AGENDA DOCUMENTS
Requested City Commission
Meeting Dates
D November 21, 2000
D December 5, 2000
[8J December 19,2000
D January 2, 2001
NATURE OF
AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
Requested City Commission
Meeting Dates
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
November 9, 2000 (5:00 p.m.) D January 16,2001
November 22, 2000 (5:00 p.m.) D February 6,2001
December 6,2000 (5:00 p.m.) D February 20,2001
December 20, 2000 (5:00 p.m.) D March 6, 2001
January 3, 2001 (5:00 p.m.)
January 17,2001 (5:00 p.m.)
February 7, 2001 (5:00 p.m.)
February 21,2001 (5:00 p.rn.)
D Administrative
D Consent Agenda
D Public Hearing
D Bids
D Announcement
[8J Development Plans
D New Business
D Legal
D UnfInished Business
D Presentation
RECOMMENDATION: Please place this item on the December 19, 2000 City Commission agenda under Development
Plans, to be titled Tuscany on the Intracoastal (f.k.a. Bay Vista) -Determination of Recreation Impact Fee. Staff recommends
that the fee of $162,800 be approved by the Commission as the required recreation impact fee for this project, based on the
city's methodology using the average cost/value of an acre of the subject site.
EXPLANATION: The above-described recommendation, being more thorougWy described in the attached Memorandum
#00-177, is in contrast to the recommendation from the applicant who offers $128,000 as the impact fee (see attached letter
from Altman Development Corp). This recommendation from the applicant is based on the lowest value per square foot
($2.75) of all the parcels that were assembled for this project. There is no justification for the use of the lowest value.
Furthermore, the impact fee proposed by staff has already been reduced by credits attained from private recreation amenities
and the preservation of on-site natural lands. Staff believes that the average value is the most equitable method of calculating
this fee, given that it is not known at this time where those dollars will be spent to improve the city's recreation amenities.
PROGRAM IMPACT: N/A
FISCAL IMP ACT: The difference between the staff recommended fee and the developer proposal is $34,800.
ALTERNATIVES: Accept the offer from the developer or select an alternative fee based on factors/issues not considered in
the staff analysis.
A~J~
~~g and Zo . g irector
D~fDrro'm'
City Manager's Signature
City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources
J:\SHRDA T A \Planning\SHARED\ WP\PROJECTS\Altman BAY VISTA NWSP\Impact fee to commission.dot
LEISURE SERVICES: PARKS l\tlEMORANDUl\il #00-177
TO:
Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Zoning
John Wildner, Parks Director jtJ
Tuscany on the Intracoastal 4y Vista) Recreation Fee
FROM:
RE:
Date
November 21,2000
Based on our previous discussion, the following information is forwarded concerning the
Recreation Fee for the Tuscany on the Intracoastal Multi Family Home Development.
1. Based on 286 DulAc x. 015 = 4.29 Land Dedication Requirement
'/4 credit for Natural Resource Preservation = 1.07 AC
Y2 credit for Private Recreation Credit = 2.15 AC
Total Dedication Requirements = 1.07 Acres
2. The developer has submitted an appraisal in order to determine a fee in lieu of
land.
3. Based on the attached appraisal the total value ofthe projects land is $2,180,000
with a total acreage of 14.328 acres. Average cost per acre calculates as
$152,149.63 x 1.07 acres = $162.800.10 Total Recreation Fee.
Please review and place on commission agenda at your earliest convenience.
ALT:VIA:'l DEVELOP:\IE:'lT CORPORATION
October 24, 2000
The City of Boynton Beach
Parks Division
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Attn.: John Wildner
Re: Tuscany on the Intracoastal (a.k.a.Bay Vista) Recreation Fee
Dear John:
As you are aware, based on the analysis performed during the Technical Review
Committee process, Altman is required to provide a Parks and Recreation land dedication
(or fee in lieu) of 1.07 acres.
This land area was calculated in strict compliance with the City's formula of .015 acres
per dwelling unit and allowing a credit for "Native Resources" and "Private Recreation".
While I understand the requirement for the City to uniformly apply their code to all
developments, I believe there is some recognition that the code as written did not
anticipate developments of the density required to utilize urban infilllocations such as
Tuscany. This code results in a land dedication requirement of over 10% of the buildable
acreage. If the city truly wants to encourage high-quality development in the core, they
need to address a code that represents a 10% burden on such developments.
That being said, we have followed your suggestion and solicited a third-party appraisal
(attached) for the property to arrive at an appropriate value of the 1.07 acres. Page 23 of
the appraisal summarizes the findings: values range from $2.75 to $8.98 per buildable
square foot.
If we were to actually dedicate park land, we would focus on a parcel that was on the
perimeter of the property (to maximize contiguous developable acreage), had public
access, avoided sacrificing valuable waterfront acreage, and was the least economic
burden to the development. The Merkel property is the closest to meeting these criteria.
2201 Corporate Blvd. N.W.. Suite 200. Boca Raton. Florida 33431 (561) 997-8661 Fax (561) 997-8706
Tuscany on the Intracoastal (a.k.a.Bay Vista) Recreation Fee
October 24, 2000
Page Two
Ifwe utilize the appraised value of the Merkel property at $2.75 per s.f., the value ofa
1.07 acre park site would be $128,000.
I appreciate the city's efforts in working with us to develop this exciting community.
Please review the attached appraisal and feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
The Altman Development Corporation
~Af/~
----
Scott Auker
Vice President
Requested City Commission
Meeting Dates
I:gj July 18,2000
0 August I, 2000
0 August 15,2000
0 September 6, 2000
NATURE OF
AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
Requested City Commission
Meeting Dates
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
July 6, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
o September 19,2000
D October 4, 2000
D October 17, 2000
o November 8, 2000
October 18,2000 (5:00 p.m.)
September 7, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
July 19,2000 (5:00 p.m.)
September 20, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
August 2, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
October 5,2000 (5:00 p.m.)
August 16, 2000 (5:00 p.m.)
o Administrative
D Consent Agenda
[8J Public Hearing
o Bids
D Announcement
D Development Plans
D New Business
o Legal
D Unfmished Business
D Presentation
RECOMMENDATION: Please remove this request on the July 18,2000 City Commission agenda under Public Hearing.
The Planning and Development Board, with a unanimous vote recommended that this request be withdrawn at the request of
the applicant.
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT NAME:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCA TION:
DESCRIPTION:
EXPLANATION: N/A
ALTMAN/BAY VISTA (parking)
Kilday & Associates, Inc.
Altman Development Corporation (Contract Purchaser)
On the eastern terminus ofS.E. 23rd Avenue on the east side of US I
Request relief from Chapter 2-Zoning, Section II,H.-16E, (12) requesting a parking variance to
reduce the required number of off street parking spaces from 27 to nine.(9) for the project
recreation facilities.
PROGRAM IMPACT: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
Director of Development
City Manager's Signature
7L--,U ~
Director of Plannin d Zoning
City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources
J:\SHRDAT AIPLANNINGISHAREDIWl'\PROIECTSIAL TMAN BAY VISTA ZONING CODE PARKINGICC 7-18-00 AGENDA REQUEST.DOT
7.B.2
AL TMAN/BA Y VISTA
PARKING FOR PRIVATE RECREATION AREAS
CODE REVIEW
.:VELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 00-201
TO:
FROM:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
fl16-(L
Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning and Zoning
DATE:
July 7, 2000
SUBJECT:
Code Review - Required parking for private recreation areas (CDRV 00-009)
NATURE OF REQUEST
Staff is recommending an amendment to the city's zoning regulations to allow for the change in the
off-street parking requirements for condominium and housing development recreation buildings and
other recreation facilities. The current regulations require no parking spaces for dwelling units within a
five hundred foot radius; one (1) parking space for every four (4) units within a five hundred to eight
(8) hundred foot radius, and one (1) parking space for every two (2) dwelling units outside of the eight
(8) hundred foot radius. Total required parking spaces shall not exceed one (1) space per one
hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. Moreover, in addition to required parking spaces for
recreation buildings, all other recreation facilities including athletic courts and swimming pools shall
be provided with one quarter of the parking spaces that would be required for such facilities as
recreation and amusement uses.
The proposed amendment would require a mInimum parking requirement for condominium and
housing development recreation buildings and other recreation facilities of five (5) parking spaces,
and an additional one (1) space per 300 square feet of gross floor area of office use for leasing or
management purposes located in recreational buildings or in a separate structure (handicapped
spaces shall be pursuant to ADA requirements).
BACKGROUND
The city's Land Development Regulations Article 2. Zoning, Section 11.H.e.(12), Provisions of Off-
Street Parking Spaces for Recreation and Amusement as pertaining to Condominium and Housing
Development Recreation Buildings, currently establish the requirements as described in the above
section. General off-street parking regulations for multifamily residential structures require the
following parking facilities: two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit for two or more bedroom
apartments, and two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit for the first ten (10) one bedroom and
efficiency apartments in a single structure; thereafter, one and one-half (1.5) parking spaces for each
one bedroom and efficiency unit. For Planned Unit Development (PUD), the off-street parking
requirements are a minimum of two (2) spaces per dwelling unit. There are no additional
requirements for guest parking in any condominium and housing development.
ANAL YSIS
This analysis has focused on current development characteristics and trends, and a comparison of
the city's standards with those standards of other municipalities within this geographic area.
Trends and Characteristics:
In housing developments approved in recent years, there has been no consistent enforcement of the
parking requirements for recreation areas. Current trends will make enforcement of existing
regulations increasingly infeasible. The demand for housing is high, and it is particularly high for rental
Page 2
Memorandum No. PZ 00-201
housing. The latter is the high-end, "lifestyle renter"-type development. High-end markets, both home-
owners and renters, demand better recreation amenities - larger club houses and recreation
buildings, larger pools and additional facilities such as tennis courts. Current regulations would
require larger pools alone to be supported by eight or more parking spaces. Moreover, a number of
new developments are located in redevelopment areas, on smaller lots and at higher densities.
Current regulations, when applied to developments with higher densities, generate requirement levels
that may be both unfeasible and impractical. Since, as noted, bigger recreational buildings appear to
be a trend, these levels cannot be effectively capped, as was practiced in the past, by the maximum
number of spaces determined by buildings' square footage. At present, regulations penalize providers
of bigger amenities; it may also be argued that driving habits and amenity size are not correlated.
In the past, the city has not granted any variances specifically for recreation area parking, although
Banyan Cove (Manatee Bay) was granted a variance for total project parking spaces (which included
pool but not cabana requirements). As noted, staff has not applied the regulations in a strict and
consistent manner. However, two recently approved projects - Melear PUD (Borgata) and Bay Vista
would have to obtain variances and another project, Villa del Sol, currently being processed, will likely
require variance approval. Under current regulations, Bay Vista, which will provide a 10,000 square
foot recreation building and a minimum 1,000 square foot pool, would have to provide thirty six
parking spaces for the recreation area (based on distance). Obviously, the square footage-based
requirement would be much higher - one hundred and fourteen parking spaces including the pool.
Although placement of the recreation areas more central within the project would reduce walking
distance to these areas, the waterfront amenities in such projects should logically prevail as a
locational factor. Lastly, a walking distance of one-quarter mile, or 1,320 feet, has been accepted as a
standard for a maximum distance that is "walkable" for park and new town planning purposes.
The following information describes recreation areas in recently approved residential projects, as well
as the inconsistency in tabulating parking obligations.
Manatee Bay - Amenities: pool cabana (1304 square feet), pool (800 square feet); no
distance calculations used, only pool parking was included in
requirements.
Via Lugano - Amenities: gym (596 square feet), bowling (1307 square feet), theater
(465 square feet), pool (1625 square feet), raquetball, basketball,
volleyball and tennis court; requirements calculated on the basis of
distance; each facility added, including buildings at different rates.
Vinings at Boynton Beach - Amenities: fitness center (578 square feet), pool (1780 square feet),
tennis court; no distance calculations used, requirements calculated
as sum of requirements for each facility, including fitness center at a
one-space-per-100 square foot rate.
Comparison with other municipalities:
A number of adjacent and nearby municipalities - Delray Beach, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach -
have no parking requirements targeted specifically at recreation areas within housing developments
(both Delray Beach and West Palm Beach have guest parking requirements). Likewise, Palm Beach
county has no requirements for recreation areas of less than two (2) acres in size.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDA liON
Staff recommends that this request to amend the city's code to change the off-street parking
requirements for condominium and housing development recreation buildings and other recreation
Page 3
Memorandum No. PZ 00-201
facilities be approved. Furthermore, staff recommends that in all multifamily housing developments
(a) a continuous non-vehicular internal circulation system connects land uses within the development,
and (b) bicycle racks be installed in convenient locations in recreation areas. The circulation system
shall include, but not be limited to, pedestrian paths or sidewalks, bicycle paths or bicycle lanes and
driveways to encourage pedestrian access and non-vehicular circulation.
Staff is confident that housing developments successfully use self-regulation when determining their
own parking requirements. For once, inadequate parking facilities create a problem within the
development, rather than for the city and public at large. The competition among housing
developments enforces adequate attention to such issues; in fact, staff research indicates that, at
least in some instances, excessive amount of parking may be provided, creating large unattractive
expanse of concrete. The actual number of parking spaces needed for recreation areas is a function
of both its size and the size of a development itself, location, the dwelling unit density, the age of a
target population and possibly other factors, all duly realized by project's owner(s) and developers.
The additional benefit of the proposed amendment would be removal of the said parking provisions
from the variance process; such variances cannot be granted on the basis of hardship since special
conditions have been created by design and action of applicant.
It is the opinion of staff that the code modifications recommended herein increase the user-
friendliness of city codes, decrease the antiquated nature of city standards, and further the city's goal
of becoming "world class".
MR
Attachments
J:ISHRDATAIPlanningISHAREDIWPIPROJECTSlAltman Bay Vista Zoning Code parkinglstaffreport.doc