10-16-90 Special/Workshop
0f'i\ .
/ \
1""-'
, . CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION
b I \J _/
SPECIAL/ WORKSHOP MEETING - OCTOBER 16, 1990 - 6:00 P.M.
,,' \ -( ;. \. ¡..~ , COMMISSION CHAMBERS
. 1\
'1' } ; . v-
AGENDA
Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made
by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this
meeting or hearing, such persons will need a record of these
proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that
a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The
City does not provide or prepare such record.
Pursuant to Section 3.07 of the City Charter of the City of Delray
Beach, Florida, Mayor Thomas E. Lynch has instructed me to advise you
of a Special Meeting of the Commission to be held in the Commission
Chambers at 6 P.M. on Tuesday, October 16, 1990.
This meeting has been called for the purpose of considering the
following:
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
~\\~ 1. Resolution No. 99-90: A Resolution supporting the Florida Food
o Recovery Program and the creation of a local program to benefit the
U( citizens of Delray Beach.
~~ 2 .;J\~trtic,"n .~~: '~\å~_'9~c,c"'¡. R~~oï~~i"~n'in support of the United
~ oStates Tennis Association's Junior Program relocating to the City of
/ Delray Beach.
~ 3. Leave of Absence with Pay for Reservist Recalled to Active Duty.
~_ _.. /1;.
4. County-wide Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance.
(- (~ OJ¡.,,'I!b£.~fladi¡
- ~ ¡ \, 'I ì
-- ., -, - /
/, I .'
Alison MacGregor Harty
City Clerk
7.21 WORKSHOP AGENDA
1. Train Whistles (City Manager).
2. Local Option Gas Tax Extension (City Manager).
3. Swinton Avenue/ S.W. 10th Street Swap (City Manager~.
4. Medicare Supplement Policy for City Retirees (City Manager ~ .
5. Household Hazardous Waste Collection Point (City Manager).
, ' '
¡
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL/ WORKSHOP MEETING - OCTOBER 16, 1990 - 6:00 P.M.
, COMMISSION CHAMBERS
ADDENDUM
Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made
by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this
meeting or hearing, such persons will need a record of these
proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that
a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The
City does not provide or prepare such record.
THE SPECIAL/WORKSHOP AGENDA IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE:
Special Meeting Item No. s: Street Lightening on AlA.
[ITY DF DELIAY BEA£H
100 N.W. 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA 33444 407/243-7000
EXECUTIVE SESSION
OF
THE CITY COMMISSION
An Executive Session for the purpose of discussing Police and
Firefighter Pension concerns pursuant to the Collective Bargaining
Agreements will be held on Tuesday, October 16, 1990 in the First
Floor Conference Room, City Hall, immediately following the Special
Meeting/Workshop scheduled for 6:00 p.m., pursuant to Florida Statutes
447.605.
Alison MacGregor Harty
City Clerk
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER wI
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #~ - WORKSHOP MEETING OF OCTOBER 16 1990
RESOLUTION NO. 99-90
DATE: October 12, 1990
At your October 2nd workshop meeting the Commission, by consensus,
agreed with the concept of the Florida Food Recovery Program and
considered supporting implementation of a similar program in the City.
This Resolution formally reflects that consensus.
Recommend approval of Resolution No. 99-90.
'!I _____._.__.__ .______________ .__... .....
. - -#-.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-90
A' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, SUPPORTING THE FLORIDA FOOD
RECOVERY PROGRAM AND THE CREATION OF A LOCAL PROGRAM
¡ . TO BENEFIT THE CITIZENS OF DELRAY BEACH.
WHEREAS, over the past two years, a group called the Florida
Food Recovery Program has been working with great intensity to convince
grocers throughout South Florida to donate outdated, unsalable,
perishable foods that they would normally throwaway; and,
WHEREAS, approximately $200 million worth of unsalable, but
edible, food is destroyed annually in our State; and,
WHEREAS, in 1987 the Florida Legislature enacted the "Good
Faith Donor Bill", an act which provided immunity to liability relating
I to donation of food to charitable or nonprofit organizations; and,
¡ WHEREAS, to date, the project has received more than $3 million
worth of food that would have been discarded; and,
,
! WHEREAS, the bounty of food that is currently discarded can
: ease some of the pressures of providing food for the impoverished; and,
WHEREAS, the Florida Food Recovery Program continues to operate
. ¡ their food bank without charge to the recipients,
,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
~' Section 1. That the City Commission of the City of Delray
, Beach, Florida, hereby supports the Florida Food Recovery Program and
the creation of a local program to benefit the citizens of Delray Beach.
h·¡
PASSED AND ADOPTED in special session on this the 16th day of
~. , October, 1990.
_ MAY 0 R
_ ATTEST:
City Clerk
~p/\
-
<
RESOLUTION NO. 100-90
,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DBLRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED
# STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION RELOCATING THE UNITED
STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION' 5 JUNIOR PROGRAM TO THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE;
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, the United States Tennis Association is considering
relocating its National Junior Pro9ram; and
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach is one of the potential
locations for such a program; and.
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach, beinc¡ located in South
florida, offers the ideal climate for year-round enjoyment of tennis;
and
WHEREAS, the City at Delray Beach has a lon9 history of
supporting quality tennis programs, including junior championships such
a.S The Sunshine cup; and. i" ,'^ ,-- r-' r
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach offers excellent schools,
affordable housing and a diverse integrated. community; and
WHEREAS, there 1s no finer environment fJr America's youth to
train, grow and improve, not only as tennis player', but as human beings
then the City of Delray Beach; and
WHUEAS, there 1s located in Delray Beach the Laver's
International Tennis Resort (hereinafter referred to as Laver's); and
WHEREAS, Laver's 1s adjacent to Linton Boulevard a major eastl
west corridor within a mile of I-95 conveniently located midway between
West Palm Beach International and Fort Lauderda~e International
Airports; and
WHEREAS, such resort has been a preeminent tennis resort and
boasts outstanding tennis facilities; and
WHEREAS, there remains consideraDle undeveloped land within
the Laver's Master plan; and
WHEREAS, such land is sufficient to be developed in accordance
with the United States Tennis As.ociation Junior Program's needs; and
WHEREAS, the City 1. interested in locatint¡ its municipal
tennis facility at or adjacent to the Laver's site; and
WHEREAS, said lands are the subject of a foreclosure and will
be available for sale in the near tuture; and
WHEREAS, the City has a primary interest in having Laver's
development continue in an appropriate fashion; and
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of having the United States
Tennis Association Junior program. relocate to Delray Beach and be
a..ociated with the development of the Laver's property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
I CITY 01" DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Delray Beach fully supports the United
States Tennis Association Junior Program's relocation to the City of
Delray Beach, Florida. '
¡ 9/a
i
Section 2. The City would be willing to make available the
City's tennis center an~ other facilities to such jUnior program.
Section 3. The City desires to see the Laver' s property
developed in an appropriate manner.
,
Section 4. ~he City believes the United States Tennis Associ-
ation Junior Program to be an appropriate us. of the Laver's site or It.
portion thereof.
section S. The City welcomes developer participation in
conjunction with the City and the United States ~ennis Association to
appropriately ~evelop the Laver's sit..
Section 6. That this Resolution shall immediately upon
passage be communicated to the Board ot Directors of the United States
Tennis Association.
I
Section, 7. That this Resolution shall be effective upon
adoption.
PASSED AND 1\OOfTED in special session on the 16th day of
October, 1990.
iAYOR
AT'1'!S'I':
City Clerk
2 aes. No.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER ~
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #' ~ - WORKSHOP MEETING OF OCTOBER 16 1990
LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITH PAY
DATE: October 12 I 1990
We currently have two members who have been recalled to active duty
status due to the present crisis in the Middle East. State Statutes
provide that a member may be granted a leave of absence to perform
active military service, with the first 30 days of any leave of
absence to be with full pay and the remainder without pay. Staff is
requesting that the Commission consider extending the period of full
pay for those members until the end of their active duty service.
While we are not sure if the Commission can accommodate this request,
the City Attorney's office has been asked to review this request and
provide an opinion at your Tuesday evening meeting.
Recommend payment for the first 30 days of the leave of absence and
consideration of the extension request contingent upon the findings of
the City Attorney's office.
Delray Beach Police Department " ~
300 West Atlantic Avenue · Delray Beach, Florida 33444-3666 _ '.
(407) 243-7888 Fax (407) 243-7816 CHARLES KILGORE
Chief of Police
MEMORANDUM
,
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: Charles Kilgore, Chief of Police
DATE: September 24, 199Ø
SUBJECT: REQº~Qî_rºB_~~AY~_ºr_A~ª~HC~_NlïH_~AX
rºB_ºrrlç~B_Bº~~_Blï~&~_&~_ºr~lç~B_~gg~ºBX_~ªHER
As you are aware, we presently have the above named officers on
an active duty status due to the present crisis in the Middle
East. Officer Roel Ritfeld reported for active duty on September
4, 199Ø and is committed for a 9Ø day period with a release of
December 5, 199Ø. Officer Gregory Wesner reported for active
duty on August 25, 199Ø and is committed for a 9Ø day period with
a release of November 24, 199Ø. Both officers can also be
extended an additional 9Ø days with Presidential authority.
At the present time, both officers have exhausted all of their
vacation and City authorized leave time. I would request that
serious consideration be given to the City granting these
officers leaves of absence with full pay through the remainder of
their active duty status. These officers have normal financial
obligations that must be met regardless of their military status,
and the limited amount of pay that the government offers these
individuals falls far short of their normal anticipated wages.
Florida State Statute 1l5.Ø9 states that municipal officers in
the state m~ receive full pay for the first 3Ø days of any leave
of absence when called to military service. Does this mean that
the City cannot extend both the 3Ø days for the full amount of
service time? Perhaps the City Attorney could render an opinion
on this issue in order to provide clarification.
Your consideration in this matter will be appreciated.
~_~bm~~__
CHARLES KILGORE
Chief of Police
CK/RML/gb ~
,-- --, ~p/?J
"f.~.~.
t~ .,~ ¡;
".Ii¡-..I t,
~
-'" ,~I~
-..."......
. a.
AN INTERNATIONAllY ACCREDITED lAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
I
CITY COMMISSION DOCUMENTATION
SUBJECT: COUNTY TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ORDINANCE
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1990
PREPARED BY: DAVID J. KOVACS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
BACKGROUND:
On October 23rd, the County Commission will be considering
adoption of its latest Traffic Performance Ordinance. This is
the "permanent" ordinance and it replaces the "interim"
ordinances which have existed since February 1st.
The ordinance is more than 100 pages in length and a substantial
part of it is very technical. The most pertinent aspects, as it
relates to the City of Delray Beach include:
* provision to the County of previously approved projects
(vested projects) prior to July 1, 1991
* on-going verification system (concurrency management)
* traffic impact studies are required for all development with
the following general exception:
-- residential projects of fewer than 200 trips
-- residential exception east of 1-95 ( ? )
* special exceptions may be sought for downtown cores, special
projects, and community redevelopment purposes
-- these exceptions are not easy to come by; there are
specific submission requirements and timeframes; and,
approval is by the County Commission via the Countywide
Planning Council
* establishes criteria for deletion of a program from the
five-year road improvement program.
~ 1t4
City Commission Documentation
County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance
Page 2
DIRECTION:
This material is before the Commission in the event it is
determined that a formal position should be presented at the
October 23rd public hearing.
Attached are some -excerpts from the proposed ordinance. At the
special meeting, I shall be better prepared to highlight any
items which may have adverse impacts on the City.
REF/DJK#73/CCTRAFF.TXT
.
1 WHEREAS , in order to ensure that the Major
2 Thoroughfares function at the adopted levels of service it is
3 necessary to regulate the issuance of Dev'elopment Orders
4 countywide; and
~ 5 / WHEREAS, it is necessary to obtain information as
6 to the approved but unbuilt development within municipal
7 boundaries, and to update the County's information as to
8 approved and unbuilt developments, and to continue that update
9 and review so as to determine the amount of available capacity
10 on the Thoroughfare System whièh the County improves; and .
11 WHEREAS,' this determination of available capacity
12 is necessary, to ensure roadway capacity is available when
I
13 development traffic impacts the Major Thoroughfare system and
G capacity is neither "given away" twice nor unnecessarily
15 reserved; and
16 WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the public health,
17 safety, and general welfare to ensure that . ~e comprehensive _.-Þ
18 planning land use decisions and Development Orders are
19 consistent with the physical constraints and economic
20 constraints of building the Major Thoroughfare system in Palm
cpt; Beach County; and
22 WHEREAS, th~ Board of County commissioners of Palm
23 Beach county, Florida, sitting as the Local Planning Agency,
24 has determined that this Ordinance is consistent with the
25 adopted Comprehensive Plan.of Palm Beach County, as required
26 by Chapter 163, Section 163.3194 (2) (a) of Florida Statutes1
27 and
.
28 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners intends
29 to hereby adopt reasonable land development regulations in
, ~'.. .
30 furtherance of the public bene fit while at the same time
31 ensuring that property owners have a reasonable, beneficial,
32 and economic use of property and that no property rights be
JJ taken1 and
34 WHEREAS, the Traffic circulation Element of the 1990 """
35 Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan requires that the roadway
4
/
¡
1 ARTICLE II INTENT
2 The Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach
3 County, Florida, hereby adopts the recitals set forth above
4 as findings. The Board of County Commissioners ef Palm Bcac"
5 Ceuftty, rleriåa, finds that safe, convenient, and orderly flow
6 of vehicular traffic is necessary for the health, safety,
7 welfare, and convenience of the public. It is the intent of
8 this Code to ensure that roadways are in place and adequate
9 to provide a LEVEL OF SERVICE that will provide safe,
10 convenient, and orderly traffic flow. .
11 It is the intent of this Code to implement the
12 goals, objectives, policies, and standards of the 1989 Palm
13 Beach County Comprehensive Plan, and particularlv: ell the
14 Traffic Circulation Element, Objective 4, Levels of Service
15 Standards; and the policies thereunder: and ill the Capital
16 Improvement Element, Objective 1: Minimum Levels of Service:
17 Policy l-a; Traffic Circulation; Objective 2; Concurrency ,.Þ
18 Management System: and the policies thereunder, objective 3:
19 capacity Management System: and the policies thereunder, and
20 Objective 4; criteria for Providing capital Improvements; and
21 the policies thereunder by providing specific standards, and
22 by providing guidelines and procedures for the implementation
23 and enforcement of the standards.
24 J It is the intent of this Code to Implement the 1988
~ 25 amendment to the Palm Beach County Charter providinq that:
26 ... county ordinances shall prevail over
27 conflictinq municipal ordinances in
28 matters relatinq to the establishment of
29' levels of service for collector and
30 arterial roads which are not the
31 responsibility of any municipality and
32 the restriction of the issuance of
33 development orders which would add
34 traffic to such roads which have traffic
3S exceedinq the adopted level of service
36 provided that such ordinance is adooted
37 and amended by a maiority of the Board of
38 County Conmissioners bY providinq
39 specific standards. and bv orovidinq
40 procedures for the implementation and
41 enforcement of the standards. ,
42 The Board of County Commissioners finds that the "
43 safe, convenient, and orderly flow of traffic will be
6
/
.
1 comclete acclication Nas ~ade after May 21. 1987 shall not be
2 Previous-Accroval Traffic. Units or sauare footaqe removed
3 throuqh master or site clan amendment shall not be considered
(YvI. in establishinq Previous Accroval Traffic.
t ( 21 Only prownna Pro;ect Traffic from units or sauare footaae
6 which received a SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT ORDER in the
7 incorcorated area for ·...hich Comclete Acclication was made
8 crior to Februarv l. 1990 and which has been determined by
9 the Municicality to be a Previous Accroval shall be previous-
10 Accroval Traffic. Units or sauare footaqe lost bY .
11 acclicability of the Municical Land Develocment Requlations.
12 qeneral rules and co1icies adocted. and the customary qeneral r
13 cractices of the Municicality shall not be considered in
14 estab1ishinq Previous-Accroval Traffic.
15 (3) For purposes of this determination, the curr~nt
16 generation rates and capture rates of the Previous Accrova1.
17 if al'l'lieaf l~, shall be ucdated to current qeneration and I'
18 cacture rates. if acc1icab1e. and shall be used to calculate
19 rrej~ct Previous-Accroval Traffic~ in the PrcJieu3 Al'l'reval
20 ".. ........ .". ....ifl. Dov.1....., ...... TOTAL PROOEcD
21 TRAFFIC less PASS-BY TRIPS shall be studied for Test land
22 Test 2.
23 141 Previous-Accroval Traffic shall include all Pro;ect
24 Traffic from a Pro;ect which has been comc1ete1y built for
25 more than five (5) Years. (See definition of Previous
26 Accroval! .
J7 ( B) Existing Use - Any application for a SITE
28 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT ORDER on property on which there is an
29 existing use shall be subject to this Code's standards only
30 to the extent the traffic generation projected for the SITE
31 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMEnT ORDER exceeds or redistributes the
32 traffic generation (as determined usina u,o (0,.,'0 qeneration and
33 cacture rates in accordance with qenerallv accepted traffic
34 . engineering principles) on the Ma;or Thorouqhfare system Of:] "-
35 the existing use. For purposes of this paragraph B, the use
25
/
1 SECTYON 5. MUNYCYPAL CI!:TI!:RMYNATYON OF PAEVYOU8
2 APPROVAL.
3 (A) Only Valid First Develooment Orders which meet
4 the definition of Previous Aooroval shall be considered Valid
5 Previous Aoorova1s.
6 ( B) The Municicality shall send its determination
+0) 7 as to each Previous Aooroval to the Traffic Division of the
8 Countv Enqineer by July 1(rí99~ 91
_v
9 (C) The documents sent cursuant to caraqrach B
10 shall be sent certified mail. return receict reauested. or
11 hand delivered.
.
12 SECTION 6. MUNICIPAL CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
13 A Municicality may. with the consent of the County.
\
14 enter into an interqovernmental aqreement wherebv the
>f(j) 15 Municipality. bY a concurrency manaqement ordinance.
16 implements the standards and reauirements of this Code at
17 different points in the land development approval process than
18 those set forth in this Code. The aqreement and ordinance .
19 shall ensure that all Deve10cment is subíect the standards
20 and reauirements of this Code. and that data is forwarded to
21 the County for capacity manaqement and review consistent with
22 this Code.
23 ARTICLE V STANDARD
24 section 1. Generally
25 There is hereby established a Traffic Performance
26 Standard for all MAJOR THOROUGHFARES within Palm Beach County.
27 Except as specifically provided in this Code, no Site Specific
28 DEVELOPMENT ORDER shall be issued for a PROPOSED PROJECT which
29 would violate this standard. This standard consists of two
30 tests. The first test relates to the Bu~ldout Period of the
31 Project and requires that the Project not add Traffic in the
32 Radius of Development Influence which would have Total Traffic
33 exceeding the Adopted Leve 1 of Service. The second test
34 relates to the modeling of traffic based upon Model Traffic
35 and requires that the Project not add Traffic on a Directly
'-..
31
/
,.....
¡
.
1 than three eercent (3\! of the Level of Service 0 on an AADT~
2 basis of the Link affected ue to the limits set forth in this
3 Table 2B.
4 +5T .Lil Phas ing - Phasing may be utilized by the
5 APPLICANT to establish compliance with this standard if all
6 of the following conditions are met:
7 (1) The Proposed Project is able to comply with all
8 the other Concurrency Requirements of the Plan in t~J
9 unincorporated area.
10 (2) The proposed phasing results in the PROPOSED
11 PROJECT complying with the standards set forth in paragraphs
.
12 (A) and (B) of this Section ~ ¡.
13 (3) The proposed phasing comports with the extent
I
14 and timing of the ASSURED CONSTRUCTION.
15 (4) The COUNTY ENGINEER confirms that construction
16 is in fact ASSURED CONSTRUCTION.
17 (5) For any ASSURED CONSTRUCTION which is to be
~ 18 completed by the APPLIC~'T as to the Unincorporated Area, the::) "
19 Applicant must agree in writing prior to the application being
20 accepted that a condition of approval must be imposed or a
21 ROAD AGREEMENT executed and sufficient PERFORMANCE SECURITY
22 must be required: and as to the Incorcorated Area the Road
23 Aqreement must be executed bv all earties erior to or
24 concurrent with the issuance of the Site Specific Develocment
25 Order or the Site Specific Develocment Order must have as a
26 condition the comeletion of the Assured construction and
27 timelv eostina of Performance Securitv.
28 (6) BUILDING PERMITS for that portion of a PROJECT
29 approved with phasing which if standing alone would be the
30 Entitlement phase of the PROJECT may be issued notwithstanding
31 the standards in paragraph (A) and (B) of this section ~ ¡.::7
32 (7) Conditions of the Development Order are imposed
JJ or an Agreement is entered which ensure permits are restricted
34 in accordance with the phasing.
35 +=+ ~ Reliance on Assured Road Construction ",
36 ( 1) If a PROJECT is approved or phased based on ASSURED
38
//
.
1 Section 1. Generally
2 In order to demonstrate that an application for a
3 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT ORDER complies with this Code, the
4 APPLICANT shall submit ª TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. ]
~j 5 Section 2. Traffic Impact Study
6 (A) Scope - A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY shall be required
7 for any Proposed PROJECT. It shall address the requirements
8 and standards of this Code; shall be presented concisely using
9 maps whenever practicable; and shall state all assumptions and
10 sources of information. The form and level of detail required .
11 shall be established by the County Engineer in accordance with
12 accepted traffic engineering principles. A study which
13 addresses only the Standards of this ordinance may be
14 submitted initially for a certificate of Concurrency, in which
15 case the Applicant shall submit any additional study necessary
16 concurrent with the application for the Site specific
17 Development Order. ,.-Þ
18 ( B) Methodology - The following methods of
19 evaluation, standards, and information shall be addressed
20 unless the APPLICANT can, to the satisfaction of the COUNTY
21 ENGINEER, affirmatively demonstrate that, because of
22 circumstances peculiar to the PROPOSED PROJECT or Major
23 Thoroughfare system impacted by the Proposed PROJECT other
24 methods or standards provide a more accurate means to evaluate
25 the LINKS, intersections, and traffic impact of the PROPOSED
26 PROJECT:
27 (1 ) Level of Service - The Adoqted LEVEL OF SERVICE
28 for Test One. or Alternate Test 1. and Test 2 a:J àcfincà in
29 Table 1 er Table 6, as applicable, for all MAJOR THOROUGHFARES
30 within the acclicable RADIUS Of DEVELOPMENT INfLUENCE shall
31 be used.
32 (2) Traffic Assignment - The TOTAL TRAFfIC shall be
33 computed, and traffic assignments of the total PROJECT TRAFFIC
34 made, for each LIIIK and MAJOR INTERSECTION within the
35 PROJECT'S RADIUS OF DEVELOPMENT INFLUENCE in conformity with
40
~/
..
1 10,000 Sq. Ft. 45\
2 50,000 Sq. Ft. 44\
3 100,000 Sq. Ft. 43\
4 200,000 Sq. Ft. 41\
5 300,000 Sq. Ft. 38\
6 400,000 Sq. Ft. 36\
7 500,000 Sq. Ft. 34 \
8 600,000 Sq. Ft. 32\
9 800,000 Sq. Ft. 27\
10 1,000,000 sq. Ft. 23\
11 1,200,000 Sq. Ft. 18\
12 1,400,000 Sq. Ft. IH
13 1,600,000 Sq. Ft. 9\
14 Fast Food Restaurant 30\
15 Gas Station 58'
16 Convenience Store 45'
.
17 * Pass-By Percent Formula (For General commercial)
18 Pass-By' = 45.1 - .0225{A)
19 A - Area in 1,000 gross square feet of leasable area.
20 TABLE 5
21 PROJECTED 'ETWDRK DEFICIENCIES ~
22 UODrrII:D 2919 ~ PLAn
23 ROADWAY LINKS BELOW CEHEMLL'i .\ÐOM'EÐ MQ1: LEVEL OF SERVICE Q
24 ALTERNATE A-I-A (SR 811) PGA BLVD - HOOD RD
25 PROSPERITY FARMS RD NORTHLAKE BLVD - BURNS RD
26 NORTHLAKE BLVD CONGRESS AVE - PROSPERITY FARMS Rn
27 US 1 PARK AVE - 59TH ST (WPB) -
28 CONGRESS AVE PORT RD - 45TH ST
29 45'l'H ST VILLAGE BLVD - CONGRESS AVE
30 MILITARY TRAIL 45TH ST - OKEECHOBEE BLVD
31 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD OKEECHOBEE BLVD - PB MALL
32 OKEECHOBEE BLVD ROYAL PALM BEACH BLVD - SR 7
33 OKEECHOBEE BLVD SKEES RD - ¡-95
J4 BELVEDERE RD DREXEL RD - HAVERHILL RD
35 BELVEDERE RD 1-95 - PARKER AVE
36 ROYAL PALM BEACH BLVD SOUTHEIDl BLVD - OKEECHOBEE BLVD
37 SOUTHERN BLVD ROYAL PALM BEACH BLVD - SR 7
38 SOUTHERN BLVD SANSBURY'S WAY - JOG RD
39 MILITARY TRAIL FOREST HILL BLVD - BELVEDERE RD
40 JOG RD 10TH AVE N - FOREST HILL BLVD
41 CONGRESS AVE 6TH AVE S - 10TH AVE N
42 10TH AVE N CONGRESS AVE - I-95
43 FEDERAL HWY (LAKE WORTH) 6TH AVE S - 10 AVE N
44 NW 22110 AVE W OF HIGH RIDGE RD - 1-95
45 CONGRESS AVE BOYNTON BEACH BLVD - NW 22ND AVE
46 BOYNTON BEACH BLVD CONGRESS AVE - 1-95
~@ CONGRESS AVE LAKE IDA RD - SW 23RD AVE {GOLF RDI
LINTON BLVD 1-95 - LINDELL BLVD .ç.W¥~A¡L.
49 YAMATO RD MILITARY TRAIL - ST AllOR LV 1-
50 YAMATO RD 1-95 - DIXIE HWY
51 FEDERAL HWY (BR) ME 2ND AVE - YAMATO RD G.~
52 DIXIE HWY (BR) GLADES RD - 20TH ST
53 GLADES RD LYONS RD - 1-95
54 PALMETTO PARK RD W OF TURNPIKE - POWERLINE RD
55 PALMETTO PARK RD 1-95 - 12TH AVE
56 POWERLINE RD BROWARD COUUTY - CÞJUNO REAL
57 NOTE: BASED ON PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES USING THE MODEL ~ J
58 PLAt' AND EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT 30CIO-
59 ECONOMIC DATA.
, "-
60 (8) Background Traffic
44
//
.
~
1 and orderly flow of traffic.
2 Section 4. Conditions
r: 3 The Site Specific DEVELOPMEnT ORDER shall contain
4 such conditions as are necessary to ensure compliance with
5 this Cods. Th. O..rd .f '.'n" .........n.r. .n' ....r.....~
6 Local Governments. inc1udina the leaislative and
7 administrative boards and officials. issuing Site Specifi
8 DEVELOPMENT ORDERS are authorized to. and shall. impose
9 conditions. The Bear5 ef Ce~"t) Cemmi3~ie"er3 8"5 5cpar~me"t3
10 may require Local Governments includina the 1eaislative and
.
11 administrative boards and officials shall reauire where
12 necessarY to ensure comDliance with this Code that a ROAD
13 AGREEMENT be executed prior to the issuance of the Site I
14 Specific DEVELOPMENT ORDER. PERFORMANCE SECURITY shall be
15 required to ensure compliance with the conditions or
16 performance under the ROAD AGREEMENT or condition of approval.
17 The ROAD AGREEMENT or conditions of approval shall be binding
..-
18 on the owner, its successors, assigns, and heirs; and it, or
19 notice thereof, shall be recorded in the Official Records of
20 the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County,
21 Florida.
22 Article VII - MODELING OF TRIPS
23 Section 1. Generally. The Department of Community
24 Affairs in conjunction with the Florida Department of
25 Transportation requires that all Traffic from both approved-
26 built and approved-unbuilt Projects be "loaded" on the Major
27 Thoroughfare system. This loading is done by the Hodel using
28 the a"tieipatcã 1995 i...prevce! uajer 'fhero\; ~hfar!: 3Y3tcm er
29 the Modified 2010 Plan.
30 section 2. Relationship to Traffic Impact Studies.
31 The Hodel is intended to be used as a phnning tool to
32 estimate the remaining available capacity on the Major
33 Thoroughfare system. It is a "macro" tool which does not lend
34 itself to analyzing specific Traffic Impact studies.
"
Therefore, Applicant. shoul~ not ...i9n Project Traffic using "
JS
50
/
·'
1 .Lll Therefore, withil'\ fcurtccl'\ (14 ) lIIol'\th;s of the
i~ effeetive date ef this Ordil'\ðl'\eC, bv Ju1v 1. 1991. the Ce~l'\ty
El'\gil'\eer Plannina Division, with the cooperation of the
municipalities, shall establish a list ot approved but unbuilt
5 and approved built Projects in the municipa1ities~ The list
6 shall include the estimated buildout date for each residential
7 proiect containina more than f itty (50) units. which 3hall
8 idcl'\tify the cxtCl'\t te ~hich caeh rrojcet i3 ul'\built that i3,
9 hew mal'\Y \:1"it3 or 3quarc feet rClllail'\ approvcd but unbuilt, and
10 the a"tieipated traffic from 91:1ch. The traffic from these
11 approvals shall be "loaded" in the Model en a periodic ba3i3
12 no less freauently than everY six ( 6) months as data is .
13 gathered and refined.
% 14 (2) In order to update the socio-economic data used
15 in the Model. the Municipality shall identifY and provide the
16 County with prel iminarv but complete information as to
11 specific uses approved. their locations. the density or
18 intensity of each use. and the extent of the development
19 alreadY built and yet to be built. This shall be sent to the "
20 County as soon as practical followina receipt of the data
21 forms and maps from the Palm Beach County Plannina Division.
22 These forms and maps shall be used bY the municipality.
-fr; 23 (3) (a) The municipality shall update this
24 information no less freauently than everY six (6) months as
25 a result of all new information. includina SITE SPECIFIC
26 DEVELOPMENT ORDERS issued after preliminary submittal
21 referenced in paraaraph {2} and units or sauare footaqe lost
28 throuqh the application of the Municipal land development
29 reaulations. Updates to the socio-economic data base which
30 are the result of municipal determinations as to Previous
Jl Approvals shall be sent to the County Enaineer within fifteen
32 (15) days of each determination but in no case no later than
33 Ju1v l. 1991. This updated information shall be used for
34 informational purt)oses to update the socia-economic data base.
35 bv TAZ. for the Model.
,
" ,
54
,/ "- -,.---.- ---
.
"' .
1 the Hodel, appeals e-f- £:£ interested persons who provide~
2 written input in accordance with ~ara~ra~h Section (2) may be
3 filed with the Appeals Board established in Article XI;
4 Appeals. Appeals ~~ be filed within tlu: '!il!\~ 3E:t
5 fer~h il'l '!he l'Ie~iee ai'll! thirty DOl days of the County
t Enaineer's publishina of the updated Hodel information. care
of the County Engineer, Traffic Division. The appeals shall
8 state the grounds therefor.
9 ++t 121 Nothing herein shall restrict input on the~
10 Hodel outside of the process of this paragraph B. .
11 Section 5. Adiustments
Æ (A) AADT - The Hodel reflects Peak Season weekday
13 average daily traffic. 'l'h~ fir3t All update~ of the Hodel
14 shall include an adjustment to reflect Average Annual Da il y
15 Traffic.
16 ( B) Phasing/Assured Construction
17 ( 1) That traffic from the portion of a project .-'
18 phased to improvements on a LINK which *' Aß not included in
19 the 1995 Im~revel! Hajer 'l'here~~hfare srst~m Hodel Plan shall
20 not be included in the Hodel until the LINK, as improved, is
21 included in the 1995 I¡:¡prevl:li t1ajer There~!Jhfar~ 3Y3tl:m Hodel
22 f.1An .
23 (2) Assured construction shall be included in the
24 Model Plan system.
~ 25 ARTICLE VIII PROCEDURE
26 SECTION 1. REOUIRED ~MISSION OF IMPACT STUDY
Wt'\eJ1 ~~b",,,,t:b
27 (A) Prlv~ Lv A~~l~~&~:~n - Prior to acceptance of
28 any app lica tion for a 5 i te Spec if i c DEVELOPMEIIT ORDER in th:]
29 unincorporated area. or issuance of a Site Specific
G Development Order in the incorporated area. one of the
31 fOllowing must be provided:
32 (1) Documentation sufficient to establish that the
33 application is not subject to this Code pursuant to Article
34 IV, Section~ 2 Q.L-2 ; "Applicability, Previously-approved
35 Development Orders" "Municipal Determination of Previous
54
/
&
.
1 Aeeroval". reseectfully: or
2 (2) Documentation sufficient to establish that the
3 Code does not apply to the application pursuant to Article
4 IV, Section 3: "Applicability, Non-applicability": or
5 (3 ) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY.
6 (8) Review by County Engineer - the COUNTY ENGINEER
7 or Municieal Official. as aeolicable. shall review the
8 information submitted pursuant to paragraph (A) and determine
9 whether the PROPOSED PROJECT complies with this Code. In the
10 unincoreorated area the County Engineer shall coordinate with .
11 the Planning Division whether the Site specific Development
12 Order meets the other Concurrency Requirements of the Plan.
13 The procedures set forth in the Adequate Publ ic Facilities
14 Ordinance, Section VI I. C, shall control: except as to any
,
15 appeals from this Code, in which case Article X, "Appeals,"
16 of this Code shall control. Nothing herein or in the Adequate
17 Public Facilities Ordinance shall preclude direct informal "
.
18 communication between the County Engineer and the Applicant
19 or his agents. In the Unincorporated Area. the Traffic ImDact
20 Studv. a10nq with a statement that an aep1icant for a Site
21 Seecific Deve10ement Order is beinq considered shall be sent
22 to any Munic iea 11 ty with the eroposed Proiects Radius of
23 Develoement for all eroeosed Proiects qeneratinq more than one
24 thousand (1. OOO) Gross Trips. The Traffic Impact study. and
25 the statement sha 11 be sent U.S. certified Mail. postaae
26 prepaid. return receipt requested: or hand delivered.
27 speCi~~VELO~T
28 OR~~ nty conunìSSiO ers fter
re iew b \ . . .. \ ,I
29 íO~' 5>on, fat,"n'. shan ~e
",
30 cer ifi Iann ng C~mmi sion ~ if
31 iss \ n e LOPMEII ORDER wou d be
32
33 Ie' .1.ld,nt111 ,roi.cto oeClt..in. fewer than tw~
--;K (200) hundred Gross Tries shall not be required to submit a " "-
34 "
35 Traffic Impact StudY. The proiect Traffic shall be
55
.' /
.
,
1 distributed over the Ma;or Thorouqhfare system by the County
2 Enaineer or Municipal Enqineer. as the case may be in
3 accordance with qenerally accepted traffic enaineerinq
4 principles. If the Acplicant desires to appeal the
5 distribution or decision of the County or Municipal Enqineer.
6 a Traffic Impact study shall be submitted.
7 SECTION 2. KUIlICIPAL REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Π(A) County Enaineer Review - On all proposed
9 Proiects hav~ng Project Tr.'fic of more than one thousan:]
f 10 {I.OOO} dailY Gross Tries. the County Enaineer shall have sole
.
11 authority for reviewinq Traffic Impact Studies for purposes
12 of determinina compliance with this Code.
G (B) Municipal Review - On all other proposed
14 Pro;ects the Municipality shall perform such review unless
15 provided by the Municipality in writina delivered to the
16 County that the Municipality elects to reauire review by the
17 County Enaineer. If the Municipality elects to perform the
~
18 review. it shall be done by a Municipal Enaineer. The revieQ
19 shall be in accordance '",ith the reauirements of this Code.
Cio In the case of municipal review, thirty no} days prior to
21 approval of the application for the site specific Development
22 Order. the Traffic Impact Study, a10na with the determination
23 of the reviewina traffic enaineer. shall be sent to the County
24 Enaineer. c/o Traffic Division, 160 Australian Avenue. West
25 Palm Beach. Florida . 33402. The Traffic Impact study. a10na
[16 with a statement that the Municipality is considerina issuance
27 of a Site Specific Development Order shall also be sent to any
28 Municipality within the proiect" R.dius of Develoomen~
~' Influence involved thirty (30) days prior to issuance of the
30 Site specific Development Order for all proposed Pro;ects
~@ aeneratina more than"one thousand r 1. aDO} Gross Trips. All
32 documents under this section sha 11 be sent U.s. Certified
33 Mail. postaae prepaid. return receipt reauested; or hand
34 delivered. "-
"
35 (2) In the case of SUBDIVISIOIlS or SPECIAL EXCEPTION
56
/
1 SUBDIVISIONS in the unincor~orated area, no application shall
2 be certified for inclusion on an aaenda or a reviewina body
3 on the SUbdivision Review Committee agenda if issuance of the
4 Site Specific DEVELOPMENT ORDER would be prohibited by this
5 Code.
6 ( 3 ) In the case of all other site Specific
9G Development Orders in the unincorporated area. no application
8 shall be accepted if issuance of the Site Specific Development
9 Order would be prohibited by this Code.
10 (4 ) In all cases in the unincorporated area if the .
11 site specific Development order does not meet the other
12 Concurrency Requirements of the Plan, no application shall be
13 certified for inclusion on an aaenda of a reviewina body or~
14 accepted, as the case may be, except as otherwise provided by
15 the Palm Beach County Adequate PUblic Facilities ordinance.
16 (5\ In the case of all Site Specific Develooment
17 Orders in the Incorporated Area. no Site Soecific Development .
18 Order shall be issued if such issuance would be prohibited by
19 this Code. In no case sha 11 the Site Soecific Development
20 Order be issued prior to thirty (3 \ days followina delivery
21 of the notice i~ accordance with * ¡
\~) ~Ç~\47-
22 ~ Determinations of the COUNTY ENGINEER .Q.t
23 Municipal Official made pursuant to paragraph (B) must be in
24 writing and any denial sha 11 state the reasons thereof.
25 Determinations of denial ~ay be appealed pursuant to Article
26 X; "Appeals"; of this Code.
27 ARTICLE IX ENTITLEMEtlT
28 Section 1. GenerallY
29 1Al The Board of County cOllUllissioners recognize:-]
30 that a reasonable and beneficial economic use of property
Jl should be afforded a property owner. This Article is intended
32 to implement the provisions in the Plan that allow a
33 reasonable and beneficial economic use of property while
34 minimizing trip generation. '.
35 Section 2. Ð f'E:errI C~.lLï J,
57
/
-
I
I +A+(B} . Unincorporated Area. As to theJ
2 Unincorporated Area. a Site specific DEVELOPMENT ORDER may be
3 issued for a PROJECT not exceeding entitlement density or
4 intensity set forth in the Plan, provided the order is
5 otherwise consistent with the requirements of the Plan and
6 land development regulations of Palm Beach County.
7 Section 3. Incorcorated Area
8 As to the Incorcorated Area. a Site Specific
~ 9 Development Order may be issued for a Proiect not exceedina
10 entitlement density or intensity as set forth in the Plan. 0
11 As to residential land uses it shall be based on the densities
12 set forth in Fiaure 2 of the Land Use Element of the Plan.
13 that correspond to the Municipal density in its Comprehensive
14 Plan. with any density exceedina eiahteen flS} dwellina units
15 per acre receivina the entitlement level set forth in the 5-
16 to-l8-du-oer-acre commercial industrial. i
ranae. As to and
17 entitlement shall be two and one-half oercent (~1/2'} of the "
18 maximum sauare footaae of floor area allowed under the land
19 use cateaorv or zonina district of the Municipalitv.
20 Section 3- 4. Discretion of Board
21 The Board of County Commissioners may exceed the
22 limitations set forth in the·pÎan' ~po~a determination by the
23 Board that the limitations permitted bv the Article would
24 likely constitute a taking of land for public use for which
25 compensation would have to be paid pursuant to law. This
26 section 3- ~ may only be exercised upon the special petition
27 of the property owner to the Board of County commissioners
28 which affirmatively demonstrates by substantial competent
, ~;.' 29 evidence that no other economically feasible land use which
30 would generate less traffic for the subject property is
31 available because of: ( 1) this Code: (2 ) the nature of the
32 land uses in the area: ( 31 the size and configuration of the
33 property: and (4 ) &ftd other relevant factors. The Board of
34 County Commissioners shall receive the advice of the County '-.
'-
35 Attorney and Eì(tcnr;t DmtCTOR of rlan"i"~, Ze"in~, and
58
/
. .
1 is souaht sha 11 be reviewed bY the Commission on
2 Affordable Housina to determine the appropriate mix
3 of verY low. low. and other housina necessary to
4 qualifY for the special applicability. The
5 determination shall be based on the criteria adopted
6 as called for in paraaraph A. above. The
.
7 determination shall be made bY the Board of County
8 èommissioners upon the recommendation of the
9 Commission on Affordable Housina. Once the
10 appropriate mix is established . and other .
11 appropriate conditions imposed related to the
12 criteria. the Proiect shall be considered a Proiect
13 to Provide Affordable Housina and be eliaible for
14 special applicability under Article XII. Section 2BJ
.
15 Section 4. Conditions
.~
16 To ensure the continued availability of very low and low
17 income housina. the property owner shall execute a covenant
18 runnina with the land providina for: (1) a minimum of fifteen
19 (15) years durinawhich the cost of the housina will meet the
20 then-applicable verY low and low income housina requirements:
21 and (2 ) a first riClht of refusal to Palm Beach County and
22 Local Government within which it is located should the housina
23 be sold. The terms of such sha 11 be approved for 1eClal
24 sUfficiency by the County Attorney.
~ 25 ARTICLE XIII. COtlSTRAIIIED FACI LITIES.
26 Section 1. Purpose/Intent.
27 It is recoanized bY the Board of County
28 Commissioners that some Links and Maior Intersections are not
29 planned to be widened to width. laneaae. or aeometrics that
30 can accommodate Traffic from the density/intensity and
31 location of land uses at the GenerallY-Adopted Level of
J2 Service. Links and Maior Intersections which are improved (or , ,
'- '-
33 presumed to be improved under Test 2) to their ultimate width.
65
~/
.
1 '~"eaae. and geometries as contemalated by the Thorouahfar~
2
R1aht of Way Protection Mac are. by definition. Constrained
3 Facilities. Which of those Constrained Facilities cannot
4 accommodate Develocment at the Generally Adocted Level of
5 Service. and what should be done to remedy the situation.
6 reauires thorouah study. comcrehensive data. and close
7 scrutiny of the various colicies involved. The decision
8 should nat be made 1iaht1Y and without comclete information.
ΠMoreover. once the Level of Service is lowered and Deve10cment
10 is accroyed based on that lowered standard. it is diff icul t.
.
11 if not imcossible. to achieve a hiaher standard. This Article
12 i~ intended to ensure thorouah review of acc1ication for 8
r
13 constrained road at a lower Level of Service (CRALLS) . It is
14 declared to be the minimum review and crocedure necessarv to
15 ensure an accrocriate level of review.
-p 16 Section 2. Procedure:
17 Constrained facilities shall not automaticallY
"
18 receive a reduced level of service. Determinations of whether
19 a reduced level of serv ice shall be set on a Constrained
20 Facil i tv. and what that Level of service should be. shall be
21 considered as an acclication for a Link aeoarachic excection.
22 Determinations of whether to reduce the level of service shall
23 be made by the BCC in accordance with all the crocedura1 and
24 substantive reauirements of section 7.20: Geoarachic
25 Excections to the Adocted Level of Service: of the Palm Beach
26 County Charter. Section 7.20 crovides:
27 The P1annina Council sha 11 have the authority and
28 resconsibility to revie·.... aeoarachic exceotions to the
". adocted level of service for collector and arterial roads
29
30 which are not the rescons ibil i ty of any municicality.
31 Procosed aeoarachic excections may be initiated only by
32 a local aovernment throuah the Plannina Council. The
33 Planninq Council shall notify. in writina. all local
"
"
34 aovernments that !"1ay be affected by the aeoarachic
66
/
..
1 provides:
2 The Planninq Council sha 11 have the authority
3 r&lIIconaibilitv to ravi.w aaoqra9hla .xc.ol::.ion. to
4 adopted level of service for collector and arterial roads
5 which are not the responsibility of any municipality.
6 Proposed aeoaraphic exceptions may be initiated onlY by
7 a local aovernment throuah the Plannina Council. The
8 P1annina Council sha 11 notify. in writina. all local
9 aovernments that may be affected bY the aeoaraphic
10 exception. The Planninq Council shall consider the
.
11 merits of any responses and shall hold a public hearinq
12 reaardina the proposed aeoaraphic exception. The
13 recommendation of the Plannina Council shall be forwarded :
14 to the Board of County Commissioners. The proposed
15 aeoaraphic exception may be adopted as an amendment to
16 the countV'oo'ide ordinance settinq levels of service on
17 maior nonmunicipa1 roads and restrictinq the issuance of
.
18 development orders referenced in section 1.3 of this
19 Charter. A proposed amendment with a positive
20 recommendation may be adopted by a maiority of the Board
21 of County Commissioners. A proposed amendment which
22 receives a neaative recommendation by the Plannina
23 Council may only be adopted by a maiority-plus-one vote
24 of the Board of County Commissioners.
1"- & ( B1 Applications
26 APplications for a reduced level of service on a
27 Constrained Facility shall be made to the Plannina council
28 containinq such information relatina to the criteria of this
29 section as the Planning Council requires. The application
30 shall be forwarded to all affected Local Governments. the
31 Florida Department of Transportation. District IV, in the case
32 of state Hiahways. and the Metropolitan P1annina Oraanization.
33 The Metropolitan Plannina Orqanization shall review the
34 Iil:Qposal for technical traffic enaineerina purposes and
" '.
68
//
. / ..
1 consistency with its adopted plan. The advice of the
2 Metropolitan P1annina Oraanization shall be considered by the
3 P1annina Council and the Board of County commissioners when
4 considerina an acclication for a reduced level of service.
5 The application shall propose the reduced level of service
6 souaht for Test One and Test Two. It need not be an entire
7 ranae.
8 The level of data and study needed for existina and
9 future land use to review an application for a CRÞ.LLS
10 desianation shall be determined in this preapp1ication
11 conference. The decision shall be made by the County Enaineer
.
12 based upon the Ma;or Thorouahfare Links and Ma;or
13 Intersections involved. (whether they will be collectors.
f
14 minor arterials. or principle arterials\. the extent of the
15 proposed lowerina of the level of service. the size of the
16 area affected. the extent to which the area is built out to c
17 its ultimate future land use. and the amount and auality of \
18 existina data and plannina.
/
1< 19 (C\ PreapP1ication conference.
20 The apclvina Local Government shall contact the
21 P1annina Council prior to makina application. notifyina the
22 P1annina Council of the Loca 1 Government's intent to make
23 application under this Article XIII. The Planninq Council
24 shall set a preapplication conference prior to acceptina an
25 application. The conference shall include representatives of
26 the: (1\ Plannina Council : ( 2 \ Local Government makinq
27 application: (3\ County: ( 4 \ Florida Department of
28 Transportation. District IV: Treasure Coast Reaional P1anninq
29 Council : and (5\ Metropolitan Plannina Oraanization.
30 (0\ Sufficient Review/Recommendation.
31 The Plannina Council shall have forty-five (45\ days
32 within which to review the application for sufficiency and
33 notifY the Local Government as to the specific deficiencies
34 and what is necessary to cure such deficiencies. The Loca 1 I
35 Government shall provide the additional information or notifY "
"
69
/
.
1 the Planninq Council that it is electina to proceed on the ~
2 acclieaticn. The application shall be rev 1ewed bv all
3 aaencies within two (21 months of the determination that the
4 application is sufficient or receipt by the Planninq Council
5 of the Local Government's not i Heat ion that it intends to
6 proceed on the apPlication. The Plannina council shall make
7 its recommenda t ion with i n two (21 months of receivinq all
8 agencies' reviews. The Board of County commissioners shall
9 take final action on the application within fortY-five (45 )
10 days of receivina the recommendation of the Plannina Council.
11 Section ). Determination Criteria .
12 In determinina whether a Constrained Facility shall
13 have a reduced Level of Service and. if so. what that level
t
14 of service should be. the applicant. the Metropolitan Plannina
15 Oraanlzation. the Plannina Council. and the Board of County
16 Commissioners shall consider the followina public policy
17 criteria:
'"
18 L. Cause of the constraint: e.a.. whether the 1aneaqe
19 or qeometrics are insufficient to accommodate
20 proiected traffic as a result of concerns re1atina
21 to physical limitations. fiscal limitations.
22 environmental areas. aesthetics. historicallY
23 sianificant development. or the character-of-area
24 or neiahborhood and the impact of addina lanes or
25 chanaina the qeometrics on such concerns.
26 L.. When more than one cause is identified. the extent
27 to which each contributes to the constraint shall
28 be considered.
29 L.. Existence of. or proposed. "reliever" facilities and
30 the proximity and continuity of such. and the extent
31 to which they presently. or are pro;ected to.
32 relieve the Constrained Link. "
"
70
//
.
.
1 resconsibility of any municipality. Proposed
2 geoaraphic excections may be initiated only bv
3 a local aovernment throuah the plannina
" council. The clannina council shall notifY.
5 in writina. all local aovernments that may be
6 affected bY the aeoarachic exception. The
7 plannina council shall consider the merits of
8 any responses and shall hold a public hearina
9 reaardina the proposed aeoarachic excection.
10 The recommendation of the p1annina council
.
11 shall be for...arded to the board of county
12 commissioners. The proposed aeoarachic
!
13 exception may be adocted as an amendment to
14 the countv-...iQ.e ordinance settina levels of
.
15 service on ma;or nonmunicipal roads and
16 restrictina the issuance of develocment orders
17 referenced in section 1.3 of this Charter. A /
18 procosed amendment with a cositive
19 recommendation may be adopted bY a ma;oritv of
20 the board of county commissioners. A proposed
21 amendment which receives a neaative
22 recommendation by the p1annina council may
23 only be adopted by a ma;oritv-p1us-one vote of
24 the board of county commissioners.
25 Toaether. these charter amendments allow for a
26 countyWide balancina of the competina public benefits in
27 the various comcrehensive clans.
.
.ó':
28 ~ Types of Area Geoarachic Exceptions. There are t....o (2 }
29 J types of area aeoarachic excections created under this
30 Article. These are separate from and in addition to the
31 link. aeoarachic excection re1atina to Constrained
32 Facilities. The t·.¡o (2\ types are: (1\ OO1,into1,in Core: '-
'-,
"-
33 and (2 \ Special Pro; ect & Each shall be established bv
I
/76
ê> '1£~ C:» (U;vl f..1 L'/J ,ì'-( r=- t:-DL- v c- LV e ¡~\ us.-
/
.
1 c. Application
2 In addition to all other reauirements set bY the
3 Planninq Council. the application shall
4 sDecificallY identify the area to which it aDPlies
5 and the Links and Maior Intersections affected. It
6 shall procose the Levels of Ser.rice for all
7 affected Links and Maior Intersections. It shall
8 identifY all existinq land uses and future land .
9 uses in the various comprehensive plans affected.
10 It shall ident ify other options for land use and
I,
11 deve10cment tyce ...ithin the area croposed as t"J
12 GAE and their respective impact on achievinq the
{.
13 qeneral1Y Adopted Level of Ser¡ice that were "
W"
14 evaluated and reiected by the Local Government. and ~*'
15 the reason for reiection. ",
" ..,..
"
16 Y Preapc1ication conference. A creapp1ication
17 conference shall be set bY the Planninq Council
18 staff. and sha 11 include all the review aqencies
19 and affected Local Governments. The purpose of the
20 preacplication conference shall be to identify the
21 issues for consideration. the likelY imcact of the
22 DrODosa 1 . the application reQUirements. and to
23 coordinate revie....
24 b Who may appl,: - Only the Local Government within
25 which the proposed Downto;¡n Core GAE is located may
26 acc1Y.
27 L. Identification in Local Government's Plan - The
28 downtown area Must be specificallY identified as
29 such in the Local Governnent's Comprehensive Plan. '"
30 Future Land Use Element. Traffic Circulation
79
/
.
1 Element settina the proposed levels of service. and
2 other relevant Elements. such as the capital
J Impr"vement Element if capital improvements are
4 contemplated. If a Comprehensive Plan amendment is
5 necessarY for such identification. it may proceed
6 concurrent with the application for the Downtown
7 Core GAE. .
8 ~ Areawide Development of Reaional Impact - If the
9 Downtown Core GAE triaaers the iurisdictional
.
10 threshold as a Development of Reaional Impact. it
11 shall proceed throuah the ADRI process prior to. or
(
12 concurrent with. the application for the Downtown
13 Core GAE.
.
14 lL.. Areawide Traffic Evaluation - The application
15 shall include an areawide traff evaluation ~-~
16 prepar~d in accordance with aener.....lv accepted
17 traffic enaineerina principles. It shall explain
18 all assumptions and. for the portion invo1vina the
19 use of the Model. what chanaes were made and
20 iustification for such. It shall evaluate the
21 imcact of all development in the Downtown Core GAt
22 on all Links where the impact is three percent (3%)
23 of LOS D. Averaae Annual Dai1v Traffic. and on the
24 Ma;or Intersections of such Links.
25 1.... Special Transportation Area - If the proposed
26 Downtown Core GAE involves settina a lower level of
27 service on State roads. a Special Transportation
28 Area deslanatlon shall be pursued prior to. or
29 concurrent '01 i th. the application for the Downtown
JO Core GAE.
, '.
'-.
'-
31 ~ . Appl ication Period - Applications for Downtown
80
/
~
1 application shall be reviewed by all aaencies
2 followina the application deadline of June 1. The
3 Plannina Council shall make its recommendation to
I
4 the Board of County Commissioners by October 15.
5 The Board of Count v Commissioners shall take final
6 action on the application prior to January 1 of the
7 followina Year. The aeoaraphic exception clan
8 amendment shall be transmitted to the state land
9 p1annina aqency pursuant to Part II of Chapter 163.
10 Florida statutes with the next scheduled set of
11 amendments. .
12 fL. Areawide Traffic Evaluation - The application
\
13 shall include an areawide traffic evaluation
14 prepared in accordance with qenerally accepted
15 traffic enaineerina principles. It shall explain
16 all assumptions and. for the portion involvinq the
17 use of the Model. what chanqes were made and .
18 ;ustification for such. It shall evaluate the
19 impact of all development in the Downtown Core GAE
20 on all Links where the impact is three percent f3\}
21 of LOS D. Averaqe Annual DailY Traffic. and on the
22 Maior Intersections of such Links.
23 1.... Special Transportation Area - If the proposed
24 Downtown Core GAE involves settinq a lower level of
25 service on state roads. a Special Transportation
Œ6 Area desiqnation may be pursued prior to. or
27 concurrent with. the application for the Downtown
28 Core GAE.
# il...... Application Period - Applications for Downtown
30 J Core GAE's shall be accepted by the Plannina
31 Council until June l. 1991- Thereafter.
32 apclications sha 11 be accected between Januarv 1 "-
84
//
t
. ~ and June 1 of even Years. beqinninq 1994.
K... criteria.
3 The Planninq council and Board of County
4 Commissioners shall be quided by the followinq
5 criteria in: (11 establishinq the boundaries of the
6 Downtown Core GAE: (2) settinq the Levels of
7 Service for Links and Maior Intersections: (J)
8 establishinq the qeneral land uses and amount of
9 each within the GAE: ( 4 ) p1acinq any conditions on .
~ the Loca 1 Government for the GAE or those that
11 shall be placed on a Site Specific Development I
, 12 Order necessary to promote the GOP's for which the
13 GAE is established or the purposes of this Code:
"7"
î':1.
14 ilL The extent of development in the area. the
15 amount of undeveloped land in the area . and ,
" )
16 the size of the various undeveloped parcels in I
17 the area. More sparse development militates I
18 aqainst a Downtown Core GAE in that area:
¡
I
!
19 .w. The density. intensity. and location of existing
20 and future land uses in the area.
21 .ill.. The aqe and condition of existinq development in
22 the area. B1iqhted areas militate for a GAE:
23 .LU. The proposed land uses of the GAE. and the
24 increased density or intensity and location of such
25 pursuant to the GAE and the effort to balance land
26 uses so as to shorten commutinq distances:
27 .Lll The Dublic benefits furthered by the GAE:
'"
85
/
1 1J2.l. Special Transportation Area - If the proposed
2 Special Proiect GAE involves settinq a lower
3 level of service on State roads. a Special
4 Transportation Area desiqnation sha 11 be
5 pursued prior to. or concurrent with. the
6 application for the Downtown Core GAE.
7 f JLn Preapplication conference. A preapplication
8 conference shall be set bY the P1anninq
.
.
9 Council staff. and shall include all the
10 review aqencies and affected Local
r
11 Governments. The purpose of the
12 preaoolication conference shall be to identifY
13 the issues for consideration. the likelY
14 impact of the proposal. the application
15 recruirements. and to coordinate review. .
16 ..LE.l Who May App1v.
--
--------~-----'< -,
-------~ - "
/ /'
17 e
18
19
20 .Lm. Criteria.
.
21 In considerinq the application. the Count~~ide
22 P1anninQ Counc 11 and the Board of County
23 Commissioners shall be qulded bY the followlnq
24 criteria:
25 ill. The public benefit and GOP's furthered by
26 the Pr01ect.
"-
87
/
.
1 The PlanninQ Council shall recommend the
2 various levels of service for the Links.
3 and Ha;or Intersections affected bv the
4 GAE. It may recommend approval on part
5 of the application and denial on part of
6 the application. It may QUa li fy its
7 recommendation. It mav propose
8 conditions of approval. It shall state
9 the factual bases relevant to each
10 criterion and the policies for its
.
11 action.
/
12 ..w.. The P1annina Council shall prepare a
13 verbatim transcript of its consideration
14 of the application. A verbatim
15 transcript. alonQ with any documentation
16 considered by the Plannina Council. shall
~
17 be for-..arded to the Board of County
18 Commissioners.
19 di= CommenceMent of Construction of a Special
20 Pro;ect GAE shall commence within the two l2}
21 years of its approval by the County
22 Commission. or the approval shall be of no
23 further force and effect.
24 Section 4 - Community Redevelopment Geoaraphic Exceptions
25 (A) Intent.
26 Community Redevelopment aeoClraphic exceptions promote
27 revitalization and rehabilitation of deterioratinCl commercial
28 and residential communities ·,.¡hich have been determined to
29 have slum and bliahted conditions. as defined in section
",
existina "
JO 16J.J60. Florida Statutes: preserve viable.
89
/
,
.
1 affordable housina: crovide opportunity for development and
2 redevelopment: and encouraae and enhance crivate investment
3 for redevelopment and neiahborhood stability. Some
4 comprehensive plans crovide for a level of develocment in
5 these bliahted areas that competes with the aoal or obiective
6 of an uncrowded and efficient Maior Thorouahfare system.
7 Recoanizlna these various and often comcetina GOP's. the
8 Community Redevelopment aeoarachic exception process is the
9 mechanism that shall be utilized to balance these GOP's. .
10 B. Eliaibility
11 Community Redevelopment areas which are identified within the
12 GOP's of a Local Government's Comprehensive .1a. ..~........ t_ 'k.
13 ..A__...· T I f 'tn· - . . and have an acproved Redevelopment
14 Plan adocted cursuant to Section 163.360. Florida statutes ,
15 which includes a DeterT.Iination of Necessity in accordance
16 with Section 163.355. Florida Statutes as a "Slum and
17 B1iahted" Community Redevelopment Area.
18 C. Acplication
19 In addition to all other recruirements set by the Planninq
20 Council. the application shall scecifical1Y identifY the area
21 to which it acclies and the Links and Ma;or Intersections
22 affected. It shall cropose the Levels of Service for all
.
23 affected Links and Maior Intersections. It shall identify
" 24 all existina land uses and future land uses in the various
25 comprehensive plans affected.
26\)6. preacclication Conference
27 A preacclication conference shall be set bY the planninq "-
28 Council staff. and shall include all the review aaencies and
90
/
,
1 affected Local Govern~ents. The purpose of the
2 creacclication conference shall be to identifY the issues for
3 consideration. the likelY impact of the proposal. the
4 application reauirements. and to coordinate review.
5 E. Who Mac Applv
6 Only the-Local Government within which the proposed Community
7 Redevelopment GAE is located may apply.
.
8 F. Identification In Local Government's Plan
r
-p 9 The Community Redevelopment area must be specificallY
10 identified as such in the Loca 1 Government's comprehensive
11 ' plan. and have an approved Redevelopment Plan found to be in
12 conformance with the Local Government's comprehensive plan.
13 pUfsuant to Section 163.360. Florida Statutes. The .
14 Redevelopment Plan shall have been adopted into the Local
15 Government's comprehensive clan.
16 G. Areawide Traffic Evaluation
17 The application shall include areawide traffic evaluation
18 prepared in accordance with aenerallv accepted traffic
19 enqineerina principles. It shall explain all assumptions
20 and. for the portion involvina the use of the Model. what
2l chanaes were made and ;ustification for such. It shall
22 evaluate the impact of all development in the Community
23 Redevelopment GAE on all Links where the impact is three
, ~' .
24 percent IH} of LOS D. Averaae Annual DailY Traffic. and on
25 the Ma;or Intersections of such Links.
26 H. Special Transportation Area
"-
27 If the procosed Community Redevelopment GAE involves settina
91
//
.
.
1 The deletion of construction projects from the Five-
2 Year Road Program may be done no more frequently than t~ice
J a year. An extraordinary vote of a majority plus one of the
4 Board of County Commission members shall be required to delete
5 from or delay a project for more than one year in the adopted
6 Five-Year Road Program. When the Five-Year Road Improvement
7 Program is incorporated into the Plan, a Plan amendment shall
8 be required for such.
9 For purposes of this SECTION II, "deletion of a
10 construction project"· shall mean the elimination of the
.
11 construction project, the failure to let a road construction
12 contract, the removal of or failure to establish funding of
I,
13 the construction project, the material reduction in the scope
14 of work or funding (as it affects the construction project),
15 or the postponement of the construction project in the Five-
16 Year Road Program for more than one year beyond the year the
17 construction was originally programmed in the 1988-92 Five-
"
18 Year Road Program or in the Five-Year Road Program in which
19 the construction was first added after 1987. It does not
20 include delays associated with right-of-way acquisition as a
21 result of judicial decision, redesign after the contract has
22 been let, construction, or other delays not under the control
23 of the County.
j( 24 Section 2. rindina Required Prior to Deletina proiects in the
25 AdoDted Five-Year Road Proaram
25 Prior to approving the deletion of any const=uction
27 project from the County's Five-Year Road Program, the County
28 Commission must find that the deletion of the construction
29 project will not result in any 1 ink or intersection on the
30 road network operating at greater than the Adopted Level of
31 Service as defined in this Ordinance if such link would not
32 have operated at greater than the Adopted Level of Service as
33 defined in this Ordinance had the project been constru~ted as
34 originally programmed in the adopted Five-Year Road Program
35 and that no project which was approved and phased based upon '"
36 such ASSURED COI/STRUCTIOI/ would be denied BUILDING PERMITS
99
/
.
r Ordinances 90-6 and 90-7. as amended. shall be reeea1ed ueon
section I of this ordinance becomina effective.
SECTION IV Severability
4 If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase,
5 or work of this Ordinance is for any reason held by the Court
6 to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding
7 shall not affect the remainder of this ordinance.
8 SECTION V -Inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances
9 The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and
10 be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Palm
.
11 Beach County, Florida. The Sections of this Ordinance may be
12 renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the words
r,
13 "ordinance", "article", "section," "subsection", "paragraph",
14 or "subparagraph" may be changed to any other appropriate word
to accomplish codification. ,
15
16 SECTION VI Effective Date
17 ARTICLE I SUBSE~UENT EFFECTIVE DATE FOR SECTION I
~
18 section I of this Ordinance shall become effective immediatelY
19 upon the effective date of the Ordinance amendina the Traffic
20 Circulation Element of the 1989 Palm Beach County
21 Comprehensive Plan. The a~endments proposed were approved bY
22 the Board of County co~lt1issioners on Seetember 11. 1990 for
23 transmittal to the State of Florida Deeartment of Community
24 Affairs. Adoetion of the ordinances is anticieated in
25 December of 1990.
1< 26 ARTICLE II GENERAL EFfECTIVE DATE
27 The erovisions of this Ordinance. exceet Section 1. shall
28 become effective ueon receipt bY the County of acknow1edaement
29 of the SecretarY of State. and shall relate back to. and be
30 OOOliDOb¡_ ::om~ §~o: ~ '~
Jl 3"all bceelftc
T r' ie f eHnancc
J2 effect.iv!: feer1:lar¡ 1, 19913 a1"ld 3hall apply te all Cit.c
JJ &pesifis develep~en~ erdcrs fer whish applicatien3 wa3 made
34 en er after fceruar/ 1. 1999.
"
;.,35 SECTION VII - ~ '~&~WI~~~ ~....., ~ o..~
101
/
.
.
It.: AM'I CU:: I PLANNING ACTIVITIES.
2 The Board of County Commissioners recognizes
J that traffic circulation planning in Palm Beach County
4 must continue. The Plan requires that certain planning
5 activities must take place which are necessary to achieve
6 consistency between the traffic circulation, capital
7 improvement, and land use elements. The outcome of these
8 píanning activities will involve amendments to the Plan
9 and this ordinance. To ensure that these matters are
10 timely addressed consistent with the requirements of .
11 Chapter 163, Part II, Florida statutes, the Board of
12 County COllUllissioners shall approve a work Program to
~
13 guide and schedule the activities. This work program
14 shall be approved as part of the Comprehensive Planning
15 process.
16 .\nTICL£ II COUIIT'iIlIÐE ORDIII.\lICI:.
17 \lithin nine (9) !!Ienths ef the effective elate .
18 ef this OrdiJ'laJ'lee, the Ðeard ef Ce~J'lty Ce1!l!llii3i3ieJ'lcrs
19 shall ade~~ an erdiJ'lance relatiJ'l~ te ee~nt)~ide ~raffie
20 ~erfel"llla"ce 3tandardi3 ·...hieh 3ha11 inchlde ~revi3iel'\31
21 (1) ",hcreby 3~eeial tral'\3~ertatien area3/~ee~ral'hic areas
22 ef e~c~~tie" alle~il'\~ fer a leOlcr 1e Jel ef 3crvicc lfIay
23 bc e3'eabli3hcå, and ( 2) aàelrc33in~ een3train~eI
24 faeilities.
c¥ 25 Section VIII - Readoction of Ordinance 4~unicical
26 Imclementation Ordinance
27 Pursuant to Section VII of Ordinance 90-6. as
28 amended: The Palm Beach County Traffic Performance standards
29 Municical Imclementation Ordinance: Or'dinance 90-6. as
JO amended. is herebY readocted. Ordinance 90-6 sha 11 be
31 recealed bY SECTlot¡ III of this ordinance: Receal of Laws in
J2 Conflict.
33 APPROVED MID ADOP'TED by the Board of County
34 Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Florida on the ___ of "
35 19_.
102
/
1 be e3t.abli3fteàl and (2 ) addre33in"J eon3t.rained .
:z faeili~ies.
3 Section VIII - Readoction of Ordinance 90-6 Municipal
4 Implementation Ordinance
5 Pursuant to Section VII of Ordinance 90-6. as
6 amended: The Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards
i· Municipal Implementation Ordinance: Ordinance
F 7 90-6. as
G amended. is herebY readopted and sha 11 related back to. and
be applicable from. February 2. 1990. Ordinance 90-6 sha 11
10 be repealed by SECTION III of this ordinance: Repeal of Laws
11 in Conflict.
12 APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Florida on the ___ of .
13
14 19_.
15 PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA BY ITS
16 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
.
17 By
18 Chairman
19 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
20 LEGAL SUFFICIENCY J'
21
22 County Attorney
23 Acknowledgement by the Department of state of the
24 State of Florida, on this, the _ day of , 1990.
25 Acknowledgement from the Department of State
26 received on the ___ day of , 1990, at , and
27 f i1 ed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County
28 Commissioners of Palm Beach County, Florida.
'- ,
109 "
/'--
[ITY DF DELIA' BEA£H
100 NW, ": A'/ENUE DEL,"AY 8EAC'--i i-U)RICiA 33444 40]/743 7QOO
,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and city Commissioners
FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager~
SUBJECT: STREET LIGHTING ON AlA
DATE: October 15, 1990
Please see the attached letter from Barbara Schroeder, Sea Turtle
Recovery Coordinator, with the Florida Marine Research Institute,
together with the graph of Sea Turtle Hatchling Emergence Events Over
Time.
Based ·on the information contained in the graph and attempting to
balance the interests of sea turtle conservation and pedestrians in
residence along the beach front, I recommend that we turn the street
lights on until 8:00 p.m. each evening and that they be turned on again
then at 6:00 a.m. in the morning.
DTH:mld
Attachments
TH:= Er:OF:T AL.WAYS MATTERS Sf. 5.
.-' / "¡,' / ¡( _ . I r,* -{ l ("\r' ( t i..
SrrATE OF FLORI"DA -' '~:\
DEPARTMENT, OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Florida Marine Research Institute
.
STUART FIELD STATION . Post Office Box 1319 . stuart, Florida 34995
Telephones (407) 225-2534 * Suncom 221-5534
, 10 October 1990
Robert A. Barcinski, Assistant city Manager
city of Delray Beach
100 Northwest 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Dear Bob:
Thank you for your letter requesting input on the City's
proposal to light every other streetlight along Ocean Boulevard
during specific dusk and dawn periods. Although hatchlings emerge
from first darkness until dawn, the probability of hatchling
emergence during the proposed "lighted" periods stated in your
letter is low. I do not know whether any incubating nests remain
along the beaches in question, though the possibility does exist.
I'm afraid I cannot be of much assistance to you in reaching your
decision. If the City wishes to take the conservative approach in
terms of sea turtle protection, then the lights should remain
permanently off until November 1. On the other hand, if the
Commission elects to adopt the stated compromise position, they
should be aware that the potential still exists for hatchling
misorientation and that requirements under the federal Endangered
Species Act still apply.
I have enclosed a copy of a paper by B. Witherington, K.
Bjorndal, and C. McCabe entitled "Temporal pattern of nocturnal
emergence of loggerhead turtle hatchlings from natural nests",
currently in press in the scientific journal Copeia. This paper
provides information on hatchling emergence and makes
recommendations relative to artificial beach front lighting
restrictions.
I appreciate your concern regarding this complex issue and
regret that I cannot assist you any further in your decision. We
look forward to continuing cooperative and productive sea turtle
conservation efforts.
Sincerely,
DIVISION OF MARINE RESOURCES
~~a,~~
Barbara A. Schroeder
Sea Turtle Recovery Coordinator
Florida Marine Research Institute
BAS/bss .
cc: E. Possardt
Tom Gardner, Executive Director
Administration ~aches and Shores Law Enforcement Marine Resources Rl=creation and Parks Resource Management Slate Lands
Bob Maninez Jim Smith Bob Butterwonh ~rald Lewis Tom Gallagher Doyle Conner Betty Castor
G<.wenro.- ~",O(Sute Att""- Genenl SUIte Com",roIler Slate Treawre1" Commissione-rof ~Iture CommissK>M-r 0( Education
,
I
I
.
'"
,
36 I
35 0---0 Sand Temperature
--
0 34 · Air Temperature
---' .
Q) 33
~
::J 32
+-
a 31
'-
Q)
0- 30
E 29
Q)
r- 28
27
26
20
(/) ~
0+- 18 iI'
c
tV ~
> 16 iI' 7)
W., 'T ,/,/
tV 14 ,/ ,/
() ,/ ,/
c: (2 ,/
tV
01 ,I ,I
'- 10
tV
E
w 8 '7
,/
0" 6
c
.-
-
...c 4 ,/ 7:
() ~
0+-
a 2 ,/
I
t:?J #/Y~ ~
. . . I ' I . I .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m 0 - C\J r<> v - C\J r<> v ({) <D r--
- C\J C\J C\J C\J C\J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Time
- .
[ITY DF DELIA' BEA[H
-"~, " \ =:\JUE C.ì[i_--iA/ .,'. '.-' ,':":LCj,~IQA 33444 407/243,7000
,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: ~obert A. Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
Administrative S rvices
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #v.J l MEETING OF OCTOBER 16 1990
TRAIN WHISTLE BAN FEC RAILROAD
DATE: October 11, 1990
The City recently received a safety study from the Federal Railroad
Administration concerning accidents on the FEC Railroad from Miami to
Jacksonville. The study shows a 195% increase in accidents since 1984
at crossings where the night time train whistle ban is in effect. The
City also has received a request from Florida East Coast Railway
Company to rescind our ordinance banning whistle blowing at our FEC
crossings between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. The City passed this
ordinance on November 27, 1984, at the request of citizens who felt
night time whistle blowing was a nuisance. This ordinance can only
apply by law to rail lines operating entirely in the State. The Mayor
has requested that this item appear on a workshop.
The City of Lake Worth has recently rejected FEC's request to rescind
their ordinance. We have also contacted Boca Raton and Boynton Beach.
They are still reviewing the information and do not expect to address
this item until next month at the earliest. Preliminary indications
are that they do not think they will rescind their ordinances unless
there is some legal or liability issue. Both Managers are waiting for
input from their staffs. A copy of the entire study is available in
the City Manager's office for review.
RAB:kwg
T l" :: E;-- ~:~ (~) H T A t_ I/-J Ä \( S M /1, l' TEn S
'711 3 /7).e W~~ ~,&~ ~~~,~.ý Z;;
- a.-d a",,~,~ ¿ vJJc.. cy ~ ~U;f}CS
-
~ FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY
p, 0, DRAWER 1048, ONE MALAGA STREET. ST, AUGUSTINE. FLORID~ 32084
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
,
September 10, 1990
File: 79.12
CERTIFIED MAIL ··..·-.I6....t.._.-....,. í L ~.'r.~ -_
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ~¡i~~~~~~[QY ,
u_ ~. _ ~
SEP 1 3 ~
l"'~: ,
The Honorable Thomas Lynch ' l I
Mayor, City of Delray Beach ì
.
100 N.W. 1st Avenue (~:T)i (. .:.:! \~ \11 !~_~S! ON
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
"-.' .. '~'-""-'--'."
Dear Mayor Lynch:
On January 2, 1985 Assistant City Engineer Gates D. Castle, P.E. wrote advising
that the Delray Beach City Council had adopted Ordinance No. 96-84 at its
regular meeting of November 27, 1984 prohibiting the sounding of train horns
or whistles at public crossings protected by gates, lights and bells between
the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., said Ordinance becoming effective
January 8, 1985.
Since the 1984 State law allowed local governments to prohibit Florida East
Coast Railway Company trains that pass through cities, municip~ities and
counties from blowing warning whistles between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. at
crossings protected by gates, lights and bells, a number of counties and
cities such as Delray Beach, have passed night-time whistle bans.
On August 10, 1990 the Federal Railroad Administration, U. S. Department
of Transportation, Washington, D.C., address to the Delray Beach City Council,
among other municipal and county governments so involved, copy of a Federal
study released July 1990 reflecting that in the last six years, 19 people
were killed and 59 injured at railroad crossings between Miami and Jacksonville.
Night-time accidents at the affected crossings have increased 195% since ¿---
- the statutory bans were enacted. By contrast, at 89 similar FEC crossings
where the bans have not been imposed, night-time accidents have increased
only 23%. By the same token, daylight accident rates for the 6-year period
not involved in the night-time ban reflect that there were 108 accidents
for the 5-year period pre-ordinance and 109 accidents for the 5-year period
post-ordinance. In other words, there was virtually no change in the accident
rates occurring during the day-time periods when whistle blowing remained
permissible.
\ßS (
The Honorable Thomas Lynch, Mayor
City of Delray Beach ,
September 10, 1990
Page Two
The study prepared by the Federal Railroad Administration has thus demonstrated
conclusively that night-time accidents at crossings affected by the whistle
blowing ban have increased. Therefore, in the interest of safety, I request
that the City Council immediately rescind the actions which it took in 1983,
thus permitting whistle blowing at crossings at all hours of the day or night
to enhance safety. In this regard, it is respectfully requested that you advise
me in advance as to the time and date of the Council meeting at which this
matter will be brought up so that I might have a representative of the Railway
present regard to this matter.
For your convenient reference, I attach copy of the report of the Federal
Railroad Administration of July 1990 referred to herein.
Yours very truly,
R. W. Wyckoff
President
--
RWW: pj
Enclosure
cc: Honorable Ben G. Watts
Secretary
Florida Department of Transportation
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
q It¡ ¡o~~tð~~~~
~ ""-10-<. I..ß m.1. ~ ~~J..
0 ~
u.s. Department 400 Seventh 51, SW
of Transportation Washington, 0 C 20590
Federal RaHroad
Administration
SEP 6 1990
,
Mayor Thomas E. Lynch SEP 1
City of Delray Beach 1
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444 ~ ~ 'f' ~ ,~~'", :~.i. ~j~..~,. - ~.I
Dear Mayor Lynch: ...._.,.~_..~.~....--
Thank you for your June 21 letter regarding train whistle bans.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has conducted a study
to determine whether a correlation exists between those Florida
highway-rail crossings subject to local bans on the sounding of
train whistles during night hours and crossing accidents. I am
enclosing a copy of that report entitled "Florida's Train Whistle
Ban" for your information.
In brief, the FRA study shows an alarming increase in crossing
accidents at the 511 highway-rail crossings subject to Florida's
nighttime whistle ban. Nighttime accidents at the 511 affected
Florida East Coast Railway Company (the only railroad affected by
the whistle bans) crossings have nearly tripled (a 195 percent
increase) in the period since the bans have been imposed,
compared to a 23 percent increase at Florida East Coast crossings
not affected by the whistle ban.
Although factors other than the whistle ban may have contributed
to this disturbing trend (e.g., highway traffic loads or other
non-rail factors), I remain very concerned. As I consider
further action, I would appreciate receiving your comments on the
report, particularly on the question of whether the trend can be
explained by factors other than the whistle ban. A copy and a
similar request has been sent to Florida's Secretary of
Transportation. 0>
-
Sincerely, - -
S~~ \ ?
J. W. Walsh
Associate Administra~
for Safety
Enclosure
fÞJ News:
u.s. Department of
Transportation Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs
Washington, D,C, 20590
,
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FRA 11-90
Monday, August 20, 1990 Contact: Claire Austin
Tel.: (202) 366-0881
FRA RELEASES STUDY ON THE BAN
OF TRAIN WHISTLES IN FLORIDA
A study, recently completed by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
indicates that a sharp rise in nighttime accidents at Florida highway-rail crossings may
be the result of local ordinances that ban the sounding of train whistles during night
hours.
The FRA report, entitled, "Florida's Train Whistle Ban," details a review and
analysis of the Florida East Coast Railway Company's (FE C) experience since the first
nighttime whistle ban ordinance went into effect along its mainline operating corridor
more than five years ago.
FRA Administrator Gil Carmichael said, "Since the bans were imposed in July
1984, the FEC has experienced an alarming increase in accidents at the 511 highway-
rail crossings that are subject to Florida's nighttime whistle ban."
Nighttime accidents at the affected crossings have increased 195 percent since
the statutory bans were enacted. During that period, 19 fatalities and 59 injuries
occurred at those crossings.
At 89 similar FEC crossings, where the bans have not been imposed, nighttime
accidents increased 23 percent.
Carmichael said, "The FRA report suggests that FEC compliance with the
ordinances remains the only apparent explanation for the abrupt tripling in the
nighttime accident rate at the impacted crossings."
1111111111
§ 99.16 DELRAY BEACH NOISE CONTROL 64
§ 99.16 TRAIN WHISTLE OR HORN NOISE file an application with the Board of
PROHIBITED. Adjustment. The filing fee for an
application shall be $25. The
(A) It shall be unlawful and a application shall contain information
public nuisance for any person, business, which demonstrates that bringing the
or corporation operating a railroad train source of sound or activity for which the
of a railroad company wholly within the special variance is sought into
state to blow, activate, or in any way compliance with this order would
permit or cause the blowing or activation constitute an unreasonable hardship on
of train whistles or horns from railroad the applicant, on the community, or on
~rains between the hours of 10:00 p.m. other persons. ~otice of an application
and 6:00 a.m. on any day, when that train for a special variance shall be published
is traveling within the city. in a newspaper of general circulation in
the city at least seven days prior to its
(B) All persons approaching a consideration by the Board of
railroad-highway grade crossing shall Adjustment. Any individual who claims to
exercise reasonable care for their own be adversely affected by allowance of the
safety and for the safety of railroad special variance may file a statement
train crews as well as for the safety of with the Board of Adjustment containing
train or vehicle passengers. any information to support his claim. If
('80 Code,S 16-41) (Ord. 96-84, passed the Board of Adjustment finds that a
11-27-84; Am. Ord. 69-86, passed sufficient controversy exists regarding
11-11-36) Penalty, see 5 99.99 the application, a public hearing may be
held.
§ 99.17 APPLICATION TO CERTAIN RAILROAD
CROSSINGS ONLY. (C) In determining whether to grant
or deny the application, the Board of
This subchapter relates only to Adjustment shall balance the hardship to
public at-grade railroad train crossings the applicant, t~e community, and other
having train-activated automatic persons of not granting the special
traffic-control devices, which shall variance against the adverse impact on
include flashing lights, bells, and the health, safety, and welfare of
crossing gates on both sides of the persons affected, the adverse impact on
railroad tracks. property affected, and any other adverse
('80 Code,S 16-42) (Ord. 96-84, passed impacts of granting the special
11-27-84) variance. ~pplicants for special
variances and persons contesting special
§ 99.18 SIGNS AND NOTIFICATION. variances may be required to submit any
information the Board of Adjustment may
(A) Within a reasonable time after reasonably require. ~
the enactment of this subchapter, the
city shall ?ost signs at each railroad (D) Special variances shall be
crossing in the city announcing that granted by notice to the applicant
trains are prohibited from the sounding containing all necessary conditions,
of whi3tles or horns between the hours of including a time limit on the permitted
10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. activity. A special variance shall not
become effective until all conditions are
(3) At all appropriate public agreed to by the applicant.
railroad-highway grade crossings within Noncompliance with any condition of the
the city, the city shall cause to be special variance shall terminate it and
erected advanced railroad warning signs subject the person holding it to those
and pavement markings in accordance with provisions of this chapter regulating the
the uniform system of traffic-control source of sound or activity" for which the
devices if the city has maintenance special variance was granted.
responsibility for that particular
highway or street. (E) Application for extension of
('80 Code,S 16-44) (Ord. 96-84, passed time limit specified in special variances
11-27-84; Am. Ord. 69-86, passed 11-11-86) or for modification of other substantial
conditions shall be treated like
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT applications for initial special
variances under division (B) above.
. § 99.30 SPECIAL VARIANCES.
(F) (1) The City Manager shall have
(A) The Board of Adjustment of the concurrent authority to grant special
city shall have the authority, consistent variances requested pursuant to this
with this chapter, to grant special chapter, which may be granted by the City
variances which may be requested pursuant Manager provided:
to this section.
(a) The applicant supplies
(B) Any person seeking a special informatio~ proving compliance with the
variance pursuant to this chapter shall standards set forth in division (C) above;
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: - WORKSHOP MEETING OF OCTOBER 16 1990
DATE: October 12, 1990
The present local option gas tax expires in 1995. The current
distribution of this tax is 67% to the county and 33% to cities. This
formula is based on actual road expenditures from 1978 to 1982.
Several cities have recently contacted the County asking that the gas
tax be extended to permit them to bond road improvements identified in
their comprehensive plans. Therefore, the County is requesting input
from various cities regarding these requests and for clarification of
the terms of distribution of gas tax funds.
Staff would recommend that we, along with other cities, request an
extension of the gas tax. However, due to current road expenditures
the formula under the extension would be closer to 83% to the County
and 17% to the City. The County is presenting options for elected
officials to consider relating to the distribution formula. These
options are:
A. Appoint a committee to study the issue thoroughly to develop
the most equitable distribution possible.
B. Compromise position of 75% for the County and 25% for Cities
effective 1995.
C. Provide recommendation other than A or B, and rationale.
A detailed memorandum is attached as backup material for this item.
commission is requested to provide direction on the request for the
extension of the gas tax and the options presented by the County
regarding the distribution formula.
o /, c"?'~
l /I~
, -~
Board of County Commissioners County Administrator
Carol J. Elmquist, Chairman ¡an ',\' inters
Karen T. Marcus, Vice Chair
Carol A. Roberts
Ron Howard
Carole Phillips
September 25, 1990 .t( þ... r
~ ....... "
'I., ,';'" ,".
, "..1 it-;,--.,
Sc:o f~ [)
I..t 28'
Mr. David Hardin C/l 1990
y /V¡¡'V'
City Manager IVliú .
tt(' ,
.) ()c¡:-",
City of Delray Beach {, 1(.",
100 NW First Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
Dear Mr. Hardin:
The present local option gas tax expires in 1995. Several Cities
have approached the County and requested the County extend the gas
tax now so that they can bond for road improvements identified in
their comprehensive plans.
The present distribution of the gas tax revenues between the County
and the Cities was determined in 1983 and was based on road
expenditures from 1978 to 1982. At that time, the County spent 67%
of total road expenses, and received, through the inter local
agreement, 67% of gas tax for the next ten years.
If the County and the Cities cannot reach an agreement on the
distribution, the State would divide the revenues according to the
most recent 5-year transportation expenditure. The most recent 5-
years we can track are from 1987 to adopted 1991 budgets. During
this interval, County government will spend 81% of the total
Countywide road expenses. However, the trend shows a gradual
increase in the County's share. The most solid estimate of the
1990 to 1995 interval would be the most recent three years. Palm
Beach County is spending over 83% of the total County road expenses
during this interval.
We would like you to present to your elected body the following
options.
A. Appoint a committee to study the issue thoroughly to
develop the most equitable distribution possible. This
may include an examination of the number of lane miles in
each jurisdiction, population, capital expenditures for
new roads as opposed to patching or drainage
improvements, and other factors.
.. :\n \-c lIdl ()pportllnity . ,\tlirl1l,ltiH.' ,\ction Il1lployn" W s.( ;)..
BOX 1989 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402-1989
@ printed on recycled pllper (407) 355-20JO
Suncom (407) 273-2010
Re: Gas Tax
September 25, 1990
Page 2
B. Compromise position of 75% for the County and 25% for
Cities effective 1995. This is the percent distribution
for the last, three years (which is also the projection of
where we will be in 1995 with the State determined split)
averaged with the present 67%. One component of this
option may be a 1% per year phase-in effective 1992.
C. Recommendation other than A or B, and rationale.
In 1989, the County presently receives approximately $15.6 million
from its 67% share and the Cities receive $7.8 million from their
33% share. The annual growth rate in gas tax has averaged about
2%. The 75%-25% distribution would reduce the Cities share by $2
million and increase the County's by $2 million. However, the 75%-
25% is also about $2 million more for Cities from the 83%-17%
projected for 1995, assuming the present trend holds.
One argument in favor of the County receiving a greater share is
the fact that over 90% of all capital expenses for road
construction is provided by the County. In order to continue
positive economic development, new capacity needs to be added to
our system to meet concurrency. The County provides, by far, the
most new lane miles.
One argument in favor of the Cities not moving to the State split
is the importance of meeting all of our comprehensive plans. Since
the local option sales tax is earmarked solely for criminal justice
the next five years, the gas tax takes on greater importance.
Following the State formula would reduce the Cities share almost in
half. Therefore, some compromise may be in order. And, since we
are proposing to extend the gas tax now effective in 1995 and we
are required to project the expenditures from 1990 to 1995, it may
be prudent to extend the gas tax 20+ years but commit to revisit
the distribution after 10 years or, in 2005.
Please review the attachments to ensure we have accurately
portrayed all of your City's figures, review the options with your
policymakers, and inform the County of your recommendation within
30 days. Please feel free to call if you have any questions.
/ y~rulY y~~s,
/
/<// /
\ j' W·
'--------.,¿::¿n _ 1nters
County Administrator
JW/adg
Attachments
E:OO::'arr A
, D1CCfJj ÇAA'TtI) PN.l1 BaCH COOllt'Y.··-·~
I
\ roÞUUiItn AHD WÆ MILES DIS'nÜB1J11CN I
\ 0% jUrD or vtAR 1989 rt:, I
\
I ¿ ç:?'" Z~ ~
cTtt-t n OOPOf1Arrn'~Œcnrr of. ' n¡çœ A. p~æ1r c: p~ærr
I
\ POPUU11CU TC11' 1\L ¡¡ ¡c . LANE HrLtS '1'01'1.L INC. L<.:C.t\L
\ f'OPULArrw //' J..A}-Π11l1...E9 PTSTRrntmns
I
I ~.
p.t~antis 1,6oi9 ~". 23.R .81 .669 ..së , '~'1.
~lìlt! Cilade: ' 17 I 009 3.60 1':0.0 4.14 4.399 31J1, 11.~
80ca Raton S9,585 12.62 499.4 115.91 15.621 '.~Ii,._<)~"
Boyl'too Beach 46. )10 9.81 231. 9 7.BS 1:.439 r.ri. 7..... ~
Bri~y Breezes .311 .08 .0 0 .024 1,~ì2..
Cloµd Lake 153 .03 1.4 .05 .043 .3,!>S'''f
De~ay ~ach 45,441 9.62 315.0 10.70 10.371 Boct ' ..t I.)(ø
Gl Ridge 226 .05 3.Z .11 .090 7,010
Golß 131 .OJ 10.4 .35 .250 I q I .t'Ou
GolMew 208 .04 2.4 .08 . Oil; S. "I (..0
Greé~acrel City 27,295 5.78 25.0 .85 2.327 fS " ~Ot.
Gulf ~ t:t'OðJn 537 .11 10.0 .34 .271 f9fl'3ß
Havèthi 11 1.262 .27 13.0 .44 .388 30. 2.....1ol
lIi9h}'"d ßeach 3.208 .68 4.0 .14 .299 ~.?. I 3 ,j,.).
~W(O 760 .16 1.3 .04 .079 (., . I <.,~
Juno \Beach 2,037 .43 3.1 .10 .203 . I~. 8.1""
J\lp1 ser 26,259 5.56 125.0 4.23 4.631 3Cøt I 2./8
Jup1t~r Inl~t Colonv 394 .C8 5.4 .18 .l53 11 , ~ ~-f
t..\.l(e Çlarke Shores 3,317 .70 2~.4 1.00 .908 7(.), B 2.. o.t
Lake Park 6,156 1.43 ~9." 2.Cl 1. 837 I-.J ~, 2.ðlÞ
Lake ~orth Z7,4n 5.82 1~1.8 6.49 6.292 t.Jq", 7'1 f..ð
LaJìta~a 8,507 1.80 51.9 1.96 1.913 ('-1-9,1..'«+
Manal~þat\ 376 .08 9.2 .Jl .242 /8.e.,!,
I".angorµa. ParI< . 1,278 .21 14.0 .47 .413 32.. .l..' ...
North~J~ ""h 12,7~2 2.'70 S1.8 1. 75 2.037 I.r'& . &8~
Ocea.n ' . dqa 1,542 .J3 26.0 .88 .714 SS, 1.ø9l
Pahok. 6,610 1.40 17.4 .59 .BJJ lø\S-.&CfI,¿,
Pili ach 10,859 2.JO 9:.6 3,2Q 2.932 .;z;¿B,(,9l1
Pam ~...clI Gardens 24,130 5.11 64.0 2.11 3.050 ~3 .., I 900
Palm ~ach Sheres 1,263 .27 10.3 .35 .324 .;L~ .17::L
Palm S1\lring~ 10,250 2.17 26.0 .ss 1.~6a <f 8.9011-
Rivie:r~ !each 29.191 6.18 208.0 1.04 6.785 S:;~,.,;BO
Royal lalI\l Beach 1l.SH 2.44 1J6.8 4.€J 3.976 3Io,'~2..
South ~y 3,73& ' .73 29.7 l.ot .941 73,392-
I
South Pa!ln 5each 1,41) .31 .0 0 .O~4 7,332-
Teq1Jest~ .4,448 .94 45.2 l.S) 1.35, lOS, f.aq"
"'e5 t par Beach 73,8JO 15.64 466.7 15.80 l5.ï5J 1,22.8. 7i.J
- -"
! -iõ{J.oo 7, ðoo.,.-o--t)
472,151 2953. j
\
I,
·
PALM BEACH COUNTY
TRAIISPCItTA TI (II EXPEIID I nIIE5
(000'5 (IUTTED)
(1 ) (1)
1989/90 1990/91 Five Five Years
1981 ,1988 1989 Budget Budget Year Capital
Mwlicicel itv Actuel Actuel Actuel lIev DoUan lIev DoUars Total Onlv
Atlantis S 45 S 4 S j S 25 S 30 S 139 S 0
Belle Glade 894 588 612 493 640 3,227 170
Boca Raton 907 1,406 4,246 7,423 8,878 22,860 9,785
Boynton Beach 1,080 1,046 687 936 912 4,661 1,363
Briny Breezes 11 11 17 12 12 63 0
Cloud Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Delray Beach 1 ,603 1,120 1,863 1,349 3,153 9,088 4,343
Glen Ridge 0 G 23 5 10 38 0
Golf 18 27 25 25 25 120 0
Golfview 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Greenacres City 518 532 541 654 684 2,929 193
Gulf Stream 15 15 0 0 0 30 0
Haverhill 92 36 0 0 0 128 81
Highland Beach 26 89 281 305 327 1,028 114
Hypoluxo 6 6 5 7 1 25 0
J\.nO Beach 34 19 6 8 18 85 10
Jupi ter 753 836 634 182 340 2,745 1,616
Jupiter Inlet 24 1 6 15 12 58 25
Lake Clark Shores 80 77 103 70 2 332 246
Lake Park 560 482 300 609 461 2,412 1,320
Lake \,Iorth 958 3,677 607 685 646 6,573 164
Lantana 278 129 240 214 213 1,074 316
Manalapan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mangonia Park 129 124 119 166 97 635 578
North Palm Beach 364 426 413 414 459 2,076 72
Ocean Ridge 118 123 110 94 73 518 147
Pahokee 66 96 77 131 165 535 150
Palm Beach 1,215 1,336 1,219 1,719 2,372 7,861 1,679
Palm Beach Gardens 1,203 1,240 200 200 1,050 3,893 1,050
Palm Beach Shores 40 40 10 11 11 112 50
Palm Springs 668 617 0 0 0 1,285 0
Riviera Beach 1,720 1,651 892 582 615' 5,460 2,807
Royal Palm Beach 223 412 981 1,042 1,252 3,910 779
South Bay 481 363 0 0 0 844 0
South Palm Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tequesta 306 463 9S5 1,235 617 3,576 1,806
\,lest Palm Beach 2.799 2.856 454 1.100 1.250 8.459 1.215
Total Municipalities 11,234 19,848 15,661 19,711 24,325 96,779 30,079
County 76" 54.761 7T'J, 67.541 85" 90 . 306 84" 104.335 81% 102.598 81% 419.541 91% 300.667
Grend Total S 71,995 S 87,389 S 105,967 S 124,046 S 126,923 S 516,320 S 330,746
===:.====8a. =====...a= =.......... =======.... ::==..==...:1 ==.=-.-.-.= =======:1==
(1) Data provided by municipalities. Actual data not available.
Report date 9/18/90
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CI TY MANAGER m1
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ~ - WORKSHOP MEETING OF OCTOBER 16 1990
SWINTON AVENUE/ S.W. 10th STREET SWAP
DATE: October 12, 1990
Please see the attached discussion prepared by the Planning Director.
I agree with his recommendation not to pursue the swap any further. I
do not believe that it would be a productive effort at this time.
Recommendation: That the City staff be authorized to:
(1) Petition the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to
reduce the right-of-way requirement from 80 feet to 60 feet for
Swinton Avenue from 4th Street north to the City limit.
( 2 ) Pursue other ways of addressing, with the County, the City's
concerns regarding landscaping and historic preservation along
Swinton Avenue, as was suggested by the County Engineer.
.
~\
·
CITY COMMISSION WORK SESSION DOCUMENTATION
SUBJECT: SWINTON AVENUE/S.W. 10TH STREET "SWAP"
,
)ø~
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 3, 1990 \ ~;/> .
DIRECTOR OF PLANNIN~'wJJ . ù ./
PREPARED BY: DAVID J. KOVACS,
BACKGROUND: /'
For quite awhile the City Commission has raised the issue of the
City "taking over" Swinton Avenue in order to control its
potential widening and to be able to proceed with improvements
within the right-of-way. An approach to this matter was that the
City and County "swap" responsibilities for Swinton Avenue and
S.W. 10th Street (Federal Highway to Congress).
In order to get up-to-date and to provide further direction on
this subject, the item was scheduled for this work session
review. In preparation, the City Administration met with
representatives from the County Engineering Department. Please
review my memorandum of August 20, 1990, and a letter from
Charles Walker, County Engineering, each of which followed the
meeting.
DIRECTION:
As a result of this work sessio~direction should be given
relative to the following items. (The Planning Director's
recommended position on each item is provided.)
l. Continued pursuit of the "swap"
Director's Position: Do not continue with this item.
2. Reduction of right-of-way requirements for Swinton Avenue
from 80' to 60': thus, reducing the potential for widening
Swinton Avenue to four lanes.
Director's Position: Petition MPO for such a reduc~ion.
One basis for seeking the reduction is that of a
determination that Swinton Avenue is a "constrained
facility". Pursuit of this may involve an additional budget
allocation for special studies.
lJIS/S
· City Commission Work Session Documentation
Swinton Avenue/S.W. 10th Street "Swap"
Meeting of October 3, 1990
Page2
3. Installation of' Swinton Avenue beautification and its
maintenance.
Director's Position: Proceed with the Swinton Avenue
Beautification effort as provided for in the Decade of
Excellence program (FY 90/91 or FY 91/92) and maintain close
coordination with the County throughout. If a potential
problem arises, immediately bring it to the attention of the
City Manager and, as appropriate, to the City Commission.
Attachments:
* Kovacs memo of August 20, 1990
* Walker letter of September 10, 1990
DJK/#71/CCSWAP.TXT
/o/~ W/Ü
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
(~ ,'~~'~~.', ¡:.¡ \ ... ,-. ,
r. . _ '-.,I' L- V 6.-. ._. !
TO: BARCINSKI, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER! 1"0
, i Uû 2 1 90 I
J~ "
I I
lXtA::::. ':.11.1. SVCS GRGU, j
FROM: DAVID J. KOVACS, DIRECTOR ) ..... -4.-.--./
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
DATE: AUGUST 20, 1990
SUBJECT: THE SWINTON AVENUE/S.W. 10TH STREET SWAP & OTHER ROAD
MATTERS
The following is an accounting of items discussed with
representatives of the County Traffic Division at our meeting on
August 16th, 1990.
Swinton Avenue/S.W. 10th Street Swap: The purpose of the City
pursuing the "swap" is in order to have control with respect to
the potential widening of Swinton Avenue. At present, Swinton
Avenue is on the MPO 2010 Plan and the County Thoroughfare Plan
and is shown ultimately to be a four lane facility.
* A "swap" will not change the designation on the MPO 2010
Plan. That Plan dictates road improvement programming. To have
Swinton Avenue removed requires a separate petitioning p~ocess
through MPO. Since the Swinton Avenue ~orridor' has
interjurisdicational traffic (i.e. a greater than local
function), it is anticipated that removal will not be easy (if at
all possible).
* While it may not be possible to remove Swinton Avenue from
the MPO Plan, it may be possible to reduce right-of-way
requírements to 60' instead of 80'. Again petitioning of MPO is
required. A "constrained facilities" approach can be pursued.
Note that the' City's position does accommodate a four lane
section between Lake Ida Road and Atlantic Avenue.
* While shown as a four lane facility in its ultimate state.
there are no programmed improvements.
* With respect to maintenance responsibilities, the City can
enter an inter local agreement with the County for maintenance
responsibilities along Swinton Avenue. However, the County
regulations for placement of landscaping will still apply. There
are significant cost implications in assuming such
responsibilities.
* There is no function of S.W. 10th Street as a County
Thoroughfare in that it does not carry interjurisdictional
traffic; thus, there is no desire (from the County) to assume
jurisdiction, or maintenance responsibilities for it.
; Count)' Administrator
clr~ of County Commissioners "
Caro! !~ Elnic uist, Chairman jom \\'illll'r~
,. .
Karen '-r. Marcus, V ice Chair
Carol A. Roberts Departl11ent of Lngìnecrìng
Ron Howard and Puhlic \\' arks
Carole Phillips
,
"-
,
September 10, 1990 \
\
J t~ \
" ... \
/..
, \ ,:". /
' . ..-
" ~~ . ' '
\
Kathleen E. Dearden , , - ..ç'
\ ,'," ../ ...-
land Development Technician \ 0"''0 ,,/
City of Del ray Beach ~
434 South Swinton Avenue
Delray Beach, Fl 33444
Dear Ms. Dearden:
ÐCt12L Bt b~~.
I
7) Request from City for the City to "swap" N.W. 10th east of Congress with
the County for Swinton Avenue within the City.
From a staff position, Palm Beach County has no interest in taking N.W.
lOth Avenue as a County maintained facility. This is clearly a City
collector and does not meet the functional classification definition of
a County Collector. Swinton is clearly a County Collector/Arterial and
should remain a County maintained facility. It is understood that your
Commission would like to keep Swinton a 2 lane facility for a number of
reasons including landscaping and historic preservation.
There are a number of ways to address these concerns other than the
transfer of jurisdiction, and we will be happy to work with the City to
address this matter.
As was pointed out in our meeting, there is no intent by the County do any
construction on Swinton in the next five years.
I look forward to working with you and other members of the City Staff in the
future.
Sincerely,
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER
~Ji---
Charles R. Walker, Jr., P.E.
Director - Traffic Division
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER [ftv'1 4-
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # - WORKSHOP MEETING OF OCTOBER 16 1990
MEDICARE SUPPLEMENT POLICY
DATE: October 12, 1990
This item is before you to consider converting insurance coverage for
City retirees from the standard policy to a supplemental policy.
Currently, retirees are paying $159.59 for individual coverage and
$214.43 for dependent coverage under our group health insurance plan.
While some of the charges not picked up by Medicare are covered under
the group health coverage, some are not thus increasing the
out-of-pocket expenditures of the retirees. The proposed Medicare
Supplement policy would cover expenses more thoroughly and at a
reduced cost. For an individual age 65-69 the cost of supplemental
insurance would be $62.61 a month. Should the dependent spouse be
eligible for Medicare, they would also be able to purchase the
supplemental insurance at the same reduced cost.
/o/Ib ~~~
[IT' DF DELIA' BEA£H
100 N,W, 1st AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 407/243-7000
,
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager
FROM: Lee R. Graham, Risk Manager
THROUGH: John W. Elliott, Jr., Assistant City Manage~
DATE: October 9, 1990
SUBJECT: Medicare Supplement Policy for City Retirees
One of the concerns of some City Commissioners involves health insurance for the
City's former employees who are now retired. As you know, the City's group
health plan is not a Medicare supplement and does not completely fill in the
gaps not paid by Medicare. Furthermore, since the plan is promulgated for
primary coverage, the rates are correspondingly higher than those of a policy
which specifically takes into account Medicare as the primary source of claim
payment.
We can now offer our retirees, who are over 65, a true Medicare supplement
policy with the same company that insures our regular group plan. Actually,
there are four plans, but in order to not over-complicate the subject, I suggest
that the Major Protection Plus Plan be offered to retirees on a "group" basis.
Actually, the policies are individual, but they could be endorsed by the City in
a group presentation at a meeting of retirees in a questions and answers session
conducted by company representatives. Enrollment could begin at that time and
monthly premium payments could be deducted from pension benefit checks.
There would be no medical examinations or medical questions to qualify, no
waiting period for pre-existing conditions, and claimants would be able to
select doctors and hospitals of their choice. The monthly premiums would depend
on attained ages as follows:
Age 65 - 69 · . $62.61
Age 70 - 74 . $71. 29
Age 75 - 79 . · $74.08
Age 80 + . · . $79.04
The reduced monthly premiums would be an obvious advantage to the retirees, and
the coverage would be more to their requirements. The advantage to the City
would be to delete the loss experience from the City's insurance plan.
vJS { ~
THE EFFORT ALWAYS MATTERS
Page 2
It is recommended that the Medicare Supplement Polices be made available to the
retirees. An introductory mailing could be made to retirees inviting them to a
meeting in the Commission Chambers, where they could receive information from
insurance company personnel and ask specific questions.
A sample invitation letter to retirees is attached for your review and comment.
Please advise.
r!)s
LRG/rc
Attachment
Medicare Supplement
Insurance: Plus Plan (MPP2)
Policy Form Number 4??oo
Schedule of Benefits Number 63-13-014
". underwritten by
Alnerican General Group Insurance Co.
3988 North Central Expressway
Dallas, Texas
Outline of Medicare Supplement
Coverage and Premium Information
1. Read Your Policy Carefully - This outline of coverage provides a
very brief description of the important features of Your policy. This is
not the insurance contract and only the actual policy provisions will
control. The policy itself sets forth in detail the rights and obligations
of both You and Your insurance company. It is, therefore, important
~ that you READ YOUR POLICY CAREFULLY! This policy contains
optional coverage/benefits. Please refer to Your Schedule of Benefits
for details.
2. Medicare Supplement Coverage - Policies of this category are
~ designed to supplement Medicare by covering some hospital, medical
and surgical services which are partially covered by Medicare.
Coverage is provided for hospital inpatient charges and some
Physician charges, subject to any deductibles and copayment provi-
sions which may be in addition to those provided by Medicare, and
subject to other limitations which may be set forth in the polìcy. The
policy does not provide benefits for custodial care such as help in
walking, getting in and out of bed, eating, dressing, bathing and
taking medicine.
- 3. Neither American General Group Insurance Co. nor its agents are
connected with Medicare.
-
'.
7105
.- . -'-- _-0._- -
SERVICE BENEFIT MEDICARE PAYS THIS POLICY PAYS YOU PAY
Part A
INPATIENT
HOSPITAL
SERVICES I
Semi-private room and First 60 days All but $592 $592 Non-covered charges
board. general nursing ,.
and miscellaneous 61st to 90th day All but $148 $148/day Non-covered charges
hospital services and
supplies. such as meals, 91st to 150th day All but $296 $296/day Non-covered charges
drugs, X-rays, lab tests, Past 150 days Nothing Additional days after
operating and recovery Non-Medicare eligible
room, anesthesia and Medicare runs out- expenses
rehabilitation services All Medicare eligible
expenses for a policy
maximum of 365 days
SKILLED NURSING
FACILITY CARE
(including additional days 1st 20 days 100 % of cost (after a
after Medicare runs out) 3 day prior hospital
confinement)
21st-lOOth day All but $74 a $74/day Non-covered charges
day/benefit period
Beyond 100 days Nothing AU Medicare eligible All costs beyond 150
charges for 50 extra days
days
BLOOD Pays all costs except First three pints in Non-covered charges
non-replacement fees each benefit period
(blood deductible) for
first three pints in
each benefit period
Part B Physician services, 80% of allowable 20% of Medicare's $75 annual policy
MEDICAL inpatient and outpatient charges (after $75 allowed amount (after deductible· and all
EXPENSE medical services and deductible) $75 annual policy charges in excess of
supplies at a hospital, deductible·) Medicare's allowed
physical and speech amount
therapy and ambulance
BLOOD 80 % of all costs After $75 policy $75 annual policy
except non-replacement deductible·, pays deductible*
fees (blood deductible) blood deductible (first
for first three pints in three pints) and 20 %
each benefit period of allowable costs
(after $75 deductible/
calendar year)
PRESCRlYI10N Inpatient prescription All inpatient 20% of Medicare's $75 policy deductible*
DRUGS drugs, and immuno- prescription drugs. allowed amount for and all charges in
suppressive drugs during 80 % of allowable immunosuppressive excess of Medicare's
the first year following a charges for immuno- drugs during the first aUowed amount
covered transplant suppressive drugs year following a
during the first year covered transplant
following a covered (after $75 policy
transplant. deductible*/calendar
year)
* As soon as You meet Your Medicare Part B deductible, this policy will begin paying 20% of Medicare's
allowed amount.
-
Optional Protection Package
The Medicare Supplement Insurance:
Plus Plan (MPP2) offers two optional protection Medicare; Physician's charges above Medicare's
riders that help pay for common services not allowable charges; Drugs (other than prescription drugs
covered by Medicare or this policy. The'additional furnished during a hospital or Skilled nursing facility
benefits provided by the Prevention Package and stay); Dental care or dentures; Checkups: Routine
the Maximum Protection Package are as follows: immunizations; Cosmetic surgery; Routine foot care;
or the cost of examinations for eyeglasses or hearing
The Prevention Package pays up to $150 for an aids; services and supplies which are not eligible under
annual physical exam, up to $40 for an annual Medicare; services and supplies which are not deemed
vision exam, plus up to $75 every two years for Medically Necessary by Medicare; for all riders to this
prescription eyewear (sunglasses excluded). For policy, services and supplies which We deem are not
hearing care, this package pays up to $70 annually Medically Necessary; payment of services and supplies
for hearing tests and $250 every two years for which duplicate those covered by Medicare; any
hearing aids. services which You receive free of charge; any services
or supplies for the treatment of mental or nervous
The Maximum Protection Package provides all disorders beyond the number of days approved by
the benefits of the Prevention Package plus Medicare; any services or supplies not specifically set
coverage for dental exams and cleanings twice a out as a covered benefit; any services or supplies You
year. In addition, this package pays 50 % of Your receive from one of Your immediate family members;
prescription drug expenses up to $600 each year services and supplies provided by a Licensed Dietician,
on our part (subject to a $50 deductible). a Certified Special Worker-Advanced Clinical
Practitioner, or Licensed Professional Counselor.
Only one of these packages may be selected and
purchase of either the Prevention Package or Coverage is provided for care received outside the
Maximum Protection Package does affect Your United States and Skilled nursing home costs (beyond
premium. This additional charge is outlined in the what is covered by Medicare).
following premium information section.
The chart summarizing Medicare benefits only briefly
Exclusions describes such benefits. The Health Care Financing
Administration or its Medicare publications should be
Unless Medicare standards require Us to do so or consulted for further details and limitations.
an additional protection package You have
purchased for this policy specifically provides
coverage, this policy does not provide benefits for
any of the following:
Private duty nursing; Skilled nursing home care
costs; Custodial nursing home costs; Home health
care above the number of visits covered by
· 1IIBtIIIt......- ~
.
Policy Effective Date,
Renewal and Coverage
Information
Your policy goes into effect on the first day of the Additional fee if Prevention Package has been
month after You apply, and it remains in effect for selected:
one month from that date. It is then renewed Age Annual Semi-annual
automatically every month as long as You pay Monthly
Your Premiums by the due date. Premiums must 65-69 $128.00 $65. 15 $11. 02
be paid before You can receive benefits under this 70-74 $142.00 $72.28 $12.23
policy. 75-79 $163.00 $82.97 $14.03
80 plus $170.00 $86.53 $14.64
We have the right to increase this Premium at any
time in the future for all policies in Your Class. Additional fee if Maximum Protection Package has
We will not increase Your Premium for any reason been selected:
without giving You at least 45 days written notice. Age
Annual Semi-annual Monthly
You can cancel Your policy at any time by giving 65-69 $364.00 $185.28 $3 1. 34
Us written notice, and cancellation will take effect 70-74 $404.00 $205.64 $34.78
on the first day of the month after We receive 75-79 $465.00 $236.69 $40.04
Your notice. We cannot cancel Your policy, except 80 plus $485.00 $246.87 $41. 76
for non-payment of Premiums, unless You or
someone else with Your knowledge makes a We will allow a grace period of31 days for You to pay
material misstatement on an application. We can the Premiums due. If the full amount due remains
only cancel this policy for misrepresentation of the unpaid, the policy will lapse effective at the end ofthe
application if We do so within 2 years of the date grace period. Premiums are subject to change.
the policy was issued. However, We can cancel 30 DAY FREE WOK
this policy or deny any claim at any time if We
find that the information in the application or After You receive Your policy, You have 30 days in
claim is fraudulent.
which to review the Plan. Any premiums You have paid
Premiums ~ill be refunded, and no benefits paid, if the policy
IS returned to Us within 30 days.
Premiums for this Plan are as follows:
Zone 1 - zip codes starting 330-334 & 339
Age Annual Semi-annual Monthly DUPLICATE MEDICARE
65-69 $727.20 $370.14 $62.61 SUPPLEMENT COVERAGE IS
70-74 $828.00 $421.45 $71.29 COSTLY AND UNNECESSARY. A
75-79 $860 .40 $437.94 $74.08 SINGLE MEDICARE
80 plus $918.00 $467.26 $79.04 SUPPLEMENT POLICY IS
USUALLY BETTER THAN
Zone 2 - all other zip codes SEVERAL MEDICARE
SUPPLEMENT POLICIES WITH
Age Annual Semi-annual Monthly OVERLAPPING OR DUPLICATE
65-69 $666.60 $339.30 $57.39 COVERAGE.
70-74 $759.00 $386.33 $65.35
75-79 $788.70 $401.45 $67.91
80 plus $841.50 $428.32 $72.45
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER m
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # - WORKSHOP MEETING OF OCTOBER 16 1990
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDO WASTE COLLECTION SITE
DATE: October 12, 1990
The City adopted, as part of the Comprehensive Plan, a policy to
provide amnesty days, at least once a quarter, for the disposal of
household type hazardous waste, i. e. paint, paint thinner, pool
chemical containers, pesticides, etc. Last year this service was made
available to our citizens at our Public Works compound over a three
day period.
Staff has had discussions with the Solid Waste Authority concerning
the location of a permanent household hazardous waste collection site
either on City-owned property located on Lake Ida Road or at the
existing transfer station, as an alternative to amnesty days. The
nearest household hazardous waste collection site is in West Palm
Beach on 45th Street. Staff has proposed using the existing transfer
station as that site. The establishment of a collection site in the
City would afford our citizens the opportunity to properly dispose of
household hazardous materials, thus further protecting our water
supply. The Solid Waste Authority would operate the facility one day
each week as part of their overall program. There would be no storage
or disposal of wastes in Delray Beach. Waste collected here would be
transported to the facility in West Palm Beach for further processing.
Citizens would not be charged for th1.s disposal (residential uses
only) . Funds for this purpose have been budgeted in the FY 91 budget.
Staff is seeking direction from the City Commission concerning the
location of a collection site within the City.
·
SOLID WASTE AUTHORI1Y
OF PALM BEACH COL"N1Y
i501 Xorth .JO!( Road
West Palm Beach.. F10rida 33412
1'1: Icpholle ( 4Oi) 640-4000
,
September 12, 1990
-Del ray Beach Fire Dept.
101 West Atlantic Ave.
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
Attn: Wayne Yoder
Subject: Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center
Dear Lt. Yoder:
Following our telephone conversations this is to make inquiry
into the possibility of the City of Delray Beach and the Solid Waste
Authority cooperatively establishing a household hazardous waste
collection center in southern Palm Beach County. The SWA would like
to establish a collection center at the South County Transfer Station
in Delray Beach, but space limitations at the facility may not allow
this. An alternate location, within Delray Beach, would provide
convenient access to the south county residents.
The City of Delray Beach has been a valuable supporter of
previous SWA sponsored hazardous waste collections (STOP '89 was a
resounding success) . Jointly a facility can be constructed to
provide a safe, local hazardous waste drop off point open to the
public on a regular basis. The collection center will be operated by
SWA Hazardous Waste staff, as a satellite to the main Household
Hazardous Waste Collection Facility in West Palm Beach.
Specific details will need to be worked out. I believe a meeting
of principals from the City of Delray Beach and the SWA can be
arranged to discuss the options available.
I look forward to discussing this matter further in the near
future.
Sincerely,
~)f\S-31
David Gregory
Assistant Director
Hazardous Waste Services
DG/cjd
cc: Tim Hunt
Don Lockhart
Marc Bruner
WS(6
,
PRESS RELEASE
September 27, 1990
This morning a meeting was held between representatives of the City of
Delray Beach and the Solid Waste Authority to discuss a proposal to
locate a household hazardous waste collection facility in Delray Beach.
The Delray Beach site is intended to provide area residents a safe and
convenient way to dispose of household waste products such as paint,
motor oil, pesticides, surplus lawn chemicals, etc. without having to
drive to other collection centers in West Palm Beach or Belle Glade.
The facility would not be used for the collection of commercial or
industrial waste products.
The proposed center would probably operate on Saturdays on a monthly
basis, depending upon user demand. All waste accepted at the facility
would be packaged and transported to the West Palm Beach facility to
await disposal and final disposition. The facility would be staffed by
Solid Waste Authority personnel trained in the management and handling
of household hazardous wastes.
--
All part~cipants in the meeting agreed that the best location would be
the Solid Waste Authority's South County Transfer Station on Linton
Boulevard and S. W. 4th Avenue. The Solid Waste Authority will be
developing a variety of site plan proposals to present to the City over
the next several months. If the collection facility cannot be
accommodated on the transfer station site, then other sites will be
considered.
The facility would permit the community to meet stated objectives in
the recently adopted comprehensive plan and parallel last year's very
successful "Amnesty Day" program on a regular basis. Household waste
collected through this system is collected and disposed of at no cost
to the homeowner. In addition, the safe and proper disposal of
chemicals is an aid to the environment and the community. Safety risks
in the home are also reduced when surplus, or out of date chemicals,
are removed from residential uses.
~
~-r-/j~