The URL can be used to link to this page

REVIEW COMMENTS OLD BUSINESS: '" 7.A.l BOYNTON VILLAGE (LUAR 04-006) LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT/REZONING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING &. ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 04-137(AMENDED) TO: Chair and Members Planning and Develo ent Board and City Commission FROM: Dick Huds , ICP Senior Pia ner " Michael W. RumPfll Wt:/ Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: DATE: JURC 11, 2001 December 9. 2004 PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: REQUEST: Boynton Village (LUAR 04-006) Amend the land use classification from Moderate Density Residential (MoDR) to Mixed Use-Suburban (MX-S) and rezone from R-l-AA Single Family Residential to SMU Suburban Mixed Use PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: Klatt Family Limited Partnership & Klatt Enterprises, Inc. Applicant/Agent: 1950 Congress Avenue, LLC/Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. (Kim Glas-Castro) Location: Northeast corner of the intersection of Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road (Exhibit "A") Parcel Size: 81.81 acres Existing Land Use: Moderate Density Residential (MoDR) at 7.26 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) Existing Zoning: R-l-AA Single Family Residential Proposed Land Use: Mixed Use Suburban (MX-S) at 20 du/ac and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 Proposed Zoning: SMU Suburban Mixed Use Proposed Use: Mixed use development containing 1,120 residential units, 10,000 sq. ft. of office use and 149,000 sq.ft. of retail commercial uses Page 2 File Number: LUAR 04-006 Boynton Village Adjacent Uses: North: Right-of-way of the Boynton (C-16) Canal then property designated Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and zoned SMU, currently under development (Renaissance Commons). South: To the southeast, right-of-way of Old Boynton Road, then developed residential properties, both single-family and multi- family; to the southwest, vacant property designated Moderate Density Residential (MoDR) and zoned R-l-AA Single Family Residential. East: Right-of-way of the Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD) E-4 Canal, then developed single-family residences designated Low Density Residential (4.84 du/ac) and zoned R-l-AA Single Family Residential. West: Right-of-way of Congress Avenue, then developed properties designated Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and zoned C-3 Community Commercial. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff recommends approval of the requested land use amendment and rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The requests for land use amendment and rezoning are consistent with objectives and policies in the Comprehensive Plan relating to mixed use projects, the provision of a range of housing opportunities within walking distance of shops and workplaces and for the interconnectivity between large-scale projects; 2. The Mixed Use-Suburban land use category and the corresponding SMU Suburban Mixed Use zoning will require the development of a community that is a pedestrian-friendly environment containing gathering places for the residents; and 3. The proposed rezoning would continue the development pattern established by the adjacent lands to the north, across the Boynton Canal and will provide a transition between existing commercial development on the west along Congress Avenue and the single-family neighborhood to the east; however, 4. Consistent with the requirements of the SMU development regulations, approval of a SMU master plan for the property shall be required concurrent with approval of the requested rezoning. Page 3 File Number: LUAR 04-006 Boynton Village PROJECT ANALYSIS The parcels, which are the subject of this land use amendment, total 81.81 acres. Because of the size of the property under consideration, the Florida Department of Community Affairs classifies this amendment as a "large-scale" amendment. Following local board review and City Commission public hearing the amendment package was transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on August 3, 2004 for review for compliance with the state, regional and local comprehensive plans prior to adoption. The normal review period is approximately 60 days; however, additional time was added to allow adequate response time for review agencies affected by the hurricanes. The City received DCA's report of their findings in an "Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report" on November 19, 2004. This report from the state is generated from reviews against state, regional and local plans and other agencies' long-range plans and policies. The two objections were based on "lack of analysis" of: (1) availability of public facilities, and (2) traffic impacts for the maximum development potential of the sites. A matrix is attached, showing objections and comments from DCA and proposed responses (Exhibit "B''). The City has 60 days to either (1) adopt the amendment as transmitted, (2) adopt the amendment with changes in response to the ORC report, or (3) determine not to adopt the amendment and inform DCA of that decision. The adoption hearing is scheduled for the City Commission meeting on January 18, 2005. It is anticipated that DCA will issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) to find the amendments either "in compliance" or "not in compliance" approximately 60 days following receipt of the amendment package (March 14, 2005). The amendments become effective 21 days following issuance of the NO!. Master Plan Reauirements The regulations for the Suburban Mixed Use zoning district require that a master plan, including multi-year phases be submitted and reviewed for approval at the time of rezoning to SMU. Because of the length of time required by the large-scale land use amendment process, the applicant submitted a master plan (see Exhibit "C'') for approval to coincide with adoption of the land use amendment and the rezoning. While master plan approval is required for rezoning to the SMU district, there is no such requirement for rezoning to C-3 Community Commercial as requested for the Boynton Town Center portion of the property; however, since the two rezonings are preceding simultaneously, staff has requested that any proposed access points from the property to the excluded parcel (Boynton Town Center) be shown on the plan and that compatibility be maximized with the remainder of the project through interconnectivity, consistent architectural design and other design attributes required by the SMU regulations. The proposed master plan meets the minimum requirements, as outlined in the zoning regulations for the Suburban Mixed Use zoning district with any exceptions noted in the Review Comments (see Exhibit D). Those requirements include: . Any proposed multi-year phasing for the project; . Locations of the different uses proposed, including open space or common areas, recreational facilities, residential areas, commercial uses, office uses, other permitted uses, and areas to be developed with integrated mixed-use structures; Page 4 File Number: LUAR 04-006 Boynton Village . Access and flow to each parcel; . Tabulations of total gross acreage in the development and the percentages thereof proposed to be devoted to the several land use types; . Tabulations demonstrating the proposed number of dwelling units, square footage of commercial, office and other uses; and, . Architectural design standards showing the following: design themes to be followed, building colors and color pallet options, maximum building heights and color elevation renderings depicting representative design concepts. Proiect Phases And Master Plan Overview The project is proposed for development in two phases. Phase I will consist of the spine road connecting the Renaissance Commons development on the north with Old Boynton Road on the south; a lake parcel of 8.38 acres (10.27% of the site); and a mixed-use parcel of 24.7 acres (30.27% of the site). The mixed-use parcel extends from the north boundary of the site at the Boynton (C-16) Canal southward along Congress Avenue to the boundary with the Boynton Town Center Project. Two access points are shown from Congress Avenue and connecting with the proposed spine road, each provides pedestrian and vehicular access to the site. The road from Congress Avenue opposite the entrance to the Boynton Beach Mall, is proposed to be lined with one- and two-story commercial buildings which will provide a "main street" atmosphere for the project. The lake parcel is located in the central eastern part of the property. It will be the principal stormwater retention area for the development. Currently, the remainder of the project is scheduled for Phase II. With the exception of a 5.03- acre (6.16% of the site) parcel denoted as "park", parcels, identified for Phase II, would all be devoted to residential development, with townhomes located on the parcel surrounding the "lake parcel" and along the C-16 Canal, and condominiums on the two remaining parcels. The residential parcels total 43.47 acres or 53.3% of the total development. Tabular data show that the proposed land uses include 149,000 square feet of commercial and retail, 10,000 square feet of office and 1,120 units of multi-family residential development. A more recent breakdown shows that of the 1,120 residential units, there are 472 proposed townhouses (attached single family units) and 648 condominium units. The City has adopted a resolution requiring land dedication to satisfy the impact fee obligations; therefore, only a portion of the 5.03-acre "park parcel" counts toward the "usable open space" requirements. Based on the formulae included in the SMU development regulations, 30% of the land area devoted to single-family attached units and 20% of the land area devoted to mixed use and multi-family use must be "usable open space". In the mixed use and multi- family use areas, up to 50% of the usable open space may be made up of hardscaped plazas and public gathering places. In the townhouse areas, at least 50% must be in common pooled areas, though none of this usable open space must be in public parks. Under this requirement, a total of 17.65 acres must be earmarked for usable open space. The proposed 40-foot pedestrian greenway adjacent to the right-of-way of the E-4 Canal and the 25-foot greenway adjacent to the C-16 Canal will fulfill some of those requirements. There is no other indication Page 5 File Number: LUAR 04-006 Boynton Village how the applicant intends to fulfill these requirements; although staff will require that the developer provide a notation on the master plan giving a conceptual description or statement of assumptions as to how he proposes to meet the requirements. This notation will be used as a guide as site plans for each development tract are submitted. Also regarding recreation, a negative aspect of the proposed master plan is the lack of park space (private and public) located to take advantage of the lake area. While location of the proposed park parcel would maximize accessibility to non-residents of the development, it is assumed that the "main street" area will be patronized by more than just residents of the development. A passive area located between the spine road and the lake could be a special focal point and gathering place for a great number of people, and a true asset to the development. This would also fulfill the SMU requirements that developments utilizing the regulations provide public plazas and gathering places that are both well-designed and integrated into the overall design of the development; and also create higher quality environments for residents, businesses, employees, and visitors. A finding of consistency of the project with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance is based on the assumption that certain roadway and intersection improvements will be necessary prior to buildout. Many of these improvements are already in the County's adopted long-range transportation plans, but may not be included in their Five- year Transportation Improvement Plan. Since these planned improvements may require acquisition of additional rights-of-way, their full implementation may be too costly to be practicable. Staff recommends a requirement of an explanation of the thresholds of development that trigger each of the roadway improvements. This should include both a comparable mix of uses similar to the subject request, as well as a scenario involving principally residential uses (Condition 5). This should be provided prior to approval of any of the individual site plans within the project. Review Based on Reauired Criteria The criteria used to review Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings are listed in the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Section 9, Administration and Enforcement, Item C. Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Rezonings. These criteria are required to be part of a staff analysis when the proposed change includes an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. a. Whether the proposed rezoning would be consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies including but not limited to, a prohibition against any increase in dwelling unit density exceeding 50 in the hurricane evacuation zone without written approval of the Palm Beach County Emergency Planning Division and the City's risk manager. The planning department shall also recommend limitations or requirements, which would have to be imposed on subsequent development of the prope~ in order to comply with policies contained in the comprehensive plan. The subject property is not located in the hurricane evacuation zone, therefore the referenced policy is not applicable; however, other applicable objectives and policies contained in the comprehensive plan include: Page 6 File Number: LUAR 04-006 Boynton Village "Objective 1.15 The City shall encourage planned development projects which are sensitive to characteristics of the site and to surrounding land uses, and mixed-use projects in locations which are appropriate, and utilize other innovative methods of regulating land development" "Policy 1.22.3 Neighborhoods shall provide residences of different income levels. ~~~~~d~~m=~~re~~rowrem~~ distance of each other where appropriate. Architecture and landscaping shall reflect the character of the region. " The requested land use designation, Mixed Use-Suburban, and zoning district, SMU Suburban Mixed Use, are designed to encourage developments that meet both the adopted objective and policy directions. In addition, with a well-designed site plan, this area can become an effective transition between the commercial uses on the west of Congress Avenue and the low-density single-family neighborhood east of the E-4 Canal. "Policy 1.3.8 The City shall continue to adopt and enforce regulations to require that commercial projects provide marginal access roads or cross access between sites, wherever practical, in order to minimize the need for trips on adjacent thoroughfares. " The provision for connectivity between this site and the developing mixed-use project to the north, across the Boynton Canal, will reduce travel distances and could minimize vehicle trips on Congress Avenue. This is an important design attribute given the project size and the magnitude of potential trips generated by the project. Section VIII. LAND USE PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNmES, from the Support Documents of the Comprehensive Plan include specific directions for this property. In effect, those directions stated that since adequate commercially-zoned land exists to accommodate existing and projected demands, the property should be considered as a site for one or more major manufacturing plants. A major concern, as expressed in this recommendation, was the impacts on roads in the vicinity. The population growth alone may account for a need for increased commercial and residential development. The Palm Beach county population projections for 2010 and 2020 show growth rates which are substantially down from the 31 % over the last decade, but still fairly high (22% for 2000-2010 and 18% for 2010-2020). Boynton Beach, which grew at the same pace as the county between 1990 and 2000, is nearing buildout. However, the reevaluation of redevelopment activities, particularly in areas with proposed higher densities, has recently resulted in the upward adjustment of the projected growth rates for 2000-2010 and 2010-2020 for the city from 11% and 9%, to 17% and 13%, respectively. Also a study titled "Retail and Office Space and Land Sales Research Study" for the Motorola site, prepared by Land Reseach Management, Inc. in June of 2003 indicates that such increased demand for commercial space exists based on the low vacancy rates for the existing commercial development in the vicinity. Low demand for industrially zoned property has influenced the conversion of those properties to other uses. When no tenant could be found for the Motorola site, that property was redesignated for mixed use development. Likewise, as demand fell for industrial land in Page 7 File Number: LUAR 04-006 Boynton Village Quantum Park, a mixture of uses was approved for that property which includes residential, educational and commercial development. Other conversions of industrial lands have occurred in the Congress Avenue corridor at the southern part of the City. The requested amendment and rezoning will serve to offset the decrease in property tax revenues caused by the loss in existing industrial businesses such as Motorola and in future businesses through land conversion. These changing circumstances since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1989 are factors that support the requested land use amendment and rezoning. Policy 5.3.4, found in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: "The City shall continue to require the dedication of sufficient land for a neighborhood park site at the time that the following properties are rezoned or platted for residential use: Klatt Property, and the Sand & Sea Mobile Homes. If the need for public park acreage is not indicated at the above-mentioned time, a fee shall substitute the dedication of land. Mandatory dedication is required when the public park is greater than 0.5 miles away." Maintenance of consistency with this policy is discussed below, under "Item d". b. Whether the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use pattern, or would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with the protection of the public welfare. The proposed rezoning would not create an isolated district, but would relate to the adjacent lands to the north, across the Boynton Canal. As stated above, it could also serve as a transition between the Congress Avenue right-of-way and existing commercial development to the west, and the single-family residential development to the east. The development regulations for the SMU zoning district contain restrictions on building heights and buffering requirements designed to lessen any negative impacts of SMU developments on existing, adjacent single-family developments. c. Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning desirable. The population growth, cited in "Item a", is a changing condition that could provide justification for the proposed rezoning. Also, the decreased demand for property designated for industrial uses, which was seen as an alternate development option in 1989, and the increase in residential development in the area, are changing conditions that must be considered. The City's adoption of regulations for mixed use development in the area west of 1-95 is a bold new departure from past development practices, where each use was well-separated from one another. Mixed use development patterns have typically been confined to urban areas and the movement to extend their use to suburban areas is relatively recent and desirable. The addition of a Mixed Use-Suburban land use category will permit the development of communities that are pedestrian-friendly environments and gathering places for their residents. By providing opportunities for people to live, work and shop in the same area, there may also be a benefit in lessening impacts on roadways external to the community. Page 8 File Number: LUAR 04-006 Boynton Village d. Whether the proposed use would be compatible with utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities. Estimates prepared by the applicant show that total potable water demand will be approximately 439,005 gallons per day (gpd) and sewage flow demand will be approximately 359,125 (gpd), compared to 227,535 gpd for potable water and 184,023 gpd sewage flow, if the property developed at the current land use and zoning. More exact calculations of these demands will be made at the time of site plan approval; however, the Utilities Department has stated that additional demands for water and wastewater services will be adequately met by the planned capacity expansion of 5,000,000 gallons per day, via an interlocal agreement with Palm Beach County. The traffic impact analysis submitted by the applicant shows that the average daily trips generated by 588 single-family residential units under the existing land use designation would be 4,116. Under the proposed mixed use designation the average daily trips would equal 12,780; a net increase of 8,664 new trips. This would cause Gateway Boulevard and Old Boynton Road to drop from Level of Service "D" to "E", without improvements to these roadways. Congress Avenue would still operate at LOS "D". Traffic impacts were also evaluated in combination with that portion of the property proposed for Local Retail Commercial land use and C-3 zoning. The applicant's traffic engineer has stated that the proposed development will only meet all of the requirements of the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County if phasing of the development is linked to the County's programmed roadway and intersection improvements and those proposed by the traffic engineer; however, many of the cited improvements, which include widening Gateway Boulevard from four lanes to six lanes between Congress Avenue and High Ridge Road and widening Old Boynton Road from two lanes to five lanes between Boynton Beach Boulevard and Congress Avenue, would require an amendment to the Palm Beach County Five-Year Roadway Improvements Program (2003-2008) even though they may be included in the County's long- range transportation improvements plans. In addition, since some of these planned improvements may require acquisition of additional rights-of-way, their full implementation may be too costly to be practicable, particularly in instances where acquiring additional right-of-way would create non-conforming parcels for existing development. The list of improvements, below, is taken from the applicant's traffic impact analysis. Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering has not provided comments as to their suffiCiency in meeting the Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. They are listed below with summaries of their impacts on properties, as well as the status of the improvement on the County's Long-range Transportation Improvement Program: Old Boynton Road . Five (5) Laning from Congress Ave. to Boynton Beach Blvd. (Right-of-way for this improvement exists; however Palm Beach County has the majority of this improvement planned for 2016-2020. Removal of encroachments into the right- of-way will impact properties along the roadway. Rebuilding the bridge over the E-4 Canal is scheduled for 2006.) Page 9 File Number: LUAR 04-006 Boynton Village Congress Avenue . Six (6) Laning from Lantana Rd. to Hypoluxo Rd. (Planned for fiscal year 2005.) . Six (6) Laning from Maleluca Lane to Lantana Rd. (Planned for fiscal year 2006.) Intersection Phasing - Congress Ave/Gateway Blvd. . 6 Lane Gateway Blvd. from Congress Avenue to 1-95 . Add Eastbound Right Turn Lane . Add Southbound Right Turn Lane . or CRALLS* (Right-of-way exists for 6 laning Gateway Blvd, or would have minor impacts on properties along the right-of-way. The additional turn lanes would impact properties on the west side of the intersection.) Intersection Phasing - Congress Ave/Old Boynton Road . Add Additional Northbound Dual Left Turn Lanes . Add Additional Eastbound Dual Left Turn Lanes . or CRALLS* (The additional right-of-way for the turn lanes would highly impact the commercial properies at this intersection.) Intersection Phasing -Old Boynton Rd/Boynton Beach Blvd. . Add Additional Southbound Dual Left Turn Lane (The additional right-of-way for the turn lane impacts the property at the southwest corner of the intersection.) * Constrained Roadway at Lower Level of Service (Palm Beach County adopts a CRALLS in its Comprehensive Plan. This action recognizes that it is not feasible to complete improvements necessary for the roadway to operate at the adopted Level of Service. Mitigation measures are required to offset the lower level of service.) The applicant has proposed a phasing schedule for the project, linking the issuance of building permits to the commencement of construction of the roadway improvements. This is only one scenario, and other scenarios could be developed as long as they meet the phasing trip thresholds. The most recent traffic impact analysis for the Boynton Village project, combined with the Boynton Town Center, was only presented to Palm Beach County on December 20, 2004. A response from the County is expected prior to the adoption hearing. While the Objections, Recommendations and Comments by DCA associated with the land use amendment have been satisfied by the applicant, the adoption of the rezoning for this project is conditioned on the applicant's complying with the requirements of the County's Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. Unless the County's response is forthcoming prior to the adoption hearing, staff would recommend postponement of the adoption of the land use amendment and rezoning until adoption of the amendments proceeding under Round 1-2005. Page 10 File Number: LUAR 04-006 Boynton Village The Police Department has utilized statistics from Cross Creek Plaza, a strip mall located at 1313 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard to project the service impacts of the small commercial uses proposed in the project. Over a three-year period, the number of businesses in the plaza ranged between 10 and 15 operating at anyone time. The statistical data indicated that businesses of a similar nature would generate approximately 81 calls for service. Likewise, statistical data from townhouses in the Sandalwood Community over a three-year period were used to project the impacts of the 1,120 proposed dwelling units, which is estimated at 988 calls per year. These demands coupled with those of the adjacent Boynton Town Center development indicate that an additional Uniformed Services patrol zone may have to be initiated and manned to provide police services to the residents and businesses on the site. This will require 4 additional police officers to man the new zone. Fire-Rescue indicates that increases in population density and commercial development also increase traffic congestion. Traffic light pre-emption for emergency vehicles is essential to maintaining desired response time. It is imperative that Fire Station #4 is completed and in service prior to completion and occupancy of these new projects, and that Fire Station #5 be expedited to insure adequate service delivery levels and effective response times in the northeast section of the City and as a backup in the northwest section of the City. Approval of new development projects involving multi-family or high-intensity commercial projects should be contingent upon consideration of future upgrades in emergency dispatch capability. Generally, Recreation and Open Space requirements are met in either of two ways: through payment of the Recreation and Parks Development Impact Fee based on an ordinance last amended in July 2002, or through land dedication based on a Comprehensive Plan standard of 6 acres per 1,000 population. In response to Comprehensive Plan Policy 9.C.3.4, cited above under "Item a", the City Commission has requested land dedication. The Recreation and Parks Department has determined that the Impact Fee for 1,120 residential units would equal approximately $784,000, based on 1,120 units (472 townhouse units) and 648 condominium units). To date, it has not been determined how this amount would convert to recreation acreage on the site; however, the dedication should not be counted toward the required "usable open space". Additionally, the Greenwavs/Bikewavs Plan calls for negotiation with developers to provide green space and bikeway linkages throughout the City. Per the plan's recommendation, a 25- foot wide bikeway is considered a minimum. As discussed in the Master Plan Overview, above, the developer has proposed a 40-foot wide greenway along the E-4 Canal right-of-way and a 25-foot greenway along the C-16 Canal to link with the Renaissance Commons bikeways along these canals. With respect to solid waste, the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority has stated that adequate capacity exists to accommodate the county's municipalities throughout the 10-year planning period. The School District of Palm Beach County has reviewed the application and has determined that adequate capacity exists to accommodate the resident population. Lastly, drainage will also be reviewed in detail as part of site plan review, and must satisfy all requirements of the city and local drainage permitting authorities. Page 11 File Number: LUAR 04-006 Boynton Village 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 or nearby properties. Compatibility has been discussed under "Item b". above. The development regulations for the SMU zoning district contain restrictions on building heights and buffering requirements designed to lessen any negative impacts of SMU developments on existing adjacent single-family developments. In addition, the E-4 Canal, situated between the proposed project and the single family neighborhood to the east, has a right-of-way 180 feet. The resulting development would generally have a positive effect on property values of adjacent and nearby properties. However, the roadway improvements, which have been suggested as necessary for the project to be built out as designed, will have a negative impact on some properties, as discussed under "Item d", above. There may be alternatives to the required road improvements considered, such as a "CRALLS" designation, that will not have the same impacts; or a decision may be made that the benefits of the completed project outweigh the general or isolated costs, particularly if the costs are not borne by a governmental entity. f. Whether the property is physically and economically developable under the existing zoning. The property is developable under existing land use designation and zoning. Given the magnitude of commercial uses along this segment of the Congress Avenue corridor, it is questionable if single-family residential development would be the most desirable use of the property or would best accommodate population growth, while at the same time representing the highest and best use ideally proportional service costs. 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. The scale of the proposed mixed use development is such that it can meet the policy directions of the Comprehensive Plan, cited above under "Item a", by providing a mixture of homes, shops, and workplaces in walking distance of each other that are designed in a manner to be sensitive to the characteristics of the site and to surrounding land uses, and at the same time, keep a significant portion of the projected trips within the boundaries of the project. h. Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the city for the proposed use, in districts where such use is already allowed. Given the fact that the applicant is requesting a land use designation that is being considered concurrent with this request for land use amendment, there are no other sites currently available in the City with a Mixed Use-Suburban land use designation. There are no other sites in the City of similar size and location to provide this opportunity for a sizeable mixed use project. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS As indicated herein, this request is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; however, there will be impacts on infrastructure, particularly roadways that may require phasing Page 12 File Number: LUAR 04-006 Boynton Village of the project and the impacts of infrastructure improvements on selected properties in the area must be weighed against projected benefits to the City. In addition, the increase in property tax revenues, the additional housing opportunities, the recreation amenities, and the concentration of density near the City's commercial hub must be weighed against the decrease in Level of Service on Congress Avenue and the additional traffic on Old Boynton Road. The proposed land use amendment and rezoning will be compatible with adjacent land uses and will contribute to the overall economic development of the City. Therefore, staff recommends that the subject request be approved, provided that the master plan, as required by the Suburban Mixed Use zoning regulations, is approved concurrently. If the Planning and Development Board or the City Commission recommends conditions, they will be included within Exhibit "D". ATTACHMENTS S:\Planning\5HARED\WP\PROJEcr5\Boynton Village-Boynton Town Center l\LUAR Q4-Q06\STAFF REPORT UPDATE.doc EXHIBIT "B" ORC REPORT RESPONSES DCA OBJECTIONS ORIGINAL SOURCE RESPONSE (REVIEW AGENCY) Inconsistency with State Comprehensive Plan DCA Addressed by responding to other objections. policies dealing with capacity of concerns and comments as listed infrastructure to support development and coordination of transportation improvements with state, regional and local plans Lack of analysis for availability of public SFWMD (potable water Provided by developer's consultant facilities for the maximum development facility capacity analysis) potential of the sites (sufficient capacity to maintain adopted LOS) Lack of traffic analysis for the maximum FDOT (also: impact on Provided by developer's consultant development potential of the sites (short- and regional network and long term impact on adopted LOS), State Highway System) necessary road improvements CONCERNS/COMMENTS REVIEW AGENCY RESPONSE Uses permitted in SMU include only FDOT Adjusted comprehensive plan language to residential and commercial, excluding other include "residential" and "non-residential" possibilities (such as institutional, civic etc) categories There is no explanation how the density and FDOT Adjusted comprehensive plan language to intensity of uses are calculated include the method of calculation There is no detennination of the minimum FDOT Adjusted comprehensive plan language to density/intensity for each use include minimum/maximum density and intensity for residential and commercial uses No policies promoting transit/transit-oriented FDOT Policies promoting transit and transit-oriented designs for SMU sites designs are being introduced in the Transportation Element in conjunction with the TCEA. Also FDOT has stated that these can be addressed in a future amendment round. Inconsistencies of road classifications FDOT Mistake on the part ofFDOT (admitted) between the proposed BB map and PBC Future 2020 Functional Classification of Roads map No FLUM amendments should be adopted TCRPC The required roadway improvements are not before amendments are made to the PB in the County Five Year Roadway County Five Year Roadway Improvement Improvement Plan. Plan The City should consider designating the TCRPC Alternative to a land use designation. staff entire property as SMU will ensure that connectivity exists and, setbacks, architectural design, and colors are consistent between the two developments DCA Department of Community Affairs SFWMD South Florida Water Management District FDOT Florida Department of Transportation TCRPC - Treasure Coast regional Planning Council LOS - level of service ......,......."'\."..".,,\CADC>\ClJN51\mop,.., ....._SlOJ Doc,,",''''' n....." 'y<)wt,,"_ -"---~~~_.'-"''''''-''----'''-'--'--=.''~~_'!'!'!"'---- I ,~- ---- ~T~~;~_ ---- I - ---I i~~~~~ ,lUi II __ Ii! _-:::::,:>1 ---~~~~r I ------ _'_ III I -"""". ii' . - I >-"- .. """. i' I'i )~~~' ----1/11-1111 I ( V ~ vlli-" i III. e \, \ :i~ I "I d lj l iih~ /\'\\ ~is~~ I 6 > II \ \ \ 6 1 _ _JL~~~\l~~h:;.,L~--J ~ 1r \' \ I )f i -;~~! ,\ , l ~~~~! l ,~~i~ --\ \'\ i" ..~ " s it :. A~l /~y J . \ \\\\ ~~~ \ ___ ---- 1 , I '~II ( \ ..;illl~:. !, !\i,\l,\" j\\ ,0.;' \\\\\ Oee-: ',,',' " 30 ' .o;~ res . ~ \~;\ i~ ,. \1 -------- "', -:'7'-:--"\1 II \ I I, , \\1\ \.---------7J \1\ \ iI j II "';'~J'w\ ~ I Q , ~.'~ , 11 I~ ~;;;! " ~ , e ~ > Z, ""f'l I II i ::; ,I ~~ ,"~I 01 1 1 ~ 1 " ;\~ ~\~"I s ~ l : ~,:l\~--;"~----I--~?- ~ ,.L1 1_ - - - - - - -f _ _l _ _ aDllOYNTUN -..::...~ ::.ii-' ~ :r--c~'""'"'- ~- '~-'''--~If~---''r-~~ - ~~F-J'F~:Ii "B,,-",'1''-'''''I(~~ I' I r' III . r~r-. T~ ~'~l' 'I'J~~! C] ,: _E;.,,~1e.~ I ,I: --- , ii, -. -i--I'.-.r~ =t__ f II ' ! I! II '-1' ~I~I:rJ''J!IJ I~~ .---- u -;-1, i II : . ,- ~ !i l " I', I I: , , H 1 l' I I I , I "\I,,~' 'I I' 1'1 'I, "II I, II i 'II II: " I , ,[ , i!1 'I" I"~ I,' II ' i: ',,' .. 'I I' ,', " : I:, I i: Ii ~ ,;: I . <,'iI'l. I (, " ':1, " II.,." I' '. I . H'i'; (i I'li II ij: I -~'1 ~ 1 ' I'! I II 11'1:1 I'll I: lI'" " I> ill \l -_.._.._-~.........--_.. . ,,, ;x ~~~I o.>n ~~~ ~ m~ ~i ~" ~ "'F~i "",, ~~ ~ ~'8~ 8~ :;; z ~!i fi!i ," ...!lJ !U... ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ -0 0 ,.. .. . " III!I , ii , ... .. ~~I~ ~~~ s~)o ~ ~ o !! Exhibit "e" ~~ 11n~ I!!h~j "h.l. ~" ~... !l!lil ill! "" .,!,l ! ~~ !I~'l. ! ';nl , !' 'I!i~!~ lJ!lil~ I,I'!I 'illl : , , .. 0,,,, lI:;~ .\~"., ...." \.., . ' '\ \ \ " " . . . ' . \...- \ \ , . I \ / -'\ \ \' 'I"~ - '.' \ -' i~. \, '\\~~---. ~ \ . ~ ~"\" \\ . /''''~" \\\. ' . .~ \" , '\ \' \...-. \. \ '" ,\' /. " . \ /', y' . ' I I I I ~-...,.....,...~- ~ ~ ~;i 'f' BOYNTON VILLAGE en ~ i~ ~~ DEVELOPER: ""C i g~ ~ 1950 CONGRESS AVENUE, LLC. IIOYNTON BE~Ol rl<J"IO~ SMU MASTER PLAN '"""..H01U> "'...._, ~_nKil*Y-Hom --...H~..=..:..:.:~ ~_U lIId~1r.:. ........ SO< 59>75 ...~":''"''~_~-=..n,,'~... -"-COlt -:.;:n..1J:?"':;::_'''~- ",' " ~ 'i , iil; II II , 'I .. , .. ...CTYOIOO"'Ta<!lEAt>< PfllCTYOIoo,,"Ta<I<AO< -- ,,-,-0. "1-0. 011 0... 8y EXHIBIT "D" Conditions of Approval Project name: Boynton Village File number: LUAR 04-006 Reference. SMU DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- General Comments: None PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic Comments: l. Provide a copy of a revised traffic analysis for this project. The traffic analysis shall include impacts associated with full build-out of the project. The provided analysis only considers Boynton Town Center and Boynton Village and should include all required off-site improvements. 2. Minimum right-of-way width for the spine road shall be no less than 100 feet. The roadway classification for this roadway will be a Major Collector at build-out and thus the specified right-of-way width. 3. Please acknowledge that many of the off-site improvements referenced in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Pinder Troutman Consulting, Inc. will require acquisition of additional public right-of-way. IdentifY those areas and address resulting impacts to private orooerties. 4. Provide preliminary road layout to illustrate lane alignment at the intersections of Congress/Old Boynton and Congress/Gateway. Include the roadway widening impacts to the Renaissance Commons Phase VI and show roadway re-configuration on Gateway Blvd. from Congress to Park Ridge Rd. 5. The developer shall provide a phased construction schedule based upon off site roadway improvements necessary to support each particular phase. The phased construction schedule shall be based upon trips generated by each land use in each phase. UTILITIES Comments: 6. Please provide an accurate timeline that clearly illustrates when water and sewer services will be required to serve the oroposed proiect. Your starting Conditions of Approval 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT date for the time line should be the date of City Commission approval. Also provide milestone dates for permit application, the start of construction, and the setting of the first water meter. This timeline will be used to determine the adequacy of water and wastewater treatment capacity for your project upon the project's completion. so please be as accurate as possible. 7. Provide calculations showing that the proposed water mains will support the needed fire flows and demands. FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: 8. All comments requiring changes and/or corrections to the plans shall be reflected on all appropriate sheets. 9. Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate additional comments. Acceptance of these plans during the TRC process does not ensure that additional comments may not be generated by the Commission and at permit review. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Connnents: None FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 10. Tabulations demonstrating the orooosed numbers and tvoes of dwelling I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I units, square footages of commercial, office and other uses should be shown on the individual parcels and tabular data of master plan. 11. Master plan shows approximately 5 acres for open space concentrated at southeast comer of project. Although individual site plans will be required to show full compliance with objectiveslintent of SMU ordinance including requirements for useable open space, this area is considerably smaller than the total amount of use able open space required for the project. Either expand the proposed recreation area to represent a greater portion of the open space requirement, or alternatively, provide secondary open space where originally proposed between lake parcel and eastern terminus of the main street, and sized to at minimum provide for open vista to lake and small gathering place. Remainder of required opens space can then be represented, for example, by private recreation areas. the pedestrian greenway, qualified green spaces and urban gathering spaces all to be shown on the comprehensive site plan and individual site plans. 12. The 2nd traffic circle (easternmost) should be the prominent focal point. The alignment of the north/south intersecting roadway should be straight through, as depicted on the westernmost traffic circle, providing ease of movement and clear vision through the intersection. ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: 1. To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: I 1. To be determined. I I I S;\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Village-Boynton Town Center 1 \LUAR 04-006\SMU Master Plan\COA.doc ~ . . TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 5G From: Staff Date: October 15,2004 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Draft Amendments to the City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan DCA Reference No. 04-2 Introduction The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that Council review local government comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption. Under the provisions of this law, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) prepares an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORe) Report on a proposed amendment only if requested to do so by the local government, the regional planning council, an affected person, or if an ORC Report is otherwise deemed necessary by the DCA. If the local government requests DCA to prepare an ORC Report, then Council must provide DCA with its own objections, recommendations for modification, and comments on the proposed amendment within 30 days of its receipt. Background The City of Boynton Beach has proposed two amendments to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and text amendments to the Future Land Use and Transportation elements of the City comprehensive plan. The City has requested that the DCA carry out a fonnal review of the amendments. ~. Evaluation Future Land Use Map The proposed FLUM amendments are summarized in Table I, and the location of the FLUM amendments is shown in the attached maps. '..,11 .. . . . Table 1 Proposed Future Land Use Map Amendments City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan DCA Reference No. 04-2 Amendment Approx. Current FLUM Proposed FLUM Approximate Location NumberlName Acreal!e Desil!nation Desil!nation 1. Boynton Village 81.8 MoOR MX-S northeast quadrant of the intersection of Congress Ave. and Old Bovnton Rd. 2. Boynton Town 25.0 MoOR LRC Northeast comer of Congress Center Ave. and Old Bovnton Rd. Total 106.8 Legend to FLUM Designations LOR MoOR HDR LRC IND MX-S Low Density Residential (maximum 4.84 dwelling units per acre) Moderate Density Residential (maximum 7.26 dwelling units per acre) High Density Residential (maximum 10.8 dwelling units per acre) Local Retail Commercial Industrial Mixed Use - Suburban I. Boynton Village - This 81.8-acre parcel is presently vacant. The proposed use is for a mixed-use development with 1,120 residential units; 10,000 square feet of office space; and 149,000 square feet of commercial use. The existing FLUM designation is Moderate Density Residential under which a maximum of 594 dwelling units could be constructed. The proposed FLUM designation is Mixed-Use Suburban, a new FLUM designation that would allow up to 20 residential dwelling units per acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 for non-residential uses. Existing land uses on surrounding properties include the C-16 (Boynton) Canal and the Renaissance Commons Development of Regional Impact to the north; the E-4 Canal and single-family residential uses to the east; Old Boynton Road, residential development, and vacant land to the south; and Congress Avenue with commerci;;1 development beyond to the west. Surrounding FLUM designations are Industrial to the north, Low Density Residential to the east, Low Density Residential and High Density Residential to the south, and Local Retail Commercial to the west. The City anticipates no utility level of services issues, but the net increase of 8,664 new vehicular trips would cause Gateway Boulevard and Old Boynton Road to operate at Level of Service "E". Phasing of the project will be necessary. Projected roadway expansions to Gateway Boulevard and Old Boynton Road would require an amendment to the Palm Beach County Five-Year Roadway Improvement Program. . . The Palm Beach County School District review indicates that adequate capacity exists to accommodate the projected student population. 2. Boynton Town Center - This 25-acre parcel is located immediately adjacent to the Boynton Village property at the northeast comer of Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road. The property is currently vacant. The proposed use is for a commercial retail development. The existing FLUM is Moderate Density Residential that would allow a maximum of 182 dwelling units. The proposed FLUM designation is Local Retail Commercial. Existing land uses on surrounding properties include vacant land to the east and north, Old Boynton Road and a commercial center beyond to the south, and Congress Avenue with commercial development beyond to the west. Surrounding FLUM designations include Moderate Density Residential (proposed Mixed Use - Suburban) to the north and east and Local Retail Commercial to the south and west. The City indicates that the proposed use is complimentary to existing uses in the Congress A venue corridor and would serve the new residential development proposed for the surrounding area. Connectivity with the mixed-use development to the north will be required with the effect of minimizing the number of additional trips on Congress Avenue. However, the project must be phased to coincide with the County roadway and intersection improvements in the area and will require revisions to the Palm Beach County Five-Year Roadway Improvement Plan. The City indicates that retail commercial is a better use than residential for the property and may be the last opportunity left in the City for this type of development. The City intends to limit maximum development to 250,000 square feet. Text Amendments I. Future Land Use Element - Policy 1.16.1 is to be revised to add a new FLUM category entitled "Mixed Use - Suburban" (MX-S). Allowable uses, densities, and intensities of development are specified. The existing mixed-use FLUM category is intended only for properties in the downtown and Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) while the MX-S category is to be used for areas west of 1-95. Property that receives the new MX-S category must front on an arterial roadway. It will allow up to 20 dwelling units per acre and up to a I.<r'F AR. Eligible properties will be required to submit a development plan with a single, unified design concurrent with the application for the MX-S designation. 2. Transportation Element a. Functional Classification Map - This map, Figure 4 of the Comprehensive Plan Support Document, is based upon the Palm Beach County Functional Classification Map. It is to be revised by including a new legend and by adding two roadway segments as "Local Collectors". The segments are SE 4th Avenue between Boynton Beach Boulevard and SE 12th Avenue and Martin Luther King . . Junior Boulevard between Federal Highway and Seacrest Boulevard. This designation is intended to support the implementation of redevelopment plans by facilitating the designation of new zoning that will allow additional building heights and higher residential densities consistent with those redevelopment plans. b. Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) - Recently completed CRA redevelopment plans seek livable, sustainable neighborhoods and provide the catalyst for redevelopment and growth in the CRA. The plans recommended increased residential densities and commercial intensities that will result in an integrated mix of land uses that will enhance non-automobile traffic. This will, however, result in additional vehicular traffic. If existing levels of service are to be maintained, the potential of the downtown will be very limited. Thus, the City proposes to designate a portion of the CRA as a TCEA so that the goals of infill development and redevelopment can be achieved. The TCEA is proposed under the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. These requirements call for the designation of a specific geographic area proposed for redevelopment with less than 40 percent vacant land. The City proposes to limit the amount of development that can occur under the TCEA, establish requirements for monitoring, and specify the action required if the TCEA has negative effects on mobility. In order to move forward with the TCEA, amendments were required to the Palm Beach County comprehensive plan. These amendments were transmitted by the County on April 2004. The City proposes a total of 42 amendments to the Transportation Element goals, objectives, and policies in order to establish the TCEA. Some of the revised or new goals, objectives, and policies address the following: I. promotion of multi-modal transportation options (goal) 2. establishment of the TCEA (Policy 2.1.6) 3. required monitoring (Policy 2.1.7) 4. limitations on development (Policy 2.1.8) 5. coordination with the Housing and Coastal Management elements.- 6. commitment to implement an affordable housing program (Policy 2.2.5) 7. hurricane shelter space (Policy 2.2.6) 8. promotion of walking, bicycling, and public space especially in the CRA and TCEA 9. pedestrian convenience and safety (policies 2.4.7, 2.4.8, and 2.4.9) I . . 10. transit study requirement and augmentation of the existing local transit circulation system (Policy 2.4.10) II. coordination with the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority especially regarding passenger service to the FEC Railroad 12. Transportation Demand Management (Policy 2.7.5) and Transportation System Management (Policy 2.7.6) 13. evaluation and improvement of transit services and cooperation with Palm Tran 14. promotion of pedestrian and bicycle-friendly environment (Objective 2.12 and seven policies) Extraiurisdictional Impacts The proposed amendments were submitted to the Palm Beach County Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee and were distributed on June 24, 2004. According to the Clearinghouse Coordinator, no objections were received. Effects on Significant Regional Resources or Facilities Analysis of the proposed amendments indicates that they would not have adverse effects on significant regional resources or facilities. Obiections. Recommendations for Modification. and Comments A. Objections 1. None B. Comments \. The City should not adopt the FLUM amendments until the required amendments are made to the Palm Beach County r"ive-Year Roadway Improvement Program. 2. The City should consider designating both properties as MX-S and require that the development plan for these adjacent properties contain a single, unified design. This would better ensure that land use, building typology, street design, and alternate modes of transportation are considered in a meaningful, consistent, and unified way consistent with SRPP GoalS.\. . . Recommendation Council should adopt the above comments and approve their transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. Attachment ~~ . City of Boynton Beach Future Land Use Map Amendments DCA Reference No. 04-2 .?OlnCla:'.~ ,=-Iac~ ake Wort --J ! 6\h va S i--- I I -t-G0 ---- "tJ I I '" I l Hyp~luxo kd I M laleuca La -r ~La tana , I , ! / NW 22nd Ave:- ~. ----. '-.._j I [ I ~;~'POil.lX , <I.. "' 1;& 2 ~-'-~ ) __ _.~~~d!2 .8nny 8re~zes I , I "tJ cr: -tL__ '" '" 'J il () Lake Ida d ulf Stream .0" (By (;.3~::?!1S .- @ I I I ray each .F ~a~NJcod P.r.es f-Ingslend' fm6 \ 'C'1'"I~_~~~~1:~:21 "tJ L--.linton Blvd r Linton Blv l7" ",' I G- , I c< Oil: I <>-7 t ' OJ I t-. Cf. UI ~ 1-( ,~ ~!{.. ~n't '04'i" ~.:r- -"'$1- - ..'-;:~;~; ~. ..O<'~-::':;:, 1:-- ,~. ;;f::{~"': o , }};... . .~ 'J~;;/:::~~i'~~{;;_i ...~. . South Palm Beach/ ~:;\rft;;.: . ''-..",' )I,~E .alapan "-....::'l' .,~.<: i;, ',j.~; - .',:., .. ~, " .~. j' . I I <r ~4.J i G10' N\V BIV( I ! I "10 *1 ~>;;--- -.\ ;"[' ~~y :- ~~::~ Ridge If';" r-~. cr) ::':ly-J '" ~*,;. ;:, rr'l / ,'J, i:! I / / :<':' ~t ;i~~~~}i~iS; ; _ i~fJ!t7.:'{ ." "~~." Om, .'r:_h , ;:-:l-,c,:~li ',' r '-~qt'ti~ .~,j ''ft;~~ l' ,",,' 1,~ fA... .,~:,:.;:,'''''. t'*"M"~ . ,~:_-t,i_; ;....., ,. .' .~;. , 1 , ',~ :'.. '.:. 't-. ."i. ~. ';."" /;, 'j. ,~l";:; :'", ~....,.. ,~i; ..~ -~-- ;'1c 'j;; .:.~, '\. -' 4 :~{'-' ~'; ( , kbVNTON VILLAGE · LOCATION MAP Local Retail Commercial Industrial o BOYNTON VILLAGE LUAR 04-006 Suburban Mixed Use 81.814 acres ~ . e ~. --.-.---.-.-.-.-. :::: ! ... ~ LocalR Commercial 'f.t.'iU."'." ' .' I. ~ ',' " \\ .' , . - - - - w+. s o o City of Boynton Beach Future Land Use Map Amendments DCA Reference No. 04-2 f(l,nC1a:-.- ?lace- ---"] i N'" vaS 0'1' i-~-~- i rvraleuca La I I -r-'G0 ..--.-L. 10 I I a:: I I 1 HX~uxo ~d I ) / NW 22nd Ave" -..-, ....-.'-..._~ i I I I. .1. " ., r";j ~ I * j I 1; & 2 -'-r ) . I' -. l/'J . - I Ix; \ '.' SW 23rd A --.---.--- akeWort t '~f/ ':S. ~f~\1i~;~ South Palm Beach': , -";$'" ". .~,..:.:. . ~ "~';:~>' ....,vo I' I I :: :-.,i - ! ~ ('"'r"~'/ BI'IJ 1 :l \ 1\ ClJ AJ. , ' - "l;;l. Ii 'J,,: . I "..' --" i I ~~:Ij:,.' ,~? . i--;;:- .L.,..I / t I I 'n , f'J L ~,@ I , I ! gLa tana .;"'1, "';alapan "-i:/pollp ,; .~ I 10 a:: -5-_ c '" ':J i'!i U Lake Ida d ..-'--...-- ,/ \'-~Jl..mmit 0 ", .o~ ray (:~~j09ns Onlray <.:> ores 1,F:a:ro'lCOdp,r.es ('-l I r-Ingsland' I ' flIJ6 \ .c,Llllry Club Ac:os J_J,inton Blvd r'--- ---.Stl~~~::l ~ ocl I ~: I <U' tl ' . I UI ' ~ f~ " 'f. I -.f! ray each ulf Streom , '" \,.~: Omi ,.' , " ,) , ~;,:{" "-' ~, .< ;~ :~~;; ,i ;o"",..j, " o 0 BOYNTON TOWN CENTER I LOCATION MAP o Local Retail Commercial Industrial :::: J! CII .. ." .3 LUAR 04-007 I.ocaJ Ret.' Com ere/Al 25.00 actVs Local Commercial tr.,.,:v,,' . .,. .' r . . ' . ,.Y. ...... . - - - - w+. s rL.81 [Jl_ _J __J . I -- LJ z 0 ! ~ U-PAO ~ S ~ WOO B IG II-MIN '-1 GOLF RD u-co I I, III ,.J n J 0 r----------- z \ Cl ::a m = . H n U- --L______:_._____.______._____._ o ! III U-MIN --~ u iI II) z ..------, II-MIN :I ~ J'7 d I ~ I I 1_ C ~ C :I 9 LEGEND U . PAl' Principal Arterial. Inte..tate U . PAO: Prlnclpa' Arteria' . Other U . MIN: Minor Arterial U . COLLI Collector L . Local Colleeto.. -not on Stat. Cla..lncatlon EXHIBIT "B" o z :I o ~ w+. o 8SO 1.700 ....00 5.100 ..W.., BOYNTON BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROADWAYS 2000.2010 FIGURE 4 I o . TCEA Boundary Map '--:CUIW--,~., ...0tJ.....,..... y+. a 0..1 0.2 ~ o . Cityof "'- t. Boynton Beach I::J=~ .=. t'e. _5 ~..... City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Amendments 04-2 2-13 Date: November 00, 2004 Transportation Element Ordinance No. 04-059 .,.' I I I I I I I I I I I I I o g. o Figure 2 Proposed TCEA Boundary h / w4E S / Boynton Beach Carlll \\..;- fit ~r r ;:= TTTiff 11-4-HBEfBEEBt: >. rriI.!!Q IIIII_~L '-, C': , ~ ... C':j' 11 ~ f-(; ~l~~~i~~~w ~.Iluf/ 1~1~,tl5~;~I~ ""': :jITJII]] ~ ~ ~ ~ :BlJ B~ B~~~~ D-1ffi5ffiJ 0 Ird-r~~8BIJEEEill.J [ n n=1rrlBffi1]EEB [j ITIITJITIIDI I ~Dnr=r, CJ Ib__L-I I I.JLJ ~ o:rro ,,___ 1r-"1 ~tffi]~~~ I I,IIL I~BM~ r=.I~~ .~~ ~ ~ fHffiflIHIHJffif5EJIE ~ ~~'@ 8IDffiHE:l1HEHEEHE ~ ~~ ~ -=:JE:==J ~e~~~~1 III~ _SO - ~ lIIIllID ffiffiHE l~tHHlliHm~ ~ EECU ~ ~ ~ .mE 81,1,1,1,11,1,llfTilEtm fiNffi2IJtE El~ i------ " , i I - ~ ffiflITRam [fiffiE~ EHHHBtE~m ~ J ~~.===~tgi!gJ ~ rnEffi 81HHJ RHHlfHi EEmnID J~ ffi tIJ V I -Lili UI ~ EHHm fmffi1B BImIrn l1lf=1:' ~~ . I EHIHB EHHHJ f1IffimiJ EIffiE!J lJ. '- p _~EEllffiHtEEJ ~ ~ Source. GIS mformatlOn provtded by the City of Boynton Beach Legend CJ Proposed TCEA Boundary 0_' 0.2 0.3 Miles I I I _I I I I I I I I ," /1111111 II I I III , I I I I II I "" UlJJJ BllIIIIIIII ~r'Il'"lrrl~~ [J [J t=-- '= rTt:;1 ~ ! ...i. --Irf! '/ --"///~ rtr. furn \..(L ,rrr 11111 /--i ..l _ Ikrr~ rm , rTlilJ~ @-\~ -. - City of \~.. Boynton __ - Beach ~I-r~ Kimley-Horn ~ - , and Associates, Inc. 044349005 February 2004 . I ,\ . Figure 1 Location Map G w.' s o 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 , Miles CJ - Legend Proposed TCEA Boundary CRA Boundary Boynton Beach City Limits City of Boynton Beach ~I_ ,.. Kimley-Hom .....' _ , and Associates, Inc. 044349005 February 2004 DCA OB.JECTIONS ORIGINAL SOURCE RESPONSE (REVIEW AGENCY) Inconsistency with State Comprehensive Plan OCA Addressed by responding to policies dealing with capacity of infrastructure to other objections, concerns and support development and coordination of comments as listed transportation improvements with state, regional and local plans Lack of analysis for availability of public facilities SFWMD (potable Provided by developer's for the maximum development potential ofthe water facility capacity consultant sites (sufficient capacity to maintain adopted analysis) LOS) Lack of traffic analysis for the maximum FOOT (also: impact on Provided by developer's development potential of the sites (short- and long regional network and consultant term impact on adopted LOS), necessary road State Highway System) improvements CONCERNS/COMMENTS REVIEW AGENCY RESPONSE Uses permitted in SMU include only residential FDOT Adjusted comprehensive plan and commercial, excluding other possibilities language to include (such as institutional, civic etc) "residential" and "non- residential" categories There is no explanation how the density and FOOT Adjusted comprehensive plan intensity of uses are calculated language to include the method of calculation There is no determination of the minimum FOOT Adjusted comprehensive plan density/intensity for each use language to include minimum/maximum density and intensity for residential and commercial uses No policies promoting transit/transit-oriented FDOT Policies promoting transit and designs for SMU sites transit-oriented designs are being introduced in the Transportation Element in conjunction with the TCEA. Inconsistencies of road classifications between the FOOT Mistake on the part ofFDOT proposed BB map and PBC Future 2020 (admitted) Functional Classification of Roads map No FLUM amendments should be adopted before TCRPC The suggested roadway amendments are made to the PB County Five improvements are not in the Year Roadway Improvement Plan plan. The City should consider designating the entire TCRPC The City staff has made this property as SMU suggestion; the developer declined. DCA - Department of Community Affairs SFWMD - South Florida Water Management District FDOT - Florida Department of Transportation TCRPC - Treasure Coast regional Planning Council LOS - level of service AUG 30 2004 7:55AM r-~TER L BURGESS 9!' '151040 p.5 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONIBUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECENED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECENED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETIJRN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Plannine: D<;partment City of Boynton Beach 08/10104 08/18104 09/12104 ELEMENT: Mixed Us(>-Suburban (CPTA 04-002) Future Land Use DCA Amendment #04.2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.006(3Xc}7 9J-5.006(4}(c} The proposed modifications create a new Mixed Use-Suburban future land use category. CONCERN: Although the proposed text for the new mixed-use land use designation meets the minimum requirements ofFAC 9J-5 regarding: the descriptions of allowed uses, the maximum intensity and density of uses, and the percentage distnbutions among uses, text improvements in these three areas are encouraged. DISCUSSION: The Department supports the City's objective to establish a suburban mixed-use future land use designation, since developing parcels with mixed uses has the potential to reduce vehicular trips and encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. A functional mix of uses, incorporating residential, civic, service, and employment opportunities, increases internal trip capture. To improve how land use and transportation are coordinated, and to be more consistent with the City's objective, the following paragraphs offer suggestions to enhance proposed policies. The proposed amendment identifies the uses pemritted in the new land use category, yet it only identifies "residential" and "commercial" uses when defining the ranges of allowable percentages. Several of the permitted uses, such as commwrity centers, recreation facilities, places of worship, schools, and police and fire stations, are typically considered "community facility" or "civic" uses. It may be appropriate to identifY a third classification of uses, with a separate percentage range. For example, a portion of sites designated Mixed Use-Suburban could be devoted to public plazas, parks, or open space to create an inviting pedestrian atmosphere. Another use clarification concerns hotel and motel uses, which may be considered either residential or commercial, depending on the local government's preference. The classifications of these uses should be made clear for this land use category. To avoid conflicts in the future, it would be prudent to specifY how the density and intensity of uses are calculated. A maximum density of 20 units per acre and a maxinnum intensity of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 are to be permitted. It is not clear if this means a parcel is allowed to (Continued) 3 AUG 30 2004 7:55AM r ~TER & BURGESS S~ 151040 p.6 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSffiLE DMSIONIBUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Planninll Dq>artment City of Bovnton Beach 08/1 0/04 08/18104 09/12104 ELEMENT: Mixed Use-Suburban (CPTA 04-(02) Future Land Use DCA Amendment #04.2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.006(3)(c)7 9J-5.006(4)(c) DISCUSSION, Continued: develop 20 units per acre AND non-residential uses with FAR 1.0 as calculated based on total acreage. Or, does the proposed number of units reduce the allowed maximum square footage for non-residential uses? Similarly, it is not clear how the percentages of residential and oommercial uses are to be calculated. Are these values calculated depending on total development square footage or on the Wlderlying acreage? Based on what is proposed for Boynton Village, it appears both the density/intensity and distribution calculations are related to the associated acreage being used. Boynton Village is proposed to have 1,120 units, which at 20 units per acre "allocates" 56 acres of the site's 81 acres. The 56 acres equates to just under 70 percent of the 81-acre total, where 70 percent is proposed to be the maximum allowed percentage of residential uses. To ensure a functional mix ofuses on a site, it may be appropriate to identify a minimum density and intensity for each use, especially for residential components, and require at least some small amoWlt of civic or community uses to encourage pedestrian activity. RECOMMENDATIONS: The City should clarify the allowed uses, specify how the allowed densities and intensities of uses and their distributions are to be calculated, and identify minimum and maxmnUB percentages of each land use proposed for the new mixed use designation. REVIEWED BY: LarrvHvrnowitz. AICP PHONE: 954-777-4490 REVIEWED BY: Nancv A. Ziel!1er PHONE: 954-777-4490 4 AUG 30 2004 7:55AM r 'TER & BURGESS 95 151040 p.7 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSpORTATION OBJECfIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSffiLE DMSIONIBUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUJRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Planninl! Deoartment City ofBovnton Beach 08/10/04 08/18/04 09/12/04 ELEMENT: Mixed Use-Suburban (CPTA 04-002) Future Land Use DCA Amendment #04-2 RULE DEFICIENCY: The proposed modifications create a new Mixed Use-Suburban future land use category. COMMENT: Residential developments at densities of six to eight acres are considered sufficiently populous to support transit services. The Milled Use-Suburban category proposes a maximwn of 20 units per acre, which is highly supportive of transit. As such, the Department recommends the City establish policies to encourage Mixed Use-Suburban sites promote transit use and incorporate transit oriented design principles. Options to consider include requiring the provision of pathways between uses and to transit stops, the provision of transit infrastructure such as shelters, and the incorporation of transit stops or transfer stations on site. Designing parking facilities so that they do not inhibit the movement of pedestrians between uses or to and from transit facilities is another method to improve the comfort and convenience for pedestrians and transit riders. Using Boynton Village as an example, major commercial tenants exist across Congl"CSS Avenue and Old Boynton Road. Safe pedestrian crossings could be created, so that residents may visit the mall or shoppers may ''parl: once~ and visit multiple establishments. Opportunities for transit travel are available since Palm Tran provides service along Congress Avenue and the Shopper Hopper stops at the nemby Boynton Beach Mall. Furthermore, the MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan identifies Community Bus Service in the City of Boynton Beach, and shows service in the Congress Avenue corridor. REVIEWED BY: Larrv Hvmowitz. AICP PHONE: 954-777-4490 REVIEWED BY: Nancv A. Ziel!ler PHONE: 954-777-4490 5 AUG 30 2004 7:55AM r ,TER ~ BURGESS S!:" 151040 p.8 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONsmLE DIVISIONIBUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Planninl! Dca'lartment City of Bovnton Beach 08/10/04 08/18/04 09112104 ELEMENT: Boynton Village (LUAR 04-006) Boynton Town Center (LUAR 04-007) Future Land Use DCA Amendment #04-2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.005(2)(a) 9J-5.019(1) 9J-5.055(3)(c) 9J-5.019(3Xa), (t), (g) and (h) The proposed amendments will have the following affect on development potential: Boynton Village amendment proposes changing the land use from Moderate Density Residential (MoDR) to Mixed Use-Suburban (MX-S) for 81.81 acres located in the proximity of the northeast comer of Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road. Boynton Town Center amendment proposes changing the land use from Moderate Density Residential (MoDR) to Local Retail Commercial for 25 acres located at the northeast comer of Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road. CONCERN: The proposed amendments are submitted without providing the appropriate data and analyses of impacts to the regional roadway network and State Highway System. In particular, the data and analyses do not address peak hour volumes and distribution and are not based on the maximum densities and intensities allowed in the future land use categories, both of which may have identifiable level of service impacts. The supporting material d<Xls not adequately address how the adopted level of service will be maintained on swrounding roadways, especially those identified as constrained and in the bacldog of needed improvements, in the short- and long-range planning horizons. Furthermore, coordination with other transportation plans is not fully addressed. DISCUSSION: The transportation planning process is an iterative cycle that relies on local governments to identify projected impacts to roadways based on their development approvals. Without an analysis of the potential traffic impacts to the surrounding roadway network, the City is limited in its ability to react and coordinate with the County, the MPO, and the Department to address future transportation demand and financing of needed infrastructure. The available capacity for these roadways may prove inadequate to support the proposed increased traffic or modified traffic patterns. (Continued) 6 AUG 30 2004 7:56AM r-~TER ~ BURGESS 95 151040 p.9 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECflONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSffiLE DIVISIONIBUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RE11JRN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Plannine: Deoartment Citv of Bovnton Beach 08110/04 08/18/04 09/12104 ELEMENT: Boynton Village (LUAR 04-006) Boynton Town Center (LUAR 04-001) Future Land Use DCA Amendment #04-2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.005(2)(a) 9J-5.019(1) 9J-5.055(3Xc) 9J-5.019(3Xa), (f), (g) and (11) DISCUSSION Continued: Analyses are provided that address trip generation with and without the proposed land use changes, and identify existing and future capacity issues. However, the analyses do not address peak hour, peak direction level of service impacts, which would provide the means to identify existing and future capacity issues and reflect the most constrained time period for each affected roadway. It has been the Department's policy to require a traffic analysis that considers the maximum development potential permitted by the future land use designation, to address changes the proposed development may undergo that would result in higher densities and intensities. For example, a condition of approval for the Boynton Town Center amendment is that development be restricted to a maximum 250,000 square feet of commercial. Similarly, approval of the Boynton Village amendment is conditioned on limiting development to 1,120 dwelling units, 10,000 square feet of office, and 149,000 square feet of retail commercial uses. The traffic studies indicate the applicant will make road improvements to meet level of service standards. However, these improvements are not included in the Transportation Improvement Program or the Department's Adopted Work Program fur the next five years and the City's Capital hnprovement Element, or another short-range transportation plan, should be updated to show the committed improvements. Furthermore, implementation of the proposed improvement on Old Boynton Road is questionable, since this roadway has a local, neighborhood character and homes are in close proximity to the existing roadway. For these reasons, it seems unlikely that increasing the number of lanes from two to five will be acceptable to the community. Also, right-of-way acquisition and displacement costs may increase improvement costs beyond what is feasible for the applicant to provide. (Continued) 7 AUG 30 2004 7:56AM ('-'TER So BURGESS 95 151040 p.10 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECI'IONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONIBUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Planninll Deoartment City of Bovnton Bp...ch 08/10/04 08/1 &'04 09/12104 ELEMENT: Boynton Village (LUAR 04-006) Boynton Town Center (LUAR 04-(07) Future Land Use DCA Amendment #04-2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.oo5(2)(a) 9J-5.019(1) 9J-5.055(3)(c) 9J-5.019(3)(a), (t), (g) and (h) DISCUSSION Continued: The 2020 traffic projections for these amendments show drops in the amount of traffic on several roadway links from that projected for 2008. This difference is largely due to how these projections are calculated; data for 2008 uses existing 2003 counts and adds in trips based on growth rates, whereas the 2020 projections use the 2020 traffic volume projected by the County via models and add trips for the amendments. It is unlikely that such drops in traffic volume will be seen between 2008 and 2020, and as such the 2020 projected levels of service may be susceptible to error. The Boynton Town Center amendment results in two such links on Congress Avenue, and for the Boynton Town Village amendment, three links are identified, with two links on Congress Avenue and the third on State Road 804lBoynton Beach Boulevard. The City's Comprehensive Plan uses 2020 as its long term planning horizon. However, the MPO's LRTP projects conditions for 2025, with updates for 2030 currently underway. To coordinate impacts with the MPO's plans, the data and analysis should address 2025 as well. RECOMMENDATIONS: The County should provide revised traffic data and analyses to include the maximum development intensities and densities allowed by the proposed future land use designations. The analyses should address peak hour and peak direction impacts to the surrounding regional roadway network in the short- and long-term planning horizons. The analysis should specify how level of service will be maintained and improvements necessary to maintain level of selVice should be included in the City's Capital Improvement Element or another medium range transportation plan. Lastly, coordination with MPO and Department work plans should be addressed. REVIEWED BY: LarrY Hvrnowitz. AICP PHONE: 954-777-4490 REVIEWED BY: Nancv A. Ziecler PHONE: 954-777-4490 8 10/29/2004 09:44 8504883""9 COMM PLANNING PAGE 07/09 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DlVISION/BUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Planninl! DeoartInent Citv of Bovnton Beach 08/10/04 08/18/04 09/12/04 ELEMENT: Boynton Village (LUAR 04-006) Boynton Town Center (LUAR 04-007) Future Land Use DCA Amendment #04-2 RULE DEFICIENCY, 9J-5.005(2)(a) 9J-5.019(1) 9J-5.055(3)(c) 9J-5.019(3)(a), (f), (g) and (h) DISCUSSION Continued: Analyses are provided that address trip generation with and without the proposed land use J changes, and identify existing and future capacity issues. However, the analyses do not address ~eak hour, peak direction level of service impacts, which would provide the means to identify existing and future capaclty Issues and reflect tbe most constrained time period for each affected roadway. " It bas been tbe Department's policy to require a traffic analysis that considers the maximum development potential permitted by the future land use designation, to addrcss changes me proposed development li1ay undergo that would result in higher densities and intensities. For ellample, a condition of approval for the Boynton Town Center amendment is that development be restricted to a mallimnm ''in.nOn SQuare feet of cn%:ercial. Similarly, approval of the Boynton Village amendment is conditioned on limiting evelopment to 1,120 dwelling units, 10,000 square feet of office, and 149,000 square feet of retail commercial uses. ~ . ...e traffic studies indicate the applicant will make road improvements to meet level of service standards. However, t~ese improvements are not included in the TransportaJion Improvement Program or the Department's Adopted Work Program tor Ihe next five years and the City's Capital Improvement Element, or another short-range transportation plan, should be updated to show the committed improvements. Furthermore, i11'pl"",,,nt..;^1l. oaf the proposed improvement On Old Boynton Road is auestionohle, since this roadway has a local, neighborhood character and homes are in close proximity to the existing roadway, For these reasons, it seems unlikely that increasing the number of lanes from two to five will be acceptable to the community. Also, right-of-way acquisition and displacement costs may increase improvement costs beyond what is feasible for the applicant to provide. (Continued) 5 10/29/2004 09:44 85048833pn COMM PLANNING PAGE 08/09 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISlONIBUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECEIVED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Planninlt Deoartment Citv of Bovnton Beach 08/10/04 08/18/04 09/12/04 ELEMENT: Boynton Village (LUAR 04-006) Boynton Town Center (LUAR 04"007) Future Land Use DCA Amendment #04-2 RULE DEFICIENCY: 9J-5.005(2)(a) 9.T-5.019(1) 9J-5.055(3)(c) 9J-5.019(3)(a), (t), (g) and (h) DISCUSSION Continued: The 2020 traffic projections for these amendments show drops in the amount of traffic on sevcra.l roadway links from that projected for 2008. This difference is largely due to how these projections are calculated; data for 2008 uses existing 2003 counts and adds in trips based on growth rates, whereas the 2020 projections use the 2020 traffic volume projected by the County via models and add trips for the amendments. It is unlikcly that such drops in traffic volume will be secn between 2008 and 2020, and as such thc 2020 projected levels of service ma be _susceptible to error. The Boynton Town Center amcndnlent resu ts m two sue s on Congress Avenue, and for the" Boynton Town Village amendment, three links are identified, with two links on Congress Avenue and the third on State Road 804/Boynton Beach Boulevard. The City's Comprehensive Plan uses 2020 as its long term plannivg horizon. However, the MPO's LRTP projects conditions for 2025, with updates for 2030 currently underway. To coordinatc impacts with the MPO's plans, the data and analysis should address 2025 ~ well. I' RECOMMENDATIONS: The County should provide revised traffic data and analyses to include the maximum development intensities and densities allowed b the proposed future land use designations. ana yse .ou a ress peak hour and peak direction impacts to the surrounding regional roadway network in the short- and long-term planning horizons. The sis should specif how el 0 ervice will be maintained and improvements necessary to maintain level 0 service should be included in tbe City's Capital hnprovement Element or another medium range transportation plan. Lastly, coordination Wlth MPO and Department work plllllS should be addressed. , I REVIEWED BY: LaITY Hvmowitz. AICP PHONE: 954-777 -4490 REVIEWED BY: Nancv A. Zie51lcr PHONE: 954-777-4490 6 10/29/2004 09:44 85048833~q COMM PLANNING PAGE 09/09 DISTRICT 4, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS & COMM_ENTS RESPONSIBLE DIVISIONIBUREAU: NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE PLAN RECENED FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DATE MEMORANDUM RECENED FROM DCA: REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: Planninll Deoarttnent City ofBovnton Beach 08/10/04 08/18/04 09/12/04 ELEMENT: Functional Classification of Roadways Map Transportation DCA Amendment #04-2 RULE DEFICIENCY: The proposcd modifications update the City's map to be consistent with the map prepared by Palm Beach County. In addition, two local collector roads are identified. COMMENT: In the map proposed by the City of Boynton Beach, the classifications for several of the roadway links do not matc c Palm Beach County roadways classification map (Figure TE 3.1, Future 2020 Functional Classification 0 oa , ffective Date 01/23/01.) For eJ<ampJe, the City's proposed map identifies Hypoluxo Road, Gateway Boulevard, and Woolbright Road as Urban Minor Arterials, whereas the County's map identifics these roadways as Urban Col1ectors- REVIEWED BY: Larry Hvmowitz. AICP PHONE: 954-777-4490 REVIEWED BY: Nancv A, Ziel!ler PHONE: 954-777-4420 7 l I . / . STA TUS OF UTILITY SYSTEM POTABLE WA TER CAPACITY Total water treatment capability (gallons) minus Historical Peak Day minus Firm Reservatfons minus Flre.flow requirement Net Uncommitted reserve available for new units 20,800,000 (18,852,000) (1,179,920) 1360.0001 408,080 No. of addltfonal units that can be served at this time 949 . Arches, The Westbrooke Homes (aka Monterey Bay) Quantum Village - South Retail Quantum Village - North Retail Schnars Office Building Sunbelt Hydraulics New Haitian Alliance Church Arby's 276 multi-family 300 townhouses & multi-family 1 mixed commercial 1 Publix & mixed commercial 1 1 1 1 TOTAL APPROVED UNITS WITHOUT A FIRM RESERVATION NUMBER OF UNITS AVAILABLE AFTER ALL APPROVED UNITS RESERVE THEIR ALLOCATION 582 367 PROJECTS UNDER REVIEW, WITHOUT SITE PLAN APPROVAL & WITHOUT COMMITTED CAPACITY RESERVATION Waterside Renaissance Commons - phase 4&5 Edwards Office Building Grove Plaza Retail Building Deluxe Carwash Bennuda Bay The Promenade 115 townhouse 1117 mixed use 1 office 1 retail 1 17 Single family 355 mixed use TOTAL UNITS UNDER REVIEW 1607 -1,240 . calculated at system.wlde average of 430 gpd/residential unit 6/4/2004 uncommitted projects September 2004 Boynton Village Boynton Beach Master Site Plan Drainage Calculations Preparedfor: South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Lake Worth Drainage District 13081 Military Trail Delray Beach, FL 33484 City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33425 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 601 21 st Street, Suite 400 Vera Beach, Florida 32960 <Q Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. 2004 047148007 C ".[)ouullfn15 and Settinp'.ru",dLJll()fTj'(Hl"I_ol,al SLlIl1lg' frmporJJv Intt'mel j-lk,.flLK4/- M"I'_DrJillageeJln d,,,: Site: Boynton Village, Boynton Beach Florida The proposed site contains I 06.60 acres located at the northeast comer of the mtersection of Old Boynton Road and Congress Ave. in Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. The South Florida Water Managcment DIstrict (SFWMD) C-16 Canal borders the site to the north and the Lake Worth Drainage District (L WDD) E-4 Canal borders the sitc to the cast. The existing on-site conditions consist of undeveloped, unimproved pasture land characterized by FLUCFCS 212. Stormwater runoff from the site currently sheet flows towards the center of thc site, collecting in several low lying areas and eventually flows in an easterly direction discharging to the L WDD E-4 canal. The project site is located within the South Florida Watcr Management Districts C-16 Drainage Basin. The proposed development includes two land use categories as approved by the City of Boynton Beach. A 24.46 acre commercial area designated as C-3, will support approximately 250,000 SF ofretail. The remaining 82.14 acres, designated as Suburban Mixed Use (SMU), will support approximately 149,900 SF of a combination of retail and office space as well as 1,120 residential units. A master stormwater system will be constructed to provide the required water quality treatment and attenuation for the entire 106.60 acre site. POST-DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS I. Storage for Water Quality Wet detention volume will be provided for either the first inch of runoff from the developed project, or the total runoff of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, whichever is greater. One inch over the entire drainage area is calculated as follows: I" x I 06.60 acres 1 06.60 ac-in 8.88 ac-ft 2.5" x % impervious is calculated as follows: a) b) c) d) e) Site - (Lake + Roof) Site Area - Green Area % impervious 2.5" x % impervious Inches x (Site - Lake) Site Area (water quality) Impervious Area (water quality) (Imp. Area I Site Area) x 100 Inches To Be Treated Required Detention Storage -1- C.'Ducumtnts and Stllings.ruswll morri~oll'L()cal5.ettings'Ttmp{)raty Jntcmt'l f-lk,>ULK4f-'~lSP J)rainagtcaks,d"c At the 20% open space requirement and the use of approximately 8.20 acres of lake surface, the entire site would require ct 14.80 acre-ft oftreatment volume per the above equation. The control elevation of the lakes will be set at 8.50 ft NGVD, the wet season high water table, and store to elevation 13.50 ft. NGVD. Proposed Cumulative Lake Stage Storage Stage (NGVD) 8.50 10.13 13.50 Area (acres) 8.20 8.80 9.99 Storage (ac-ft) 0.00 14.80 45.49 Treatment Volume Required = 14.80 ac-ft @ elevation 10.13 ft. Dry Pre-Treatment For the commercial portion of the site, SFWMD requires that 0.5 inches of the water quality volume be stored in dry pre-treatment. OS' x (Site Lake) Total Acre-Inches (dry pre-treatment) Exfiltration trench and will be utilized to provide the required ac-in of dry pre-treatment. The minimum invert of the exfiltration pipe will be set at or above the wet season high water table elevation of 8.50 ft NGVD. Total Lake Storage The total volume to be treated in the on-site lakes is calculated as follows: Total Quality Volume Dry Pretreatment Volume = Volume detained in Lakes -2. ( 'DOCUlllcnts and S<.:nmgs\rus;clI nlllrri,nn..I."",,1 S<.:nings.:] CmpOI.lfY [nl<.:mel hk,.OLK4]-.MSP nraina)!"c~k,.Joc II. Design Rainfall The design rainfall events to be utilized in the storn1\vater model are taken from the SFWMD Rainfall Charts C-3, C-8 and C9: 5 year 1 hour Minimum inlet - 3.1 in. rainfall 25 year 3 day - Min. benn = 14.0 in. rainfall 100 year 3 day - Finished floor - 17.8 in. rainfall III. Allowable Discbarge The allowable discharge rate into tbe C-16 basin is 62.6 CSM at a 25 year return period, as detennined by L WDD and SFWMD. Based on the 106.60 acre site, the total discharge rate is: 62.6 CSM - 0.098 CFS/AC * 106.60 acres = 10.45 cfs The discharge will be directed through a control structure connecting the 7.54 acre lake parcel to the LWDD E-4 Canal. A 6" by 6" inverted triangle orifice, the minimum allowed by Lake Worth Drainage District, will be set at the control elevation of 8.50 ft. The weir will be set at the 25- Year, 3-day stann maximum stage as detennined in the stonnwater model. IV. Tailwater The tailwater elevation of8.5 ft. NGVD is based on Lake Worth Drainage District Maintenance Elevation data of the Lateral 24 canal. V. Surface Storage The project storage areas will be calculated and input into ICPR Version 2.11. The rainfall events and surface storage will be modeled for the 5-year I-hour, 25-year 72- hour, and 100-year 72-hour stann events. -3 - C \O()cumenb and SdtlDg:s',m'~ell,morrl'()nll1lal Sdlillg,'T~mp()rarv I.nlCmel Files',,()I.K4Fr>.lSP OrainJg~GlIc5,d{)l VI. Conclusion The model output from the ICPR Stormwater Model will be summarized as follows: Storm 5 year (I-hr) 25 year (72-hr) 100 year (72-hr) Peak Stage TBD TBD TBD . The minimum grate elevation will be set above the 5 year, I-hour storm. . The minimum perimeter berm will be set above the 25 year 3-day storm elevation as determined in the stormwater model. . The 100 year 3-day storm will be modeled with zero discharge and will be contained on- site. -4-