Loading...
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