HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Miscellaneous_Tab B1A_10/27/1993 . ` I -� �� �
, t � � ' q• „ �
�
TRAFFIC IMPACT REVIEW STUDY
NORTHF(1f�K DEt/�EL OPti1E'NT
j�..:�-�.-, 2- �_
Pre,aar�d Jfar.�
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
357 Tequesta Drive �
Tequesta, Fiorida 33469
P�e,aa�d b�.
. �
,
Trafflc Englneering, lnc.
t)ne Cieartatce Centra, 8ulte sot
250Au�ra6an /�venue� Sa�th �
West Pa(m Bead� Ffo�fda 33401
�W7-659-8,328
.
� �
�j , . � r
, •��
�� r
�
�
�
� TRAFFIC IMPACT RF.yIEW STLTDY
� NORTNFOR]C DEVELOPMSNT
1
1
1
t
� Prepared for:
� The Village of Tequesta
357 Tequesta Drive
� Tequesta, Florida 33469
�
►
, Prepared February, 1992 by:
TRAF'FIC ENGINEERING, INC.
,
�
�
, '
F DERICK W. SCHS�iART2 � , g�
Florida Registration / 28403
r
. ,
, •�
�•�� � ��
, ,
� INTRODUCTION
t
� Thi� is a analysis portormed at the requcst ot the Village ot
Teqvesta to a�ses� the traffic impacts ot the Northfork Oevelopment
1 in extreme southern Martin County, Florida. Since the location of
Northtork is within two miles o! 'the Village o! Teqvesta limit�,
� Traffic Engineerinq, inc. was asked to ide�tiPy and evaluate the
� potential tratfic imp�+cts to the Villaqe.
1 The review ot the traffic imp�cts o! the NorthPork DeveloQment was
' based on input from severnl sources. The result is n comprehensive
review of the project impacts and potenti�l trafPia conditions in
! the area o� the Village ot Teqvesta.
�
1
1
SUMMARY
� �
� The results of this Traffic impact Review o!. the Northfork
� Development include certain conclusions regarding future traffie
conditions in the Village of Tequesta and the rel�+tive impact of
� Northfork itself. Althouqh the traffic generation from Northfork
i will certainly flow into the Vil2aqe of Tequesta, it was
demonstrated that this is siqnificantly muted by a re-orientation
� of shopping related travel which is expected to occur.
Furthermore, future conditions on Country Club Drive and Tequesta
� Drive were examined to isolate the future need for the County Line
, Connector Road.
' Yt is concluded that besides siqnificant roadway improvements�south
of Northfork !n the Palm Beach County, Northfork should participate
� in the completion of the County Line Connector Road to help remedy
' existing Martin County traffic impacts which effeet the Villaqe of
Tequesta.
� .
�
� .
� �
�
�
�
� � � •
/
� . � �
S 3
'I`RAF P I C MHTfi000I.OG1f
Since Northfork i� located in Ma�rtin Cou�ty, a traftic impact
analysis waa pertormed accordinq to the Martin County quidelines,
which difter aliqhtly from what aould be required in the Village o!
Teqvesta or by Palm Beach County. Theretore, a hybrid traFtio
methodology was developed to ide�tity �ctual traftie impacta to the
�Villaqe o! Tequesta.
�ordination�f Sour�e� e
Severa�l sources were reviewed a►nd incorpora�ted into this analysis.
The primary source was the t�orthlork Tran�nortation imoac� s*����• bY
David Plummer d� Associates in October 1991• and submitted to Martin
County. Additionally, other traftic enqineering studies and
related market analyses were reviewed.
o A market study analysis submitted with the October
1990 submission to Martin County prepared by
Sunbelt Research Associate�, Inc.
o A Kimley-Horn and Associates report for a proposed
project on the same Northfork property submitted to
Marttn County in October 1990.
o The �ithern Conne�.�o� Road Studv prepared by PRC
Harris in 198) for Hartin County. ,
These various sources of informat3on have been combined into the
analysis which is presented in this report. Also, other agencies
have reviewed the Northfork application includinq Palm Beach County
and Town of Jupiter. .
Coordination with Applican�
Over the last several weeks, the Applica�t for the Northfork
project and representatives of David Plummer � Associatea have been
very helpful and cooperative in Working aith the Village of
Tequesta representatives to Pocus on the true extent o� the traffic
impacts to the Villaqe. Several technical ite�ns havs been
addressed in these meetinqs and are reflected a� a part this
report.
2
r r � r � r r � r r ` ` � � � �► �r v� �. �► �r �r �r w �r �► .r �. � � � �- ' +
COUi ll�f� Ad •
.i
� ..� E �!
�t�wr�ov ao�t�wn' �• ' p ��:
�:. ��,
�� w � °°„� R �'
t r.
I ` A�
i .. QOIf� �� �� . ��.
................................
�� �itl
....................... .... .
.................. .. ... . _.. . .
•:.:� ::::...........::. • :.:: . ...
.. .. .
I ' �, H
. .. ..... ... ..
:::.:�:::�.....:::.._... . ._� � .
,
:•::::::. i � ar.s
... . .. .. . .. ����•�.
�on►r�►foA�r : � ` l _
.. _..
..... .
.,
..... " ��'
.... � �
.... .. . , ..
` ..., � G
.. � . �nru� cr� n�aw�ortw H
�`�.` � � �
F �.
L, � � A
T Od�
:'��'.. '.
p�wl�
O i:r.��::. ; � ._... Y
R �'�'? � p '.. ... �' � •-.
ue. p ` , � -_
.�
� � � � o � ` .__ --. ..�-' - .
s s n . =..
�¢ s Ro�Oipk Ao�d �
� : j
R � ° •• " . .....� :........ ..... ... .. ,,_
�ar c�orpr�rr••�' - • �
P :••• ,.; anww�..c
f ,c ��; � m
�
INDU►Mi'ONVN ROAD
; � � �
.; �
� <
�-�.�r;.: �,,,,,, � .,,� m
. • •�'� � `
. ~� � � �
� /�/DRTHFOR/�'
„�, ,�,�,,,,,,,� ,� Location Map
.as.�r-rwr Figure �
' •� ' , ' , � RsvsaN or ��IC x�r�►cr ,►rc,wYsis
! Y
Several i�aue� were presented in the Plummer'� ana�y�i� ahich do
not serve to �dequately address the traffic impacts in the Village
o� Teqvesta. �or example:
o Tra►f�ic generation estimates, with respect to the
level o! pass-by capture, aere under e�timated.
' o Distribution �nd a►ssiqnment ot project traffic to
the surrounding roadway network under estimated tha
� potentinl impacts on Country Club �rive and
Tequest� Drive.
' o impact area analyzed waa too small to include dll
� roadways which will absorb project related traffic,
especially those in the Villaqe of Tequesta.
�
Assumptions and methodologies related to each of the three areas
� were readdressed by Traffic Engineering, Ine., With siqnificant
�
input from the Villaqe, the Applicant and David Plummer.
Specifically:
� .
o A more reasonable estimate of traffic generation
1 was calculated based on revised pass-by capture
' assumptions.
� o A reassessment of project traffic distribution and
assiqnment was undertaken usinq a qravity model and
1 market research o� both the residential and
! commercial elements of the Northfork site.
j o A revised impact area was determined to more
adequately include an analysis of the net traffic
� impacts to the Villaqe ot Tequesta. .
, Each of these items were also pointa of concern expressed in a
� letter from Palm Beach County dated February 4, 1992. This letter
and other correspondence from Palm Beach County is included in
� Appendix �►. In some cases, adjusEinq these input assumptions and
' methodologies resulted in signfficantly diflerent conclusions.
Each of the three issuea addressed above will be the subject of
> following sectiona o� thi� report.
� 5 ' -
� �
�
�
�
. , � ,
��• . .,
' �� TRAFFIC CHNERIITION
The David Plummer report calculated the external traftic that would
� be generated trom the proposed Northfork site to be 6,956 daily
� , trips. Exhibit 6A trom the report 112ustrate� the result� ot these
calculations and is included in Appendix e.
� �
� ,�nt�rn�►li�ation
� The Plummer report estimated the percent of Korthtork that will be
satisfied on site. Speciticdlly, the Pollowinq reductions and
' tot�l traltie generationa were applied to account !or this
�
internalizations
� 0 20 percent ot the residential traffic,
� 0 20 percent ot the Northfork retail trips, .
� 0 15 percent of the office traf Pic and,
► •
0 60 to 65 percent of the recreational trips.
' Although Palm Beach County questions some of these assumptions, it
� is felt that they accurately reflect the internalization expected
� from the Northfork Development.
► Pass-Bv Capture
� Pass-by traffic relates to the phenomenon that a significant
� percentaqe of traffic to a well-Iocated retail center is simply
captured from traffic already passing by the site and is not new
I traffic. Plummer assumed that 62 Qercent of the retail related
, trips were to be captured from traffic passing by on the new
Central Bou2.evard Extension.
�
However, pass-by capture can be applied only to the exten� that it
! accounts for 25 percent of the passinq traffic. Since only 2,005
� daily trips are exp�cted on the Central Boulevard extension in
1998, {not fnc2uding traffic qenerated fro�a the Northfork,
� Development) pass-by traffic must be 2imited to only 501 trips.
This increases tha totnl external traffic qeneration from Northfork
/ ;to 7,519 daily tripa.
� 6
1
1
1
�
. ,
�' , '
` • ' , CRJ►VITY MODBL FOR OI5TRIBUTION
� .
' A qredt dea►1 of eftort wA� put into the reassessment oF the
� distribution oi Northfork project traftic to the surroundinq
, roadway network. Severdl hours o! meeting� were held r+ith the
Applicant to refine a gravity model for diatributio�.
�
� pis �b�.,�lon o� NoFthtork Trirs
� This gravity model focused o� each of the trip purposes of the
Northfork project including:
�
� o Trips produced froca the Northfork residential �
component to neighborhood retail in the aren.
1 �
o Trips produced from the Northfork residential
� portion of the site to other regional attractions.
� o Trips being attracted to the Northfork retail
� component of the site.
� o Trips being attracted to the Northfork office and
recreation uses of the site.
1
� The details of this gravity model are illustrated in Figure 2 and
supported by tables and other figures found in Appendix C.
�
� R�-�rientation of Tria�
� Presently trips on Country Club Drive are from the surroundinq
resfdential area. A significant percentaqe of these home-based
� trips are oriented towards retail uses for the purpose of shopping.
�• The absence ot any shoppinq opportunities nearby makes it necessary
for these drivers to travel up to five railes for even the most
� convenience-oriented shopping purpose.
1 Applying the gravity model developed for this report demonstrates
, that the introductioa ot retail uses on the Northfork Deve2opment
will attract shoppfnq related trips from residential uses in the
� area. The net traffic impacts from the Northfork project will be
discussed in the next section.
�
� �
�
�
�
�
�
�
.
�
�
a �
--� o
� �o
� v �i
�� �
�- �
� �
� �
. �
�
t
t
1
�
..�., ' 1,
ti ==�..o =•
h - �-=_ =_.�._.
,
'� � . ' NST TR�IFFIC IlKpACTS
•.,
� .
f
� Tho potentidl traflic impact� from the Korthtork Dovelopment aill
bo felt on.Covntry Club �rive �nd Tequesta Drive i� the village ot
� Tequesta. 'rhe magnitude will ba a combination ot two elements;
f
o The adverse imp�ct� o! additional traffic Prora
) Korthtork attracted to uses �long U.S. 1.
� o The beneticial eftects ot d rs-orientatio� ot tzips
� now using Tequesta Drive which will satisfy their
trip purposes at Northtork.
i
� in order to calculate the net traftic impacts, these two elements
have been annlyzed separately.
�
Impacts From Addi�ional Traffiq
1
The results of the gravity model analyses, as previously discussed
� and supported by tables and figures in Appendix G, is that 1,215
� trips of the Northfork traffic,will be attracted to the north and
east and Nill be drawn across the island Way bridqe. This is
� equivalent to approximately 16 percent ot the total external
' project traffic generation. �
! The allocation of these trips to Country Club Dri�ve and Tequesta
Drive is illustrated in Fiqure 3. Zt shows that impacts to Country
) Club Drive just south of Island Way are expected to be
y approximately 710 dai2y trips. This decreases on links further
south and east so that Tequesta Drive is expected to experience 431
� additional daily trips from the Northfork project.
1 The Effect of Re-oriented Tripg
� The introduction of a retail center at the Northfork site will
� attract a certai� percentage of the home-based shopping trips in
the area and re-orient them from their present travel along Country
� Club Drive and Tequesta Drive. Detai2ed calculations of this
i phenomenon are included in Appendix D and illustrated in Figure 4.
� The net traffic impacts range from 1,132 trips on Island Way to 110
trips on Tequesta Orive.
i
� 9
�
�
1
�
�
�
�
�
�
S�. �
�0
���
��Z
w� �
�o
Central BNd.
Afternate A1
�
�
t
�
t
�
�
i
�
s
�
�
�
�
�
�
1
1
�
,
.
�
,
,
,
,
�
' � ,
� , .
�
., �- �. � 0 .3._ V=�.�.�__•
h
� r r r � � � • r r ` �r w �. � .r .. �. � � .� � �. � � � _ � - . � -
Llm Aa. •
�� F .I -
� • NE? TRIPS ON UNK E .` �
��:
p��� al ..;"'• E i,!
._.:'. R i; �
. _ •, C u A �i
�, A L ; �
.. � A�
; �' � cwKy un. Ao.s H I�i
. .w.m..a,.n . . �U►
.:' '�.•...., � ... ' ..t G
:;�:ii�?:�r?�}::::i::;i,': >:i: � �:
..NOH77NfOl�A' ..•�:` K�S
: �..,�, � , W
.;:��y.::::;.: �, 1 .
F � ; �� � A
L , i : Y
� , T o�w. - �
O
� .�v��..�.
�4
............ ...... ...... ...
..................::::::.:.. ..........
............................ ..........
........................... ........ .... ...
.......................... ..... ......
........................ ............... .. .
. R ';;;� � ..... - ' '�...
�i� IM.M � p ����� �� j o � .. . � � . .
� � � � : • - .._... - � '_�
�� °
S ' n '
� � Ro�biwk Ro�d '
� . �
R � � _ ......� , ....:::..._.... '-..._ _..--- --- --_ .
. P anwa� ,,�.: .. �� _
1 .. �..•� m
.�.. Q
IND(/1!Y'�41NN ROAO
_. � � �
: 2 � '�
'�"�=:�s �` m }- Q
m
• �
' � �
� /�/ORTHFOR/�
„� �,,,,,,,�,� ,�, Ne�i Traffic lmpacts
wAS-�•�oar Figure 4
' . ' '. , CONSIDBRATIONB ON Z'BQiTal�T11 pRI1I�
, .
Even more important than the potenti�+l tratt'ic impacts from
Northfork is the dbility Eor the Villege ot Tequesta to maintain
� acceptable level o� service on Tequesta Drive. This is potentially
, very important within the context o! concurrency. The Villaqe
needs to maintain the ability to approve fUture developmenta, but
' it is equally critic�l to con�ider the operdting condition� tor the
�
existing citizens o! Tequeata.
, �xis�in4 Conditions
' To better understand the conditions throuqhout the Country Club
�
Drive and Tequesta Drive corridor, tr�tfie counts were collected by
Traffic Engineering, Ine. in Februnry 1992. The following table
� summarizes these traffic counta.
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNT$
PEA1�C SFJ►.50N 1992
VILLAGB OF TEQUBST�
Da1Iy Traffic
Countrv Club Driv� Yechiles Per Dav, vpd
North of Island Way 3,131
Island Way to County Line 3,608
County Line to Tequesta Drive 5,958
Tequesta Driv� �
East of Country Club Drive 8,$18 �
East oE Seabrook Road 11,355 (1)
� West of Dixie Niqhway i4,9b2 (2�.
� village of Teavesta LOS "D" Threshol�
' 2 Lane 15,300
4 Lane Divided 32,500
(t) Based on the Villaqe_of Tequesta count taken on April 3, 1991
' (2) Based on the Palm Beach County count taken February 1Z, 1991
12
�.�. ' .. . . dnnl�rs�i � �xi■t1�� .�tnsii���
, �
Sever�l interestin9 conclu�ions can bs draNn trorn a preliminary
analysi� ot the�e existinq tra�ftic count ddta relative to level ot
service and traPtic composition.
o Good levels ot service exiat durinq the peak se�son
along Country Club Drive and on Tequesta Drive.
o Peak season counta on Tequeata Drive, east o!
SeAbrook Road (11,355 vahiclea per day) repre�e�ts
74 percent o� the Level o! Service "D" thre�hold.
o TrdPfic which crosses the County Line trom Martin
County (5,958 daily trips� composes 40 percent o!
ths traf=ic volumas o� Teque�ta Orive weat o! Dixie
Highway.
o The traffic which is qenerated trom Island way and
north o! 2sland Way in Martin County (3,608
vehicles per day) composes 2� percent of the
traffic volumes on Tequesta Drive, west ot Dixie
Highway.
These conclusions are important in ev�aluating future roadway needs
in the Tequesta and Martia County areas.
Fj��ure Conditions
It can be expected that the two lane section of Tequesta Drive,
east of Seabrook Road may be over capacity on a peak season basis
wfthin the next ten yeara. Thi� is based on potential growth in
the area which will add traffic to Tequesta Drive, includinq
buildout ot approved project� in Martin County and luture
developments from within the Village of Tequesta and elsewhere in
Palm Beach County.
it must be noted that projects in Martin County which will impact
the vfllaqe of Tequesta in the future were given approvals prior to
the 1985 Grawth Manaqement �1ct and implementation o! current local
Comprehensive Plans. The Yillage of Tequesta �houl� maximize the
communica�ions called for fn the.interqovernmental Coordination
Elements ot the Comprehensiva Plana to control and mitigate future
traffic impacta lrom developments outside the V112aqe.
.
13
• � . ,
� � SkudY �►rea G nti�aratien�
A� mentioned, this �tudy was performed u�inq a hybrid methodology
developed ,to mosti accuratoly asses� tr�ftic impacts trom the
' Northtork Development. TeqvestA Orive ahould be included in the
, study aren for several redso��:
� o The Pa►2m Bedch County Trditic Pertormance
Sta�ndarde, Ordindnce 90-40 a�llowa the County
� Sngi�eer to expand the study area bnaed on
, qenernlly �+ccepted trattic engineering principlea.
The County's concern is exPreaaed in their February
� 4, 199Z letter.
� o Mdrtin County guidelines bnsed on peak hour impacts
, would require that this link be included in the
study area.
o The Villaqe ot Tequesta� and Martin County
Comprehensive Plana call for inter-governmental
coordination and assesment ot traffic impacts from
developments in adjacent jurisdictiona. .
Therefore, Tequesta Drive considerati�ons should be a part of the
traffic analysis for Northfork.
� 14
9 • P
' ' ' � � KBCOt4�8NDSD ROJ1D1iAY IMPROYt�'I'a
'
� Certain roadwey improvements will bo necessary to mitigate the
lmpACts From the Northfork project. These includo improvements
' which are needed to;
�
o F�cilitate and encourage a�ccess to the south to
� Indiantown Road, and
� o To maintain fuEure level or service within the �
� Village ot Tequesta.
► imprQVement in the Palm Bea�� County
� Both the Plummer and Traftic Engineerinq, Inc. analyse� concluded
� that the following roadway improvements are necessary;
� o Extension of Central Boulevard through Northfork to
Island Way.
••o•� Extension of Longshore Drive to intersect with the
Central Soulevard extension.
o Construction of a four lane divided Central
Boulevard from south of the C-18 Canal to Church
Street, including the necessary bridqe widening.
o Signalization at the intersection of Central
Boulevard and Church Street.
These roadway improvements are illustrated on Fiqure 5. They are
consistent with the David Plummer's report and correspondence from
Palm Beach County related to the 1990 Northfork application which
is found in �►ppendix A. They are also critical to attracting trips
to the south frorn Northfork and thereby reducing impacts from
Nortbfork to the Village of Tequesta.
Improvements for the Villave of Te�uesta
• Roadway improvementa !or the Villaqe of Tequesta are needed so that
the Vi.11aqe can mafntain acceptable operating conditions and still
accommodate tha impacts frora futuro approved and proposed
development in the V112aqe and Martfn County to the north.
1S '
�
�
�
i
�
� �
�
�
3
� �i
�. �
� � �
m y
� �
N �
K O
3 �
�
�e
ti � s . . o �_ ��'-i— • .
h `
0
�
�
�
i
�
f
1
1
�
�
�. �
,
CONNECTOR ROAD 1►LTERNJ1TIYiL
It is not desirable to expand Tequesta Oriva to accommodate tuture
traffic volumes identified in a previou� aection ot thi� report.
� The expansion would violate community goals and objectivea
expressed in the Comprehensive Pl�n nnd Would severely lmpdct
� adjacent propertie�, 'rhe coat would be extremely high.
� Furthermore, a full expansion to tour lnne aould provide an �sseas
ot capncity over wha►t would be needed, even in the ulttmate
' buildout conditions.
� Therefore, it is desirable to investigate �lternative improv�ments
� which aould benefit the Teqvesta Orive corridor. The County Lin�
Connector Road is a feaaible alternative to the exQansion ot
� Tequesta Drive Eor several re.asona. �1 very thorough study aas
� prepared on this issue by PRC Harris in 1981. Additionally, more
timely conditions support the alternative improvement to County
, Line Connector Road instead of Tequesta Drive.
' o There are many approved dwellinq units in Martin
� County in the immediate area o� the Connector Road.
� o Martin County has funded the desiqn of thia
connection in their Capital Improvement Plan.
�
o Zf adequate right of way can be acquired,
� construction cpst would be approximately �300,000.
�
o The Connector Road would siqnificantly reduce
► traffic volumes through the Little Club
� development.
)' Moreover, indicationa from a analysi� . performed by Traffic
Enqineerinq, Inc. for this report are that there is a potential for
� approximately 6,000 exfsting and future trips to be diverted to the
� County Line Connector Road. This 4rould relieve tbe future traflic
impacts on Tequesta Drive and Country Club Orive within the Villaqe
� of Tequesta by more than 2,000 daily tripa.
� Although this diversion could be quantified more precisely, it
� seems qufta reasonable from a professional traffia engineering
standpoint, that siqnificant benefits can be realized from the
t .
17 �
1
i
1
.
�. '
�i � conatruction o! this Conneckor Rodd. Caiculation• pra:snted
earlier e�timated that up to 10 percent ot Tequesta Drivs trattic
� is lrom Martin County. There need� to be a Mdrtin County roadway
� serving this area.
1 'rherefore, it is recommended that Northfork Development participate
, in Punding for the conatruction o� the County Line Connector Roed.
This could take the torm o!;
1
o �esponsibility !or actual conatruction o! the
� roadway, or
� o A commitment that trattic impdct teea be applied to
� thia improvement.
� The traf f ic impact fees from the Koithlork Developanenti nre expected
' to be approximately 5450,040, which would be in excess ot the
preliminary construction estimates for the roadway.
►
It may be appropriate to draft a tri-Qarty agreement among Martin
1 County, Palm Beach County and the Villaqe o! Tequesta to ensure
' that impact fees from the Northfork Development be committed to the
completion of the County Line Connector Road. The benefits to
� residents of each of qovernments will be siqnificant.
�
�
}
�
1
�
�
i
� .
�
�
�
. 1 8
�
�
�
/ +
� , � • ,
�� 9 CONCLUSION
1
� 'rhis report represent� an a�nalysia ot the Northtork transportation
impact study and det�ils certain essumption� which result in the
► potential trafPic impacts of the pro�ect beinq under estimated,
� especially on Country Club Drive �nd Tequeate Drive. These
assumptions are related to traftic generdtion, distribution a�d ths
� extent o! the atudy �rea. This report includes a revised nnnlysis
adjustinq each o! the assumptione.
1
� Recommended improvement� which will mitigate traflie impacts to tha
villaqe of Teqvesta and other parts o! P�slm Beach County include:
�
o Extension ot Central eoulevard thzough Northtork to
� Island Way.
o Extension of Longshore Orive to intersect with the
Central Boulevard extension.
o Construction of a�• four lane divided Central
Boulevard from south of the C-18 Canal to Church
Street, including the necessary bridqe wideninq.
o Signalizatlon at the intersection ot Central
Boulevard and Church Street. �
o Participation in the fundinq of the construction of
the County Line Connector Road.
These improvements wfll mitigate the traffic impacts in the area
from the Korthfork Development and will provide for future level of
service on Tequesta Drive in the Villaqe oF Tequeata. Furthermore,
the Connector Road aill provide a road in Martin County which will
serve residents of Martin County, Palm Beach County and the Villaqe
of Tequesta.
19
.� . �
i � '
.� �
�
�
�
1
�
APPENDIX � A
Patm Beach County Correspondence
O Letter dated January 24� 1991
O Letter dated February 4� 1992
;
�
_ ;
�
;
i
�
_ i
,
I
�
�
�
.. �
.
i
r.s�► Eno� �+�t �
, �rc�a T �t�tcut t h�ir Cou�t�r Adm(ni�tr�to�
���tole '�'h�11�Pf. �'Ice � 'h��r ��n �1'�nrsn
, '►rAl ,�. Rohertt
��rol �. Elmqu��t
�/f1 ��C�Jf(� `� Q� urp�riment A1 Fn�in�
�J' � �n4 Nubl�c �� �,1,
'Cfl fi)�(ff .. (�,
��ude t��>rd lre C ;
� January 24, 1991 c ��� �,'��,
1
, J. Scott Nerrin9
Ctv11 fngineer Ii
i Martin County Engineering Department
2401 S.E. Monterey Roid
� Stuart, Florld� 34946
� SUBJECts COUNTY ItNE COUHTRY ClUB PUO PROJECT PROPOSED 8Y
OEYEIOpER JOfiN PALACE IN MARTIN COUNTY
� Oear Mr. Herring:
� In res onse to our letter of Oecember 19,
P Y 1990, ! have reviewed the traffic
� impact analysls for the above mentioned proJect.
, I am in 'agreement with the conclusion of the report that the follo�ing three
roadway improvements �re necessary to maintain an acceptable traffic level-of•
, service: .
� l� Construct 2-lane Central Boulevard extension from current terminus ,just
north of 4lashington Street north to Island Kay along a corridor approved
by both the Palm 6each County and Martin County Engineering Oepartments.
2) Construct 4-lane divided Central 6aulevard from existing 4•lane terminus
,�ust south of the C•18 Canal north to Church Street (including the bridge
over the C-18 Can�lj.
3) Pay for cost of signalization when r+arranted at the intersection of Central
Boulevard and Church Street.
41e appreciate your transmittal of this pro,�ett to the Palm 6each Caunty Traffic
Oivision for review and w111 be happy to continue to work with you on any further
consideration of this pro,�ect in the future.
Sincerely,
OFFICE 4F TtfE C4UNT �fNGI ER
.,-.�. •
.
� Allan A. Ennis. .f., AICP
development Revfew Engineer �
Traffic Division .
AAE:sb .
file: S/0 "C Misc' zae�Countln
"An Equsl Opponunitr • �ftirmativs �et{on �enp�o�a"
BOX 2129 WEST �ALM aF/►CH. FI.�RtDA 33<02•2�2! (407� 654..4ppp
a+�re a+.rcrNea o�or+
�
. B���rd of Cou�tv Commii�l�nc�t
• � ?�C�IVEO Countr Admini�t��t
� F:,�r.�n 1'.' �t�r�•u•, l'hair �
��',t���l�� I 'h�fl�p. . �'i��� l'hai► F E B - 6 1992 i �n �1,�u� �,
� t'�rul \ K��h.�r�•
� l��r��� � I Imyuiei ra��tir �ti��tiE�a ��G ����
\I,�r� �i� l��rt� `, �3 ��p�rVncnl o( Enqliic�nn�
� !��•n I ��•���t �, ! �nd AubUc Work�
\�.lu���' � ����� � �'t' r.
. • ...
, �. r+
V
t february 4, I992 ����,
t
► J. Scott Herring
Civil Engtneer lt
� Marttn County Enqfneering Department
2401 S.E. Monterey Road
Stuart� Florid� 34996
SUBJECTs NORTHFORK (SECTION 28) TRANSPORTATJON IMPACT REDORT DATE� OCYOBER ll,
1491
♦
Dear Mr. Nerrinq:
The Palm Beach County Engineering OePartment has reviewed a traffic report
prepared by David Plumner d� Associates for the proposed Northfork development
in Marti� County. The conclusions of this report are similar to another report
that was done by Ktmley-Horn and Associates for this same site whlch you
requested us to review about one year ago. However, the most recent proposed
development on the Narthfork site rvauld increase the number of housing units by
about 2b0 to $.�Q� increase the retail area by 5400 square feet (s.f.j to S00
s.�, and add ZSOOO�.f,, of office space.
The following conments are offered for your conslderation in evaluating this
report:
1) It is stated that 25% of total trips would remain on site as "internal
trips'. However, this does not see�a likely, given the relatively small
amounts of retail and offtce develapn�ent proposed and given the fact that
home-based work and shopping trips constitute � large percentage of daily
tripmaking. The consuliant should be required to �ustify this assumotion
with a breakdown of internal and external trfps by purpose for the
development. �
2j Patm Seach County uses a trip generation rate of 7.0 trips per day for
multi-famity restdentiil and prefers�the use of the formulas in the ITE
"Trip Generation' (5th Edittonj book in calculating tne retail and office
traffic.
3j The pass-by trips of 1064 per day for the 25000 s.f. retail center
constitute almost 54x of its total trip qener:tion and over 26.5% of the
. diverted �existinq+backqround} tr�ffic on the raadrray through Korthfork.
Both of these percentages exceed the maximuras narmatiy permitted by Pala�
. 6each County wlthout further �ustificatton.
: 'M Equal Opportunity • AftLmaUv�e Actbn Empf°Yer
Sor ZI�Z9 W'E.9T PAI.�d B�iCH. ff.OAIDA S34Yd-14�� (40� 6g�..4ppp
, i. �• '
. ..
� � ` � Pag� tw0
t 4) The pro�ett tr�ffit Oistrtbution is heavily skeweC tow�rd tne Centr�l 81vC
� Extenslon/Church Street route (see attacheC Exhibit 1 from the report),
Further �usttfication ts necessary, In our opinion� for assigntng 85y of
� the traffic to thts roadway when three other possible access potnts exlst:
longshore/Northfork Orive, loxahatchee Rtver Road a�d tsland Way/Country
� Club Orive. Some of these other �ccess points provide shorter drlvtng
Qlstantes to other retall/ employment/recreatton areas.
� Also� 1t 1s not clear from the report whether the appllcant is proposlnq
; to construct the Centr�l Blvd. Extension (whlch does not extst at the
present tlme). The constructlon of thls roadway wou14 have to be comnitted
� slnce the appllcant ts relyinq upon tt as his primary source of access.
� S) P�1m 6each County staff agrees that no t.r�fftc capacity problem will
probably develop on Country Club Ortve with the approval of thls
� development (�s conctuded by the "Northfork (Section 28) Country Club Orive
Oetailed Analysis Report" prepared by Oavid Plummer � Associates on October
� 21, 1991). Nowever, it may be appropriate to extend the analysls area
beyond the normal radius of development influence because the pro,�ect
� trafflc would not disperse to any great extent until it reaches the
commerclal areas at Tequesta Orive/ Old 01xie Nighway and Tequesta
� Drive/U.S. 1. Given the htgher traffic volumes (a 1991 year ADT of 12266)
on Tequesta Orive, there may be difficulty 1n meeting the appltcable
� traffic standards. This concluston was reached by traffic consultant
Frederlck W. Schwartt, P.E. in his January 10� 1492 tetter (copy attached)
� to Mr. Scott ladd of tfie Village of TeQuesta.
f 6) Normally the Patm Beach County Engineering Department does not review
traffic reports (such as the Northfork reports that were prepared by Oavid
� Plummer 3► Associates, Inc.j that are � signed and sealed by a
professional engineer.
�
� Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning these
comments. .
� Sincerely,
� OfFICE OF NE COUNTY EN NEER
/ �
e
.
� Allan A. Enn1s, P.E., AICP
� Development Review Engineer
Traffic Oivision
� cc Palm Beach County Commfssioner Karen T. tiarcus, Chair (rv/attachments�
� George T. webb, P.E.. Palm Beach County Engi�eer (w/attathmentsj
thomas 6. Brzdford, Vitlage Manager� Yiliage of ?equest�
� K� nneth 61air, Section 28 Partnership, Northfork Oevelopment, ttd.
v�rederick M. Schwartz, P.E., President, Traffic Engineering, Inc.
� Kahart Plnder, Qavid PTunmer � Associates, Inc.
� Fite: S/0 "Northfork' N:�a�e�lorhtfor -
i
f
�� ; • .
�
�
� I
�
�
�
�
�
�
�— .
' � APPEND/X B
�
�
� Excerpts from P(ummer Report
1 � . '
1
' ..
� i
:
, ;
� ;
)
� ;
�
)
� '
. i
�
�
) �
� .
r�sA�. En,vMwf� I,re
�
�
-_�.
. �
�
. �
EXHIE3IT 6A �
NORTHFORK (SECTION 28)
AOJUSTEO DAILY TRIP GENERA7lON
NET NEw
INTERNAI. EXTCF�NAL PASS-BY EXTERNA�
LAND USE INTENSITY TOTA(. TRlPS (1) TRIPS 1NTERNAL aib TA(PS TRtPS TRlPS
.� - ----�- - --
Si�fl(e-Famity
Residenttat 450 �lJ's 4500 891 20�i6 3609 --- 3609
Multi-Family
Restdential . 400 DU'S 2240 4a3 2pq�, � 7g� --- � 79�
RetaU 25,000 SF 2�a5 429 20�ib 17i6 1064 (2) 652
w OftfCe 25.000 SF 443 6g � So�a 377
--- 377
Golt Course 187 Acres 893 536 60�.�6 357 �
357
; Tennis 14 Cou�ts a67 �303� �Sg �� W
� � lGa
10688 2668 25% 8020 t064 6956
(1) See Eachibii 5.
(2) Source: Institute ot Transporiation Enc�ineers (1TE7, �Trip Gcncration�, Sth Edition _ pau_py ot 629t�
dete�mined trom in('T).-p,341 Ln(x).5.376 tor the PM Peak Hour, Pass
. esttmated as 109�6 tess than the PM Peak "� ��'�'^9 otAer t�ours �s
. period.
Northtor.wkl
EXiilOti' 6C
NORT}1FORK (SECTION 28)
AQIUST�O PM PEAK NOUR TA(P GENEi�A710N
TOTA� TR1PS (t) INTERNA� TRIPS N � N �
EXTERNAL TRIP$ PASS-BYTRIP$ EXTEAN�� TRiP$
UlNO USE IIVTENSIIY (N OUT TOTA� IN OUT 70TA� !N p(�T TOTAI, t(y
� '� _''°" � � � � __ __ OUT 70TA IN OV? T
�. -- —
l�iM�O�ftisl 4S0 DU'i 310 167 477 54 32 86 256 135 391
--- --- --- 256 t3S 191
tufuit!-Family
�W�Mw 400 DU's 112 63 175 19 13 32 93 50 ts3 ---
--- --- 93 50 lt3
AM� 2S.00O SF 98 99 19� 19 20 39 79 79 • 158 S7 57 t ls (� ?2 ?2 s�
�A Onk� ?5.000 SF 10 50 60 i 8 9 9 a2 St --- ---
--- 9 �? S�
Gott COUti� 187 ACts� 15 58 73 9 35 t� 6 23 29 ---
--- --- 6 y3 2y
T�� 14 C9urts 2s 76 40 16 i0� � g 6 ta ---
�"" �"�." �� �.. --- ---
. "°ao� ame� a..raa a,.Q, m� • ,o�a 8 6 t �
569 453 1022 118 118 236 a51 335 786 57 57 tla 39a ?78 �2
(1) SM FxAl01t S.
C-0 �+rc�: tTE.'T<<p G�nWatlon•. S�n Ea�cion - Pau -by or �2�,� aecerm�neo rrom
� �a��'�p �qwtlon: Ln(7).-0.3ttln(x).5.376.
1!1orMfor.wkt
1
.�
/ ,' �
� NORTHFORX Ot`sYELOPMEN'r
� Di�tribution By Trip Purposa
� � Prep�red tor The Village of Tequesta
� Diat. Diatribution
� Inten�ity (n�i.) �actor Percent Trips
�=rs�s����s��a����r�sar�s����r�rs��w�i
�
Northfork Re$idential to Neiqhborhood Ret�+il �►DT-649
i
1�. US 1 and Tequesta 653 s! S.Z 2�.1 22� 146 i
� B. Indian Creek Area 39 6 s! 3.0 44.0 41� 26S
C. Indiantown Rd Strip 411 s! 3.7 30.0 28i� 181
� D. Indiantown Rd 0 1►lt A1 �► 323 s! S.9 9. ! 9� S7
107.6 100� 649
1
Northfork Retail from Local Residential AUT=1,215
�
A. Martin County 1,891 du 2.4 342.4 31� 377 1
� B. North of River 607 du 3.0 67.4 6� 74 1
C. South of River 1,592 du 1.9 427.4 39� 470
� D. Island oP Jupiter 267.du 1.0 267.0 24� 294
1,104.3 100� 1,215
�
Northfork �ffice from Local Residential ADT =377
1
A. Martin County 1,891 du 2.4 342.! 31� 11,7, 1
� B. North of River 607 du 3.0 67.4 6t 23 1
C. South of River 1,592 dv 1.9 427.4 39i� 146
� D. Island of Jupiter 267 du 1.0 267.0 24� 91
1,104.3 100� 377
1 i
Northfork Recreation from Local Residential ADT=521
;
� 1,891 du 2.4 342.4 31� 162 1 ;
1�. Martin County
� B. North of River 607 du 3.0 67.4 6� 32 1 ;
C. South of River 1,592 du 1.9 42'f.4 39� 202 I
� D. island o! Jupiter 267'du 1,0 267.0 24� 126 �
1,104.3 100� SZ1 �
�
� Northfork Residential to Regional Areas ADT=4,757
1 �
�►. North and East via 2sland Way 6� 285 1
� B. South to Indi�ntown Rd 9�� 4,472
, 140� 4,757
� Assignment to Island Way Bridge 1,215 Trips
Percent o� total (7,519 trips) 16�
� ADT • Avarage Daily Traffic
� t= Assiqnment to Ialand Way Bridqe 2/04/92
�
r.�i � �
,
�
1
r/ �► V 'V rI /1► � �M y � � �► � � � .r .. � � .. � ... .� � �r .�r � �r � �.. � �► - �►
���1
u�. �a •
F .'�
. p �'
. .. � -� � R ,��
. � � .� � o
� M�,► „� . � ;
. � � n�
r
. • �.� .
:_.. .._:_..___.._. ..Cio�a._...-° 1�11o�e `I
' . ' � • . � !
� G �r r r
NOI►7N� � � � � H
.
, , . ' A
L � i ' y
O ' � T w»
R ' .
.���._. D _......._� . ; n . .
� s " �'
s �� ^ b
� n°.a�a` no.s
� , 1
U �»` p �
R 2"'c . . • x
: p ��.� � A
' . � �:
^ 1N OWN ROAD ==:�:=::=:
b � � :�;
.. ............
c � � m ~ a►
� � �
� � li - �
-�
/�/4RTHFQR/�C
,,..,, ,�,,,,,� ,�„� Trip Distribuiion to Reiail
'�'� P�B,o�ave+d /� Y/LLAGE OF TEl�Of/E'STi�
\��`�\ � '�\�� ���� \ \�� � �`�
\��\\ ��\\ \����\ � ��� ��\���
�:;: ��\ �\ ��\\�`���\\\�`�����\
'i � �. ��� �� �\�;, \� \� •
;>:,. � . �\`. ����'� � �
� �:�: � �\�\\\ \\��::;�\° ,,���\�
;� �� ` �\\�a��; \ �\ \:� :;\, • :�`��\�
> � i � f r ��� " �� . \ \ \\
��� !!i% , rf- ���'�� � �u � �\
ra �r
�%ii'�� > r- �\� \ \ � \� " ��
!tri �� .a, � � ,����:
laa:>�:. ��� � \
i "r>! , ; : :.: \ � �:� � � :�':3:>".
, l�i :..��. _� • � . ,.
����
�� � ��, .
...s o \ ' :
�� , ;
. o ��� - .
.
,
�� ���
..., --� a
� '
.
.,�: ..,*�.
:
--- --- -- . • - • � •
.
,.
. � � � .
_ • � • • � • -
:.- :. . • �.
t �.,,.
i ?
APPEND/X D
Calculations of Re-oriented Trips ;
,
i
_ �
`
�
�
�
�
i
I
i
i
i
,
�
• �
I
. . _ I
�
I
TisAxe EnpAt� I�t
1 •
�. , ' � .�;;'08��.01 �Ev\S� dy � i
� �� � ��ORTN�'OEt}; nE1 ELOP�IE\1' ��" 9 '
� Ti�i� U�tribut(on br Purpose
� tt'1�ed on �fr�p U��trihution f'r��p�red tur �he � �Ilage of Teque�ta►
E X l S"C 1 N(� 11 t� X, -� �
� \'cighborhood Rc�idcntial lo \'ci�f�b�ri�ood Retail
� ni5lai�cc
� J��te►►sity (�fi.) Factor PerCCnt Trips
----- _----_�..::_�_,s� aa ----
` �- _---- �....--�._---
.�. ���1'1U] ��ODUt1 3�3
� L'S 1 and Teque�-ta 6S3 }�SF l,g .anT� �"'
33.3 %O.U�'o :6a ( I � �.�
� ;o�ian Ccc'ek Ar� 396 }:.S1� �..J 13.6 Il.��+ � �;► :.
u�d��n;oKn Ro�d Strip �11 I�SF 6.1 I1.0 9.3�0 �c �:� -v
► Indiinto��� Rd �� .�lt. �lA 3:3 �SF �..� � ,zc �
"� „i � � i i ;•�
� 119.0 1�0.0�'c ,i?,
� B. �� cth c;f Kiti er " 2
.,
i:S I acd TEquesta 653 hSF :,Z „ •�llT= J:
� L:�ian Crt�k Are;� 396 }:SF 6.0 , 1I,0 �6 c �` :9 �; ��
radiauto�n �Zoad Strip 411 }iSF . 6,7 9,� . �.` S
+ L�di3nto�'n Kd &.��t. :�lA 3�3 1�SF � a , t� t � J � c j �" �
$ , • , Q ,��' w A t;' o
� 169.1 IOO.U�'c =a
� C. S��i�h of Rir�ec "i31
� L'S 1 aDd Tequt� 653 �SF 7.1 z � o. .,�DT=.:"��
1..0 ...7 K �' ���''=��
I�diar. Cceek �lr� 396 }�SF l.l 317.3 l�i.2�'o �15
/ Indi�nto�n Xoad Strip 411 I�SF 1.8 116.9 :6.Or 1�:
, Ir,dia�tvun Rd & Ail. ,�lA 3?3 t�.SF .�.0 � 4. � �
�87.�i 100.0�c J;J
1 .
D. Isl�nd of Jupiter Z
� C'� I afld Teqi:e,rta 633 KSF a.? , ,�. � DI'=:9 �
Iudian Cc�eek 4r� 396 KSF 4.0 2�.8 +�'�r° �'� tl;i?�X
� tnd�anto�v Road Strip �11 K.SF q,7 1�.� =g•S�'o g�
21.390 63
� Inc'�iaoto� Rd &,�,It. AlA 323 I�SF 6.9 � �. , �
1
87.: 1(}O.O�k ' 35+�
� {1) AssiEnment to Countrv Club Drive (?equt�ta) and Teque�ta Dri�'e.
(2) As,cignmea: to Istsnd ti�'ay and Covntrv Club Drive �Iartin County).
�
� Assigument to �Csiand \�'aY 223 $3
Assi�nment to Country Club Dri�•e (tliarttn Count�) 223
� AssiEnmeut to Country Ciub Drl�•e (Tequesta) �Up 3�.�
Ass�gnm�nt to Teqaesta pri�� S00
) •
� c� a
, P