Comprehensive Plan designates the
as High Density Residential which would allow
construction of 159 multi-family units on the site.
allowable density is 10~H units per acre.
site
the
The
2. The proposed use is a Planned Commercial Development
with a mixture of retail uses and outparcels as
designated on the submitted site plan.
3. The owner anticipates development of the property to
commence upon final approval and permitting in the
normal restraints of time common to the process.
Requirements G. and H.
Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD
Page 2
4. The potential square footage which would be allowed
under the proposed Planned Commercial Development zoning
is 120,000 square feet (as shown on the submitted site
plan) .
5.
Employment Projections: Item h(8l of
Amendment/Rezoning application requires a
the number of employment opportunities for
They are as follows:
the Land Use
projection of
the pro ject.
Department Store
Bank
Restaurant
Retail Stores
50 employment opportunities
15 employment opportunities
20 employment opportunities
205 employment opportunities
Total
290 employment opportunities
K.S. ROGERS, CONSULTING ENGINEER, INC.
1495 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite F
West palm Beach, FL 33406
(407) 964-7300
(FAX) 969-9717
January 31, 1990
Mr. Lindsey Walters
Kilday & Associates
1551 Forum Way
Building 100A
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
RE: Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD
Water Useage
Dear Lindsey:
At your request, this office has projected the water and sewer
demand for the above project. The Palm Beach County Health
Department has developed water useage standards for different
land uses. For general retail uses which do not include restau-
rants, a flow rate of 0.1 gallons per day per square foot of
floor area has been establ ished" As the exact useage of this
center has not been established, only estimates, based upon a
reasonable guess of the amount of restaurant use, can be made.
An average daily water useage of 28,650 gallons per day has been
calculated for this project based upon the following assumptions:
General Retail Space
Restaurant Space
(435 seats)
113,000 sq.ft. @ 0.1 gal/sq.ft.
7,000 sq. ft.
@50 gal/seat
This parcel of land is currently zoned agricultural in Palm Beach
County. As such, an average flow of 350 gallons per day per unit
at the existing zoning would generate an average of 1,050 gallons
per day.
The County's Comprehensive Plan shows an allowed land use of 8
dwelling units per acre. Thus, 96 multi-family units could be
constructed on this parcel. At a flow rate of 300 gallons per
day per unit, an average daily flow of 28,800 gallons per day can
be expected. Thus, the flow rate for this commercial project is
equivalent to the residential development rate allowed under the
County's Comprehensive Plan.
Hr. Lindsey Walters
January 31, 1990
Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD
Page T~o
Typically, there is very little difference in water and sewer
flow rates for commercial uses unless irrigation is going to be
done from public water. At this time, the source of irrigation
water is planned to be from on-site wells.
Very truly yours,
~~:;E.
KSR/jr
REPORT OF
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR
MICHAEL SCHROEDER
BOYNTON BEACH BLVD.
WEST OF CONGRESS A VENUE
MAY 10, 1990
Nutting Engineers
Testing and Consulting Engineers
Test Borings
OF FLORIDA, INC.
ESTABLISHED 1967
1310 NEPTUNE DRIVE
BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33426
407-736-4900 . 305-941-8700
FAX 407-737-9975
NUTTING
ENGINEERS
OF FLORIDA INC.
ESTABLISHED 1967
Geotechnical & Construction Materials
HYdrogeology & Monitoring Wells
Engineering. Inspection. Testing
May 10, 1990
Michael Schroeder
One Boca Place
Suite #319 - Atrium
2255 Glades Road
Boca Raton, FI. 33431
RE: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Boynton Beach Blvd.
West of Congress Ave.
Boynton Beach, Florida
Gentlemen:
NUlling Engineers of Florida, Inc. has performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation at the
above referenced project. The intent of this study was to generate information regarding subsurface
conditions at the locations of the soil borings and on the basis of that data discuss appropriate forms
of remedial earthwork and foundations for the conditions encountered. Our findings and opinions
in this mailer are rendered in the following report.
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is rectangular measuring 980' on the north to south dimension and 656' on the east
and west dimension. The project is located approximately 200' west of the Boynton Beach Post
Office on the south side of Boynton Beach Blvd. The site is largely covered by dense tree growth
with some areas covered with tall grass approaching 3' to 4' in height. Truck access to much of the
site was restricted by dense growth and exposed deposits of peat. A lake formed due to prior
excavation of peat deposits (for commercial use) exists at the northeast quarter of the property.
Situated just west of the lake and approximately 60' south of the north property line is an area
approximately 50' wide (E-W) by 100' long (N-S) of dumped trees limbs, stumps and assorted trash
and fill. Other areas of stockpiled fill mixed with stumps and trash are located within the
approximate middle of the property.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Specific details regarding proposed construction at the site were not available at the time of this
writing, however, it is assumed that conventionally loaded one and two-story commercial structures
are proposed for this site. It is also assumed that the building will be of load bearing masonry
construction and will be supported upon shallow spread footings.
1310 NEPTUNE DRIVE. BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33426
Boynton Beach (407) 736-4900 . Pompano Beach (305) 941-8700 . FAX (407) 737.9975
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The portion of the field investigation completed consists of nine standard penetration test borings
within the currently accessible areas of the site in additional to twelve manual auger borings were
performed within portions of the site inaccessible to our drilling rig. Eleven probes were made from
a boat within the lake in the NE quadrant of the site to evaluate the presence or absence of organic
materials left over from the original demucking operation. The test boring and probe locations are
indicated on the site plan included in the appendix to this report. The boring and probe locations
were laid out in the field by our personnel and surveyors utilizing existing surface features and
referenced coordinates.
At this time it should be noted that due to access problems encountered at the site and ongoing
clearing and surveying of hole locations it will be necessary to complete the remaining tests suggested
following this reporting in order to further define the existing subsurface conditions. A subsequent
complete report of all testing will follow this document under separate cover.
The standard penetration test borings were performed in substantial accordance with the standard
split spoon sampling method (ASTM 0-1586). The drill technician recovered representative samples
from each strata encountered into labeled containers. The field boring logs included in the appendix
to this report indicate the depth of each strata, blow counts (in the case of SPT's), groundwater levels
and other pertinent data observed. All samples were inspected by our staff geologist prior to the
preparation of the final logs included with this report. All recovered samples are stored in our
laboratory and will be discarded after 90 days unless other instructions are received.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions at accessible portions of the project were evaluated by means of nine standard
penetration test borings penetrated to 12' and IS' and twelve manual auger borings drilled to 4' and
10' below existing grade.
The Soil Survey of Palm Beach County, Florida indicates that the predominant surficial soil present
at the site is Okeelanta muck. Okeelanta much deposits in the vicinity of the project have been
documented to depths approaching 16' with 5' to 8' depths commonly encountered.
These nine standard penetration test borings penetrated to 12' - IS' below grade indicate a
combination of fine quartz sand, buried logs, concrete debris and peat existing within the first 2.0'
(at boring #6 & 7) to 8.5' (at boring #8) below existing grade. Trash debris (concrete, logs and
buried trees) mainly occurred within the first two feet except at boring #8 where the trash layer was
encountered from the surface to a depth of 8.5' and was underlain by a loose quartz fine sand
substratum. Below the layer of trash, brown fibrous peat was encountered to an average depth of
7.5' below existing grade at which point loose to moderate dense fine quartz sand was encountered
to depth of boring termination. Borings #3,4 and 5 generally revealed a brown fibrous peat layer
to a depth of 7' below existing grade, underlain by a loose fine quartz sand layer. Borings #1 and
2 revealed a loose quartz fine sand overlain by 4' layer of buried debris and gray quartz sand.
Manual hand augers completed on the eastern boundary (A31 and A32) revealed fibrous peat material
to depths of 6.0' below existing grade (elevation +3.0). On the south western region peat was
encountered at elevations of +{;.3 - +7.6 (A22, A25). Within the middle section of the southern
portion of the site peat occurs to elevation ranging between +{;.4 - +9.0 (A21, A23, A26 and A27)
with deeper deposits to the east (A23 and A27).
2
0NUTTING
- ~.. ENGINEERS
- OF FLORIDA INC
ESTABLISHED 1967
The lake probes indicated between .5' and 5.0' of peat and organic soil materials on the surface of
the bottom at the locations tested. The probes performed in the western portion of the lake indicated
between 0.5' and 1.5' of peat and organic soil materials on the surface of the bottom (probes I, 7,
8 and 9). These deposits appear to be quantities of peat remaining from the previous de mucking
operation. The eastern portion of the lake revealed between 3.0' - 5.0' of peat at the bottom (probes
3, 5 and II). These results may indicate a trend suggesting the general reduction in the amount of
peat or organic material toward the west.
Additional commentary on the subsurface condition will be provided upon completion of the
remainder of the scheduled soil borings one clearing and staking of hole locations has been
completed.
ANAL YSIS & CONCLUSIONS
Fill present on the site such as found at soil borings #1,2,7,8 and 9 in the first 4' to 8.5' were
observed to generally be contaminated with trash, concrete, stumps, tree limbs and other related
debris. The trash and debris observed would tend to create voids and compressible zones within the
fill thereby rendering this fill material unsuitable for the support of conventional construction. The
thickness of the peat layer varied somewhat over the site with the deeper peat deposits approaching
7' to 7.5' in depth and frequently occurred in the eastern portion of the site. The thickness of the
highly compressible peat layer typically varied between 2.5' and 4.5' in thickness with 3.5' deposits
frequently encountered. Please see the attached soil boring logs for additional information regarding
subsurface conditions.
The fibrous peat layer and the deposits of logs and trash overlying the peat layer do not possess
sufficient strength to support conventional construction without the risk of excessive settlements.
It shall be necessary to remove the peat layer in its entirety from beneath all proposed buildings,
roadways and utilities and to replace the demucked areas with compacted lifts of clean fill. It shall
also be necessary to remove all deposits of debris on the site which have been incorporated into fill
material as found in the northern and central portions of the project. As the watertable will be
encountered in most instances while de mucking the peat layer, some form of dewatering would be
advisable. If it is elected to demuck "in the wet" it is important that careful quality control
procedures with inspections be followed to assure the complete removal of the peat. Following the
completion of the demucking procedure backfill will have to be placed either in the dry and
compacted in 12" lifts which is the preferred approach or alternatively to 1.5' to 2' above the
watertable to permit the performance of intensive surface compaction. Should it be undertaken to
backfill "in the wet" it shall be necessary to densify in some instances to in access of 5' to 6' below
the current watertable. Accordingly, the surface compaction procedure will have to be performed
with numerous repetitions with a large vibratory compactor such as a CA5 or equivalent. Given the
substantial degree of improvement required in the state of compaction of the backfill placed "in the
wet" it will also be necessary to perform compaction verification soil borings from a truck mounted
drilling rig.
In the instance of the lake in the northeast quadrant of the site, the depth of water was measured to
range between 2.5' and 5'. The thickness of the peat layer below the lake bottom was found to vary
between .5' and 5' with typical thicknesses on the order of 1.5' to 2.5'. It would be desirable to
perform the de mucking of these lakes "in the dry" to verify that all remnants of the peat have been
removed. It would be advantageous to place the backfill in compacted 12" lifts in the dry to insure
proper compaction. Alternatively, if it is elected to perform the de mucking and backfilling
compaction in the wet, careful quality control procedures will be required as indicated previously
in this report.
It is anticipated that upon completion of the above procedures as verified by the specified tests and
demucking inspections conventionally loaded one and two-story structures may be supported upon
shallow spread footings designed for moderate allowable soil bearing pressures.
3
@NUTTING
- ~.. ENGINEERS
OF FLORIDA, INC
ESTABLISHED 1967
We appreciate this opportunity to work with you on this project. Should you have any questions,
pll'3Se do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
~t.-TTING ENGINEERS OF FLORIDA, INC.
~~'
, ~~/.,.-~
'/ ;/
Cali to M. Alexander
Project Engineer
~*-{t!~60:/;~19~
Project Engineer
SCHROEDER/Ie
4
@NUTTING
." ~... ENGI~~~~A~NC
ESTABLISHED 1967
0NUTTING
~... ENGINEERS
OF FLORIDA. INC
ESTABLISHED 1967
APPENDIX
SOIL BORING LOCATION PLAN
TEST BORING LOGS
LAKE PROBE DATA
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
t
o
ro
N
ct:
""
""'""
~ ~
L L
e<:>'"
.
0"''''
Lee
u.... ....
""
""",,",,
00.,........
0"''''
L " "
. . .
000
ClI;O;;
.0.0.0
N~~
B,
ton Beach Boulevard
"
'"
...J
Q.
"
o
u~
,,<C.
-'-'
o
....J'"
<C. '-'
owZ
_to-
"'00
0",...J
...JQ.-
~ :0
"-'to
~"
0"'-'
...J<C.
'" _...J
O!ouu...
"-,z'"
u.lc(w"
z xx
_(/')~U
Q(,.)Oc!
zZUI.lJ
uJ- a::lO
",0 0">
<.;lou.JZO'
:z;.CO<.l'lO.....
_ o~
1-1-0..= ..
1-(/']0>->-
:::>wa:=o'::
Zl-Q.CO~
- -
-0-0
eLL
.",,,,
o
L"''''
U C C
-o'~'Z
~ "" ""
O"i 0........
N OL"''''
ct: --
S 1= 3:
_00
,,--
.c..
.c.o
'" - -
."''''
'" ' .
0"'0
"'''"'''
+ + +
C"?
o
!J;o
0'"
0;::
00
. .",
00
, .0
'""'''' .
~-'"
+ + +
0'"
0'"
0"'
0...
.-.0
'""''""'
"'''''""' 00'"
, ....
-- . 0">0">-
--'" + + +
+ + +
...
0\0 0 Q)
U
'-
'+-
"'''' '+-
"'''' "''''''' 0
.0 ....
...... ...... +-'
--0"> -~"'
+ + + + + + <Il
0
"'0 roO 0-
.z
U
'"
Q)
0:>
",,,, 000 t:
....
"'''' "''''''' 0
--'" + + + +-'
+ + + t:
:20 >>
r--O 0
to
~
000 cLO
0""
"''''''' .- ~
+ + + -"L
"'''' ~...,
.", ...... >~
00 Ll'l ....,
--"' 00 .... - ~
+ + + . .0 00 0 . -
00 --"" Q
--'" + + + '" -
+ + + 0"> u-
~ ~O t: ro 0
-
'" ",,"",,"", '- L C
~O ~ o c
"''''''' 0 ..+
+ + + co '" ..., .
~O +-' ~ It) ~
<Il o c'
Q) So- 0 (
t- o.. ':' .~
-- '""'''' ......... 000 ""
.", "''' ........... ~ .>(. > .
o<=> 00 . ,,;";i "''''''' '- u"
--"" -~'" ",,,,", + + + 0 ,,-'
+ + + + + + + + + + + :E.
<./l
.-. ...... -'
~O ~O ~O ~O 20 0 Oi~
+
'"
.
...
-.-----...-.--..-------- ~-------
-----------....------
~NUTTING
~ ENGINEERS
= Of FLORIDA. we
--,- ES'1'A8L.$HEO 1967
1310 NE?i1.JNE DRIVE
BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33426
(407) 7J6.49OC . (305) 941-6700
DEPTH DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
fT.
00
TE& I' BORING REPORT
GeO'.c:chnlcal & ConstructIon Malenals
I-l(jrogeology & MonitOring Wells
Engl""~eflng . Inspection . TestIng
FAX # (407) 737.9975
o PENETRATION - N VALUE
20 30 40 50 10
.0 N
BLOWS
SAMPLER CASING
o
'0
70
.0
l 4.0
;
Dar, gray quartz fine SAND, trace " ,
li~~5tone fragments, some buried 11
log~ - wood, trace organic
~~t~rial, trace peat ~ I 22
I
J I ,
- I I
Dar4 gray-tan quartz fine SAND
II I ,
I
/ t 10
Bro-m-lt. brown quartz fine SAND ~ i
, 4
I ,
\ I
I 8
I 1\ I I
I I 15
Test boring terminates at 15.0' I I
I I
, I
I
I I I I
,
,
i I
,
I ,
I
I I
i I I ,
, I
I I I . ,
i
I I
I
!
!
I I
i ,
,
I i I
I I I I I
i
1/1
10/10
112
20/4
516
9/7
5/5
5/5
4/2
2/2
2/3
5/8
5/7
8/11
I
8.5
[
I. 15.0
I
I
I
-LlENT Mi chae 1 Schroeder
ROJECT Soil Investioation
PROJECT lOCATION Boynton Beach Blvd. west of Conoress Ave.. Bovnton Beach. FL
--.OLE LOCATION Approx. 3251 5 & 235' W of NE orooertv corner
RILLER Butch Krapf
ELEVATION REFERENCE: ADDrox. +13.0
'-ASING: DIAMETER 3" OD BX Flush CouDle
AMPLER: DIAMETER & TYPE 2" 0.0. X 2' Split Spoon
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 4.0'
ORDER No.
REPORT No.
HOLE No.
8140.1
1
1
AMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED
DATE STARTED 4-30-g0
DATE COMPLETED 4-30-g0
IlAMMER WT 280.. FALL 24"
IlAMMER WT 140# ZLL 30"
Wolo, TO~ 1/ / L, . 5;1 ~
OTHERWISE. . yyl-?t4~. '. 'f} 9v
R~ chard G. r os-s; #42603
FOAM '14
4
9
13
P.E.
~NUTTING
~ ENGINEERS
= Of flORIDA. we:
ESTABL1SMEO 11M!7
1310 NEPTUNE DRIVE
BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33426
{407} 736-4900' (305) 941-8700
DEPTH DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
FT.
00
TES ( BORING REPORT
Geolechnlca( & ConSlruCllon Malerlals
Hydrogeology & Monitoring Wens
Eng,neenng . InspectIon . Testing
FAX. (407) 737.9975
. PENETRATION - N VALUE
20 30 40 50 60
..
.. N
7.
.
I.
4.5
, I I I I
i Brown quartz fine SAND, trace ...
organic material, buried logs - I 4
wood fragments, some peat , ,
i =
I - ~ 64
,
I ---- I
f-- I
I ---- ,
i Darkgray-tan quartz fine SAND r i
i I ,
,
5
i
I I
"- I 4
I
! Brown-tan quartz fine SAND '. I
I
, 15
I I
I
Test boring terminates at 12.0' I
, I
I
I I
, I
I i I I
, I
i I ,
I I ,
i I I
I I
i I I
i ! I
i I ,
I I i
I I
I i
, I !
i I ,
I I
! I
,
,
I
! I
I
I
I
I , I :
I i I
10.0
12.0
i
I
I.
Michael Schroeder
:LIENT
'ROJECT Soil Inve5tiaat;on
PROJECT LOCATION Boynton Beach Blvd WP.5t of Con9ress Ave.. Bovnton Beach.
40LE LOCATION AOOfOX. 851 S & 265' W of NE orooertv corner
JRILLER Butch Krapf
ELEVATION REFERENCE: Approx. +11.0
:ASING: DIAMETER None Used
JAMPLER: DIAMETER. TYPE 2" 0.0. X 2' Split Spoon
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 3.0'
ORDER No.
REPORT No.
FL HOLE No.
BLOWS
S.....'LEA CASING
A
: 3/5 !
: 17/35!
129/13
7/7
6/5
I 1/2
I 3/2
! 2/2
2/4
5/7
B/7
I ~
h
. I
,
!
r------i
I I
. ,
, :
H
I I
I !
I
I
I
I
I
I
L-J
8140.1
1
2
DATE STARTED 4-30-90
nATE COMPLETED 4-30-90
HAMMER WT FALL
HAMMER WT 140* FALL
WII.r T.bIY.l17 ~ /)17 ;J , - J. j,
INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE. ... ;//t'< ~/f~ 5/101ft?
;AMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS
~OR~ 1,.
Richard G. Jossi #42603
30"
P.E.
~NUTTING
~. ENGI~~;~AS"",
ES"AaUSHEO 1187 ,
13'0 NE"TUNE DRIVE
BOYNTON BEACH. FL 33426
(407) 73S-4900 . (305) 941~700
DEPTH DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
FT
DO
I
1.5
2.5
I
I
I
I
I
TES.' BORING REPORT
Ge'Jfechnlcal & Conslrucllon Malenals
Hfdrogeology & MOMonng Wells
Eng''''Ieenng . Inspection . Testing
FAX # (407) 737.9975
DATE STARTED 4-30-90
nATE COMPLETED 4-30-90
HAMMER WT FALL
HAMMER WT 140* FALL 30"
~~fk
W.terT.bl '" ~ .... ....i,A
OTHERWISE. .. 5!'&d4.E.
o
. PENETRATION - N VALUE
20 30 40 SO 10
.0 N
:LIENT Michael Schroeder
ROJECT Soil lnvestiaation
PAOJECTLOCATION Bovnton Beach Blvd.. west of Conaress Ave..
OLE LOCATION Approx. 25' 5 & 20' E of NE property corner
'RILLEA Blitch Kr~pf
ELEVATION REFERENCE: ADDrox. +9.0
ASING: DtA" ETER None U5ed
AMPLER: DIAMETER & TYPE 2" 0.0. X 2' Split Spoon
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 2.5'
"
70
.0
7.0
i I I
Ta, quartz fine sANDJ some bU~
' ';';:5 I 3
grain PEAT / -=! I i
I :Ja"'k brown sandy fine i
! 3
Brown fibrous PEAT !
,
! ,
i !
Ti!~-l t. fine 5ANO 5
brown quartz i
I I I
I
, i 5
,
I. i !
, 8
Test boring terminates at 12.0' ,
i
i I
,
I ,
i
i i ,
I
I ,
! ,
I ,
I I
, i !
I I
! I
I
I
I
I
I i
i ,
i
I 1 : I !
I ,
I i
I ,
! i ,
I ,
12.0
Bovnton Beach~
ORDER No.
REPORT No.
FL HOLE No.
~ORM ,'.
AMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED
Richard C. 1055i #42603
BLOWS
SAMPLER CASING
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/1
1/1211
1/12"
5/4
2/2
3/3
2/4
4/5
-
I
-
w
8140.1
1
3
~ NUTTING
l'~ :~.~s~~~~~S..C
1310 NE?TUNE DRIVE
BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33426
(407) 73&-4900 . (305) 941-8700
DEPTH DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
FT.
..
TES I BORING REPORT
GeOlechnlcal & ConstructIon Matenals
Hydrogeology & MOnllDrlng Wells
Englneenng . InspectIon . Testing
FAX , (407) 737.9975
DATE STARTED 4-30-90
DATE COMPLETED 4-,0-90
HAMMER WT FALL
HAMMER WT 140# FALL 30"
Watar Talll4'/17;/ /}f ;j . . /, /
OTHERWISE. . /~~p~ ~/!jJ :J~.
a PENETRATION - N VALUE
20 30 40 so 10
,
"
70
10
to N
I
I I I
i Dar( brown sandy fine grain PEAT J ,
i tre:-e wood fragments i 3
, ~
I 3
Brown-dark gray fibrous PEAT
,
I
i\ 1
Tar. -1 t. tan quartz fine SAND
8
It 12
Tes:. boring terminates at 12.0'
I
i I I
I
,
,
, i
i
, : I
, , i
I
i
I I
,
I :
I I
,
i
I
!
,
I
i ,
i
, I
! i
I I i
I !
3.0
I
L_ 7.5
12.0
-.lENT Mi chae 1 Schroeder
'OJECT Soil Investiqation
PROJECT LOCATION Boynton Beach Blvd.. west of ConQress Ave.. Boynton Beac"!.
)lE lOCATION Aoorox. 2301 5 & 201 E of NF propp.rty ~nrnpr
~llLER Butch Kraof
ELEVATION REFERENCE: Approx. +9.0
'SING: DIAM ETER None Used
~ ~MPLER: DIAMETER' TYPE 2" 0.0. X 2' Split Spoon
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 2.5'
ORDER No.
REPORT No.
FL HOLE No.
,MPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED
FOFlM 114
Richard G. lossi #42603
BLOWS
SAMPLER CASING
1/1
2/2
1/1
2/2
1/1
1/1
/1211
1/6
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/8
I
Hi'
I'
: I;
I ..
8140
1
4
@NUTTING
~ ENGINEERS
= Of flORIOA ..c
ES~.!Ji-tSHEO 1i67
1310 NE"TUNE DRIVE
BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33426
(407) 736-4900 . (305) 941-3700
_DEPTH DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
FT.
..
TES I BORING REPORT
Geolechnlcal & ConSlruClton Malenals
Hydrogeology & MonitOring Wells
Englneenng . Inspection . Testing
FAX f (407) 737.9975
. PENETRATION - N VALUE
20 30 40 50 10
7.
..
t. N
BLOWS
SAM'LER CASING
DATE STARTED 4-30-90
DATE COMPLETED 4-30-90
'iAMMER WT FALL
'iAMMER WT 140/# FALL 30"
w.t.rT'bl'~'/ /}L, /J . ~ /~
OTHERWISE. .y"'V<U~~ :; 'It:? P.r.
.
1.
4.0
. T ,
Da-k brown sandy fine grain PEAT
! 6
, I I
- ! 6
i
Brown fibrous PEAT ! !
\ i I
i 7
Tan quartz fine SAND
,
11
I ..
14
Te~t boring terminates at 12.0'
I I
I I
!
,
I
I I i
,
I I
I i ,
I ,
i
I :
I I
I ,
i
I i
I
I i
!
I ,
I
I ,
I I
I
I
7.0
12.0
I
I
1-
."lJENT Mi chae 1 Schroeder
ROJECT Soil Invp.!'>tiQi'ltion
PROJECT LOCATION Bovnton Beach Blvd. _ west of Coonfess Ave. _ Bovnton Beach.
--OLE LOCATION Aoorox. 435' S &. 20' E of NE orooertv corner
RILLER Butch Kraof
ELEVATION REFERENCE: Aoorox. +9.0
ASING: DIAMETER None Used
'MPLER: DIAMETER & TYPE 2" 0.0. X 2' Split SDOOn
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 3 5'
ORDER No.
REPORT No.
FL HOLE No.
1/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
2/2
2/3
2/2
5/6
4/5
6/7
-
-
-
,
-.
5/6
B/8
8140.1
1
5
~MPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED
FORM 114
Richard C. lossi #42603
~NUTTING
~.a ENGINEERS TES.' BORING REPORT
= Of flORIDA, IHG
ESTABLISHED l1H17
1310 NEPTUNE DRIVE
BOYNTON BEACH. FL 33426
(407) 736-4900 . (305) 941-8700
OO'TH DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS . PENETRATION - N VALUE
FT. 0 10 20 30 '0 50 Ie 70
00
1_ 12.0
j
I
Geolechnlcal & Construction Materials
Hydrogeology & MonItoring Wells
Engineering . InspectIon . Testing
FAX' (407) 737.9975
I.
I. N
--:L1ENT Mi chael Schroeder
~ROJECT Soil lnvestiaat;on
PROJECT LOCATION Bovnton Beach Blvd.. west of Conaress Ave.. Bovnton Beach.
-"OLE LOCATION Approx. 520' W & 5591 5 of NE orooertv corner
)RlllER Butch KraDf
ELEVATION REFERENCE: ADDrox. +14.5
:ASING: DIAMETER None Used
;AMPlER: DIAMETER & TYPE 2" 0.0. X 2' Split Spoon
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 4.0'
2.0
! I
Dark brown quartz fine SAND, some . i
wood and concrete, trash 5
Dark gray sandy fine grain PEAT, I~ , 5
some wood fragments I
I I
I
v
,
! Tan-lt. tan quartz fine SAND :
I 7
I 7
I
-. 13
Test boring terminates at 12.0'
I
I
!
I I !
I I I
I
!
I i
, ! ,
: i I
I I
I
I T ! i
,
I , I
, I
: ,
,
I !
I I ,
, I
i
i ,
I
I I
I
,
I
I
,
I I I I
I
I
5.5
ORDER No.
REPORT No.
FL HOLE No.
ILOWS
SAMPLER CASING
2/2
3/8
2/3
2/3
2/3
3/6
2/3
4/4
2/3
4/4
4/6
7/8
-
-
-
8140.1
1
6
OATE STARTED 4-30-90
OATE COMPLETED 4-30-90
IlAMMER WT FALL
HAMMER WT 140N FAll 30"
WIII'Tlbl./, d/~ /J /1 d -I,,'5ft?Jlp1
OTHERWISE, -fL52 ~ .?( ~ P.E.
Richard C. lossi #42603
FORM 11~
;AMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED
~NUTTING
~ ENGINEERS
= Of flORIDA, we
EsrAe.USHED 1961
1310 NEPTUNE DRIVE
BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33426
(407) 736-<1900 . (305) 941-3700
Of"H DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
FT.
00
2.0
I-
I 6.5
9.5
l 12.0
I
l
I
I
J
TES I BORING REPORT
Geolechnlcal & Construction Materials
Hyorogeology & Monltonng Wells
Englneenng . Inspection . J Tesllng
FAX. (407) 737.9975
.
. PENETRATION - N VALUE
20 30 CO 50 60
I.
I. N
:L1ENT Mi chael S(;hroener
-ROJECT Soil Investioation
PROJECT LOCATION Bovnton Beach Blvd.. west of (oonress Ave Bovnton BPilr:h FI
40LE LOCATION Aoorox. 320' W & 6601 S of NE orooertv corner
IRILLER Butch KraDf
ELEVATION REFERENCE: ADDrox. +12.9
:ASING: DIAMETER None Used
;AMPLER: DIAMETER & TYPE 2" 0.0. X 2' SDlit Spoon
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 3.5'
70
I.
Dark gray sandy ORGANIC material, I !
sane trash, concrete , 4
Dark brown quartz fine SAND, trace f= , 4
I fine grain peat I I
I
! !
n
I I !
,
I I
~ ,
Brown quartz fine SAND !
I 4
\ i
I 7
I Tar-lt. brown quartz fine SAND :
,
: I
I ,
10
Test boring terminates at 12.01
I ,
I !
!
:
I ;
, I
I !
i I
I I I
I
I i i
,
I i
!
,
, I
i
i I
, I
I I
, I i I I
i i
ORDER No.
REPORT No.
HOLE No.
ILOWS
SAMPLER CA.,HG
1/2
2/2
1/2
2/3
5/5
4/3
1/2
2/3
2/3
4/4
3/5
5/5
I
-
r-
R14.0
7
DATE STARTED 4-30-90
OATE COMPLETED 4-30-90
IlAMMER WT FALL
HAMMER ~ 14011 FALL 30"
W.I.rT.bl~ ~ /)17;/ -I./.
OTHERWISE. /'.. ~.~~ 51b'~P.E.
Richard C. lossi #42603
FORM 114
;AMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED
~NUTTING
~ ENGI~~;~SOK:
E~AeL...tSHEO li67
1310 NE;>TUNE DRIVE
BOYNTON 8lEACH. FL 33426
(407) 7J&.4900 . (305) 941.a700
DEPTH DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
FT.
00
I
8.5
12.0
TES.. BORING REPORT
Geotechnical & ConstructIOn Malenals
Hydrogeology & MOMormg Wells
Englneerjn~ . Inspection . TeSling
FAX' (407) 737.9975
.
. PENETRATION - N VALUE
20 30 40 50 .0
I.
I. N
':LIENT
ROJECT
PROJECT LOCATION
IOLE LOCATION
IRILLER
ELEVATION REFERENCE:
:ASING: DIAMETER
.AMPLER: DIAMETER & TYPE 2" C.D. X 2' So lit Sooon
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE
7.
,.
] :>8;4: brown sandy ORGANIC material J " !
I I 4
"i t~ logs, trash, trace peat I
,
I ') I I 13
I - / I
I I
i
, \ i
I 6
I Tac-lt. brown quartz fine SAND
11
. 13
Tes~ boring terminates at 12.0' I
,
;
i I I I
! I I
, ,
I I I
I , I
I , I
I
I I
!
Michael Schroeder
ORDER No.
REPORT No.
Beach. FL HOLE No.
Soil Investiaation
Bovnton Beach Blvd.. west of Conaress Ave.. Boynton
ADorox. 420' W & 5591 S of NE property corner
Butch Kraof
Aporox. +14.92
None Used
BLOWS
SAMPLER CASING
1/2
2/3
2/2
11/8
4/2
2/2
2/3
3/4
3/5
6/5
4/6
7/8
I
I
I
~
, I
I
8140.1
1
8
DATE STARTED 4 - 30-90
DATE COMPLETED 4-,O-QO
HAMMER WT FALL
HAMMER WT 14011 FALL 30"
WII., T~ / /J~ /J . Ii- A-,
OTHERWISE. . !k~~' 51ft7~ P.E.
4.0'
FORM 11.
AMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED
Richard G. lossi #42603
~NUTTING
~ ENGI~~;~SIHC
EST.....ISHED 1981
1310 NEPTUNE DRIVE
BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33426
(407) 736-4900' (305) 94108700
- DEPTH DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
FT.
..
!
I 4.0
16.5
112.0
l
TES I BORING REPORT
Geotechnical & Construction Materials
Hydrogeology & MonitOring Wells
EngIneering . Inspection . Testing
FAX' (407) 737.9975
.
,.
. PENETRATION - N VALUE
20 30 40 50 10
.. N
.:LIENT Michael Schroeder
ROJECT !;oil Invpc:;ripi'ltion
PROJECT LOCATION Boynton Bp-t'l~h Alvn west of Coonress Ave.. Bovnton Beach. FL
IOlE LOCATION Aoorox. 320 I W & 525' S of NE Ofooertv corner
IRILLER Butch Kraof
ELEVATION REFERENCE: Aoorox. +11.93
:ASING: DIAMETER None Used
.AMPLER: DIAMETER & TYPE 2" 0.0. X 2' Split Spoon
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 5.5'
1.
to
I Brown-dark gray quartz fine SAND, ,
, some trash, wood, plastic, etc. 5
I I 4
Dark brown sandy fine grain PEAT ,
, '" r
-
,
Tan-gray quartz fine SAND I
I 11
I I
, I
! 13
- I
I 15
Test boring terminates at 12.0'
i ,
i
I I ,
! I
I ! I
,
,
I
!
, I I
, I i
I I i i I
,
! ,
I
,
,
I i
ORDER No.
REPORT ND.
HOLE ND.
.LOWS
SAMPLfA CASING
1/1
4/4
1/2
2/2
2/1
1/12"
2/5
6/6
5/6
7/7
5/7
8/8
-
I I
I
I
-
8140.1
1
9
OATE STARTED 4-30-90
OATE COMPLETED 4-30-90
IlAMMER WT FALL
IlAM~~~ 1401/ . FALL 30"
OTHERWIS:'.lorT.9"/UJk'sdJ~
FOFlM1U
AMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED
Richard G. lossi #42603
~NUTTING
~ ENGINEERS
-== OIIL~OA. IieC
IIT.ILlltoII!O ,..,.
'3'0 NEPTUNE DRIVE
IlOYHTON BEACH. FL33421
(.07) ~900' (305) "'~700
Of"" DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
PT.
..
CUENT Mi chael Sr:horp-rlp.r ORDER No.
PROJECT So;, I nvest; oat; on REPORT No.
PROJECT LOCATION Boynton Beach Blvd. west of Conoress Ave.. Boynton Bch.. FL HOLE No.
HOLE lOCATION Approx. 150 I E of west property 1 i ne & 70 I N of south prooertv 1 i ne
DRILLER Butch Krapf flATE STARTED 5-4-90
ELEVATION REFERENCE: Approx. +10.3' flATE COMPLETED
CASING: DIAMETER None Used HAMMER WT N / A
SAMPLER: DIAMETER' TYPE Hand Auoe, HAMMER N A
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 1.5' Will' TI
.. SAMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE.
FOR'" ""
AUGER BORING REPORT
GeotechnICal & Con.tructlOn Ma1eflll$
Hvd'OQeOIOQy & MOMOI'ng Wen,
Eno1neeflng . IntpectlOn . TUlIng
FAX , (.07) 737-g975
.
..
.0 10 N
..
"
2.
..
so
"
1.5
I I
:'lark brown fine grain PEAT
-
Tan quartz fine SAND ,
I I
Hand Auger terminates at 4.01 i I
I
I I ,
!
I I
I I
,
I I
I I
I
I
I
i I
! j
4.0
8140.1
1
A21
N/A
N/A
5k~~
Richard G. loss1 #42603
~NUTTING
~ ENGINEERS
-=== Of .,-0At0A. Ie
1""11.11104(0 '.7
. 1)'0 NEPnJNE DRIVE
IlO'fNTON BEACH, FI. 33C2&
(.07) 7J5.4900' (305) i4,.a700
Dr.T" DESCAIPTION OF MA TEAIAL.
n.
II
AUGER BORING REPORT
GeOfeChntCl1 & ConstructIOn M,II,..IS
Hyd'OQeOk)Oy & Monitoring Weltl
EnOlneeflt'lO . Inspection . Telling
FAX' (.07) 737.~75
2.5
, I ,
I :Iark bro.....n fine grain PEAT I
I ~
,
i
I 3rown quartz fine sand I
I I I
, ~and Auger terminates at 4.0'
I ,
I
i
! ,
i
I I
I I
I
I I
:
I
,
o
10
.0
.0
..
..
..
"
10 ION
4.0
CUENT Mi chae 1 SchrOf~c1er ORDER No.
PAOJECT Soil Investiaation AEPORT No.
PROJECT LOCATION Bovnton Beach Sl vd. ~ west of Conaress Ave.. Bovnton Bch. ~ FL HOLE No.
HOLE LOCATION Approx. 70' E of west prooerty line & 85' N of !'.ollth pronertv linF!
DRILLEII Butch Kraof nATE STARTED
ELEVATION REFERENCE: AODrox. +10.1' nATE COMPLETED
CASING: DtAMETEA None Used HAMMER WT N / A
SAMPLER: DIAMETER I TYPE Hand Auaer HAMMER N A
GROUNDW ATER DEPTH, IMMEDIATE 1.5' Woto, To
SAMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE.
8140.1
1
A22
5-4-90
5-4-90
FALL
FALL
N/A
N/A
'S;:;; / ~
FOAM ".
Richard' C. loss; #42603
~NUTTING
~ ~1~~~SOlC
1S'T'....llSIo4(D 1187
'3'0 NEPTUNE DRIVE
IlOVNTON BEACH, Fl33421
(.07) 735-4900' (305) e.'~700
01". DEBCIUPTION OF MATERIALS
PT.
It
CUENT Michael Schroprlf!r ORDER No.
PROJECT Soil lnvestiQntion REPORT No.
PAOJECTlOCATION Bovnton Beach Blvd. west of Conoress Ave.. Boynton Sch.o FL HOLE No.
HOLE LOCATION Aoorox. 350' E of west orooertv 1 i ne & SO I N of south property 1 i ne
DRillER Butch Krapf nATE STARTED 5-4-90
ElEVAnON REFERENCE: Approx. +10.3' nATE COMPLETED 5-4-90
CASING: DIAMETER Non. U"d HAMMER WT N / A FAll N / A
SAMPLEIl: DIAMETER' TYPE Hond AHner HAMMER WT N / A FAll N / A
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 1.5' WI't,TlblV"27 p /J jJ;/ .. -J
SAMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE. r.<,E;4if<<~ 5@4
Richard G. lossi #42603
JOAW,U
AUGER BORING REPORT
GeotechntCII & ConI.ruChon M."n.'5
HydrogeOlogy & MonltOtlno Weill
Englneer,ng . In,pedlon . Tettlng
FAX . (~7) 737.9975
I
to
al
..
'"
to
..
70
It IO.
3.5
4.0
, I I
I ='ark brown fine grain PEAT I
, ~ ,
I
i I
I ,
5rown quartz fine SAND I
~
I Hand Auger terminates at 4.0' I
!
! ,
I
I
I
,
I I
I
i
I
I
!
I I
1 !
,
I I
,
I
I
-
8140
1
A23
~NUTTING
~ ENGINEERS
-==== 01 '"GAIDA, IIC
IIl"llllHlO '.1
UfO NEPT\lNE DRIVE
8O't'NTON BEACH, FL3:M2I
(.07) ~900' (305)"'''700
Dr_TN DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
n.
..
AUGER BORING REPORT
Ge01eChntCl1 & eonltruC1l0n Mlle,..,s
Hyd'ooeo~.,. & MonrtOflng Wells
Eng,neetlng . Inspection . Telling
FAX . (.07) 737-1l975
.
..
IO ION
IO
II
..
..
IO
"
3.0
4.0
I ,
:'ark brown fi ne grai n PEAT
-
I
Brown quartz fine SAND I
I Hand Auger terminates at 4.0'
i ,
I
I
I
,
I
I I
, !
:
i I
,
I
I
I
CUENT Mi chae 1 Schroeder ORDER No.
PROJECT Soil Investioation REPORT No.
PROJECT LOCATION Bovnton Beach Blvd. west of Conqress Ave.. Boynton Sch.. FL HOLE Mo.
HOLE LOCAT10N Approx. 415 . E of west property 1 i ne & 75 I N of south property 1 i ne
DRILLER Blitch Kraof nATE STARTED
ELEVATION REFERENCE: ADDrox. +9.4' nATE COMPLETED
CASING: DIAMETER None Used HAMMER WT N / A
SAMPLER: DIAMETER' TYPE Hand Auoer HAMMER WT A
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 1.5' W.I., T.blt ~;:;
SAMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE.
FO"'IoI'I.
8140.1
1
A24
5-4-90
5-4-90
Richard G. loss; #42603
'~,ft1
@NUTTING
~ ENGINEERS
-=:=; 01 'lC*OA IWC
IIT.IUSHIO 1117
lJIO NEPTUNE DRIVE
IlO'/lITOH BEACH, Fl334:lt
(40n 736-4900' (305) t41~1OO
D<<~T. DESCRIPTION OF MA TERIALI
n.
II
CUENT Michael Schroeder
PROJECT Soil lnvestiqation
PROJECT LOCATION Boynton Beach Blvd. west of Congress Ave..
HOLE lOCATION Aoorox. 70' E of west orooertv line & 250'
DRILLER Butch KraDf
ELEVATION REFERENCE: Annrnx +10.3'
- CASING: DIAMETER None Used
SAMPLER: DIAMETER' TYPE Hand Auqer
GROUNDW A TER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 1 <; ,
AUGER BORING REPORT
GeOlec"nlCll & Con.trUChon Mlter.als
Hydrogeology & MonrtotlrlQ Wells
EngIneerIng . InspectIOn . Telling
FAX , (407) 737-9975
.
ao
..
.. ...
..
..
4'
10
t.
4.0
,
:ark brown fine grain PEAT -= I
arown quartz fine SAND I
Hand Auger terminates at 5.0' ,
I
,
I
I
I
,
i
I
I
-
5.0
-
ORDER No.
REPORT No.
Boynton Bch.. FL HOLE No.
N of south property line
8140.1
1
A25
l1A TE STARTED
l1A TE COMPLETED
HAMMER WT N / A
HAMMER WT N A
Will' Tlbll
5-4-90
5-4-90
'~~
FOlll"",,,
. SAMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE.
-~NUTTING
~ ~1~~!~Sooc
Un....rsMIO ,..'
1310 NEPTUNE DRIVE
BOVNTON BEACH. Fl 33421
(.07) ~IOO' (305) e.'~700
DlPTH DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
n.
..
CUENT Hi chae' Schroeder ORDER No.
PROJECT Soil I nvestioi'ltion REPORT No.
PROJECT LOCATION Bovnton Beach Blvd. west of Conaress Ave Aoynton Bch'r FL HOLE No.
HOLE LOCATION Aoorox. 185' E of west orooertv line & 230' N of south property line
DRILLER Butch Krapf nUE STARTED 5-4-90
ELEVATION REFERENCE: Approx. +10.0' nUE COMPLETED '-4-QO
CASING: DIAMETER None Used IlAMMER WT N / A FALL N / A
SAMPLER: DIAMETER' TYPE H.nd Auner IlAMMER WT N / A FALL N / A
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 1.5' OTHERWISEw.Olor Te#J./ d h;j " 5 1//) A/ -)P.E.
SAMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED ~~ /~(';t2,
Richard G. loss; #42603
FOR'" 'U
AUGER BORING REPORT
GeOlechnlcal & ConstructtOn Matel.,ls
Hydrogeology & lAoMo<'ng W.",
Engineering . In,peet.on . Teltlng
FAX' (.07) 737.9975
.
"
.. to..
2.
..
..
..
II
70
, .0
, ,
I Dark brown fine grain PEAT I
,
! Tan quartz fine SAND ~
I
I Hand Auger terminates at 4.01 I I
i ,
, I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
4.0
A1LlO
A26
"~NUTTING
~ ~I~~~,!S_
IITUlISHED 1111
1310 NEPTUNE DRIVE
BOYNTON BEACH. Fl 33421
(.07) 1J6.(9O(l. (305) 8(1..700
DI'T" DESCRIPTION Of MA TERIALB
n.
00
I
I
I
AUGER BORING REPORT
GeoteChn.c:.1 & eonluuchcm MIle,..I$
Hydrogeology & MoMor'''Q We'"
Eno,neerlng . InspecttOn . Tilling
FAX' (((17) 737.~75
.
..
.. 00.
..
II
II
..
II
70
3.0
4.0
~3rk brown fine grain PEAT , i
-
I
::-own quartz fine SAND I
~~nd Auger terminates at 4.0' !
I ,
I I
i I
,
i
I
I
I
,
,
, I
I
I
i
CUENT M; chae 1 Schroeder ORDER No.
PROJECT So; 1 I nvestiQation REPORT No.
PROJECT LOCATION Boynton Beach Blvd. west of Conqress Ave.. Boynton Bch.. FL HOLE No.
HOLElOCAnON Aoorox. 340' E of west orooertv line & 217' N of south property line
DRILLER Butch KraDf DATE STARTED
ELEVATION REFERENCE: ADDro,. +10.4' DATE COMPLETED
CASING: DIAMETER None Used IlAMMER WT N / A
SAMPLER: DIAMETER' TYPE Hand AUQer IlAMMER WT N
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 1.5' Will' Tlbll " '{If,
-SAMPLES Will BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE. -~
'0""""
8140.1
1
A27
5-4-90
5-4-90
fAll N/A
FALL N/A
/.~O~
P.E.
Richard C. lossi #42603
~NUTTING
~ ENGINEERS
-=::=; Of 'lOl'lOA,..e
1S".ILIIH(D '"'
'3'0 NEPTUNE DRIVE
8O't'i>oT()Oj BEACH. Fl33421
(.07) T.l6-4!lOO . (305) "1 ~700
Of.... DESCRIPTION OF MA TERIAlI
n.
..
AUGER BORING REPORT
GeotechnICll & ConstructIon Mlle'llls
Hydrogeology & MoMOf'll'O Welts
Er\9lne.m'9 . Inspection . Tes11ng
FlU' (.07) 737.11975
.
..
..
..
o.
..
..
10
.. NN
1.0
I ,
~ray quartz fine SANO & black / I
-,onfibrous peat I
~
: ~ray quartz fine SAND, trace root
! Tan quartz fine SAND I
! ,
I ,
I I
r Auger boring terminates at 6.0'
I
I
I
I
I
3.0
6.0
eUENT Mi chap. 1 Sr.hroenE'!r ORDER No.
PROJECT So; 1 I nve5tiaat;on REPOAT No.
PROJECT LOCATION Bovnton Beach B1 vd. west of Conaress Ave.. Bovnton Bch.. FL HOLE No.
HOLE LOCATION ApDrox. 40' 5 of north oroperty 1 ine and 25' E of west property 1 ine
DRillER Rick Drowatzky DATE STARTED
ELEYATlON REFERENCE: Anorox. 2' helow road crown nATECOMPLETED
CASING: DIAMETER None Used HAMMER WT N I A
SAMPLER: DIAMETER' TYPE Hand Auo.r HAMMER N A
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 2.0' 0 )
. SAMPLES Will BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE.
'OA...,,.
-
-
-
8140.1
1
A28
5-9-90
5-9-90
FAll N/A
FAll N/A
'5~h
Ri chard G. I assi #42603
P.E.
~NUTTING
~ ENGINEERS
-==== Of IlCWUOA. lit
IlTAIL/aWID ,..,
1310 NEPTUNE DRIVE
IIO'fNTOH BEACH, Fl33421
(407)73&-4900 . (305) "'-1700
01"" DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
"
..
AUGER BORING REPORT
GeOleCMfCl1 & ConltruChon Mller'lls
Hy(J'OOeology & MoMOFlng wells
Engfneeru'O . Inspection . Test/ng
FAX' (407) 737-9975
o
so
II ION
..
'0
..
'0
..
10
0.5
I I
Gray quartz fine SAND, trace root
Tan quartz fine SAND
-
i
I
I
i
Auger boring terminates at 7.5'
! I
I
I
I
i
,
,
I
7.5
CUENT Hi chae 1 Schroeder
PROJECT Soil lnvestioation
PROJECT LOCATION Bovnton Beach Blvd. west of Conaress
HOLE LOCATION Aoorox. 40' S of north orooertv line
DRILLER Ri ok Orowatzky
ElEVAnON REFERENCE: Annrox 2 I)' below road crown
CASING: DIAMETER None Used
SAMPLER: DIAMETER' TYPE Hond Auaer
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 3.5'
SAMPLES Will BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED
FOA..".
8140.1
1
A29
ORDER No.
REPORT No.
Ave.. Bovnton Bch.. FL HOLE No.
and 208' E of west property line
nATE STARTED 5-9-90
nATE COMPLETED 5-9-90
HAMMERWT N/A FALL N/A
HAMMERWT N/A _~ll. N/A
OTHERWIS:..t.r~~~ sJc/ff1P.E.
Richard G. 1055i #42603
~~NUTTING
~ ~1~~~~Sooc
UT....LI'H(O ,.,
1310 NEPTUNE DRIVE
IIO\'NTON BEACH, FL :J3ot211
(.07) 7J6.4l1OO' (305) "1-'700
H"" DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL.
"
It
FOR"""
AUGER BORING REPORT
GeotechntCll & ConstrUChon U.lerllts
HydrogeOlogy & MonitorIng Wells
E "'Q1neem\o . Inspection . T est,no
FAX' (.07) 737.9975
.
..
It ...
CUENT Michael Schroeder ORDER No.
PROJECT Soil Investiniltion AEPORTHo.
PROJECT LOCATION Bovnton Beach Blvd. west of Conaress Ave.. Bovnton Bch.. FL HOLE No.
_ HOLE LOCAnON Aporox. 434' E of west orooertv line and 194' north of south orooertv line
ORILLER Rick Drowatzkv nATE STARTED 'i-gogO
ELEVAnON REFERENCE: Aperax. +9.3 nATECOMPlETED 5-9-90
_ CASING: DIAMETER None Used HAMMER WT N / A
SAMPLER: DIAMETER & TYPE Henrl Allaer HAMMER N A
GROUNDWA TER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 2.0' Wolo, To
SAMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE.
"
..
..
..
..
10
2.0
, ,
, =lack nonfibrous PEAT
i
i -
Srown PEAT
i I
; ,
I ,
:
i ~ray & tan quartz fine SAND
.
;
I Test boring terminates at 8.0'
i
,
!
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I
,
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
i
6.0
8.0
Richard G. lossi #42603
-
8140.1
1
A30
N/A
N/A
. 5~ /ff
-~NUTTING
~ ENGINEERS
:.== Of 'lO'UOA. IiIC
ll''''LISM(O '''1
UtO NEPTUNE DRIVE
IIO'fNTON BEACH, FL3342&
(.07) 736-4900 . (305) e. t ~7IlO
Dr"" DESCRIPTION OF MA TERtALS
"
..
CUENT Michael Schroeder ORDER No.
PROJECT Soil lnvestioation REPORT No.
PROJECT LOCATION Bovnton Beach Blvd. west of Conares5 Ave.. Bovnton Bch.. FL HOLE No.
.HOlE LOCAnON Aonrox. 654' F of wp.~t property 1 ioe imd 46' N of SQllth nronertv 1 ine
DRILLER Ri ck Drowi'lt7kv "ATE STARTED
ELEVAnON REFERENCE: AODro,. +9.0 nATE COMPLETED
'CASING: DIAMETER None Used HAMMER WT N j A
SAMPLER: DIAMETER' TYPE Hand Auoer IiAMMER N A
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 2.0' Wllor TI
J
J
J
I
I
AUGER BORING REPORT
GeOlechnlcal & COnSlructlon Mllefllls
Hydrogeology & Monrtormg Well,
EnOlneerlng . In,pectlon . Tesllng
FAX , (407) 737.9975
.
10
..
..
I' 10 N
..
"
..
..
2.0
, I I I
i
, =rown nonfibrous PEAT I
I I
-
I :3 ,own fibrous and nonfibrous PEAT ,
I 1 I
1
! I
! I .
!
! Cray quartz fine SAND
,
I i I
! ,
Auger boring terminates at 8.0' ,
I
I
I
I I
!
I , I
I
I ,
!
I I I
I ,
, ,
,
I ,
I ,
: I
i I
I
, ,
,
i I
I
I
I
I
I
6.0
8.0
8140.1
1
A31
5-9-90
5-9-90
FALL NjA
FALl. NjA
,:k'5a~
FCAW'"
SAMPLES WlLL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE.
Richard C. Jossi #42603
"(@NUTTING
~ ENGINEERS
~ 01 'lO"IDA lIiIC
(I'!'''.LISHED '.7
13'0 NEPTUNE DRIVE
BOYNTON BEACH, Fl 33(21
(.07) 736-4900 . (305) ~ ,.,,100
Of"M DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
""
..
AUGER BORING REPORT
GeoleCtlnlCl1 & ConSlruClIOn Malerl.ls
HydrOQeology & MonrtOrlng Wells
Englneerl"Q . InspeCllon . Teshf\g
FAX' (.07) 737.9975
.
..
10 10"
n
I
I
CUENT Mi c.hi'lF! 1 Sc.hroerler ORDER No.
PROJECT Soil Invest;aation REPOATNo.
PROJECT LOCATION Bovnton R"':1(,~ Blvd. west of Conaress Ave.. Pnynton Bch... FL HOLE No.
_ HOLE LOCAnON Aporox. 661' E of west property 1 i ne and 412 I N of south property 1 i ne
DRILLER Ri ok Drowatzkv nATE STARTED 5-9-90
ELEVATION REFERENCE: ADDrox. +9.0 nATE COMPLETED 5-9-90
CASING: DIAMETER None Used HAMMER WT N / A FALL N / A
SAMPLER: DIAMETER I TYPE Hond A,mer HAMMER WT N A ."' ~Al N / A
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE 2.0' Wltl, Tlbl '"' ) 5;1~
SAMPLES WILL BE DISCARDED IN 60 DAYS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE. }/"- - c ~~
FOR..'U
..
..
"'
70
..
..
2.0
!
Slack & brown nonfibrous PEAT i
I
,
=rown fibrous and nonfibrous , i
, i
?EAT I
I ! !
I I ,
I
"::'ray quartz fine SAND I
I
Auger boring terminates at 8.0'
I I
I ,
i ,
i i
I I
I I I
,
I ,
i I
I I
, I
I I , I
I I I
j , I
I
, I
,
6.0
8.0
8140.1
1
A32
Richard G. lossi #42603
ESTABLISHED 1987
Geotechnical & Construction Materials
Hydrogeology & Monitoring Wells
Engineering' Inspection. Testing
PONO MUCK PROBES
CLI ENT: Michael Schroeder
PROJECT: Soil Investigation
PROJECT LOCATION: Boynton Beach Blvd. west
of Congress Avenue.
Boynton Beach, FL
APPROX. WATER
PROBE # LOCATION DEPTH
1 35' E & 30' N of 5.0'
SW corner of lake
2 75' E & 30' N of 4.0'
SW corner of lake
3 180' E & 30' N of 4.0'
SW corner of lake
4 150' E & 65' N of 4.0'
SW corner of lake
5 180' E & 100' N of 4.0'
SW corner of lake
6 100' E & 100' N of 3.5'
SW corner of lake
7 115' N & 30' E of 2.5'
SW corner of lake
8 40' E & 65' N of 4.5'
SW corner of lake
g 267' W & 20' S of 3.0'
NE property corner
10 167' W & 20' S of 4.0'
NE property corner
11 45' W & 60' S of 3.5'
NE property corner
DATE: 5-4-90
ORDER NO.: 8169.1
DEPTH TO THICKNESS OF
TOP OF PEAT PEAT LAYER
5.0' 1.0'
4.0' 1.5'
4.0' 5.0'
4.0' 3.5'
4.0' 3.5'
3.5' 2.5'
2.5' 1.0'
4.5' 1.5'
3.0' 0.5'
4.0' 2.0'
3.5' 3.0'
~~!/! t~1 ~?
Richard G. Iossi #42603
1310 NEPTUNE DRIVE. BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33426
Boynton Beach (407) 736-4900 . Pompano Beach (3051 941-8700 . FAX (407) 737-9975
RE
SOIL CLAS
SPT N-V~tfE'
( bIOWS/fLfJ~:
~!f~',.
RELATIVE
DENSITY
0-4
5-10
11-29
30-49
>50
100/6"
".'
V.Loose
Loose
Medium
Deose
V. DelISe
Refusal
Boulder
Cobble
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
P i't'TICLE SIZE
~~,
I."
_.,-:
'ii"".""'.':'
r,'[
~:,
" ;t.!:,
olb".i>
f;;;:,..:\,
:",to,':,"
:,. ?{!'
>12 in.
3 to 12 ill.
4.76mm to 3 in.
O.074mm to 4.76mm
O.OO5mm to 0.074mm
<O.OO5mm
)~! - T_
......"".:!., - -
.' -............ ...-
'jl '.JJ ow =.-rMIIni......
...,,&r.I
! in Poorty..........-I
f,' .. r=................
8 " - i I h ---
"
. S 1 111 .... IO"'.J.:'::;'-'
z ...-
I , ce.v.r ...... .-'
i ac
. .~ ......-
~ ,jip ---
~ ow --
'it .JI ...or.......
i
. JSj~ . JIoortyowadlcl__1
j , ii'i> ......Iltu...nofw.
!r III Ilftf......--un.
j I .,
111
Ie ~..... --'<:'
': 1_.._1IhI,-v f>
Au ilL .....f'OCII:~..n1
! -....-
I i- .-....,.01 .....
~ CL .........pillnldty....
. il *'" -.cty dlye.1ltl,
l ll~ ---
I .... OrgIniC Iltt. Met CirIf'
lMtv~oflowpLt<
!is '....... lllU. rnlc:et><
! 11M .......... .liN
Of".....ic:1ittI
. IiI CH ~a..,.ofh.
S . iJ pl..leity."'~
ll~l OM o..nlc~of lNdt~.
.hith,..lclty
...~ Or,..1c SolI PT '-t" 1nUCk. and ....
.......-
!_.ft ,,,. "'_'-' p-iftt ....,....(,....-.1.......
,
,
"
SHEAR STRENGTH
CLAY
"ONFINED CONSISTENCY
"liP. STRENGTH
HlSjft.2)
25
..'.0.50
:<- 1.00
'.2.00
.1.00
j{}
V. Soft
Soft
Medium
Stiff
V. Stiff
Hard
'CRIPTlON MODIFIERS
'"
"
Slight trace
Trace
Little
Some
And
~..;..:1l_ Cn~.
-.
'"
- -_1..,3
~""'l-tcrGW
_,~"..NA."linl An.-blrl'irnnlDtort....
'~'_4 iIl"-dMd_..
_...1_ ea-ficllionl
.~-A"I"- .......,;n,.........
,':........, I'f"IbOIt
:""~.
~
<:,~1....s3
;',. ..fgrSW
.__~"'..I.... "'".-berSliIRi.~
~4 ..~__
bordIwt__'OOM_
c,,,-"'Uln lWtU............,...
....:'!!'~1 tf'IltIDft
;r /
-
--
..- e / -<. -
"-
/
.1 /
/" e 9
t
.'~
~
. -
.~
",n... .. 110 .. .. .. ...
ii"Thll .,....._ D NIII.
'.
WARRANTY
LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
ANAL YSIS AND RECOMMENDA nONS
We warnnt that the services performed by
Nuttinl Enlineers of Florida, inc. are conducted
in a manner consistent with that level of care
and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the
profession currently practicinl under similar
conditions. NO OTHER WARRANTIES.
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. ARE MADE.
While !be services of Nutlinl Enlineers of
Florida, IDc. are a valuable and intelral part of
the desian and construction teams, we do not
warrant. guarantee. or insure the quality or
completeness of services provided by other
members of those teams, the quality,
completeness, or satisfactory performance of
construction plans and specifications which we
have DOt prepared. nor the ultimate performance
of building site materials.
The leotechnical report is prepared primarily to
aid in the desiln of site work and structural
foundations. Althoulh the information in the
report is expected to be sufficient for these
purposes. it is not intended to determine the cost
of construction or to stand alone as .
construction specification.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORA nON
Report recommendatioll5 are based primarily on
data from test borings made at the locatioll5
shown on the test borinl reports. Soil variatioll5
may exist between borinlS and these variations
may not become evident until construction. If
significant variations are then noted. the
geotechnical engineer should be contacted so that
field conditioll5 can be examined and
recommendations revised if necessary.
The geotechnical report states our understandinl
as to the location. dimensions and structural
features proposed for the site. Any significant
changes in the nature. design, or location of the
site improvements MUST be communicated to
the geotechnical engineer so that the
geotechnical analysis. conclusions. and
recommendations can be appropriately adjusted.
The geotechnical engineer should be given the
opportunity to review all drawings that have
been prepared based on his recommendations.
Subsurface exploration is normally accomplished
by test borings; test pits are sometimes
employed. The method of determining the
borinllocation and the surface elevation at the
boring is noted in the report. This information
is represented on a drawing or on the boring log.
The location and elevation of the boring should
be coll$idered accurate only to the degree
inherent with the method used.
The soil boring log includes sampling
information, description of the materials
recovered, approximately depths of boundaries
between soil and rock strata and groundwater
data. The log represents conditions specifically
at the location and time the boring was made.
The boundaries between different soil strata are
indicated at specific depths; however, these
depths are in fact approximate and dependent
upon the frequency of sampling. Tbe transition
between soil strata are indicated at specific
depths; however, these depths are in fact
approximate and dependent upon the frequency
of sampling. The transition between soil strata is
often gradual. Water level readings are made at
the times and under conditions stated on the
boring logs. Water levels change with time.
season. canal levels and local well drawdown.
CONSTRUcnON MONITORING
LA BORA TORY AND FIELD TESTS
Construction monitoring is a vital element of
complete geotechnical services. Tbe
field/inspector is the owner's "representative"
observing the work of the contractor,
performing tests as required in the
specifications, and reporting data developed
from such tests and observations. THE FIELD
ENGINEER OR INSPECTOR DOES NOT
DIRECT THE CONTRACTOR'S
CONSTRUcnON MEANS, METIIODS.
OPERA nONS OR PERSONNEL. He does not
interfere with the relationship between the
owner and the contractor and. except as an
observer, does not become a substitute owner on
site. He is responsible for his own safety. but
has no responsibility for the safety of other
personnel at the site. He is an important
member of a team whose responsibility is to
watch and test the work being done and report
to the owner whether that work is being carried
out in general conformance with the plans and
specifications.
Tests are performed in accordance with specific
ASTM Standards unless otherwise indicated. An
determinations included in a given ASTM
Standard are not always required and performed.
Each test report indicates the measurements and
determinations actually made.