APPLICATION
PROJECT NAME: BOYl~ujn Beach Mall - Muvico "
LOCATION:
PCN: 08-43-45-19-05-015-0010 & 08-43-45-19-05-017 -0010
I FILE NO.: MSPM 05-001 II TYPE OF APPLICATION: I
AGENT/CONTACT PERSON: OWNER: Boynton - JCP Associates, LTD.
Thomas Marsciano AICP ADDRESS: 115 W. Washington Street
V.P. URS Corporation Southern Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
ADDRESS: 7650 W. Courtney Campbell F~:317-685-7255
Causeway, Tampa, FL 33607 PHONE: 317-263-7953
F~: 813-636-2499
-
PHONE: 813-636-2409
SUBMITTAL / RESUBMITT AL 12/1/04
1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS DUE: 12/22/04
PUBLIC NOTICE: Applciant Only: 2/12/05
TRC MEETING: 2/1/05
LAND DEVELOPMENT SIGNS POSTED
(SITE PLANS):
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2/22/05
MEETING:
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY BOARD
CITY COMMISSION MEETING: 3/1/05
COMMENTS:
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Beach Mall Minor Mod 2001\Boynton Beach-Muvico Theatre\2004 PROJECT TRACKING INFO.doc
City Codes Accessed Via Website
www.bovnton-beach.org
www.amlegal.comlbovnton beach fl
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR
NEW SITE PLANS & MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING SITE PLAN
Has applicant attended a pre-application meeting? Yes
Date 6/16/04, 10/20/04
This application must be filled out completely, accurately and submitted as an original to the Planning and
Zoning Division. TWELVE COMPLETE, sequentially numbered, ASSEMBLED AND STAPLED sets of plans
including a recent survey and appropriate fee shall be submitted with the application for the initial process of
the Site Plan Review procedure. AN INCOMPLETE SUBMITTAL WILL NOT BE PROCES$EQ ~-_.
Please print legibly (in ink) or type all information.
, .." ,-~",.,-~--"~'-"'--- .,,-,.~.
-----1 . i '
<i
I.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Dtr
1. Project Name: Boynton Beach Mall
2. Property Owner's (or Trustee's) Name: Boynton - JCP Associates, LTD.
Address: 115 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Phone:
317-263-7953
(Zip Code)
Fax: 317-685-7255
3. Applicant's name (person or business entity in whose name this application is made):
John A. Albright, Vice President, Simon Property Group, Inc.
Address: 115 W. Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(Zip Code)
Phone: 317-263-7953
Fax: 317-685-7255
If contract purchaser, please attach contract for sale and purchase.
4. Agent's Name (person, if any, representing applicant): Thomas A. Marsicano, AICP
Vice President, URS Corporation Southern
Address: 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway, Tampa, Florida 33607
(Zip Code)
Fax: 813-636-2499
Phone: 813-636-2409
E-Mail: Thomas_Marsicano@URSCorp.com
5. Correspondence to be mailed to agent only; if no agent, then to applicant unless a substitute
is specified below:*
*This is the one address to which all agendas; letters and other materials will be mailed.
6. What is applicant's interest in the premises affected? (owner, buyer, lessee, builder, developer,
contract purchaser, etc.)
Owner
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Commercial 10.73
% of site
acres 100
acres 0
acres 0
0 acres 0
0
acres
acres
Industrial N/A
% of site
% of site
Publicll nstitutional
N/A
% of site
Public, Private and Canal rights-of-way
Other (specify)
o
% of site
i.
Other (specify) Movie Theater 0.7416
site
%of
j. Total area of site 10.73 acres 100 % of site
*including open space suitable for outdoor recreation, and having a minimum dimension of 50 ft.
by 50 ft.
5. Surface Cover
a.
b.
c.
courts.
site
d.
e.
Ground floor building o. 74~-()
area ("building footprint")
6.91
% of site
acres
Water area
0.0
0.0
% of site
acres
Other impervious areas, including paved area of public & private streets, paved area of parking
lots & drivewavs (excluding landscaped areas), and sidewalks, patios, decks, and athletic
10.'25 : - acres 95.54' % of
Total impervious area 10.25
acres 95.54
% of site
Landscaped area 0.4777 acres 4.45 % of site
inside of parking lots (20 sq.ft. per interior parking space required - see Sec. 7.5-35(g) of
Landscape Code).
f.
Other landscaped areas, 0.0
acres 0.0
% of site
g. Other pervious areas, including golf course, natural areas, yards, and swales, but excluding
water areas N/A acres N/A % of site
h. Total pervious areas 0.4'777 acres 4.45 % of site
i.
Total area of site 10.73
100%
% of site
acres
6. Floor Area
a. Residential N/A sq. ft.
b. Commercial q ,528 sq. ft.
c. I ndustrial/Warehouse N/A sq. ft.
d. Recreational N/A sq. ft.
e. Publicllnstitutional N/A sq. ft.
f. Other (specify) Hovie 'l'hea.ter - 79,500 sq. ft.
7. Street address (.'>; location of site:
801 N. Congress Ave.
8.
Property Control #(PCN) 08434519050150010 & 08434519050170010
9.
Legal description of site: See Attached Exhibit A
10.
Intended use(s) of site: Commercial/Retail, Multi Screen Theater
11.
Architect: Development Design 'Gr0up,Inc. James P. Andreone, 7 St. Paul St. Baltimore,MD 21202
(Muvico Theater)
12.
Landscape Architect: URS Corporation Southern
13.
Site Planner:
URS Corporation Southern
14.
Engineer:
URS Corporation Southern (Site Civil Only)
15. Surveyor: O'Brien, Suitor & O'Brien, Paul D. Engle, PSM, 2601 N. Federal Hwy., Delray Bch, FL 33483
16. Traffic Engineer: URS Corporation Southern
17. Has a site plan been previously approved by the City Commission for this property?
Yes
II. SITE PLAN
The following information must be filled out below and must appear, where applicable, on all copies of
the site plan.
1. Land Use Category shown in the Comprehensive Plan: CH
2. Zoning District: C-3 Community Commercial
3. Area of Site l{? 73 .. acres 467398._ sq. ft.
4. Land Use - Acreage Breakdown:
a. Residential, including N/A acres 0 % of site
surrounding lot area of grounds
b. Recreation Areas .. N/A acres 0 % of site
(excluding water area)
c. Water Area N/A acres o. % of site
g.
h.
Other (specifyL N/A
sq. ft.
Total floor area 97,028
sq. ft.
7. Number of Residential Dwellina Units - N/A
Single-family detached
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
a.
b.
N/A
Duplex
c.
(1 )
(2)
(3)
(4)
d.
Multi-Family (3 + attached dwelling units)
Efficiency N/ A
1 Bedroom Nt A
2 Bedroom N/A
3+ Bedroom N/ A
dwelling units
dwelling units
dwelling units
dwelling units
N/A
Total multi-family
dwelling units
e.
Total number of dwelling units
N/A
8. Gross Density N/A dwelling units per acre
9.
10. ReQuired off-street oarkina
Maximum height of structures on site 54.0
feet 1
stories
a.
Calculation of required # of
off-street parking spaces.
Off-street parking spaces
provided on site plan
Commercial. 1,0~2,063SFx45/1000SF = 4645
Theater - 79,500SF@1/100SF = 795
=
4668
818
=
=
b.
Calculation of required #
of handicap parking spaces
5486 Spaces (20 + 1 per 100
Over 1000 SF) = 20+45 = 65
Number of handicap
spaces provided on site plan
80
=
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROJECT MUST BE PRESENT AT All.:
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
BOARD OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) AND CITY
COMMISSION MEETINGS HELD TO. REVIEW THIS PROJECT.
URS
12004536.00000
November 30, 2004
I-;~
j i C
,'I
r 1''' '-'~"'"
" r!~]' r'
.' .,,~~,-,.. ."~"..~,
Ql
1; ~
Mr. Ed Breese
Principal Planner
City of Boynton Beach
Planning and Zoning Division
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
I
r (J ~
;' uLJ I
J
DEG '2004 i
Jh'''' i
PLANNING AND
lONING DEPT
Re: Boynton Beach Mall- Muvico Addition
Application for Major Modification to Existing Site Plan
Dear Mr. Breese,
Enclosed herewith is our application and site plan submittal as referenced above. This
submittal includes the following:
I. APPLICATION PACKAGE
1. Completed City of Boynton Beach application form - 1 original signed copy.
2. Application fee - check in the amount of$1,500.00
3. Twelve sets of 24"x 36" plans, 10 sheets, stapled and folded
4. Colored rendering of Muvico building elevations (not mounted)
5. Letter from Development Design Group, Inc. addressing building height, color
and sign issues.
6. Traffic Analysis per Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards, Article
12.
Please note that the Site Plan package includes both an Overall Site Plan, Sheet C-3 and
Muvico Site Plan, Sheet C-4. the overall plan is included to document the reduction in
project size associated with the elimination of Macy's and to demonstrate that the overall
site has sufficient parking to satisfy the combined demand of the remaining retail and the
theater based on their individual Code criteria. Sheet C-4 is the primary site plan for the
areas being changed to accommodate Muvico. It includes sufficient area to encompass
all building, parking area, landscape, grading, drainage, and utility adjustments.
II. HEIGHT EXCEPTION REQUEST
In addition to the items listed above, this application includes a request for a height
exception as provided for in Chapter 2, Section 4.F of the City of Boynton Beach Land
Development Code.. The proposed Muvico building will have an architectural feature
that will exceed 45 feet as discussed in the letter from Muvico's architect, item 5., above.
This architectural feature is consistent with the exception criteria listed in Chapter 2,
Section 4.F.2. It is similar to a dome or cupola as referenced in this section. Further, the
URS Corporation
7650 West Courtney
Campbell Causeway
Tampa, Fl 33607.1462
Tel: 813.286.1711
Fax: 813.287.8591
URS
Mr. Ed Breese
November 30, 2004
Page 2 of3
theater is a "PLACE OF ASSEMBLY" as that term is defined in Chapter 1, Article II.
DEFINITIONS and as such is eligible for consideration under this section. We also
believe that it meets the standards set forth in Chapter 2, Section 4.F.3 a. through i.,
inclusive, as follows:
a. The height exception will not have an adverse effect on the existing and
proposed land uses. It is located in a landscaped parking lot over 150 ft. from
the nearest adjacent structure.
b. The height exception is integral to the architectural design of the building and
necessary to convey the overall theme. The parapet walls above the 45 foot
elevation provide necessary screening of roof mounted mechanical equipment.
c. As indicated in a., above, the building is over 150 feet from the nearest
adjacent structure and will not "severely reduce light and air in adjacent
areas. "
d. If granted, the exception will not be a deterrent to the improvement or
development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
More that adequate setbacks will exist on all sides.
e. The exception will not adversely affect property values in adjacent areas.
Property values should be unaffected or increased due to the presence of the
theater in an area that is currently underserved.
f. The exception will not adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood. The building's location is substantially screened from all
adjacent neighborhoods by the surrounding commercial development and
landscaped parking areas and retention ponds.
g. The exception would not constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. To the contrary, the
Code anticipates the potential need for height exceptions for structures of this
specific type, i.e., "places of assembly".
h. It is our belief that this application includes sufficient evidence to justify the
need for the exception. Additional information or clarification will be
provided upon request.
i. We understand that this application may be referred to the planning and
development board for recommendation. We will follow the recommendation
of the City Commission in this regard.
III. TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES CONCURRENCY
This submittal also includes a transportation analysis that has been completed in
accordance with the requirements of Article 12, Traffic Performance Standards, of the
Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code. This replaces the preliminary
traffic concurrency information previously submitted. It also is intended to satisfy
Condition No. 13 (condition number 2 of Resolution number R98-123) of the amended
Boynton Beach Mall DRI Development Order. The study uses the same basic
URS
Mr. Ed Breese
November 30, 2004
Page 3 of3
methodology (Palm Beach County TPS) as the most recently approved update, which
was submitted in 1998.
The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed demolition of the existing Macy's
building and replacement with the Muvico theater and minor retail addition to the rnall
will result in less peak hour traffic than the approved project. As such, it should qualify
for exemption from the Traffic Performance Standards in accordance with the criteria set
forth at Chapter A, Section 3 C.5.b. However, as stated above, in response to the
Development Order requirement a complete analysis has been prepared.
Our request for a concurrency exemption for public utilities that was submitted to you
office with our letter of November 4,2004 remains unchanged.
Based on the City's published review schedule we understand that a Technical Review
Committee Meeting will be scheduled for February 1, 2004 and that comments on this
application will be provided approximately two weeks prior to that date, barring
unforeseen delay and that the Planning and Development Board and City commission
meetings would be on February 22, 2005 and March 1, 2005, respectively. This, again,
assumes no unforeseen delay.
We appreciate the assistance and cooperation we have received from you and all City
staff members we have been in contact with as we prepared this application. Please do
not hesitate to contact us with any questions or additional information requests to assist in
your reVIew.
Sincerely,
URS Corporation Southern
~4.~'~~.<C-t:. ~
Thomas A. Marsicano, AICP
Vice President
Development and Planning Services
CC: John Albright, Simon
Bill Ranek, Simon
Marty Mazany, Simon
Bill Boose, Esq.
Margaret Ray Kemper, Esq.
Jim Andreone, DDG, Inc.
11-29-/04 22:13 FROM-
DIVILO_MINW
BMBt
IRCO....ORATED
HEAD OFFICE
7 SI,Povl Street
Baltimore, Maryland
21202 USA
Tel: 410 962 0505
Fox; -410 763 D816
www.ddg-u6a.com
E-mail: ddg@ddg-ulo.com
RI:TAIL
ENrl:RTAINMENT
TOWN CENTERS
MIXED USE
GRAPHICS
PLANNING
RESIDENTIAL
HOSPITALITY
T-800 P002!003 F-142
VIA EMAIL TRANSMISION
November 29, 2004
,,,,,-,~, ~
GEe
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd
Boynton Beachl FL 33425
P: 561.742.6260
F: 561.742.6259
E: rumpfm@cLboynton-beach.fl.us
Attention: Mr. Michael W. Rumpf, Director, Planning and Zoning Division
)
Dear Mr. Rumpf,
Thank you for meeting with DOG, Muvico Theaters and Simon Property Group
on , 0/20/04 and 11/22104 to discuss the new Muvico Theater being planned for
Boynton Beach Mall. We are very excited about building a quality theater
project in Boynton Beach.
Per your suggestion, I am including our thoughts on several issues relative to
our meetings:
1. HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR PORTE COCHERE. We are requesting a
height exception, as permitted by the code, for a 56' ridge height for the
porte cochere roof. (The main roof of the building is below the 45' height
limit.) The porte cochere roof is an architectural design feature, similar to a
dome or cupola, that is essential to the overall architectural design integrity
of the building.
2. READER BOARDS ON NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS. The "reader
boards" are for attaching changeable typeface for messages to the movie-
going customer such as "Saturday matinees - 10am to noon", I'Gift
certificates available", etc. They are needed based on the nature of the
building use, and the need to communicate times and offerings. They are
located at the northwest and southwest corners of the building with the
intention of bein~ viewed by customers within the parking lots. The total
area of the "MuVlco 16" sign and the reader board does not exceed 1 0% of
the wall area of the north and south elevation as per section 4.A. of the sign
code.
3. POSTER CASES. These have been reduced in size by 50% from 6'x10' to
3'x5'. They are needed based on the nature of this building use.
4. EXTERIOR BUILDING COLOR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE MALL. The
exterior design of the theater building is based on a Greco~Roman temple.
Accordingly, the exterior walls of the building are detailed to look like natural
aged stone, cream and light golden in color. As much of the eXisting mall is
cream in color, we believe that compatibility is achieved. Attached, for your
reference. is an example of a Greek Temple that we are using as a
precedent for color. Additionally, we will be bringing material boards to the
public hearing in February to show the exact color we are proposing.
P,\ CURRENT PROJECTSl0478llOO. MUVlOO -BOYNTON BEACHICORRESPONO~NCE\TRANSMITTAlS\11..2g.Q4.JA.RUMPF. LE'n'EA AE BOV~ON BEACH.OOC
11-29-/04 22:13 FROM-
T-800 P003!003 F-142
.lv.LOPMIN'
III
INCOIlPO....T.D
29 November 2004
Page 2 of 2
We hope that this analysis is helpful, and should you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
We are looking forward to working with you and the Planning Department on
this exciting project for Boynton Beach.
Sincerely,
ames P. Andreone, R.A.
Vice President
Cc: Mike Wilson, Muvico Theaters
Tom Marsicano, URS
URS
January 13, 2005
Ms. Laurinda Logan, P.E.
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boyntor. Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach. F;orida 33425-0310
Re: Drainage Plan Certification
Boynton Beach Mall
Dear Ms. Logan:
I, Dennis W. SYIja, hereby certify that I am associated with the firm of lJRS CorporatlGn
Southern which pas been retained hy Simon Group to perform engineering services [or the
Boyn~on 8cad:~v'tall I certify rhat the Drainage Plan associated ~VI!ith th~; Mu\ ico additim,.
project \,;,ijj C(d~)L:f: with all rules. regulations, codes. etc.. induding, bL;t not limited t:J, C~l((p[C;'
6, Arfick T\/, Secl.:nn 5 ofthe City of Boynton Beach's Land Development RI~guLl:iulls.
Signee and sealed this / 3!~ day oC___~~~.!:!~.i!-:.'L.~.___._.., :wos
Denr:is '0l. Syrja, P.t~
Florida Professiunal Engiu?er i'.To43-t:!.3
Qh/~___,j~ijp~.
Signr~t...l'e Date
AEl:-:- S~al
URS Corporation
7650 West Courtney
Campbell Causeway
Tampa, FL 33607.1462
Tel: 813.286.1711
Fax: 813.287.8591
~' -'r~--:--~
10 i,'
l~;~ I -4: J
L---
f)l
7.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
roJ.~~-;';-'-~-;-'- ;:-'-:
Uo~~~!;DU5 :
. ---.----._-1.
PLANNING MID !
ZONING D[PT ~__..I
URS
BOYNTON BEACH MALL - MUVICO ADDITION
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
fILE COpy
I. INTRODUCTION
The following analysis has been prepared to assess the potential number of parking
spaces required to satisfy the parking requirements for the proposed Muvico theater at
Boynton Beach Mall. In order to accommodate the theater addition the existing Macy's
store with 169,000 sq. ft. Gross Leasable Area (GLA) will be demolished. The new
3,650 seat Muvico theater building with 79,000 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area (GF A) will be
constructed on a portion of the former Macy's site as shown in Exhibit 1.
As a result of the demolition of the Macy's building the existing mall will be reduced in
size from 1,184,045 sq. ft. GLA to 1,032,125 sq. ft. GLA of retail space. The Muvico
theater adds back 79,500 sq. ft. for a new total of 1,111,625 sq. ft.GLA. The net result is
a reduction in the overall project size of 72,420 sq. ft. GLA
The shared parking analysis presented herein examines the overall parking requirements
for the redevelopment project based on the provisions of the City of Boynton Beach Land
Development Code (Code) zoning chapter at Paragraph H., OFF-STREET PARKING.
The specific provisions include sub-paragraphs H.IO., H.B., H16.b.(2), and H.16.d.(2).
Copies of the applicable LDC sections are included in Appendix A. Sub-paragraph H.13.
sets forth the required rnethods to be used in this Shared Parking Analysis.
The following analysis will examine shared parking based on two methodologies as
provided for in the Code which states, in part, "Quantitative evidence shall include
estimates of peak hour/peak season parking demand based on statistical data furnished by
the Urban Land Institute or an equivalent traffic engineering or land planning and design
organization. Both of the methodologies utilized herein are based on Urban Land
Institute (ULI) data.
II. METHODOLOGY
The methodologies employed herein are based on the following ULI publications:
. Shared Parking, 1983
. Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, 1999
1
URS
A. Analysis One - Based on Shared Parkin2, 1983
This analysis is based on the four step "Methodology for Determining Shared Parking" as
set forth in the referenced publication. A copy of the applicable section and related
default value tables are included in Appendix B.
For this analysis, the default value for retail peak hourly parking demand in Table Cl will
be 4.5. This is based on the current ULI standard of 4.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. GLA as
referenced in the 1999 ULI publication Parking Requirements For Shopping Centers.
Applicable excerpts from this publication are also included in Appendix B. This is the
only adjustment to the ULI methodology on default values utilized herein.
The purpose of the analysis is to find the highest cornbined peak season/peak hour
parking demand for the project based on the included uses; retail and cinema. In this
case, because the retail component is substantially larger than the cinema use, the retail
peak in December will control.
The analysis procedure is then as follows:
Step 1. Initial Project Review Parameters
· Retail component is 1,032,125 Sq. Ft. GLA
· Theater (Cinema) cornponent is 79,500 sq. ft. GF A with 3,650 seats
Discussion: At this initial step the rnethodology assumes adjustments will be rnade for
"captive market" and factored into the process. The only adjustment of this type will be
for the 15% of theater patrons who are assumed to be already at the mall for other or
additional purposes such as shopping, meals before or after a movie, or mall employees
viewing a movie before or after work. This adjustment follows in Step 2. which also
includes the seasonal adjustment.
Step 2. Adjustment For Peak Parking Factor
· Peak parking based on the data in Exhibits C 1 and C2 in Appendix B occur on a
Saturday in December at 2:00 p.m. At that time the largest component of the
project, 1,032,125 sq. ft. of retail, will be at 100% of peak demand. The only
adjustment necessary for retail is the updated 4.5 value discussed above.
· The cinema component will be at 50 % of peak dernand in December. In addition,
it is assumed that 15% of theater demand represents "captive market" demand as
discussed above. Thus, the peak demand factor from Exhibit Cl, 0.30 spaces per
seat, is adjusted as follows:
. 0.30xO.50 x 0.85 = 0.1275
2
URS
Where:
0.30 - peak demand factor for cinema
0.50 - peak season adjustment
0.85 - adjustment for 15% captive market
· Adjusted Peak Parking Demand Ratios for a Saturday in December:
RETAIL - 4.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. GLA
CINEMA - 0.1275 spaces per seat
Discussion: There is no adjustment for mode of transportation included in this analysis.
Although the mall is served by PalmTran, all trips are assumed to be by private auto.
Step 3. Analysis of Hourly Accumulation
· RETAIL - 4.5 xl032.l25 = 4644.56 or 4,645 spaces
· CINEMA - 0.1275 x 3,650 = 466
· Gross number of spaces: 4645 + 466 = 5111 spaces
Discussion: This step is intended to determine the hourly accumulation of parking for
each land use on a weekday or weekend. By inspection of the data in Appendix B,
Exhibit 28, it can be determined that use of a Saturday in Decernber at 2:00 PM will
produce the highest combined peak parking demand.
Step 4. Estimate of Shared Parking
As indicated above, it has been determined when the highest combined peak demand will
occur. Thus, a detailed hour by hour analysis is not required. The shared parking
estimate for each land use is based on the following formula:
Adjusted Peak Ratio X Floor Area X 2:00 p.m. value(Exhibit Cl)/Peak Value(Exhibit
C2) = spaces
Shared Parking Calculation:
RETAIL - 4.5 x1032.125 x 4.5/4.5 = 4,645 spaces
CINEMA - 0.1275 x 3,650 x 0.2/0.3 = 310.27 or 311 spaces
TOTAL REQUIRED: 4,645 + 311 = 4,956 spaces
Discussion: The above total, 4,956 spaces is the total number of spaces required based
on the Shared Parking rnethodology. However, the Code requires that if the provisions of
Sub-paragraph H.B. are employed an additional buffer of 10% must be added to the
3
URS
total. This would bring the Code Required total number of spaces to 5452. The proposed
plan with 5491 spaces exceeds the maximum required by 39 spaces.
B. Analysis Two - Based on Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, 1999
This analysis is based on the latest available ULI data. It simply indicates that the retail
peak parking ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. GLA is appropriate for use at shopping
centers over 600,000 square feet where the overall percentage of GLA in Restaurant,
Entertainment, and/or Cinema is less than 10%. If the percentage is between 11 and 20
percent the 4.5/1000 ratio is applicable, but for each percent above 10%, a linear increase
of 0.30 spaces per 1,000 square feet should be added. The total square footage for
restaurants/cinema at Boynton Beach Mall will not exceed 10%.
Based on this criteria, the total number of parking spaces required would be:
1,032,125 +79,500 = 1,111,625 sq. ft x 4.5 spaces/lOOO = 5,002.31 or 5003 spaces
Under this methodology, the total number of spaces required, including a 10% buffer
would be 5,503. However, the total spaces provided, 5491, would provide an excess of
488 spaces or 12 spaces short of the maximum required.
III. Summary
Based on the above Analysis One, the proposed development plan for Boynton Beach
Mall will provide a sufficient number of parking spaces to accommodate the proposed
Muvico theater addition in accordance with the requirements of the Code including the
10% buffer requirement of sub-paragraph H.13. Parking spaces available for theater use
total 846 or only 67 less than the 913 maximum required based on a ratio of one space
per 4 seats. Thus, the "shared parking" may be characterized as limited and involving
less than 100 spaces. Further, the actual number of spaces available exceeds the
minimum requirernent of "not less than one (1) parking space per one hundred (l00)
square feet of gross floor area" as set forth in sub-paragraph H.16. b.(2). Under this
criteria a minimum of 795 spaces would be required for the Muvico theater.
Analysis Two on the other hand falls short of meeting all of the Code requirements by 12
spaces. While Analysis Two is not technically a shared parking analysis it is useful in
that it presents similar results (after inclusion of the 10% buffer) and serves as a check as
to the reasonableness of the results of Analysis One.
Finally, the results of this analysis coupled with the Code required buffer results in a
buffer of nearly 500 spaces over the calculated number of spaces required. As such, it
should be considered a conservative estimate of the actual parking demand at Boynton
Beach Mall following the Muvico Theater expansion.
4
Javeret Street
I
~I
tll
~
~
[
........
~
11111
OPEN SPACE
"'='"
"'II:"
""="
NOT
INCLUDED
NOT
INCLUDED
NOT
INCLUDED
NOT
INCLUDED
-
CnncrreR9 Avenue
r
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
N.T.S.
.l. +
RetailjCommerical
Multi-Screen Theater
1,032,125 Sq. Ft. GLA
79,500 Sq. Ft. GLA
3,650 Seats
5,491
Parking Spaces
URS
SIMON
BOYNTON BEACH MALL
URS Corporation Southern
7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway
Tampa, Florida 33607 (813)286-1711
Engineering Business No. 00000002
National City Center
115 W. Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317.636.1600
801 NORTH CONGRESS AVENUE
BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33426
EXHIBIT 1
62
Boynton Beach Code
.. .
uses,- including storage rooms, mainten:ance and
~banica1 rooms, offices. loonges, restrooms,
lobbies. basements. mezzanines. and baUways.
8. Where several principal uses exist in
one structure or on o~ lot. parking space
requirements sball be computed separately for eacb
. principal use. unless stated otherWise in paragrapb 16
of this subsection. Where patting spaces are required
in paragriph 16 fot C*Cb of several principal uses that
coDUIiOilly occUr together. this is dOIle for d1e purpose
of clarification oaJy, and shall DOt limit die application
of the requirement coot.:lined in this paragraph.
9. A Use-. shall- b~H:ODSldei'Cd l prinCipal
U$e, for the ~ of this. subsection, if it could
.. exist ~teiy.~ ,all other. useS in the same
strudure or oil the sime lot, and. would by itself
. geDe~ sipificant PirkinI deUWJd. '
. 10. '~re l '* is I~ in l shopping
:...~r,.office~. ~office~reUU cOq,lex, die
~ ~ reqWemem for die ~owinl center.
offic:ebuildiai. or o~-tetai1 ccXuplex ~ whiCh it is
located sba11 apply; except that Where a ~ater is
: located . inl ~oppins Center the parting space
require~nt for theaters sball ipply fordle seating or
gross floor Ire.a of the theater. .:
, 11. Where several priJiCipa,l uses exist in
one building or pan of a buUding. and the floor. area
. of eac~ priI1cipatuse cannot be clearly delineated. the
. par~g spac,e ;requirement for the. use requiting the..
greatest number of parking spaces sball apply.
12. Where l use is not listed below, parking
space requiremelUS shall be detenniDed by . the City
Commission .rrevic~ and ~nunenda~on by the
pJ2nning and development boaJ:d.
13. Parting spaces ~.Ued in thi$
ordinance for ODe use or strucNre may be allocated in
pan or in wbole for the required parking spaces of .
another use or structure if quantitative evidence is
provided . showing that parking demand for the
different uses or structures would occur on different
days of the week or at different hours. Quantitative
.evideoce sball include estimates for peak hour/peak
2001 S-16
season parijog demand. based on statistical data
furnished l>y the Urban LaJid Institute or an equivalent
traffic . engineeriDg or larid planning aJld. design
otgatiizatiOQ. Quantitativeev~tlCe may also include,
where appropiiate.. fietdstudies iDd trUtic counts
".' . . " . . .... .'
prepared. by a traffic CQnsultant.expetJeQCed Iil the
-preparation of parking sNdies. In addition, a
minimum buffet of tei1(10)petcent slWI be provided
to ensure that l sufficient numDef of pukiq. spaces
are available It the peak. hour/peak season of parking
demand. Ca1cu1ationof said buftefsba1l be based on
thetOtalnumbei'of ~spates. CletetniiDeuto be
requited at the peakhO'ut/peat season' of parking
de~. .. Evideace for joint allQCltioa of required
-P~g . Splce.sba1J 'be .sUbmittA:d to the technical
rev~wboird~ II1cf'approvl1 of ,;dint allocation of
required pukiftg ipicei:.slWl he .riW1e by 'die . City
~ommis$ion. after review and recommeDdatioDS by
the pbnnh'I'~ development bOard.
14. Where the number or requUedparking
spaces U cOmput.c<l includes l fraction. the number of
fe<lUired parkinaSP"~Shallbe die cOmputed number
rounded to thC.Dexi.highesfwhole n~r.
IS. There sball be provided off-street
handicapped parking spaccscOrtsistent with Chapter
23. Article Il.K of the Boynton Beacb Land
Dev~IQpmeolltegu1ati~DS at the time of the erection of,
any structure or the enlargement ofuysttucture.
. ".",
.",
16. Except as provided in Subsection 1.(4)
below. there shall:beprovided, at. the time of the
erection of anY$UuctUrcot establishmel1tofany use.
.a'nutnbet' aloft-street partiilg spaeesin accordance
with the fOllowing minimumreqUiremelits-; and subject
to par-graphs 1 througb 150fthfs subsection. Where
a structure or use is enlarged or increased in capacity
. by atiy. intan:s~ mcludiJig I.. change in building.
occupancy which requires the provision of additional
Pltking spaces, ota change in' use .to or 'e whicb
re<lU~s . additional parking. spaces. theminiinum
. DW1lber of patting spaces..:'shl1l. be.. computed by
. applying, these requirementS tome entire strUcture or
\i~. .
a. Dwellings. lodging and other
buildings fot habitation:
I '"
'.:.1.
....*.."..,\,.
t:'!:
J:..;
f.'
f::.'
,
:,.
.
..-
Zoning 63
(1) Single-family and duplex c. Government, institutional, and
dwellings: Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. educational uses:
(2) Two or more bedroom
apartments: Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit.
. (3) One-bedroom and efficiency
apartments: One and one half (1.5) parking spaces per
dwelling unit for each efficiencyand/or one-bedroom
. apartment.
(4) Donnitories: One (I) parking
space per rooming unit.
(5)- Rooming and boarding
houses: One .(1) parking space per rooming unit.
t.~.
. (6) Hotels, apartment hotels,
motels, apartment motels, and time-sharing hotels and
motels: One and one-quarter (1.25) parking spaces per
bedroom.
;.1
1. .. (7) Hospitals: Two and one-half
'(2.5) parking spaces per bed.
(8) Nursing homes, convalescent
homes, and sanitariums: One (1) parking space per
three (3) beds.
b. Assembly:
(1) Churches, temples, and other
places of worship: One (1) parking spate per four (4)
seats in the auditorium, but not less than one (1)
parking space per one hundred (1 (0) square feet of
. gross floor area fotthe auditorium, plus required
parking spaces for any other principal uses, including
offices, classrooms, meeting rooms, recreation
facilities and dwenmgs:
(2) Theaters, auditoriums,
meeting rooms, and other places of assembly: One (1)
parking space per four (4) seats, but not less than one
(1) parking space perone hundred (100) square feet of
gross floor area..
(3) Clubs, lodges and fraternal
organizations: One (1) parking space per one hundred
(100) square feet of gross floor area.
2001 S-16
(1) Government and government-
owned or -operated uses: Parking requirements for
like or similar uses in the private sector shall apply.
(2) Community centers: One (1)
parking space per one hundred (100) square feet of
gross floor area.
. (3) Libraries and museums: One
(1) parking space per three hundred (300) square feet
of gross floor area.
(4). Day care CCDlers and nursery
. schools: One (1) parking space per three hundred
(300) square feet of gross floor area, plus adCquate
proviSion for. a convenient drop-off area adjacent to
the building providing unobstructed ingress and
egress;
(5) Elementary and junior high
. schools: one (1) parking space per five hundred (500)
square feet of classroom floor area, including floor
area of shops.
(6) Secondary schools and high
schools: One (l) parking space per. one hundred (100)
squate feet of classroom floor area, plus one (1)
parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of
floor area occupied by shops.
(7) Collcges~ universities,.
seminaries, and technical or vocational schools.: One
(1) parking Space per fIfty. (SO) square. feet of
classroom area:; plus one (ll.parkingspace per two
hUndred (200) square feet of floor area 'occUpied by .
laboratOrieS or shops, plusteqUired space Cor any
other principal uses, including offices, bbraries,
auditoriums, and recreation facilitieS.
(8) . Specialized instruction,
including dance, art, and self-defense instruction: One
(1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of
gross floor area. .
offices:
d. Retail services, resu.urants, and
64
Boynton Beach Code
(1) Restaurants, bars, cocktail
lounges. dance halls, and all other eating or drinking
establishments: One (1) parking space per two and
one-half (2.5) seats. but not less than one (1) parking
space per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor
area.
(2) Shopping centers: One (1)
parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of
gross leasable floor area.
(3) Office-retail complexes: One
(1) parking space per two hWl(fred (200) square feet of
gross leasable flooIJU'ea. '_
. . -..
(4) Retail gasoline sales, retail
. automoQve parts and/or accessories sales, and
autolllotive repairs, including major repairs, but
exclu,ding .automotive paint and body shops: One (1)
parlQjg space per two hUndred fIfty (250) square feet
of grfss floor area.
~
,J (5) Bakeries: One (1) parking
space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor
area.
. . (6) Florists and retail sales floor
area of greenhouses: One (1) parking space per two
hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area..
(7) Grocery stores. and food
stores: One (1) parking space per two hundred (200)
square feet of gross floor area.
. (8) Automobile, truck,
motorcycle, trailer, and rec.reation vehicle sales or
rental: One (1) 'parking space per fIve hundred (500)
, square feet of gross floor area, . plus required parking
spaces for outdoor storage or display of goods for sale
or for rent. .
(9) Small equipment and tool
rental establishments: One (1) par1cipg space per two
htmdred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area,
plus required parking spaces. for outdoor storage or
display of goods for sale or for rent~
(10) Outdoor storage or display of
goods for sale or for rent, -except boats: One (1)
parking space per fIve thousand (5.000) square feet
of paved or unpaved outdoor area used for the storage
or display of goods for sale or for rent.
- ."
(11) Boat sales or rental:- One (1)
parking space per fIve hundred (500) square feet of
gross.floor area,plus one (1) parking space per ten.
thousand (10,000) square feet of paved or unpaved
outdoor area used for the storage or display of boats
for sale or for rent.
(12) Retail establishments not listed
elsewhere:. One (1) parking space. per two hundred
(200) square feet of gross floor area.
(13) . Personal, professional, and
business services not listed elsewhere, including
testing, repairing.. and servicing: One (1) parking
space per three hundred (300) square feet of gross
floor area.
(14) Laundromats or dry-cleaning
pick-up stations. and laundry or dry-cleaning plants
located in conunerc.ial zones: One (1) parking space
per tWo hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor
area (for laundry or, dry-cleaning plants located in
industrial or PID zones, see (f)(3)). .
(15) Printing, engraving, or
publishing located in commercial zones: One (1)
parking space per three hundred (300) square feet of
gross floor area (for: printing, engraving, or publishing
located in industrial or PIDzones, see (f)(4)).
(16) Funeral homes: One (1) .
parking space per two hundred (200) square fectol
gross floor area.
(17) Kennels and animalhOSpitals:
One (1) parking space per three hundred (300) square
feet of gross fl~r area, including area of outdoor
kennels.
. (18) Financial institutions and
serviceS: One (1) parking space per two hundred fifty
(250) square feet of gross floor area.
(19) Medical and dental clinics,
offices, and office buildings: One (1). parking space
per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area.
The survey results demonstrated that a reduction
in the number of parked vehicles occurs as a
result of shared parking. The data were suffi-
ciently consistent to indicate that a quantitative
basis for estimating the demand for shared parking
does exist. Based upon the findings of the survey, a
methodology was developed to determine parking de-
mand for the conditions typically found in a mixed.use
development. This methodology is universal in its ap-
plication and flexible enough to incorporate adjust-
ment factors as necessary to suit specific policies,
programs, and market conditions.
THE METHODOlIGY
The methodology involves four basic steps that may
be applied, with appropriate background infonnation,
to an existing or proposed project. Exhibit 25 illus-
trates the organization and flow of work. The basic
flow of work begins with a review of the development
plan and proceeds through the four steps (and sub-
tasks) to an estimate of demand for shared peak park-
ing. In support of these activities, input from other
analyses may be added. They could include an addi-
tional data base to refine or modify unit parking fac-
tors or other characteristics and market analyses.
The methodology is designed to be sequential, but it
can be used in an iterative fashion to test the impact of
alternative development plans, assumptions, or
policies.
STEP I: INITIAl PROJECT REVIEW
An analysis of shared parking deals with more de-
tailed issues and relationships than traditional analy-
ses of parking demand. Knowledge of the site and
intended land use therefore becomes more important.
In addition to square footage or other measurements
43
EXHIBIT 25
SHARED PARKING METHODOLOGY
@ STEP AND TASK NUMBERS
of land use, it is necessary to describe both the physi-
cal and anticipated functional relationships between
the land uses. While the physical relationships con-
cern the basic physical layout and organization of
facilities-for example, vertical or horizontal projects,
distances between land uses, surrounding uses, prox-
imity to transportation and other parking facilities-
functional relationships concern the intended charac-
ter and type ofland uses and how the project will work.
For example, in a project that includes retail, hotel,
and office space, retail facilities may be clearly ori-
ented to hotel guests, office workers, or other "captive
persons," or to external shoppers. Early in the plan-
ning process for a development, the information de-
scribing relationships between land uses may not be
available. If not, a set of assumptions and/or alterna..
tive development scenarios should be identified for the
44
analysis. A checklist of questions dealing with these
assumptions is as follows:
· What is the square footage by use (or number Qf
hotel rooms and theater seats)?
· If a hotel is included, will banquet rooms and con-
vention facilities be available?
· If meeting rooms and convention facilities are pro-
vided, what are the intended concept for programs
and the intended audience?
· What is the assumed market support for any retail
or entertainment space?
· If a cinema is included, how many theaters will it
have? What type of programs will be scheduled?
What are the assumptions regarding show times?
· If residential space is included, will any parking
constraints be observed (reserved parking, for
example)?
STEP 2: ADJUSTMENT FOB PEAK PUKlIIC fACTOR
This step produces an appropriate set of peak park-
ing demand factors. They represent the number of
parking spaces needed per unit of land use or other
parameter. Th determine the factors, the following
subtasks are necessary.
Verification of Land Use and Selection of Parking
Parameters. The land uses described for the project
in step 1 define the specific set of peak parking factors
needed for the analysis of parking demand. The pa-
rameter for each factor should be verified. Generally,
square feet of floor space or rooms or dwelling units
would be used; however, other variables might be more
appropriate for certain unique activities.
Specifically, the following information must be
verified:
· Verify that occupied GLA is to be used, including or
excluding common areas.
· Convert convention facilities to equivalent square
feet if capacity per person is used in the building
program (15 square feet per person may be used if
another density factor is not available).
Selection of Parking Factors. A preliminary value
should be selected or determined for the set of peak
parking factors. Information could be drawn from
three sources: (1) parking factors suggested by the
study (see exhibit 26), (2) validated experience of the
developer or other local authorities, or (3) new park-
ing field SUIVeyS. It is essential to know what season
or time of year and mode of travel are represented in
the specific source for factors. This information
should be described in terms of month of year (by land
use) and approximate percent of nonauto use (that is,
percent of person-trips made by modes other than
auto).
Adjustment for Season. For demand analyses, all
parking factors need to reflect the same "design con-
dition." 'JYpica1ly, the 30th highest hour has been used
for highway projects. Similarly, for development analy-
ses, the appropriate design period must be selected;
that is, the peak season for each land use must be
determined, based on developer's data, another
source, or study results (see exlubit 27).
However, because the design month frequently is
different for each land use in a multiuse development,
trial and error may be required to determine which
month produces the maximum aggregate parking de-
mand. The intent of the exercise is to recognize the
"aggregate effects" of seasonality. This concept is the
same as that used to determine the impact of daily
peaks.
Using the quantity for each land use, test calcula-
tions (parking demand factor multiplied by floor
space) are made to identify the controlling land use.
On this basis, a design month can be selected. Each
EXHIBIT 26
REPRESENTATIVE PEAK PARKING DEMAND FACTORS
Land Use
Office
Retail (400,000 sq. ft.)
Retail (600,000 sq. ft.)
Restaurant
Cinema
Residential
Hotel
Guest room
Restaurant/lounge
Conference rooms
Convention area
Unit
Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Parking spaces per seat
Parking spaces per dwelling unita
Weekday
3.00
3.80
3.80
20.00
0.25
1.00
Parking spaces per room
Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Parking spaces per seatc
Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLAc
1.25b
10.00
0.50
30.00
Saturday
0.50
4.00
5.00
20.00
0.30
1.00
1.25b
10.00
0.50
30.00
aPer one auto owned per dwelling unit.
bFactored up to 100 percent auto use from the 80 percent auto use indicated in exhibit 13.
cUsed by nonguests; the given rates thus are upper bounds, which are very rarely achieved.
45
EXHIBIT 27
REPRESENTATIVE MONTHLY VARIATIONS AS
PERCENTAGE OF PEAK MONTH
Hotel Hotel
Rooms Rooms Hotel Hotel
Month Office Retail Restaurant Cinema Residential Weekday Saturday Conference Convention
January 100% 65% 80% 90% 100% 90% 65% 100% 20%
February 100 65 75 70 100 90 70 100 40
March 100 70 90 50 100 95 80 100 80
April 100 70 90 70 100 95 85 100 80
May 100 70 95 70 100 95 85 100 100
June 100 75 100 100 100 100 90 100 100
July 100 75 100 100 100 100 100 100 50
August 100 75 85 70 100 100 100 100 50
September 100 75 80 80 100 95 90 100 70
October 100 75 80 70 100 95 90 100 70
November 100 80 80 50 100 85 80 100 40
.'l December 100 100 90 50 100 85 65 100 20 _
"
",.
parking factor is then adjusted to the same month. For
example, if December is selected as the design month
for a mixed-use project, the retail factor would be the
normal peak, but the hotel factor would be factored to
a value less than its seasonal peak.
Adjustmentfor Mode of'D'ansportation Used. Just
as the parking demand factors must be adjusted to the
same season, they must also be adjusted to reflect the
mode of transportation used. The recommended ap-
proach is a twofold change. First, available peak park-
ing demand factors are adjusted upward to reflect 100
percent auto use. Second, these parking factors for
100 percent auto use are adjusted downward to reflect
the expected conditions at the development project
being analyzed. For the typical suburban project
wh~re transit is not available, the second modification
is not needed. However, for downtown projects in ur-
ban areas where transit may be used for 10 to 60
percent of the trips, this correction is significant.
The source for data about transportation modes
may be specific transportation surveys or transporta-
tion data available from planning studies for the urban
area. The latter choice requires an assessment of the
information's applicability to a specific site.
Adjustment for Captive Market. This adjustment
is optional because the effects of a captive market are
46
difficult to identify. Without this adjustment, the de-
mand estimate for shared parking would probably be
too conservative.
The existence of the captive patron relationship is
identified by surveys of employees, visitors, and pa-
trons as well as by parking surveys. Captive markets
could be large enough to significantly lower parking
demand. The data might indicate a widely ranging
relationship that may not be predictable, however.
They might be analyzed in a "what if' sense to test the
possible impacts. Assuming a representative value of
captive market support could reduce parking factors
for retail or entertainment uses. An alternative would
be to undertake a specific market analysis. This analy-
sis would include a site-specific assessment of the
potential for captive market support.
STEP 3: lIAlYSIS If IOUBlY ICCUMUlAnol
This step produces an estimate of hourly parking
accumulations for each land use during a typical
weekday or weekend day (Saturday). The results of
this step identify the shape of hourly accumulation
curves for five basic land uses. The curves were rea-
sonably consistent for a wide range of surveyed sites
EXHIBIT 28
REPRESENTATIVE HOURLY ACCUMULATION BY
PERCENTAGE OF PEAK HOUR
Hotel
Resl4eoti&J Reside.- eo.rernce CoIftrn4
0IIice IetalJ Reltaur&llt Cioe.. 1_.cBDI tW (CBD) Guest Roo. ReltaurutlLoa"", - tloo Aiu
--
Hoar al Day Week.., Sat1riay Week.., Sat...., Week.., Salor4ay DaiIJ Weetdq Sat...., DaiIr Week.., SalIlr'" Weetdq Sat...., DaiIr DaiIr
6:00 a.m. 3% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 20% 20%
7:00 a.m. 20 20% 8% 3% 2% 2% 87 95 95 85 70 20 20
8:00 a.m. 63 60 18 10 5 3 79 88 90 65 60 20 20 50% 50%
9:00 a.m. 93 80 42 30 10 6 73 81 87 55 50 20 20 100 100
10:00 a.m. 100 80 68 45 20 8 68 74 85 45 40 20 20 100 100
11:00 a.m. 100 100 87 73 30 10 59 71 85 35 35 30 30 100 100
12:00 Noon 90 100 97 85 50 30 30% 60 71 85 30 30 50 30 100 100
1:00 p.m. 90 80 100 95 70 45 70 59 70 85 30 30 70 45 100 100
2:00 p.m. 97 60 97 100 60 45 70 60 71 85 35 35 60 45 100 100
3:00 p.m. 93 40 95 100 60 45 70 61 73 85 35 40 55 45 100 100
4:00 p.m. 77 40 87 90 50 45 70 66 75 87 45 50 50 45 100 100
5:00 p.m. 47 20 79 75 70 60 70 77 81 90 60 60 70 60 100 100
6:00 p.m. 23 20 82 65 .90 90 80 85 85 92 70 70 90 90 100 100
7:00 p.m. 7 20 89 60 100 95 90 94 87 94 75 80 100 95 100 100
8:00 p.m. 7 20 87 55 100 100 . 100 96 92 96 90 90 100 100 100 100
9:00 p.m. 3 61 40 100 100 100 98 95 98 95 95 100 100 100 100
10:00 p.m. 3 32 38 90 95 100 99 96 99 100 100 90 95 50 50
11:00 p.m. 13 13 70 85 80 100 98 100 100 100 70 85
12:00 Mid. 50 70. 70 100 100 100 100 100 50 70
night
involving office, regional retail, and residential facili-
ties (see exhibit 28). Nonroom-related hotel activities
and entertainment uses varied significantly, however.
If site-specific data are not available for these two land
uses, survey results could be used.
Accumulation curves are then estimated for each
land use, based on the selected hourly values de-
scribed in terms of the percent of maximum design-day
parking demand expected at every hour during the day.
The parking demand factor (step 2) multiplied by
. quantity of land use (step 1) produces an estimate of
peak parking demand. This value multiplied by each
hourly percentage produces an estimate of parking
demand for every land use component by hour of day.
STEP 4: ESTIMATE IF SIARO 'AlKlIIC
The hourly parking demand for each land use is
merged to estimate overall shared parking demand for
a proposed project. This step is simply the hour-by-
hour addition of parking demand for each use to esti-
mate the aggregate accumulation. As noted previously,
the method descn'bed above should be used for week-
day and Saturday conditions to.,test for the controlling
value.
SAMPlE USE If THE MmOllUCY
The following sample situation has been devised to
demonstrate the use of the recommended
methodology.
1. Objective: Th estimate the peak parking require-
ments for a proposed mixed-use development.
2. Plan: The proposed development has the following
components:
· Office = 400,000 square feet GLA
· Retail = 300,000 square feet GLA
· Hotel = 500 rooms plus 5,000 square feet of
restaurant and conference facilities with ZOO-seat
capacity.
3. Location: The project will be located in the down-
town of a medium-size urban community whose
regional population is approximately 1.5 million.
4. Mode split:17 Based on surveys conducted at exist-
ing developments in the downtown, it is estimated
that 75 percent of employees and patrons and 50
percent of hotel guests will use autos. The number
of persons per auto is assumed to be typical (1.2 for
employees, 1.8 for patrons, 1.4 for hotel guests).
17"Mode split" refers to the percentage of people at a site who use a
particular mode of transportation, with the total of all modes
equaling 100 percent.
47
:i;
"
~
f
.
~
5. Captive market: Based upon regional market sur-
veys, it is estimated that 15 percent of all retail
patrons will be office employees within the develop-
ment. It is also estimated that 50 percent of the
hotel restaurant patronage will be generated out-
side the development.
The unadjusted peak parking demand ratios (see
Appendix C) for the component land uses are as
follows:
. Weekday
Office: 3.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet
GLA
Retail: 3.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA
Hotel rooms: 1.25 spaces per room
Hotel restaurant: 10.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet
GLA
Hotel conference rooms: 0.5 space per seat
. Saturday
Office: 0.5 parking space per 1,000 square feet GLA
Retail: 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA
Hotel rooms: 1.25 spaces per room
Hotel restaurant: 10.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet
GLA
Hotel conference rooms: 0.5 space per seat.
Factoring each ratio by the estimated percentage of
auto use yields the following adjusted ratios:
. . Weekday
Office: 3.0 x 0.75 = 2.25 parking spaces per 1,000
square feet GLA
Retail: 3.8 x 0.75 = 2.85 spaces per 1,000 square
feet GLA
Hotel rooms: 1.25 x 0.50 = 0.63 space per room
Hotel restaurant: 10.0 x 0.75 = 7.5 spaces per
1,000 square feet GLA
Hotel conference rooms: 0.5 x 0.75 = 0.38 space per
seat
. Saturday
Office: 0.5 x 0.75 = 0.38 parking space per 1,000
square feet GLA
Retail: 4.0 x 0.75 = 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square
feet GLA
Hotel rooms: 1.25 x 0.50 = 0.63 space per room
Hotel restaurant: 10.0' x 0.75 = 7.5 spaces per
1,000 square feet GLA
Hotel conference rooms: 0.5 x 0.75 = 0.38 space per
seat.
The ratio for retail parking demand also should be
factored for market synergy for a weekday, when office
employees are present:
48
Retail (weekday): 2.85 x (1- 0.15) = 2.42 spaces
per 1,000 square feet GLA.
The survey data on the captive market in this instance
do not estimate the possible synergistic effect result-
ing from hotel guests' patronage of the retail facilities.
10 be conservative, therefore, this effect is assumed to
be negligible. However, the unadjusted demand ratio
for the hotel restaurant (10 spaces per 1,000 square
feet GLA) already is based on a typical 50 percent
patronage by nonguests. Another very conservative
assumption is that the hotel conference facilities are
fully used by nonguests. _
Next, the ratios for each component land use need to
be factored according to the month of the year during
which the overall peak parking accumulation would be
greatest. In some instances, the peak month for a
weekday may not be the same as the peak month for a
Saturday. In that case, only by trial and error can the
condition (that is, combination of day and month) for
peak parking demand be determined. In this instance,
however, a tedious trial-and-error analysis can be
avoided by an inspection of the relative size of each
component land use and the relative differences in
peak daily and monthly demands.
Based on the monthly values in Appendix C, the
contnbution of the hotel components to overall park-
ing demand remains the same on a weekday and a
Saturday of a given month. Thus, for a given month,
the condition for overall peak parking demand de-
pends only upon the relative size of the retail and office
components. Since the office component is large rela-
tive to the retail component, it is most likely that the
peak condition will occur on a weekday rather than on
a Saturday.
The monthly office demand will remain constant,
the monthly retail demand will peak during December,
and the monthly hotel components will peak during
the summer. Based on an inspection, however, the
relative contribution of retail parking demand to total
project parking demand during December (compared
with that of hotel parking demand during the summer)
is much larger.
The peak parking demand at the entire development
will therefore most likely occur on a weekday in De-
cember. The peak parking demand may then be esti-
mated by conducting an hourly parking accumulation
analysis using the following weekday ratios, adjusted
to the month of December:
Office: 2.25 x 1.00 = 2.25 spaces per 1,000 square
feet GLA
Retail: 2.42 x 1.00 = 2.42 spaces per 1,000 square
feet G LA
Hotel rooms: 0.63 x 0.85 = 0.54 space per room
Hotel restaurant: 7.5 x 0.93 = 6.98 spaces per
1,000 square feet GLA18
Hotel conference rooms: 0.38 x 1.00 = 0.38 space
per seat.
An hourly parking accumulation analysis, using the
above ratios and the hourly values from Appendix C,
reveals that the peak accumulation for the combined
land uses would be 1,809 cars, occurring at 2:00 p.m.
This result is revealed only by calculating the ac-
cumulation for each hour of the day. The calculation
for 2:00 p.m. would be as follows:
Adjusted Peak Ratio x Floor Area x 2:00 p.m.
Value (Appendix C)lPeak Value (Appendix C)
For each land use, the calculations are as follows:
Office: 2.25 x 400 x (2.9 -;- 3.0) = 870 Spaces
Retail: 2.42 x 300 x (3.7 -;- 3.8) = 707 spaces
Hotel rooms: 0.54 x 500 x (0.5 -;- 1.0) = 135
spaces
Hotel restaurant: 6.98 x 5 x (7.2 -;- 12.0) = 21
spaces
Hotel conference rooms: 0.38 x 200 x (0.5 -;- 0.5)
= 76 spaces
870 + 707 + 135 + 21 + 76 = 1,809 total
spaces.
Because the proposed development will be in a
downtown a,rea, this weekday parking demand of
1,809 cars must be assessed relative to the existing
surpluses and deficiencies in the supply of parking
spaces within walking distance of the development.
As an additional demonstration of the use of this
method, four of the test cases included in exhibit 24
have been selected for refined analysis. Exhibits 29,
30,31, and 32 indicate the results for projects 10, 14,
16, and 17, respectively. The findings indicate refined
estimates of peak parking demand, including any as-
sumptions used concerning the adjustments for sea-
son, mode of transportation, or captive market.
Project 10. By adjusting the restaurant to the Octo-
ber seasonal factor, and by using a 50 percent captive
portion for the hotel restaurant and 50 percent hotel
occupancy for the day (indicated by survey data), the
shared parking estimate is 638 spaces. This number
compares closely to actual parking. Further, this anal-
18'fhis calculation represents the weighted average between the
restaurant and hotel guest factors for Decembex; as 50 percent of
patrons are guests.
ysis assumes that the conference facilities were not
being significantly used on the day of the analysis.
Project 14. By adjusting the restaurant use to an
October condition, using the captive market relation-
ship of 10 percent for the restaurant (based on the
SUlveyS), and selecting an office factor of 2.3 spaces
per 1,000 square feet, the estimated demand would be
1,776 spaces. This number is reasonably comparable
to the actual count, but the analysis suggests that
further surveys of the project are needed. The use of a
lower peak factor needs further verification. It is pos-
sible that some of the demand may use off-site
parking.
Project 16. By reflecting a seasonal factor for the
retail use (75 percent for July) and using a 50 percent
captive market factor for the restaurant, the estimate
of shared parking is 600 spaces, which agrees with
observed counts. The captive factor seems reasonable,
given the isolated nature of the project.
Project 17. By reflecting a small but significant use
by transportation other than auto (11 to 12 percent)
for the three uses (as indicated by the survey) and a
seasonal adjustment for the cinema (to December),
and by expecting 1.50 persons per car for retail space,
the shared parking estimate is 3,054 spaces, which
compares closely to the actual count.
These comparisons indicate that the method can
produce parking demand estimates that replicate ex-
isting conditions. Clearly, detailed data are needed.
However, rationalization based on sound assumptions
can be used to develop the estimates as well. The
simplicity of the methodology allows parametric anal-
ysis to test wide variations in input data.
ij
:1
'I
I
I
:1
;1
:1
.,
~
.~
r.
~
~
EXHIBIT Cl
HOURLY PARKING DEMAND RATIOS-DEFAULT VALUES
Hotel ~
Restaurant! Conven- r
Office Restaurant Residential Guest Loungea Con- tion .~
Spaces per Retail Spaces per Cinema Spaces per Rooms S~es per ference Areaa t:
Dwelling Unit. RoomS'" - ~j
1,000 Sq. Spaces per 1,000 1,000 Sq. Spaces Spaces 1,000 Sq. - Spaces f
Ft.GLA Sq. Ft. GLA Ft.GLA per Seat Non-CBD per Room Ft. GLA Spaces per 1,000 r
Week- Week. Week- Week- Week- CBD Week- Week- per Seat Sq. Ft. I
--
Hour of Day day Sat. day Sat." Sat.. day Sat. day Sat. day Sat. Daily day Sat. day Sat. Daily Daily
6:00 a.m. 0.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 2.0 2.0
7:00 a.m. 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.87 0.95 0.95 <J.85 0.70 2.0 2.0
8:00 a.m. 1.9 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.79 0.88 0.90 0.65 0.60 2.0 2.0 0.2 10
9:00 a.m. 2.8 0.4 1.6 1.2 1.5 2.0 1.0 0.73 0.81 0.87 0.55 0.50 2.0 2.0 0.5 30
10:00 a.m. 3.0 0.4 2.6 1.8 2.2 4.0 1.5 0.68 0.74 0.85 0;45 0.40 2.0 2.0 0.5 30
11:00 a.m. 3.0 0.5 3.~ 2.9 3.7 6.0 2.0 0.59 0.71 0.85 0.35 0.35 3.0 3.0 0.5 30
12:00 Noon 2.7 0.5 3.7 3.4 4.2 10.0 6.0 0.10 0.10 0.60 0.71 0.85 0.30 0.30 5.0 3.0 0.5 30
1:00 p.m. 2.7 0.4 3.8 3.8 4.7 14.0 9.0 0.15 0.20 0.59 0.70 0.85 0.30 0.30 7.0 4.5 0.5 30
2:00 p.m. 2.9 0.3 3.7 4.0 5.0 12.0 9.0 0.15 0.20 0.60 0.71 0.85 0.35 0.35 6.0 4.5 0.5 30
3:00 p.m. 2.8 0.2 3.6 4.0 5.0 12.0 9.0 0.15 0.20 0.61 0.73 0.85 0.35 0.40 5.5 4.5 0.5 30
4:00 p.m. 2.3 0.2 3.3 3.6 4.6 10.0 9.0 0.15 0.20 0.66 0.75 0.87 0.45 0.50 5.0 4.5 0.5 30
5:00 p.m. 1.4 0.1 3.0 3.0 3.8' 14.0 12.0 0.15 0.20 0.77 0.81 0.90 0.60 0.60 7.0 6.0 0.5 30 I
6:00 p.m. 0.7 0.1 3.1 2.6 3.2 18.0 18.0 0.20 0.25 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.70 0.70 9.0 9.0 0.5 30
7:00 p.m. 0.2 0.1 3.4 2.4 3.1 20.0 19.0 0.20 0.25 0.94 0.87 0.94 0.75 0.80 10.0 9.5 0.5 30
8:00 p.m. 0.2 0.1 3.3 2.2 2.8 20.0 20.0 0.25 0.30 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.90 0.90 10.0 10.0 0.5 30
9:00 p.m. 0.1 2.3 1.6 2.1 20.0 20.0 0.25 0.30 0.98 0.95 0.98 0.95 0.95 10.0 10.0 0.5 30
10:00 p.m. 0.1 1.2 1.5 1.9 18.0 19.0 0.25 0.30 0.99 0.96 0.99 1.00 1.00 9.0 9.5 0.2 10
11:00 p.m. 0.5 0.5 0.5 14.0 17.0 0.20 0.25 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.0 8.5
12:00 Midnight 10.0 14.0 0.15 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.0 7.0
Peak parking ratio 3.0 0.5 3.8 4.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 0.25 0.30 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 10.0 0.5 30
Percent auto usage 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 80 80 100 100 100 100
.AYerage persons/auto 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 NA NA NA 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
aRepresents nonguest parking demand, assuming SO percent of restaurant patrons and 100 percent of conference and convention attendees are nonguests. Conference and
convention demands indicated are upper bounds, which are rarely achieved.
bAt one auto per dwelling .unit.
"For less than 400,000 sq. fl GI.A.
dFor more than 600,000 sq. ft. GLA. i
I
~
EXHIBIT C2 'f~
E
MONTHLY VARIATION IN PEAK PARKING DEMAND RATIOS- I
DEFAULT VALUES (pERCENT OF PEAK MONTH)
~
Hotel Rooms Hotel Hotel i
,
Month Office Retail Restaurant Cinema Residential Weekday Saturday Conference Convention i
f
January 100 65 80 90 100 90 65 100 20
February 100 65 75 70 100 90 70 100 40
March 100 70 90 50 100 95 80 100 80
April 100 70 90 70 100 95 85 100 80
May 100 70 95 70 100 95 85 100 100
June 100 75 100 100 100 100 90 100 100
July 100 75 100 100 100 100 100 100 50
August 100 75 85 70 100 100 100 100 50
September 100 75 80 80 100 95 90 100 70
October 100 75 80 70 100 95 90 100 70
November 100 80 80 50 100 85 80 100 40
December 100 100 90 50 100 85 65 100 20
86
'..f>::'.... . PROpnny OF
\)'\dl~tR ENG/{~;:~P'N'(' "r.IENC
"'~I\l. \J vv I ES fr'/(\
LIBRARY I ~\.I.
,
;.
f
This report presents a set of base
recommendations for parking supply
based on center size and makeup. An
analysis of the survey data shows that
these independent variables do not
significandy affect the required park-
ing supply:
- Geographic area
- Urban versus suburban setting
- Large city versus small city.
On the other hand, the amount of
parking needed at a shopping center is
affected by these variables:
- Proportion of restaurant, cinema,
and entertainment land uses
- Percent of nonauto travel to the
center
- Treatment of employee parking
during shopping peaks
- Size of the center.
Adjustment factors for these variables
will be discussed later in the report.
Parking Ratio
Recommendations
Table 1 shows the recommended num-
ber of parking spaces per 1,000 square
feet of gross leasable area (GLA).
The table located in Appendix A pro-
vides a comprehensive matrix of rec-
ommended ratios. This recommended
provision of parking spaces will pro-
vide the typical shopping center with
sufficient parking to serve the parking
needs of customers and employees
at the 20th busiest hour of the year.
Moreover, these recommended ratios
provide for a surplus of parking spaces
during all but 19 hours of the more
than 3,000 hours per year during
which a shopping center is open. Dur-
ing 19 hours of each year, which are
typically distributed over four peak
shopping days, some patrons will not
be able to find vacant spaces when
they first enter the center. The recom-
mended parking ratios are applicable
for centers in which retail shops occu-
py at least 80 percent of the GLA.
The recommended parking ratios in
Table 1 exclude centers in which 20
percent or more of occupied GLA
is composed of restaurants, enter-
tainment, and/or cinema space.
The appropriate number of spaces
for these centers should be deter-
mined using methodology such as
that described in the Urban Land
Institute's 1983 publication entided
Shared Parking. It defines shared parking
as "parking spaces that can be used to
serve two or more individual land uses
without conflict or encroachment."
Also, the data analyzed in this study
suggest that for neighborhood and
community centers, the recommended
ratio may be as low as 3.7 spaces per
1,000 square feet of GLA provided
Percen e of GLA In Restaurant, Entertainment, and/or Onema 5 ce
0-10% 11-20%b >20%
4.0 4.0 Shared parkingd
4.0-4.5 4.0-4.5 Shared parkingd
sliding scalec sliding scalec
4.5 4.5 Shared parkingd
Less than 400,000
400,000-599,999
600,000 and over
a Parked cars per 1.000 square feet of gross leasable area.
b For each percent above 10 percent, a linear increase of 0.03 spaces per 1,000 square feet should be calculated.
c Recommended parking ratio increases/decreases proportionally with center's square footage.
d Shared parking is defined as parking spaces that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without
conflict or encroachment.
that additional spaces are available for
restaurants, entertainment, and/or cin-
ema use. However, because of limited
parking data from these centers, the
recommended parking ratio of 4.0
spaces per 1,000 square feet from the
1980 study should still be used.
As shown in Table 1, when restaurants,
entertainment, and cinema space com-
bine to equal 11 to 20 percent of the
total GLA, a linear increase of 0.03
spaces per 1,000 square feet for each
percent above 10 percent should be cal-
culated For instance, a 300,000-square-
foot center in which restaurants, enter-
tainment, and cinema space account
for 14 percent of the total GIA would
require 4.12 parking spaces per 1,000
square feet.
Base level: 4.0 (Spaces)
+ 4% excess restaurant,
entertainment, cinema x .03 = .12
Estimated ratio: 4.12
For recommended ratios with a sliding
scale, the parking ratio increases or de-
creases proportionally with the center's
square footage. For example, a 500,000-
square-foot center with restaurant, enter-
tainment, and cinema space constituting
10 percent or less of the total GIA would
require 4.25 spaces per 1,000 square
feet (halfway between the 400,000- and
599,999-square-foot ratios).
Method of Travel
The method of travel influences park-
ing demand at a center. Employees or
customers who arrive by modes of
transportation other than private auto-
mobile reduce the demand for parking.
The parking ratio recommendations
contained in this report are for centers
that are primarily auto dependent, with
minimal walk-in or transit use.
Employee Parking
Requirements
Parking demand for employees contin-
ues to account for approximately 20
percent of the total parking demand
during the peak period. Thus, centers
that require employees to park off site
during the peak season could see up to
a 20 percent reduction in the parking
demand. However, this adjustment
should be utilized with caution since
centers with uncontrolled free parking
often have difficulty completely enforc-
ing employee parking.
Parking Supply Ratios
It is important in recommending park-
ing ratios to determine the current park-
ing supply. A series of parking supply
ratios was calculated for centers with
parking accumulation counts based on
the number of parking spaces per 1,000
square feet. As seen in Table 2, the park-
ing supply exceeded demand for the
survey period for all center sizes. There-
fore, parking demand during the design
hour was not constricted by the avail-
ability of parking.
Parking Space Design
In the 1970s and 1980s, there was
a trend toward smaller vehicle sizes.
As stated in the 1980 Parking Req-
uirements for Shopping Centers, the
expectation was "that by 1990, most
automobiles (60 to 95 percent) in
use nationwide would be compacts."
However, according to the National
Parking Association (NPA), vehicles
became increasingly larger in the
1990s. This trend has accelerated
with the increased sales of sport
utility vehicles. The NPA's last report
that detailed trends in car size was
published in 19%. It stated that only 39
percent of vehicles on the road were
considered compact. Dimensions of
Parking, published by ULI, provides
historical automobile sales data by
size of vehicle.
Given the declining number of compact
vehicles, a one-size-fits-all ("universal" stall)
parking space design is recommended.
Center Size (GLA
In Square Feet)
Number of Responses
Parking Ratio (Parking Spaces per
1,000 Square Feet of Occupied GLA)
Supply Demand
Less than 400,000
400,000-599,999
600,000-1,499,999
1,500,000-2,500,000
Total
49
15
96
9
169
5.8
5.6
5.8
4.7
3.7
4.0
4.5
3.8
A Comparison of 1980
and 1998 Studies
The recommended parking ratios for
centers under 400,000 square feet are
consistent in the 1980 and the 1998
studies. However, larger centers require
lower parking ratios today than those rec-
ommended in 1980. This is particularly
evident in centers with 600,000 square
feet or more. Table 3 compares the find-
ings of the 1980 and 1998 studies.
L
~;.~J~~'~1~~~~'? ;;<rr,l,,; '~5;;,i::.C/;;\:;"~~i:~~~;;~rh'i~il~(~f:~::;r; ~~ ;~~~:::";~l~i'~:5': .~. :'~':"~::~;!:?~;',: .~, ~ '::::.::TI~
rf,'f'>,,; 1 ~;' .:;t~I;.jf'w\~'~il.t:J,d ,:,;r;~M!f:t~lt,,!:~:, H:J'i"lfriJ r'X;}:1. ::J(,!f,ltq(, : ~'.(~;l~;,
Jflk'!r'j;:~::{'- ;~'i.. rj",it.l~"t .: -r. "'i~ ,,~~~ L ,;-; <~ ;;{li:\'~~'";~ '" ~ ~;'~ ~",;. J""." ?:::" ,0," j ~'....., \~"',;. ~ /" - ,j>C';'::J '..:'.1:;~ :; \"}F" .;;':"~J 1~:~';l~~
Center Size (GLA in Square Feet)
~~.----
Less than 400,000
400,000-599,999
600,000 and over
Parking Ratio (Parking Spaces per
1.000 Square Feet of Occupied GLA)
:~...........=-__ ,_199! Stud.! _~=.
4.0 4.0
4.0 4.0-4.5 (sliding scale)
4.0-5.0 (sliding scale) 4.5
Note: See Table 1 explanation of sliding scale,
"ssa1 ~O a~Oill 'Sa~~B OvL"Ol BU~U~B4UOJ
"~NINNI~aa 30 ~NIOd a~4 04 4aaJ S9"LSL JO a~uB4s~P B 4SBa ,,6E,6S000
~4nos a~ua~4 !4aaJ EL"06 JO a~uB4s~P B 4SBa ,,9Z ,EO o6S ~4nos a~ua~4 !4aaJ
S9"L01 JO a~uB4s~P B 4SBa "OO,OOoSv ~4nos a~ua~4 !4aaJ L1"SEE JO a~uB4s~P B 4SBa
"OZ,100Sv ~4~ON a~ua~4 !4aaJ 89"89Z JO a~uB4s~P B 4SBa anp a~ua~4 !4aaJ 6Z"9Z1
JO a~uB4s~P B ~4~oN anp a~ua~4 (9) ! 4aaJ Z6" 6E JO a~uB4s~P B 4SBa anp a~ua~4
(S) !4aaJ 61"SSZ JO a~uB4s~P B ~4~ON anp a~ua~4 (v) !4aaJ Z6"6E JO a~uB4s~P
B 4saM anp a~ua~4(E) !4aaJ L6"86 JO a~uB4s~P B ~4~oN anp a~ua~4 (E) !4aaJ 09"v01
JO a~uB4s~P B 4saM anp a~ua~4 (Z) !4aaJ L1"19 JO a~uB4s~P B ~4~oN anp a~ua~4
e'[) : s11B~ x~s BU~lVI0110J a~4 aun BU~P1~nq p~BS Bu01B a~ua~4 !aUn BU~P1~nq
11Bill a~4 04 4aaJ 96"v8 JO a~uB4s~P B 4saM anp a~ua~4 !4aaJ 8L"101 JO a~uB4s~P
B ~4~oN anp a~ua~4 ! 4aaJ OE" E8v JO a~uB4s~P B 4saM anp ~NINNI~aa 30 ~NIOd
illO~J a~ua~4 !~NINNI~aa 30 ~NIOd a~4 04 4aaJ EE"ZLL JO a~uB4s~P B 4saM ,,6E,6S000
~4~ON a~ua~4 !4aaJ EO"OZ8 JO a~uB4s~P B 4saM ,,9Z,S0088 ~4nos a~ua~4 !anUaAV
ssa~BuoJ JO aU~1 ^BlVI-JO-4~B~~ ^1~a4SalVl a~4 uo 4u~od B 04 4aaJ 00"09 JO a~uB4s~P
B 4saM "lZ,00068 ~4nos a~ua~4 !4aaJ 01"8681 JO a~uB4s~P B 61 uO~4~as p~BS JO
~a4~Bno 4sBa~4nos a~4 JO aU11 4SBa a~4 Bu01B 4saM ,,6E,6S000 ~4~oN a~ua~4 !4SBa
Ev aBuBH '~4nos SV d1~sUJV\0~ '61 u014~as p~BS JO ~au~o~ 4sBa~4nos a~4 4B a~uaillillOJ
:SlVI0110J SB paq~~~sap ~a~4~nJ pUB BP~~013 '~~Baa i111Bd JO
^4UnOJ '4SBa Ev aBUBH '~4nOS SV d1~sUJV\0~ '61 uO~4~as u1 pa4B~01 pUB1 JO 4~B~4 V
'ITIlH H;:)Wa: NO.LNXOa:
3~IS NOI~;:)n~~SNO;:) NOI~IaaY O;:)IAnN
VOOZ 'OE ~aqmaAoN
t: jOllggqS
.
.
. .
SECTI \J 19, TWP. 45 S., F :G. 43 E.
COUNlY OF PALM BEACH. FLORIDA
LEGEND
SEC
TWP
RNG
P.B.
OR
R/W
CR
C
P
LB
= SECTION
TOWNSHIP
RANGE
PLAT BOOK
OFFICIAL RECORDS
RIGHT OF WAY
COUNTY ROAD
CALCULATED
PLAT
LICENSED BUSINESS
CONSTRUCTION AREA FOR MUVICO ADDITION
BOYNTON BEACH MALL
EAST QUARTER
CORNER, SEC. 19,
T'vIP. 45 S., RGE. 43 E,
POINT OF
BEGINNING z
o
o-....j
o -....j
Ulru
~-
, w
tuw
~ -
"
w
z
......
-.J
~
~
"-
~
L.:J
Z
......
l-
V)
......
x
w
S 89. 00' 21' 'vi
60,00'
S 880 05' 26' 'vi 820,03'
w W
z
...... :=J
-.J
~ Z (J'\
.--<
"- a W u
~ ...... ~
ai w
L.:J V)
Z (J'\
...... CD '<t
I- ...... "-
V) (f) .--<
......
X (f) W
W ~ (I)
. W LL
(J'\ c:t: D
(")
~ 0 W
lf1 Z
. Z ......
Cl -.J
Cl 0
I-
Z 0 (I)
<I:
W
o 300
I I
Scale: 1" = 300'
OLD BOYNTON ROAD
NOTES:
1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON BOYNTON BEACH MALL
DESCRIPTION BEARING OF NORTH 00"59'39" WEST
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 19, TWP. 45
FROM S., RGE. 43 EAST BETWEEN THE SDUTHEAST
CORNER TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECT. 19.
2. SEE SHEET 1 OF :3 FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SEC. 19, T'vIP, 45 S., RGE. 43 E.
NOTE: THIS SKETCH IS NOT A SURVEY
BOYNTON BEACH MALL
MUVICO ADDITION
CONSTRUCTION SITE
DESCRIPTION
CHECK
GWL
SHEET 2 OF 3
SECTI \J 19, TWP. 45 S., r lG. 43
COUNlY OF PALM BEACH, FLORIDA
CONSTRUCTION AREA FOR MUVICO ADDITION
BOYNTON BEACH MALL
E. w
O!: (")
W ~
Z W
O!:
D L.:J
U O!:
I-~ =-
CI)......CI)
<I:ZLn
WD~
II--<
1-1- -
O!:UCL
DW:3
ZCI)I-
.
LEGEND
SEC
TWP
RNG
P.B.
OR
R/W
CR
C
P
LB
SECTION
TOWNSHIP
RANGE
PLAT BOOK
OFFICIAL RECORDS
RIGHT OF WAY
COUNTY ROAD
CALCULATED
PLAT
- LICENSED BUSINESS
CANAL
BOYNTON
~
(\J B
~ a...
'<t z
(")0
~ CD ......
01'1-
o Z
p::lW W
L.:JI-
~<I:W
o a... ~
o 300
I I
Scale: 1" = 300~SL 9
W
:=J
Z
W
~
(f)
(f)
W
c:t:
(9
Z
0 W
0 (")
~
I'
I'
eu
W
W Z
L.:J ......
n <I:~ -.J
CI) a...z ~
r 0
...Da... "-
...... ~
Ul ~z
'<to L.:J
...... Z
~I- ......
OZ I-
OW V)
p::ll- ......
W X
~~ W
0
mall building line
CONSTRUCTION AREA
AREA 10.740 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS.
~
..J
CSL5 t3 ru
mall building line C L 3 ~
U CSL1
~w
O!:......L.:J
W -O!:
U
I- W ~
O!:CI)(I)
<I:
::J ~Ln
C3 O!: ~
W
I- Z -
Cl)O!:CL
<I: D :3
W UI-
POINT OF
BEGINNING 0
o....,J
o ....,J
~~
Ww
~ '
..
LINE TABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE
CSL 1 DUE WEST 483.30'
CSL2 DUE NORTH 101.78'
CSL3 DUE WEST 84.96'
CSL4 DUE NORTH 61.17'
CSL5 DUE WEST 104.60'
CSL6 DUE NORTH 98.97'
CSL7 DUE WEST 39.92'
CSL8 DUE NORTH 255.19'
CSL9 DUE EAST 39.92'
CSL 10 DUE NORTH 126.29'
CSL 11 DUE EAST 268.68'
CSL 12 N 45.01'20" E 335.17'
CSL 13 S 45'00'00" E 107.65'
CSL 14 S 59'0.3'26" E 90.73'
CSL 15 S 00'59'39" E 757.65'
W
Z
......
-.J
~
"-
Q::
L.:J
Z
......
I-
(I)
......
X
W
~
NOTE: THIS SKETCH IS NOT A SURVEY
BOYNTON BEACH MALL
MUVICO ADDITION
CONSTRUCTION SITE
DESCRIPTION
I hereby certify that the attached .Sketch and Legal Descrlptlon" is true and
correct to the best at my knowledge and belief liS nlcently !>nlpared under
my dinlctian and that this Sketch meets the intent at the Minimum lechnicQ!
Standards for Surveying pursuant to Section 47 27. Florida Statut..e llnd
Chapter 61G17, Florida Administrat'
~ /1 _Dats~ /t':-./- ~
Ernest N. Metcalf, Prof_siona Surveyor nd Mapper Nc. 5784
URS CORPORAllON, Southern
Certificate at Authorization No. LB 683
7850 West Courtney Campbell Caueeway
Tampa, Florida 33807-1462
NOT VAUD UNLESS SIGNED AND IMPRINTED WITH AN EMBOSSED
SURVEYOR'S SEAL
CHECK
GWL
SHEET 3 OF 3
RIDER TO SITE PLAN APPLICATION
The undersigned as applicant for Final Site Plan Approval does hereby acknowledge, represent and agree that
all plans, specifications, drawings, engineering, and other data submitted with this application for review by the
City of Boynton Beach shall be reviewed by the various boards, commissions, staff personnel and other parties
designated, appointed or employed by the City of Boynton Beach, and any such party reviewing the same shall
rely upon the accuracy thereof, and any change in any item submitted shall be deemed material and
substantial.
The undersigned hereby agrees that all plans, specifications, drawings, engineering and other data
which may be approved by the City of Boynton Beach, or its boards, commissions, staff or designees shall be
constructed in strict compliance with the form in which they are approved, and any change to the same shall
be deemed material and shall place the applicant in violation of this application and all approvals and permits
which may be granted.
The applicant agrees to allow the City of Boynton Beach all rights and remedies as provided for by the
applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Boynton Beach to bring any violation into compliance, and the
applicant shall indemnify, reimburse and save the City of Boynton Beach harmless from any cost, expense,
claim, liability or any action which may arise due to their enforcement of the same.
/1 READ, ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO this JO-J!, day of AJo~,^,
{/(tK7iU~,g 1J1(~ h~,--
VVfiness t/ \
~,<f) Jc/~
URS
L.:TTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO: City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynto Beach
Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL
334250310
FROM: Thomas A. Marsicano, AICP
URS Corporation
7650 Courtney Campbell Cswy.
DATE: December 1, 2004
Tampa, FL 33607-1462
Attention: Eric Johnson, AICP
JOB No.: 12004536.00000
RE: BOYNTON BEACH MALL
The following items are being sent:
D Shop Drawings DPrints
D Other
[RJ Attached
D Plans
D Under separate cover by
D Samples D Specifications
D Copy of Letter
Copies
1
6
Date or Number
4
11/30/04
11/30/04
Description
Ignature age Ite an Application
Boynton JCP Assoc. LP - Check for Application submittal
Construction Site Description and sketch for Muvico Addition
Transmittals for reasons checked:
[RJ For Your Approval
[RJ For Your Use
D As Requested
D For Review and Comment
D No Exceptions Taken
D Make Corrections Noted
D Amend and Resubmit
D Resubmit
D Submit
D Return
D
copies for approval
-
copies for distribution
corrected prints
Remarks:
Copies:
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
C7:iJ!Pf a . -f21)(f)L((
[1a . Bertoni, Administrative Assistant
Thomas A. Marsicano, AICP
Vice President
URS Corporation
7650 West Courtney
Campbell Causeway
Tampa, FL 33607-1462
Tel: 813.286.1711
Fax:813.636.2499
www.urscorp.com
M:\Bertoni\Transmiual's\Transmittal Paul Engle w O'brien,doc