Page2 PM - 0.25 Zoning District Ordinance AM-12-09/12-92500009

REZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (3.1 UNITS TO THE ACRE) (R-1-D) TO PLANNED MOBILITY 0.25 (PM-0.25)

The Property is currently designated Planned Mobility (PM) on the future land use map of the comprehensive plan and zoned Single Family Residential (3.1 units to the acre) (R-1-D). The Applicant is proposing to rezone the entire 77 .16-acre site to Planned Mobility 0.25 (PM-0.25).

The Property is located between single family residential units to the east and south, multi-family development to the south across Spanish River Boulevard, the El Rio Canal and the FAU Fish and Research Lab to the west, the FAU Research and Development Park to the southwest across Spanish River Boulevard, and a heavily traveled interstate (1-95) and Yamato Boulevard to the north. The Property is adjacent to a planned interchange for Spanish River and 1-95 that will substantially change the character of this part of the City. The property also lies within the flight path of the Boca Raton Airport.

As previously stated, the present R-1-D zoning district generally only allows low-density single family development. For the Applicant to be able to develop the Property with uses other than single family homes, and in a manner consistent with the PM land use classification, the City Council must ultimately adopt an ordinance establishing a new zoning district and rezone the property to that new district.

Density and Intensity (FAR) Under the Proposed PM-0.25

If the rezoning request is approved, the resulting density and intensity allowed by the the PM-0.25 district regulations will be consistent with the density and intensity permitted by the PM land use classification assigned to the Property.

Pursuant to Code Section 28-336, the maximum density imposed upon lands zoned R-1-D is 3.1 units per acre. For the 77.16-acre Property, 239 units could be constructed under the current zoning. The PM land use classification allows for additional density on the Property. Pursuant to Policy LU 1.1.6. of the future land use element, the maximum density allowed for this Property is twenty {20) units to the acre or 1,543 units. However, for any development on the Property to demonstrate planned mobility, construction of all 1 ,543 units will not be possible. Some of the allowed units will need to be developed as non-residential uses to provide the necessary mix of use that will result in planned mobility.

As for maximum intensity, Policy LU 1.1.5. allows a maximum FAR of up to 0.40 or 1 ,344,435 square feet of development; however, the PM-0.25 district proposed by the Applicant will only permit an FAR of 0.25 as a result of this rezoning application. At 0.25 FAR, the maximum total development potential of the Property is 840,293 square feet for both residential and non-residential uses.

Rezoning Traffic Analysis

For purposes of a rezoning analysis, the Applicant's traffic consultant, JMD Engineering, Inc., prepared the traffic study and estimated the trip generation for the Property based on changing the zoning designation from Single Family Residential (R-1-D) zoning designation to Planned Mobility (PM-0.25) zoning at 0.25 FAR. The analysis assumes a development scenario of 840,293 square feet (the maximum that can be developed on the Property at 0.25 FAR), consisting of:

2

Page3 PM - 0.25 Zoning District Ordinance AM-12-09/12-92500009

• 420 units at approximately 1,000 square feet per unit for a total of 420,146 square feet [the rezoning traffic analysis assumed that no more than 50 percent of the floor area would be developed as residential. At 50 percent of the maximum development potential of 840,293 square feet, it is assumed that 420,146 square feet will yield no more than 420 units (1 ,000 square feet on average including a pro rata share of common areas per unit)];

• 252,088 square feet of retail;

• 126,044 square feet of office; and

• 42,015 square feet of civic uses.

Under these assumptions, the proposed rezoning is expected to result in a potential net increase of 10,921 new external daily trips, a potential net increase of 466 AM peak hour trips and a potential net increase of 1,009 PM peak hour trips generated on the adjacent roadways as provided below:

TRIP GENERATION - REZONING University Village

Trip Generation (trips)

Scenario AM PM Daily Peak Peak

Hour Hour Existing Zoning Trips 77.161 acres: Single Family Residential, R-1-D 2,390 177 235 (3.1 DU/Acre, 239 Single Family DU) Proposed Zoning Trips 77.161 acres: Planned Mobility, PM-0.25 (420 Multi-family DU, 252,066 SF Retail, 100,000 SF 13,311 643 1,244 Medical Office, 26,044 SF Office, 42,015 SF Community Center) Net Difference in Trips (Existing Development Potential vs. Proposed 10,921 466 1,009 Development Potential)

Long Range Plan (2035) Analysis

The project traffic engineer examined the MPO 2035 traffic model for consistency and any potential failures of the roadway network with which this rezoning could have an adverse impact. The MPO 2035 model has assumed land use as currently provided in the last update and the roadway network as planned for 2035. Based upon the assumptions, findings and conclusions of the rezoning traffic analysis, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the County's 2035 long range plan.

Restricting Considerations

The traffic analysis did not assume that any financial institutions, restaurants, or hotels would be developed. With the mix of land uses included, it was assumed that there would be internalization of trips, including 15 percent of daily, 1 0 percent of AM peak hour, and 14

3

Page4 PM - 0.25 Zoning District Ordinance AM-12-09/12-92500009

percent of PM peak hour. Should the mix of uses and, in particular, the number of residential units, not be constructed as assumed, this significant level of internalization of trips will not occur.

Furthermore, the rezoning traffic analysis assumed the 77.161-acre site could generate 13,311 daily, 643 AM peak hour, and 1 ,244 PM peak hour external trips. Prior to each site plan approval, it will be a necessary requirement to determine that the overall site never generates more than these specified daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour external trip totals. Should restaurants, banks, hotels, or other land uses be proposed which generate more trips or a different mix of uses be proposed resulting in lower internalization rates, then the maximum development of the Property will need to be adjusted at the time of District Plan approval or modification (or adjusted at the time of site plan or PMD master plan consideration, if necessary) so that the external trip generation never exceeds the amount assumed in the rezoning analysis.

Palm Beach County Comments

The Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering Division reviewed the rezoning analysis and provided comments as indicated in the letter attached to this report. Comments included as part of the County review can be summarized as follows:

• Internalization rates may be modified.

• The Traffic Performance Standards ("TPS") process will address detailed traffic impacts and improvements.

• The proposed FAR appears reasonable given that the Property is adjacent to a proposed interchange.

• Site location is ideal for a transportation demand management ("TOM") plan and a park-and-ride facility (City can address at site plan approval and may require additional amenities such as a trail parking facility).

• 30 percent of traffic assigned to interchange; TPS approvals will be phased to interchange completion.

• 20 percent of traffic assigned to FAU; characteristics are favorable to fund a shuttle route to FAU and other locations.

Traffic Analysis Conclusion

The rezoning traffic analysis indicates that the proposed change in zoning designation for the 77.161-acre site will meet both the City's and Palm Beach County's level of service standards and criteria for the existing (year 2012), five-year (year 2017) and long-range (year 2035) analysis horizons.

The City's traffic engineer has reviewed the traffic analysis and concurs with its findings, determining that the proposed rezoning and PM-0.25 Ordinance are consistent with the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. The traffic engineer's report and memorandum is attached to the Development Services Department's staff report and incorporated by reference.

APPLICABLE GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

4

Page 5 PM - 0.25 Zoning District Ordinance AM-12-09/12-92500009

The City's Code of Ordinances requires that the requested rezoning be consistent with the comprehensive plan. A general review of the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan indicates that the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the Boca Raton Comprehensive Plan. There are policies in the comprehensive plan that require proposed development to be consistent with infrastructure levels, level of service standards for roadways in the comprehensive plan, and the comprehensive plan itself.

Objective LU.2.1.0 of the future land use element of the comprehensive plan states, "The City shall continue to issue development orders, or permits, only if: 1. Sufficient infrastructure exists, or is provided for in accord with provisions of the City's comprehensive plan, or will exist, concurrent with the impact of the development, to maintain adopted levels of service on infrastructure projected to be impacted by the development; and .... "

Policy LU.2.2.3 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan states, "Subsequent to the date of adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, all land use decisions in Boca Raton shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan."

Section 28-159 of the City's Code of Ordinances states, "(1) No real property shall be rezoned, and no amendment to this chapter shall be adopted, unless such action is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (2) The Planning and Zoning Board shall include in its recommendation upon any rezoning application, and upon any ordinance amending the zoning code submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board for review, a finding that the proposed action is or is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning and Zoning Board shall otherwise comply with the applicable provisions of section 23-31 et seq."

Section 23-34 of the City's Code of Ordinances, states that "in determining the issue of consistency of the Comprehensive Plan, the City Manager, the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council shall consider, among other things, the reasonableness, appropriateness and completeness of the Comprehensive plan or elements thereof relating to the development proposal or land development regulation or code under consideration."

Policy CIE.1.3.4(5) of the Capital Improvements Element states in part that "Rezonings requested not in connection with any site plan will be tested by assuming development within the time frame specified in the land use regulations at the highest density or intensity allowed by the requested zoning designation."

Comprehensive Plan policy TRAN.1.1.1 adopts LOS E for City collectors and LOS D for other roadway classifications. Comprehensive Plan Map 11, Future Number of Lanes, designates both Spanish River Boulevard and North Federal Highway as four-lane facilities. Thus, a traffic analysis was required as part of this rezoning application to demonstrate that traffic generated from the maximum development potential would not adversely impact the adopted level of service standards on the adopted roadway network in the long range plan. The analysis was required to determine if any nearby roadway links or intersections are projected to fail under the long range plan conditions (currently 2035) and whether this rezoning could have an adverse impact on any projected failures of the thoroughfare network.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ACTION

At its meeting of June 14, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously (6-0) voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the rezoning ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT

5

Page6 PM - 0.25 Zoning District Ordinance AM-12-09/12-92500009

There is no fiscal impact to the City associated with this proposed request.

Document originated by: John R. Hixenbaugh, Development Services Director

6