Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
11. CRA CRITERIA...•••••••••••.•.....••••••••...••••..•••..•••••••••••••••.•..•....••.•..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•...••• 3 Ill. METHODOLOGY .••...... •...... •.•..•.•••...... •••. 5
IV. PROPOSED COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA ...... •....••...... 6
A. Area Characteristics ...... 6 B. Planning Considerations ...... 8 C. Land Use and Zoning ...... 9 D. Public Facilities and Environmental Features ...... 12 V. NEED FOR REDEVELOPMENT ....•...... •...•.•...... ••.••...•••...... ••••...•••.....•...•.•...... •••••.••••....• 14
A. Faulty and Inadequate Street Layout...... 14 B. Transportation Facilities Incapable of Handling Traffic Flows...... 22 C. Inadequate Parking Facilities...... 29 D. Faulty Lot Layout ...... 30 E. Deterioration of Site and Other Improvements ...... 36 F. Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions ...... 47 G. Lagging Tax Base Growth ...... 49 H. Diversity of Ownership Preventing Free Aleinability of Land...... 51 I. Affordable Housing Shortage ...... 53
HBI Planning• E D SA Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
VI. CONCLUSION' ••.••••..••..•..•.••.•.•••••••••••.•.•••••.••.••••.•.•••••.•...... 58
VII. APPENDICES A. 1993 Beach Parking Study - Selected Pages B. Deerfield Beach Observer Article - Beach Parking C. Infrastructure Report By City Engineering/Utilities Department D. Annual City and Redevelopment Area Property Values for 1986-1997
VIII. FIGURES 1. Regional Location Map ...... 2 2. Beach/Cove Redevelopment Area ...... 7 3. Existing Land Use ...... 10 4. Current Zoning ...... 11 5. Public Facilities and Environmental Features ...... 13 6. Aerial View of A 1A 'S' Curve ...... 14 7. Traffic Conflicts at S.R. A 1A 'S' Curve ...... 16 8. Cove Center Parking Lot ...... ,. ..,· ...... 18 9. Infrastructure Deficiency Areas ...... 27 10. Illustrations of Sidewalk Deficiencies ...... 28 11. Illegal Parking Photographs forCentral Beach Subarea ...... 31 12. Land subdivision ...... 33 �" '1 13. Deteriorated Commercial Buildings ...... 35 HBI Planning• E D SA ii '
Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
14. Deteriorated Commercial Buildings ...... 37 15. Cove Center Commercial Facades ...... 38 16. Cove Center Commercial Facades ...... 39 17. Beach Subarea CommercialArea ...... 40 18. Deteriorated Residential Structures ...... 42 19. Trash and Debris Sites...... ::·:: ...... 44 20. Vacant Parcels ...... 46 21. Drainage Problem Areas ...... 48 22. Assessed Property Values ...... 50 23. Ownership Patterns...... 55 �- t
IX. EXHIBITS 1. BeachA 1 A Traffic Study ...... 17 2. BSO Report - Cover Center EnforcementActions ...... 20 3. BSO Report- TrafficAccident Data ...... •...... 21 4. Area Transit Routes- Ridership Information ...... 25 5. City Staff Memo- Beach Parking Spaces and Meter Violation Revenues ...... 32 6. 1990 Census - Gross Rent as% of Household Income ...... 55 7. 1990 Census - Owner Costs as% of Household Income ...... 56
HBI Planning• E D SA iii Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
I. INTRODUCTION The City o(Deerfield Beach, population 51,500, is located in the northeast corner of Broward County (see Figure 1). Incorporated in 1925, the city has experienced the historical growth pattern typical of many other older coastal urban centers in southeast Florida. Early development was located near the FEC railroad tracks, Federal Highway and the beach. With suburbanization and increased auto travel over the past 40 years, the city has spread west. The construction of 1-95 accelerated this westward movement of land investment and infrastructure dollars. The western reach has impacted some coastal areas in Deerfield Beach, in the sense that normal redevelopment.and reinvestment in property and infrastructure in these areas has not occurred due to the existence of lower cost 'greenfields' west of 1-95.
Deerfield Beach recognized this approaching problem in the 1980s, and adopted objectives and policies in its 1989 Comprehensive Plan to start addressing the situation. The adopted Plan contains Future Land Use Goal 4.0, Objective 4.1 and Policy 4.1.1, which, as a whole, direct the city to prepare redevelopment plans for the Deerfield Beach Target Area, including the proposed Beach/Cove Redevelopment Area. During the early 1990s, the City conducted a community visioning process, facilitated by the consulting team of Peacock Courtney, SWA Group, and CWB Associates, that identified coastal redevelopment as a high priority.
This report is intended to facilitate the next step in the City's coordinated approach to redevelopment planning of lagging coastal and nearby areas, that is, the determination of the necessity for redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area pursuant to Chapter 163, Part llf, Florida Statutes.
HBI Planning• E D S A 1 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
STUDY AREA- LOCATION MAP
/V MAJOR ROADS /V CITYBOUNDARIES
PARKLAND
0 5000 10000 Feet
FIGURE 1. REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
HBI Planning• EDS A 2 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
II. CRA CRITERIA Chapter 163 allows municipalities to designate a Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) as a special district where tax increment financing can be used to fund infrastructure improvement and development, as well as new redevelopment initiatives. The initial step in the process of designating a CRA is the "FINDING OF NECESSITY FOR REDEVELOPMENT". This finding is made pursuant to a City resolution that one or more slum or blighted areas, or areas exhibiting a shortage of affordable housing, exist in the municipality; and that the rehabilitation, conservation, and/or redevelopment of these areas are necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the residents of the City. Once this finding is made and the CRA Board is created, the proposal must then be approved by the Broward County Board of County Commissioners.
Qualification for designation as a CRA requires that the identified geographic area must meet one or more of the criteria as set forth in Chapter 163, Part 111, Florida Statutes. These criteria are listed below:
1. Slum area means an area in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, which by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age, or obsolescence; inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces; high density of population or overcrowding; the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes; or any combination of such factors is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. [F.S. 163.340(7)]
HBI Planning• E D SA 3 Need for' Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
2. Blighted area means either: a. An area in which there are a substantial number of slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures and conditions which endanger life and property by fire or other causes or one or more of the following factors which substantially impairs or arrests sound growth of a municipality and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use: • Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; • Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; • Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; • Deterioration of site or other improvements; • Tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair market value of the land; and • Diversity of ownership or defective or unusual conditions of title which prevent the free alienability of land within the deteriorated or hazardous area. [F.S. 163.340(8)] or
b. An area in which there exists: ■ Faulty or inadequate street layout; • Inadequate parking facilities; or • Roadways, bridges, or public transportation facilities incapable of handling the volume of traffic flow into or through the area, either at present or following proposed construction. [F.S. 163.340(8)]
1-;1B1 Planning• E D SA 4 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
3. There is a shortage of housing affordable to residents of low or moderate income, including the elderly. [F.S. 163.355(1)]
As shown in this report, the proposed Beach/Cove Area meets or exceeds most of the above-listed criteria, thus creating the need for effective redevelopment planning and implementation, in order to overcome these blighting influences and contribute to the city's tax base growth.
111. METHODOLOGY A number of information sources and analytical techniques were used in the determination of the need for redevelopment. Field surveys were conducted between April-June, 1998 to provide accurate assessments of physical conditions in and around the Beach/Cove area. Initial fieldwork focused on the appropriate boundary of the redevelopment area. Field data gathered included visual surveys of conditions of infrastructure, vacant lots, debris piles, building structures and facades, roads and traffic, transit route system, bikeways, pedestrian linkages, streetscapes, parking, property maintenance, and lighting. Land use conflicts were also noted.
City records and analysis by techni�al staff were also utilized to provide important background information on code enforcement trends, previous and current private development plans, infrastructure deficiencies, property tax values, land subdivision and ownership, programmed public improvements, crime, parking citations and complaints, and other factors.
The information collected was assessed against the criteria presented in the Introduction to determine the existence of slum and blight conditions, and finalize the boundary for the CRA.
HBI Planning• E D SA 5 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
IV. PROPOSED COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA A. Area Characteristics
Based on field surveys and other relevant information, the most appropriate boundaries for the redevelopment area were determined and are shown in Figure 2. For purposes of analysis, the area has been divided into two (2) subareas. Stretching from the central beach across the lntracoastal Waterway inland to U.S. 1, the 'Beach/Cove Redevelopment Area' comprises approximately 185 acres and exhibits an interesting array of varying features and characteristics.
Subarea I, about 111 acres in size, encompasses the central business district, popular beachfront recreation areas, and adjacent neighborhoods north and south of East Hillsboro Boulevard (State Road 810). One infamous characteristic of this subarea is 'the curve' in S.R.A 1A north of Hillsboro Boulevard which has been a continuing source of traffic congestion and conflicts for many years.
Subarea II, comprising an estimated 74 acres, extends generally along the southside of Hillsboro Boulevard from the Intracoastal Waterway through the Cove Shopping Center west to U.S. Highway 1. It also incorporates Sullivan Park and the vacant former restaurant building adjacent along Riverview Road north of Hillsboro at the lntracoastal. Residential areas with a mix of single family and multi-family uses exist in this subarea south and west of the Cove Center. Subarea II includes the expansive PalmAire Shopping Center at the southeast corner of U.S. 1 and Hillsboro Boulevard, and the large former Galleria building at 1050 East Hillsboro Boulevard has been vacant for an extended period.
HBI Planning• E D SA 6 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
STUDY AREA
• U.. ,A I-=-·,.' / - � - -. �� . = -1 !§�. r- - � � ..-- � . -----.-- __.,_ . - ,. - r. " PALM A/RE -,--.-;;:::; . x_,,-. SHOPPINGCENTER = __...... ::.• ,....-\ 1050 E HILLSBORO BLVD. � J..---.!-.L.--,..;-.&..J:.; (GALLERIA BLDG) _.,.___'j- CENTRAL BEACH/COMMERCIAL
�'n j i- u /_ ......
' � f''--==--,...... �rrn-t� •'::it� � .. - <( = j,L_.J.....l!:.J...!.J.J.J;.J...l,..l..J•, 1Hl..l'i� ..1.i�i i..1.. i�t1.LJ ::;:...... ;��-rr'T'rrr ',.,i�. : .....n., . ' � '---,....r' _, A ,
,--- . I - -�------·- --- ' north --_Ll-L._'._ I 300 600 --,---,--,--
FIGURE 2. BEACH/COVE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
HBI Planning• E D SA 7 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
B. Planning Considerations
The boundaries of the Beach/Cove Redevelopment Area were determined based on the need for physical redevelopment, as well as to protect neighborhood areas from the presence of nearby blighting conditions. As an overall guideline, the Area boundary includes subareas which clearly meet slum and blight criteria, as well as other subareas that may not be considered blighted individually, but which are otherwise necessary to prevent the spread and achieve the elimination, where possible, of slum and blighted conditions.
Some physically-sound areas were included in the CRA area based on the need to both minimize threats to such areas from nearby slum and blighted conditions thereby preserving their long term viability, and to recognize the existence of functional planning relationships in the Area that produce a sense of neighborhood or place. Also, in drawing the proposed boundaries, the necessity to nurture the growth of existing mutually supportive relationships and linkages between discrete sections of Deerfield Beach was taken into account. For example, the Cove Center in Subarea II will not be viable over the long-term if adjacent neighborhoods are not also improved and upgraded. Another good illustration of this concept involves Hillsboro Boulevard. This arterial corridor is the 'life blood' of the central beach subarea. It is how people get to the beach and the link from U. S. 1 east sets the planning and aesthetic 'tone' for the beach activity center. Proper redevelop_ment planning for the beach subarea cannot occur without including the Hillsboro Boulevard entry corridor.
In the central beach subarea, surveys have shown that 35% of the patrons walk to the subarea from nearby neighborhoods. Inclusion of these outlying blocks in the larger beach subarea is essential to capture the true planning area-of-influence and will help establish a broader sense of community and security, and encourage vibrant redevelopment of the area for residents and tourists.
HBI Planning• E D SA 8 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
C. ' Land Use And Zoning
Figures 3 and 4 show the existing land use and zoning patterns, respectively, in the redevelopment area. The beach subarea has a central commercial area surrounded by relatively high-density residential uses except for a few single-family neighborhoods. Two story motel uses, many in converted single-family structures, are prevalent along S.R.A 1A and on east-west cross streets to Ocean Way. Northwest of the central commercial district, low-density neighborhoods exist with a mix of single-family homes, duplexes, and multi-family parcels.
Subarea II contains a mix of residential and commercial uses. However, along Hillsboro Boulevard, commercial structures dominated with the presence of the Cove and PalmAire Shopping Center. Medium density residential neighborhoods exist south of the Cove Center, and between the Cove and PalmAire.
Overall, the Beach/Cove Redevelopment Area has 54 acres of commercially zoned land and 82 acres zoned for medium-to-high density residential uses. An additional 49 acres is designated for other uses including public rights-of-way.
HBI Planning• E D SA 9 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
STUDY AREA - EXISTING LAND USE
FIGURE 3. EXISTING LAND USE PATTERNS
HBI Planning• E D SA 10 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
STUDY AREA - ZONING
ZONING ACRES 8-1 54.27 I - . B-2 3.35 CF 5.87 RM-15 21.09 RM-25 60.95 RS-5 3.66 s 13.92 · ------,, . '
,- ·-
RM-15 00 0 500 1000 Feeh - · · -.
,,. •._., .
FIGURE 4. CURRENT ZONING
HBI Planning• E D SA 11 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
D. Public Facilities And Environmental Features
Figure 5 shows the major public facilities and environmental features of the Beach/Cove RedevelopmentArea. Several public parks are located north of Hillsboro Boulevard on either side of the lntracoastal Waterway. A City Fire Station is situated in the central beach subarea. Sullivan Park (west side of UCWW) is the boat launching point for State Park Service tours of Deerfield Island ,Park immediately across the Hillsboro Canal. The extensive length of accessible beachfront is the primary attraction of this subtropical redevelopment environment.
HBI Planning• EDeS A 12 '-- '-' '-' '-' '--' '--' '--' '-' \...I � '--' '-' \...I '-" '-" \...I \JV�.IJ..,J J J J J J J
Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
STUDY AREA - PUBLIC FA CILITIES & ENVIRONMENTAL FEA TURES
PUBLJC PA RKING -FIRE STATION □ BEACH & PUBLJC PA RKING -CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - PUBLJC PA RKS - PUBLJC DOCX - -HOTELS DRAW BRIDGE - □ - BEACH & PUBLJC PA VIWON - YA CHT BASIN -PIER
0 300 600
FIGURE 5. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
HBI Pla nning• EDSA 13 Need forRedevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
V. NEED FOR REDEVELOPMENT .
A. Faulty And Inadequate Street Layout The configuration of the road and street system in the study area has histor_ically been dictated by the irregular pattern of land subdivision around the numerous waterbodies in eastern Deerfield Beach combined with the eventual location of the primary regional roadway, U.S. Highway 1. The resulting ground transportation pattern generally restricts normal travel flows and forces even local travel onto arterial roadways. This adds an inordinate amount of slower cars, often making numerous turning movements, to the regional arterial system, thereby increasing congestion.
State Road A 1 A 'S' Curve State Road (S. R.)A 1A serves the beach area of Deerfield Beach and most of the beachfront communities in southeast Florida. Figure 6 shows an aerial view of the central beach road system, and the locally infamous'S' curve in S. R.A 1A immediately north of East Hillsboro Boulevard. The 'S' curve traverses a viable commercial area with FIGURE 6. AERIAL VIEW OF A1A 'S' CURVE beach-related retail and commercial developments including restaurants, clothing stores, sports equipment outlets, and hotels. Most of these businesses have been established here for manyyears, and attract both beach and non-beach patrons.
HBI Planning• E D SA 14 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
Historically, this two-lane section of S. R. A 1 A has created many traffic and parking problems for City officials, State transportation planners and business owners. Figure 7 presents a series of photographs of the 'S' curve area showing common vehicular and pedestrian conflicts in this area. The right-of-way is generally 50 feet wide, and much of the parking in front of restaurants and shops requires backing or use of right-of-way to exit the spaces, often into travel lanes. This parking arrangement is unsafe and violates many local and standard industry design practices. Also, the 'S' curve area does not provide a pedestrian or bicycle circulation system although the beachfront activities, particularly during the peak season, attract these population groups in large numbers. Other than at the intersection of Hillsboro Boulevard, pedestrian crosswalks are ' . not provided.
In 1996, the City commissioned a study (by Keith and Schnars, P.A.) of this traffic problem situation in the central beach area with direction to evaluate several road alignment solutions. During the course of the analysis, the consultant analyzed existing traffic conditions at the 'S' curve and found LOS 'F' conditions (over-capacity) on S.R. A 1 A between Hillsboro Boulevard and NE 2"d Street at the PM peak hour. Exhibit 1 presents the table from that study showing this conclusion. The study eval uated two (2) separate one-way pair alternatives, and provided the City with the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Cove Shopping Center The Cove Shopping Center is an older commercial development located on the soathside of Hillsboro Boulevard west of the lntracoastal Waterway (see Figure 2 located on page 7). When the center was initially developed, the parking area was donated to the City. Thus, the parking lot is composed of named public streets with adjacent parking spaces lining them in a perpendicular configuration as well as commercial private parcels. Figure 8 shows several photographs taken in the parking lot. Stop signs are posted at various locations in the lot and the irregular configuration of the lot is evident. This poor street layout has led to ongoing traffic flow.,ipd parking problems in this subarea. Speeding, stop sign and parking violations, illegal open containers and traffic accidents occur in this subarea at an unacceptably high frequency.
HBI Planning • E D SA 15 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
FIGURE 7. TRAFFIC CONFLICTS AT S.R. A1A "S' CURVE
HBI Planning • EDSA 16 Need for' Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
STATE ROAD A1A PM PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
------01/3--- 1/97------PM PEAK HA PKDIA PM PEAK HR ...., LOS D PM PEAK HR PKDIA MAX.SEAV, PKDIR FACILITYTYPE VOLUME VOLUME LOS ROADWAY SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO FROM TO EXISTING II EXISTING II EXISTING - - I I I II EXISTING I II S.R. A1A ---- NORTH OF NE 2ND NE 2ND ST 2LU 2LU 2LU 880 880 880 600 590 590 8 8 NE 2ND ST NE 1ST ST 2LU 1LOW lLOW 880 1,060 1.060 950 940 940 F C C NE 1ST ST HILLSBORO BLVD [1] 2LU 2Lll 2LU B80 880 880 950 9'0 940 F F F HILLSBORO BLVD SE 2ND ST !l] 4LU ,w 2LU 1.420 1,420 880 920 920 780 B B C �- ? PROPOSED NORTHBOUND S.A. A 1 A NE 2ND ST HILLSBORO BL VO NIA 1LOW 2LOW NIA 1,060 2.270 NIA 920 920 NIA C B HILLSBORO BLVD S.A. A1A NIA 1LOW 2LOW NIA 1,060 2,270 NIA 960 550 NIA HILLSBORO BL VO SE 2NO ST NIA NIA D 1LOW NIA NIA 1,060 NIA NIA '20 NIA NIA B
(11 THESE LEVELS OF SERVICE ARE GENERALIZED FOR RELATIVE COMPARISON PURPOSES. SEVERAL ROADWAY SEGMENTS HAVE THREE (3) TRAVEL LANES AT INTERSECTION APPROACHES ANO THEREFORE HAVE HIGHER CAPACITIES THAN TUE DEFAL!LT TABLEVALUES.
EXHIBIT 1. BEACH A 1 A TRAFFIC STUDY
HBI Planning• EDSA 17 V ,,I J ,I .I J ,I J ,I .l J J
Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
FIGURE 8. COVE CENTER PARKING LOT
HBI Planning• EDSA 18 Need forRedevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida
Exhibit 2 (nel The faulty and inadequate street layout at the Cove Center has contributed significantly to the marginal condition of this major shopping and entertainment location, and restricted its growth. Redevelopment of this public street system and parking lot should be a primary focus of redevelopment planning in order to address the primary hindrance to proper future development of this important site. Traffic Accidents Traffic accidents are an important in_dicator of faulty and unsafe road system conditions, and should serve to direct public expenditures to the correction of high accident frequency locations. Exhibit 3 shows accident information generated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office for key Redevelopment Area intersections over the January, 1997 to January, 1998 period. The th primary intersection on the beach at Hillsboro Boulevard and S.R. A 1A (NE 20 Avenue) had the highest number of accidents with 20, followed by the intersection two blocks to the north at the A 1Ae 'S' curve with 12. Thus, in the central business district of the beach, 32 accidents were recorded over the 13-month period. The photographs in Figure 7 (located on page 16) clearly depict dangerous' vehicular and pedestrian conditions occurring on a daily basis which represent "accidents waiting to happen." ' It also should be noted that the entrance to the Cove Center experienced a relatively high level of accidents with 10 reported over the same period. Thus, not only is the parking lot poorly configured and organized, but its connection points to the arterial road system are also faulty. HBI Planning• E D SA 19 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida COVE SHOPPING CENTER AREA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS Selective entbrcement actions \vere conducted on the fo llowing dates at the Co,·c Shopping C.::�t ...·:· area, from the time fran1e of January 1997 thru Jvlarch 1998. Thc:st: number� do nDt r'-: 1l._•,:1 !!:-� individual citations and actions taken fron1 all of the indi\·iduul deputies in this �trca during thi� :ini,_,· fran1e. ivlarch 28, 1997, during enforceinent actions, twelve (] 2) parking citations v,:crc issuc,J {(,)r , ari l1L1:-, parking infractions. August L 1997, during enforcement actions. ten (10) parking citations \\·ere issui.::d frH· ,·ari,.,u:-; parking infractions. Decen1ber 5, 1997, during enforcement actions, five (5) business code Yiolarion cito.tions is::-u.:... :. sixteen (16) parking citations issued, four(4) stop sign citations issued, two (2) speeding citations. issued and oneeach (1) issued for expired license, expired tag. seat belt violation and fifteen ( ! 51 Notice to Appear in Court citations issued for open container violations. February 20, 1998, during enforcement of the parking lot forty (40) parking citations were issud fo r various parking infractions. !vlurch6, 1998. during enforcement of Lhe parking lot l\venty six (26) parking citatil)l1S \\ t:r<...· is:-,L<...·�'. fo r various parking infractions. PARKING TRAFFIC NT.-\ 104 09 15 EXHIBIT 2. BSO REPORT-COVE CENTER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS HBI Planninge• EDSA 20 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida TRAFFIC ACCIDENT ANALYSIS DEERFIELD BEACH AREA (1001 ZONE) The fo llowing intersections were discussed in the redevelopn,ent meeting in refrrence to the number of traffic accidents that occur in the beach area. The time frame measured is from .January l LJLJ7 through January 1998, and these locations are targeted as being the busiest and most lrnzardou,. Intersection Location Accidents Hillsboro Boulevard (SR 810) & N.E. 20th Avenue ...... 20 N.E. 2nd Street & N.E. 20'h Avenue (ALA.)...... 12 N.E. 2nd Street & N.E. 20th Terrace (AIA) ...... 02 S.E. lO'h Street & S.E. 20th Avenue (AIA) ...... O l Eiist Hillsboro Boulevard & Riverview Road (S.E. I 5'h Terrace) ...... I 0 The Riverview Road location is in 1002 zone located just west of the Butler Bridge, it is the entrance to the Cove Shopping Center parking lot. EXHIBIT 3. BSO REPORT-TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DATA HBI Planninge• EDSA 21 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida High levels of tr affic acc idents at key intersections in the proposed redevelopme nt area not only damage property and hurt people; they create an unsafe perception for the entire area. Generally, people, especially elderly residents, will avoid such an area because they do not want to put themselves in a place of perce ived danger. This perception, once established, is hard to change and results in long-term negative impacts for area businesses and land investors. B. Transportation Facilities Incapable Of Handling Traffic Flows Roadway Congestion The pr imary road system travers ing the Redevelopme ntArea is shown in Figure 2 (located on page 7). The two (2) major roadways serving the inte rior of the Beach/Cove Area are Hillsboro Boulevard (State Road 81 0) extending east-west through the area and State Road A 1 Aserv ing north-south travel on the beach. U.S. 1 (Federal Highway) extends along the western boundary of the RedevelopmentArea. Broward Cou nty is charged with managing the reg ional roadway system.eThe Cou nty collects annual traffic counts on major _ roadways and projects future traff ic flows utilizing a countywide tr affic model. Table 1 represents actual tr affic count information for four (4) key locations on the arterial system in the RedevelopmentArea. S.R.A 1 Awas operating at level-of service (LOS) 'D' near maximum capacity in 1997 and, based on traffic growth tre nds for the roadway, is probably now operating at LOS 'E' which is below the adopted LOS for the road. In add ition, by the year 2001, it is projected to be 28% over capacity. Hillsboro Boulevard east of the lntracoastal Waterway (ICWW) is projected to also exceed its capacity by the year 2001. These roadways provide the primary access points into the beach business district and thus must operate smoothly in order to facilitate growth and development. However, the capacity of S.R.A 1 Aand Hillsboro Boulevard is inadequate to accommodate the future development needs of the proposed redevelopment area. HBI Planninge• E D SA 22 Need forRedevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida 0 ift J1 )xo+';i 2001 v1c** 1 ,, �(1!h�it;l'>:<."l!li<:!/:t1:,>><< S.R. A 1 A south of Hillsboro Blvd. 11,900 12,700 15,900 21,200 1.28 Hillsboro Blvd. east of ICWW 20,900 23,400 25,700 31,600 1.02 Hillsboro Blvd. east of 26,500 26,600 26,200 25,900 0.83 u. s. 1 U.S. 1 south of Hillsboro Blvd. 35,300 36,300 40,900 47,400 0.88 Notes: *MDT=Average Annual Daily Traffic. ** VIC= volume to capacity ratio; ratio > 1 indicates road is over-capacity. Year 2001 traffic figures are straight-line projections of 1993-1997 traffic count trend. Source: Traffic count data supplied by the Broward County Department of Strategic Planning and Growth Management. TABLE 1 - TRAFFIC IN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA HBI Planning • E D SA 23 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida The proposed Beach/Cove RedevelopmentArea is experiencing daily traffic congestion problems, particularly in the central beach subarea. Roadway level-of service on two major roadways traversing the entire redevelopment area is marginal today and is projected to exceed capacity over the next four (4) years. No improvements to these State and County roadways are currently programmed or planned by either FOOT or Broward County to address these congestion problems over the next five (5) years. These ,;i.dverse traffic conditions are hindering redevelopment now and will continue to restrict potential new development in the foreseeable future unless effective redevelopment planning is instituted. Transit Service Transit service to the proposed RedevelopmentArea involves three (3) routes, two (2) of which are oriented to transport riders to and from central Broward County. Exhibit 4 on the next page shows the transit ridership on all routes serving Deerfield Beach. The routes serving the Beach/Cove Area are 10, 50 and 92. ' Route 10 provides transit service between Boca Raton and central Broward County along U.S. 1. It stops at Hillsboro Blvd. and U.S. 1 which is on the western boundary of the redevelopment area. Only 7.7% of the ridership on this route originated in Deerfield Beach. Route 50 includes buses traveling between Hillsboro Boulevard and the Broward Central Terminal, along Old Dixie Highway. The north extent of the route extends eastward to the beach along Hillsboro Boulevard. This route carried approximately 171,000 riders from Deerfield Beach in 1997. Route 92 provides service along Hillsboro Blvd. between Century Village and the Howard Johnson's on the beach. This route provides only 45 minute headways (time between buses at a stop) and no late afte.rnoon (after 4 PM) or evening service except on th Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Route 92 carried 102,566 passengers in 1997 which is only the 5 highest ridership on all nine (9) routes serving Deerfield Beach. HBI Plann•ing• E D SA 24 Need �or Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida BRO,VARD COUNTY TRANSIT RIDERSHIP SELECTED ROUTES AND YEARS ,,,1\-'/'M�••••�'-·-'•. - , ,_, (1\t:11):❖;f-Y';'�?.97-' '.: 1,005,561 938,522 1,008,671 2-18,33..f. 219,69..f. 20 228,ISS 50 1,020,417 1,005,22-t 1,082,266 92 45,196 99,175 102,566 93 50,785 83,078 92,03➔ 94 55,987 110,220 110,220 95 78,177 107,818 97,201 97 28,124 39,599 43,651 Source: Broward County Transit Data Base ESTii\-1:ATED TRANSIT RIDERSi-llP IN T.H.E CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH BRO'\VARD COUNTY, FLORIDA FY -1997 1,008,671 7.7 78,388 6,532 1,519 253 20 2] 9,694 0.78 1,710 142 33 6 50 1,082,266 15.81 171,120 14,260 3,316 552 Totals 2,310,631 251,218 20,934 4,868 811 Source: Broward County Transit Data Base EXHIBIT 4. AREA TRANSIT ROUTES-RIDERSHIP INFORMATION HBI Planning • E D SA 25 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida Transit service to the Beach/Cove area is not at a level to effectively help in addressing the traffic problems. It is minimal with only a single bus route exhibiting 45-minute. headways and little PM peak hour/evening service to the interior of the site. There is no bus route serving the S.R. A1A corridor north-south along the beach subarea. Enhanced transit service will be of critical importance in meeting the future transportation flow needs of the beach and cove areas so that productive redevelopment can occur. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Beach/Cove redevelopment area are woefully inadequate. As previously mentioned, the 1996 Beach A 1A Traffic Study by Keith and Schnars, P.A., found that "the S.R. A 1A 'S' curve area does not provide a pedestrian or bicycle circulation system although the beachfront activities, particularly during the peak season, attract these population groups in large numbers. Other than at the intersection of Hillsbor� Boulevard, pedestrian crosswalks are not provided." Photographs in Figure 7 (see page 16) clearly show lack of sidewalks and bikepaths, and serious pedestrian/vehicle conflicts as pedestrians 'jay walk' across various, unregulated points in the 'S' curve link. Figure 9 inventories infrastructure problem areas throughout the redevelopment site, including areas where no sidewalks currently exist. Major portions of the central peach and Cove Center subareas lack sidewalks and bikepaths including Hillsboro Boulevard and S.R. A 1A. Figure 10 shows several neighborhood streets near the Cove Center with no sidewalk or bikepath facilities. Safe and easily-accessible bike and pedestrian travel facilities are critical to the health of neighborhoods and the market viability of commercial areas. The 1993 Beach Parking Study found that 35% of commercial area patrons walked from nearby neighborhoods. The Cove Center and the U.S. 1/Hillsboro shopping center are also dependent on walking and biking traffic from surrounding neighborhoods for a significant share of their retail business. HBI Planning• E D SA 26 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida STUDY AREA - INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEM AREAS - DRAINAGE PROBLEM-PARKING LOT - PERIODIC DRAINAGEPROBLEM ·-- NO SIDEWALKS (._) .J .... I J� Y. � ----irr _.. - - � �I=-_ FIGURE 9. INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICI ENCY AREAS HBI Planning • E D SA 27 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida FIGURE 10. SIDEWALK AND BIKEPATH DEFICIENCIES HBI Planning • E D SA 28 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida Bicycle and pedestrian access along the major arterial entry points to the redevelopment area are also critical to future redevelopment. Currently, bike and pedestrian facilities on Hillsboro Boulevard and S.R . A 1A are lacking in most areas of these corridors. c. Inadequate Parking Facilities The parking problems in the Cove Shopping Center subarea were described in detail previously in this report. This section will focus <;>nthe severe parking shortages facing the beach subarea. In 1993, the City of Deerfield Beach conducted a Beach Business District Parking Study. This study was undertaken both to respond to adopted Comprehensive Plan policies mandating the development of a beach area parking management program and to concerns of beach business owners at the time that they were not unable to expand their operations due to parking requirements. The primary background information, survey results, map and recommendations of the 1993 parking study are contained in Appendix A. The study surveyed pedestrians in the beach business district over a weekday and a weekend day. It showed that 11% of respondents parked in a metered space, 28% parked in a storefront space and 25% parked in an unofficial or illegal space. lntere!'\tingly, 35% of the interviewees were true pedestrians, staying or living nearby. The final recommendation of the 1993 Beach Parking Study was to not allow expansion of existing businesses until one or more of the recommended alternatives were found to be effective in decreasing parking demand. This recommendation and the concerns of business owners at that time verify the negative impact inadequate parking was having on commercial growth and beach recreation use in this subarea in 1993, an impact which has grown substantially in the past 5 years. HBI Plan•ning• E D SA 29 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida ' Figure 5 (located on page 13) shows the primary public parking areas in the beach subarea. Parking deficiencies continue to adversely affect the beach area today as evidenced by Figure 11 which presents pictorial examples of typical illegal parking situations occurring in this subarea. Exhibit 5 contains a memorandum from the City Finance Director indicating that there are 641 public metered spaces on the beach. The memorandum also provides meter violation revenues for the past four (4) years. In 1997, approximately $274,000, or $427/space, was collected from parking meter violations. In addition, Appendix B presents a relatively recent article from the Deerfield Beach Observer documenting parking problems on the beach and city efforts to address them. Clearly, inadequate parking facilities both on the beach and in the Cove Center subareas are hindering proper growth of the proposed redevelopment area. Comprehensive and coordinated redevelopment planning for the entire Beach/Cove redevelopment area could help alleviate this persistent problem and allow for the enhanced growth of the City's tax base. D. Faulty Lot Layout · Figure 1e2 shows the platted lots and subdivisions in the study area. The proliferation of lots, generally small by modern development industry standards and the irregular configuration of these lots in anel•near potential commercial growth subareas are a major problem for the proper development of the area. One significant example occurs in the central beach commercial area where the plethora of small, individually-owned lots make the assembly of parcels of commercial or high density residential use very difficult. The historical layout of these lots also set the stage for the, .:urrenttraffic congestion and level-of-service deficiencies associated with the S. R. A 1A 'S' curve in this subarea. HBI Planning• E D SA 30 '-- '-- '-----1 JJJVJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJ Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida FIGURE 11: ILLEGAL PARKING PHOTOGRAPHS FOR CENTRAL BEACH SUBAREA HBI Planning • E D SA 31 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida !Vt. E 1\r1 0 R A N D tJ 1'\. l TO: GER_.<\.. LD R_ FF.RCUSON� PLANNING & GJ:-.t<.->''-''".TH 1V1c(:;:,,.1cT. l>IR. FR<:>.:\-1 : DAVID P. HO K, [•"!NANCE DIRECT<:> � DATE: �-f ARCH I I. 1998 SUBJECT: .� ftcr lo.st '-v cck ·s n"lc"eting concerning the- hdu.ch ar�fl and csu:..blis!J.ing a C"R..,:\.. v,:hich S....:. 11,> .:ittcndc.:l in. n1y nbs<::nc<:!... she infoz-n'lcd � that a request had bet:!n n'l.a'de To r int'Om,.ation regarding th.: nu.rnber of: mc'tcrcd parking spaces and th Numher oC ! .._(>cation .M£:a...:r""U Spacc;s North �ach pavilion l3..::ach front. (S.1·.. 2 J Ave .) HilJs.h<.:c>ro Boulevard 8 Fire station lol 78 S . .t..::. 2 St.r��t 9 tvlain. bc-u.ch park ins lot :!�S S.F.. 5 Street 24 S.F.. 9 Street: parking lot. 47 S ..E. 9 S1:rcct 7 T(>tal Metered Parkcing Spaces Parking l'v1c:ter Violatin r,i 'B.,t:!' '-'COUC 1997 $ 273.967.55 1996 252.780.94 1995 233.022.99 1994 282.278..c10 DPB/n1.bd xc: Sullyc�- Sicgt:!'1,. Assistant Fino.nee Dir-t:!'ctol" EXHIBIT 5. CITY STAFF MEMO-BEACH PARKING SPACES AND METER VIOLATION REVENUES HBI Planning • EDSA 32 '- '- '- '- '-' '-' '- '- '--' '- '--- '--- '---' '- \...- \J '-.., \. V V \. \. .IVJ ..I J J J ...I ..J ..J ..J ..J ...I ..J ...I ...I ...I ...I ..J ..J ...I Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida STUDY AREA - SUBDIVISIONS c::=J UNPLATTED ����:,'::. {�{:��'. - � � i�� ;Jt[�: j �- f -· '.:=l.. 7-----:� t-•---). / i[�i: J i _\ ___ ---, ::: ,- . i;·_,::tr ���-ili=� �p;��=::�,: f I'i'IH• t � I c: •- ,,. :, -! - •,'-;• . I ·,- . - - •••--•.. -. !__•/' '< ��/1::'•·: <-' '. :.:1 /t:.?-,, ' . --!, ,, L-7 L._ _, t 17 :-·- Lj.a.:�_;_J�1...1-----..__, I I I J FIGURE 12: LAND SUBDIVISION HBI Planning • E D SA 33 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida Another telliirig illustration of poor lot configuration appears in the Cove Center area, where private lots and public rights-of- way are intermixed in the parking lot for the shopping center. This has created a hodge-podge of land use conflicts, traffic problems, parking confusion and generally unsafe conditions, leading to the inability of this key commercial center to reach its full tax base potential. The Palm Aire Center exhibits similar parking and access ,problems to those found at th e Cove Center. Figu re 13 shows pictures of the former Galleria building which is located on the perimeter of th e Palm Aire site. The expansive vacant and poorly maintained parking lots around the Galleria building are evident in the photographs, and these same lots are located in front of the Palm Aire Center. These vacant parking lots contribute to a nega ti ve visual environment around Palm Aire, and the perception of a very poor and disorganized site design. The abandoned Galleria building blocks both the view and northern entry points to the Palm Aire Shopping Center fro m Hillsboro Boulevard. This makes it very difficult for potential shoppers to see and access the center. Other adverse lot configurations are evident throughout the proposed redevelopment area. The multiplicity of differing lot shapes and sizes that occur along the south side of Hillsboro Boulevard between the Cove Center and U.S. 1 have created many small commercial establishments with separate driveways connecting to Hillsboro Boulevard, ma king accessibility to , and visibility of, these parcels inadequate and creating unsafe entry/exit conditions onto the roadway. These numerous examples of inadequate lot layout, both at the street and subarea levels, are significant impediments to appropriate gr owth of the study area and many can be corrected, or at least mitigated, with prudent redevelopment planning and implementation. HBI Planning • E D SA 34 '-- vvv VJJJVJJJJJ .J J .J .J..J.J JJ__J__J..J Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida FIGURE 13. DETERIORATED COMMERCIAL BUIDINGS HBI Planning • EDSA 35 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida E. Deterioration Of Site And Other Improvements Commercial Buildings, Facades and Signage A number of key commercial buildings are either vacant or in deteriorated condition, particularly in Subareas II. Figures 13 and 14 show three (3) prominent examples. The former Galleria building at ,1 050 East Hillsboro Boulevard has been vaca nt for an extended time period and the exterior is in poor condition (see Figure 13 ). This represents a large property investment which is not achieving its high potential value and is exerting a significant negative impact on the visual environment of Subarea 11, particularly the adjacent Palm Aire Shopping Center. Figure 13 also shows the Cove Executive Building located on the west side of the Cove Shopping Center. This former office building is now being used for mini-storage which is considerably below its highest and best use. The exterior is also in deteriorated condition. The final photographs in Figure 14 depict the poor condition of the vacant restaurant facility adjacent to Sullivan Park in Subarea II. This building and dock has a unique waterside amenity which.is not presently being utilized but represents a significant opportunity in redevelopment of this area. Commercial facades and signage in the Beach/Cove redevelopment area are also generally unplanned and uncoordinated, and thus do not enhance the attractiveness and market potential of the area. Figures 15 and 16 show some major examples of this negative characteristic at the Cove Shopping Center. Facades at the Cove Center are not aesthetically pleasing, exhibiting a wide and unsettling variation of rooflines, colors and signage with no significant landscaping to soften the severe linear building mass. A similar situation exists in the beach commercial subarea as shown in Figure 17. Figure 7 located on page 17 also illustrates this point. The visual environment around the S.R. A 1A 'S' curve is dominated by older, uncoordinated commercial facades, unattractive signage, intrusive aerial power lines and limited landscaping. The City's Code Enforcement staff have cited a number of examples of poorly maintained commercial structures on the beach including tne Hansel & Gretel, The Sandman Motel, and a 1h small motel at Hillsboro and NE 20 Avenue. In addition, the Auction House (2009 NE 2"d Street) has been a never ending source of code problems according to the Code Enforcement staff. HBI Planninge• E D SA 36 JJVVJVJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida FIGURE 14. DETERIORATED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS HBI Planning • E D SA 37 .)J.IJ ..IJ .J.J.J.J...J...JJ .J...J...J.J...JJJ Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida FIGURE 15: COVE CENTER COMMERCIAL FACADES HBI Planning• EDSA 38 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida FIGURE 16. COVE CENTER COMMERCIAL FACADES HBI Planning• E D SA 39 J J JJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJ Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida FIGURE 17: BEACH SUBAREA COMMERCIAL AREA HBI Planning • E D SA 40 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida The.presence of significant deteriorated commercial buildings and the lack of aesthetically pleasing and coordinated commercial facade:;, signage and streetscaping combine to impede proper growth and development of the study area. This important issue should be address by sound re development planning and implementation. Deteriorated Residential Buildings Residential construction in the study area began in the early 1950s and reached its peak in the late 1960s. Many buildings from th at period still re main and th us the housing stock is approaching the late stages of 'middle age' when a signif icant number of th em require extensive maintenance to remain viable and eventually will need to be replaced. Some buildings in the study area are dilapidated and/or boarded-up. Figure 18 presents several examples of deteriorated and dilapidated res idential buildings located in the beach subarea. The City's Code Enforcement staff, has cited a number of examples of poorly-maintained res idential structures on the beach, including homes on SE 19'" Avenue and NE 19'h Te rrace, and a deteriorated apartment ho use located at 259/267 NE 20'h Aven ue. SA HBI Planninge• E D 41 vv .IVV.I JV J J J ...I J ...I ...I J J J...I..,J Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida FIGURE 18. DETERIORATED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS HBI Planning• E D SA 42 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida Trash and Debris While many parts of the study area have few, if any, problems with accumulation of trash and debris on building and/or vacant sites, this sill\ation is evident in the central beach subarea. Figure 19 shows photographs of several sites on the beach where this problem was highly visible during field surveys by the planning team. Control of excessive trash and debris accumulation is a hallmark of all successful community redevelopment programs in order to protect the visual integrity of target areas and project the best image possible for visitors and neighbors. HBI Planning• E D SA 43 ./J./VJ J JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida FIGURE 19. TRASH AND DEBRIS SITES HBI Planning • EDS A 44 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida Vacant land Vacant land can be an indicator of the lack of investment in an area and also an opportunity for successful redevelopment. While vacant land is not prevalent in the proposed redevelopment area, several significant commercial and residential parcels exist in the beach subarea as shown in Figure 20. One of the photographs shows the NE 4•h Court street end east of Highway A 1A (Subarea I) which is a continuing source of police enforcement problems ranging from loitering to illegal dumping. These vacant sites must be monitored to restrict illegal activities such as those described above. However, they can become the cornerstones for early redevelopment implementation, showing the community that "good things are happening in the CRA." HBI Planning• E D SA 45 vvv ./ J .I .I J J ..I .J .J J J .J J J ..I J J .J .J Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida FIGURE 20. VACANT PARCELS HBI Planning• E D SA 46 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida Infrastructure Deficiencies Figure 9 (located on page 27) presented a summary of the infrastructure problem sites within the Beach/Cove Redevelopment Area. The extensive lack of bikeways and sidewalks is documented in that figure. The redevelopment area also has a number of deficient sites experiencing insufficient drainage which are also depicted in Figure 9. Figure 21 shows pictorial examples of drainage problems along roadways in the central beach subarea. The Engineering and Utilities Department has prepared an assessment of the infrastructure improvements needed to cure current deficiencies in streets, water, sewer, drainage and sidewalks, and begin to accommodate new growth and redevelopment. This assessment is included in Appendix C. The total cost for these improvements is $1.3 million. This analysis indicates that the Redevelopment Area has significant infrastructure deficiencies which must be addressed if its full economic potential is to be reached, and slum and blighting conditions eliminated. It is also important to emphasize that significant deficiencies in street lighting are evident in both the commercial and neighborhood areas on the beach (Subarea I) and around the Cove Center (Subarea II). Effective redevelopment planning will be required to address this key infrastructure need. F. Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions Unsafe traffic, bicycle and pedestrian conditions in the proposed Beach/Cove redevelopment area were previously documented in this report ... , 1--'lBI Planninge• E D S A 47 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida FIGURE 21: DRAINAGE PHOTOS HBI Planning• E D SA 48 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida G. Lagging Tax Base Growth Tax base growth over the past 11 years in the proposed Beach/Cove re development area has grown only about 1 /3 as fast as the re mainder of the city. Appendix D contains annual taxable and assessed values for the re development area and the city as a whole. For the 1986-97 period, the tax base in the study area grew by 24.5% or 2.2% per year on average, wh ile the re mainder of the city grew by 60.2% or an average of 5.5% per year. While other factors such·-as suburban 'greenfield' expansion and annexation may account for some of this disparity, it is evident that the majority of the difference is due to lackluster investment in, and market viability of, the study area ove r the past 11 years. It is difficult to imagine another beachfront area in Broward County or southeast Florida, areas possessing the most valuable amenity available, the ocean, where property values have grown at a comparably modest rate. This informat ion, more than any other, shows a clear need for effective re development planning and implement�tipn, to ensure this area attains its rightful place as the 'jewel' of the Deerfield Beach tax base. Figure 22 depicts study area property values on a per square foot basis. Only a very few properties have values in the $101-1 50 range. An estimated 10% of the parcels are valued in the $30-1 00 per square foot range. However, the vast majority of properties in the redevelopment area are valued at $30 per square foot or less. This trend supports the finding above that the Beach/Cove area has historically suffered from a myriad of development impediments, including traffic congestion, parking shortages and faulty street layout, which have prevented the healthy growth of the tax base. HBI Planning • E D S A 49 ...., '- '- '- '- '- '-'--'--- '- '- J J J J J J J J J � J J J / J J J Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida STUDY AREA - ASSESSED PROPERTYVALUES - ·1 I I :-:i_ -1..1 - 00 0 500 1000 FIGURE 22. ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES HBI Planning• EDSA 50 Need for R�9evelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida H. Diversity of Ownership Figure 23 presents the ownership patte rn of the redevelopment area. Approximately 85% of the parcels in the area are individually owned. This wide dive rsity of ownership, much of it by out-of-state owners, essentially prevents the free alienability of la nd in the deteriorated area and specifically hinders developers trying the assemble land for re development purposes. The CRA could address this problem through a planned land assembly program in order to eliminate slum and blighting conditions in selected subareas. HBI Planninge• E D SA 51 \. \. J Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida STUDY AREA - OWNERSHIP PATTERNS FIGURE 23: OWNERSHIP PATTERNS HBI Planning • E D SA 52 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida I. Affordable Housing Shortage The adopted Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan includes goals, objectives and policies in its Housing Element which address the provision of affordable housing to all income groups. Specifically, Housing Element Policy 1.1.1 states "the city shall implement an aggressive affordable housing program which makes effective use of available federal, state, and local rental subsidy and residential rehabilitat ion and redevelopment programs." The City has actively strived to meet its affordable housing obligations utilizing a variety of available programs. In order to effectively discuss affordable housing, several key pieces of information are critical. First, the income ranges which define low and moderate income households must be determined. The household median income for Broward County reported in the 1990 U.S. Census was $30,S71. Based on this figure, the annual income limits which defined low and moderate income households for Broward County (as of 1990) are as follows: ,e Low Income (80% or less of median income) $0 - $24,457 Moderate Income (80 - 120% of median income) $24,458 - $36,685 Industry pract ice and governmental programs have established that housing is not affordable if a family pays more than 30% of their monthly income toward housing costs. This standard will be used to analyze the affordability of housing in the expansion areas. HBI Planninge• E D SA 53 Need forRedevelopme nt of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida Renta,1 Housing Exhibit 6 shows 1990 Cen sus informa tion for rental households in the proposed Deerfield Beach CRA which is the best avaeilable data on this subject. Th is data was gathered from the analysis of block groups 1, 2, and 6 of Census Tract #101, wh ich most closely match the CRA boundary. The exhibit clearly shows that 100% of the rental ho useholds in the proposed CRA area and immediate environs making $10,000 or less (low income) paid 30% or more in housing costs in 1990. In the $10,000 - $19,999 category which also constitutes low income households, 82% of households paid 30% or greater in housing costs. In the $20,000 - -$34,999 range, which is a combination of low and moderate income households, 41% of households paid 30% or more in housing costs. Looking at all low and moderate income rental households in the proposed CRA making $0 - $34,999 annually in 1990, 63% were paying 30% or more of their income toward housing costs which means that their residential un its were not affordable by industry and governmental standards for low and moderate income re sidents. This affordable housing shortage hits especially hard at the elderly. In the subject Census block groups, 56% of the households headed by persons 65 years of age and higher paid gross monthly rent equal to more than 30% of their income. Owner-Occupied Housing Exhibit 7 shows 1990 Census information for owner-occupied households in the proposed Deerfield Beach CRA for block groups 1, 2, and 6 of Census Tract #101. HBI Planning • E D SA 54 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida E'xhibit 6: Gross Rent as % of Household Income Households paying >I= Households raving >I= Less than $1 0,000: 30% Income for Housing $35,000 to $49,999: 30% Income for Housing Less than 20 percent 0 Less than 20 perce�t 61 20 to 24 percent 0 20 to 24 percent 25 25 to 29 percent 0 25 to 29 percent 0 30 to 34 percent 0 30 to 34 percent 10 35 percent or more 66 35 12ercentor more 22 32 (27%) Sub-total �· : 66 66(1 00%) 5.ub-total 118 $10,000 to $19,999: Less than 20 percent 11 $50,000 or more: 20 to 24 percent 0 Less than 20 percent 55 25 to 29 percent 13 20 to 24 percent 7 30 to 34 percent 47 25 to 29 percent 0 35 percgnt or more 65 30 to 34 percent 0 Sub-total 136 112 (82%) 35 12ercent or more Q Sub-total 62 0 (0%) $20,000 to $34,999: TO TAL Renter-Occupied Units 619 Less than 20 percent 45 308 (5 0%) (computed only) 20 to 24 percent 65 25 to 29 percent 29 *Source: 1990 Census of Population 30 to 34 percent 43 and Housing Summary Tape File 3A 35 ps:rcgnt or morg 55 237 Sub-total 98 (41%) HBI Planning • Ii: D SA 55 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida Exhibit 7: Owner Costs as % of Household Income Households paying >I= Households raving >I= less than $10,000: 30% Income for Housing $35,000 to $49,999: J()<�o Income !or I lousing Less than 20 percent 0 Less than 20 percent 31 20 to 24 percent 0 20 to 24 percent 0 25 to 29 percent 0 25 to 2 9 percent 8 30 to 34 percent 7 30 to 34 percent 8 35 percent or more !l 3 5 percent or more 22 19 (33%) Sub-total 75 15 (100%) $_uh-total 58 $10,000 to $19,999: less than 20 percent 30 $50,000 or more: Less than 20 percent 113 20 to 24 percent 7 25 to 29 percent 0 20 to 2� percent 33 30 to 34 percent 0 2 5 to 2 9 percent 27 35 percent or more !l 30 to 34 percent 15 Sub-total 45 8 (18%) 3 5 percent or more ll Sub-total 196 ?3(1 ?%) $20,000 to $34,999: 65 TOTAL Owner-Occupied Units 65 (17%) less tha,n 20 percent 53 (computed only) 20 to 24 percent 0 25 to 29 percent 6 *Source: 1990 Census of Population 30 to 34 percent 0 and Housing Summary Tape File 3A 35 percent or more Q Sub-total 59 0 (0%) HBI Planning • E D SA 56 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida The exhibit shows that, based on the best available information, 100% of the owner-occupied households in the CRA making $10,000 or less (low income) paid 30% or greater in housing costs. In the $10,000 - $19,999 category which also comprises low income households, 18% of households paid 30% or more in housing costs. Looking at all owner-occupied low and moderate income households in the CRA making $0 - $34,999 annually in 1990, 19% were paying 30% or more of their income toward housing costs which means that their housing was not affordable by industry and governmental standards for low and moderate income residents. As with rental housing, this affordable housing shortage of owner-occupied units also impacts the elderly. In the subject Census block groups, 9% of the owner-occupied households headed by persons 65 years of age and higher paid housing costs equal to or more than 30% of their income. Summary The above information clearly show that the proposed CRA has very significant shortages of affordable housing, particularly among the rental stock. Combining owner-occupied and rental housing, 54% of all housing units located in the Deerfield Beach CRA and immediate environs, as reported in the 1990 Census, were not affordable to the low and moderate income families living in them. The redevelopment of these areas with job-creating businesses, upgraded infrastructure, and affordable housing construction and subsidy programs is necessary in order to maintain the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the residents of Deerfield Beach. HBI Planning• E D SA 57 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida VI. CONCLUSION The Beach/Cove Community Redevelopment Area in Deerfield Beach clearly meets the criteria of slum and blight as defined in Chapter 163, Part Ill, Florida Statutes. The primary justifications for this finding include: 1. Faulty and inadequate street layout; 2. Inadequate parking facilities; 3. Roadways and public transit systems incapable of handling traffic volumes; 4. Shortage of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents; 5. Deterioration of site and other area improvements; 6. Faulty lot layouts; 7. Unsafe conditions; 8. Diversity of ownership prevent ing free alienability of land; and 9. Lagging growth in tax base . Community redevelopment ass istance is necessary within the Beach/Cove Redevelopment Area of Deerfield Beach to remove slum and blighting cond itions, improve the transportation and park ing systems, enhance the tax base, improve site conditions and area wide infrastructure, and to address the shortage of housing for low and moderate income residents. HBI Planninge• EDeS A 58 Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida APP EN DIX A: 1993 Beach Parking Study - Selected Pages HBI Planninge• EDSA CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH BEACH AREA STUDY Phase 1 • Beach Business District Parking Study Planning and Zoning Department Gerald R. Ferguson, Direqtor May 13, 1993 INTRODUCTION The Crty of Deerfield Beach takes great pride in the beach area and considers rt to be one of the City's most important assets. Not only is rt a home to both permanent and seasonal residents and a very popular local attraction, it is also the heart and soul of Deerfield's tourism industry. For these reasons the City adopted goals, objectives and policies (GOP's) in its Comprehensive Plan designed to improve the overall quality of the beach area. Specifically, the Crty·s Traffic Circu lation Element contains policies requiring the development of a parking program for the beach area. Below is a list of these policies: POLICY TC 1.14.1 : Develop a parking management program for the beach area. POLICY TC 8.1 .2: Develop incentive programs to encourage private businesses in the Beach area to provide off-street parking so as to eliminate on street parking along A-1-A. The City recognizes parking management as one of the mostimportant quality issues in the beach area. A series of parking studies will be conducted to focus on specffic locations in the beach area. Areas that have their own identity and their own unique parking problems. For several reasons, the first phase of the beach area parking study focuses on the Beach Business District (BBD). First, business owners in the area have expressed concern that they are unable to expand their operations if required parking cannot be provided. Unfortunately, most locations in the BBD have little land available for addrtional parking.Second, the Crtywould like to see improvements made to the businesses in the area but is obligated to administer the current parking requirements. Finally, if improvements are made to the businesses in the area, tourism is also likely to improve. The goal of this phase of the beach area parking study is to provide information which will be used to decide if parking requirements for the BBD should be different (less stringent) from other partsof the Crty. Area Description The Beach Business District is a nine acre area straddling A-1-A on rts east-west bend (Figure 1). The area is surrounded by a mix of single family and mutti-family development to the north and the west. Hotels and seasonal apartments are located immediately to the south of the district with the beach and the city's fishing pier to the east. Thirty commercial establishments wrthinthe BBD offer a wide variety of services: mainly restaurants, retail stores, and personal service businesses. There are also two gas stations, a market, a bank, an office building and a vacant parcel in the area. Tourists. seasonal residents, permanent residents and even residents in nearby cities patronize these businesses. Because the BBD is located along A-1-A and next to the beach, the pier and numerous hotel/motel units, rt is probably frequented more by tourist and seasonal residents who walk from the immediate area. Many people who use the BBD are individuals visiting the beach for the day. 4 AREA ANA YLSIS Two types of data werecollected for this study: survey data of pedestrian activtty and detailed stte studies for each property. Pedestrian Survey To establish any signtticant difference between parking demand in the Beach Business District and other commercial locations, the Planning and Zoning Department conducted a survey of pedestrian activtty in the district. The data reflect the number of people walking to the area, those who drove and required a parkingspace, how many people were in the BBD to vistt a business, and how many also visited the beach or pier. Methodology Conducted in January on a weekday (Thursday) and a weekend day (Saturday) between 11:00 a.m. and 1 :00 p.m. the survey was designed to catch pedestrian activtty in the BBD at tts peak. Since a dramatic decrease in pedestrian activity occurs after 6:00 p.m, a survey during evening hours was determined to be unnecessary. The two survey groups represent approximately 25 percent of all pedestrians in the BBD at the time the surveys were being conducted. The firs! survey ques1ion asked where the individual parked. If !hey arrived by bus, bicycle, taxicab, were dropped off or walked from !heir residence, ho1el, or motel no further questions were asked: 1he individual did not drive and did not require a parking space. The surveyed individual was asked tt !hey parked in a metered space, storefront space or in an unofficial or illegal spo1 and if finding a space was dttficult. These individuals were also asked tt they were in the BBD specifically 10 vistt one of tts establishmen1s. If not, what else brought them to the area. Results Eleven percen1 of the individuals surveyed parked in a metered space/ctty lot. These individuals said that they were visi1ing the beach as well as the BBD. A furtherbreakdown of this group shows that none of the individuals surveyed Thursday had problems finding a parking space. In contrast, all of the individuals surveyed Saturday said that finding a space was difficult. People using the beach quickly fill the city lots on Saturday, a busier beach day. Eighteen percent of the individuals surveyed parked in a s1orefront space. These people said their sole purpose was to conduct business in the BBD and finding a parking space was not difficult. Observation of the storefront spaces during 1he two survey periods showed that these spaces were usually available; res1aurant spaces during the lunch hour were the exception. Twenty-five percent of the individuals surveyed parked in an unofficial or illegal spot. These people were there to vistt the beach and the BBD. Twenty percent of the people surveyed Thursday said finding a 5 6 space was difficult. while 77 percent of the individuals su�eyed Saturday indicated that finding a space was difficult. Again. Saturday is a busier beach day and ctty lots and metered spaces fill quickly. Most of those who parked illegally or unofficially said they used the vacant lot at the west end of the BBD. On Saturday, this lot was observed to be full by 2:00 p.m. The remaining 46 percent of the respondents etther walked. bicycled, rode a bus or taxicab. or were dropped off and did not require a parking space in the BBD. Furthermore, 35 percent of these individuals identified themselves as true pedestrians (walked into the area). This demonstrates that residents and tourists in the surrounding areas generate a substantial amount of business in the BBD. Table 1. Parking Rates for Pedestrians in Beach Business District Thursday Saturday Totals 1/14/93 1/23/93 Metered Space/Ctty Lot 14% 9% 11% Storefront Space 10% 24% 28% Unofficial or Illegal Space 24% 26% 25% Bicyclist 14% 3% 7% Other (bus, taxicab, dropped off) 10% 0% 4% True Pedestrian (staying or 29% 38% 35% living nearby) While the survey resutts reflect a general characterization of the BBD's clientele, each business is different in terms of the customers they attract. For example, many of the retail establishments rely primarily on the beach crowd, tourists. and seasonal residents as their main source of business while retaurants are more likely to have an expanded customer base outside the immediate area. Therefore, the survey information only establishes that a high level of pedestrian activtty exists in the area. I • I QJ ' �. 31 -q:: I I ,i I'; 1 d ------, , I,': ------N- � - -E--·------3- -[ ------_ S_(� _------I ..,__,,-.c::' I I I C) • ' I I Q) I •• IC\J: I .'�I, ■ I I I.I I-q:, I I I I., II ,',11 : 2J4 • PIER I N I I • I 'lJ..J• \ I \ \ \ ,<: \ \ I ' ' ' ' ' ' OfflCIAL GROUND PARKING 80UNOAR1ES --- DEE FLORIDA UNOfflOAL PARKING AREAS ANO !NCRESS/ECRESS CITY OF RFIELD BEACH � Figure 1 0' 100 ••• BEAQ-1 BUSINESS 01sm1cr BOUNDARY I �UILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTIJRES Sc:a!• 'n FHt J -- - - fflAviL PATHSjEQC( C£ PAV'EU[NT BEACH BUSINESS DISTRICT (CE:NERAUZEO) E2::] VAC,VH LAND - SUMMARY ASSESSMENT The results from the pedestrian sU1vey indicate that much of the BBD's clientele are true pedestrians making the area unlike other business districts in the City in terms of parkingdemand. The results of the survey also indicate that parking problems in the area are more closely associated with the beach area than the BSD. There were no survey responses from individuals exclusively visiting the BSD who had difficulty finding a parking space. It was the individuals who were there to visit the beach as well as the BBD that continuously had dttficulty finding a parking space. While the pedestrian survey indicates that parking demand is in the BSD maybe different from other commercial districts in the City and that parking problems are more beach related, the parking analysis in this study shows that many of the businesses in the BBD are already functioning with a parkingdeficiency. Additionally, the site evaluations show that very few of the businesses would be able to make site improvements or expand their operation tt current code requirements were applied. There is simply not enough unimproved property on most sites to provide additional parking. The intent is not to disregard the results of the pedestrian survey; they do indicate that pedestrian activity is common throughout the BBD. HowEJver, as stated earlier in the report, the survey does not take into account the difference in parking needs for certain types of business. The results only reflect a general characterization of the BBD's clientele. With this in mind, perhaps a more practical application of the pedestrian survey results would be to use them as a justttication for studying the feasibility of improving the pedestrian walkways within the BBD. The pedestrian facilities in the area are aging and incomplete at certain locations. Particularly on the north side of NE 2nd Street where it is impossible to walk the length of the district without encountering vehicle traffic. In addition, there are no signaled crosswalks in the area, basically making it unsafe for pedestrians to cross at any point along the roadway. Recommendations Recognizing that a difference in parking demand does exist for the various types of uses in the BBD, a blanket change to parking requirements in the BSD could have a wide range of impacts. Some businesses may experience no change to their current functional parking arrangement while other businesses may end up with major parking problems, especially when many locations already operation with deficient parking. The fol lowing list of alternatives to an actual change in parking standards (number of spaces) should be given consideration: 1. Allow compact car spaces in the Beach Business District. 2. Allow shared parking for businesses operating in the evening. 3. Develop a shuttle or trolley service for the BBD (public or privately operated). 4. Lease the vacant lot described in this report and improve as parking. 32 33 If one or more of these atternatives is implemented and found to be effective in decreasing parking demand, a reevaluation of changes to existing parking standards may be appropriate. Until that time, allowing expansion of existing businesses wtthout adding parking is not recommended. Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida APPENDIX B: Deerfield Beach Observer Article - Beach Parking HBI Planning• EDSA Cityconsi ders plan to regulate ''black market'' beach parking By Joan Durbin weekends and holidays to park ing ror parking space on their cording--10 Derian, he used lo city commission to consider a On sunny weekends, about U1e on their properties. Bcachgoers properties. Sherwin's case was charge people who were not system that would license com- only way to nab a parking space can pay anywhere from $3 to $7 heard this month by the city's working in U1e building Lo park See pg 11 :11 any of the city-owned meters for a spot. Code Enforcement Board, which there. Parking, at Dccrriekr s beach is to he there But this type or paid off-street essentially told him to knock ii Bui he said he has recently hdorc noon. Get there later, and parking is illegal in Dccrfie](I orr or face a fine. switched lo a system allowing Thisweek in the you' re doomed to circle the area Beach under current city code. Sherwin believes citing him people to park in the garage if Observer: on aconlinuousloop, hopingthat 1l1e restriction was put on the was selective enforcement by the they make a "donation" to ben you'll get lucky enough lo spot books several years ago to en city because a private parking efitthe city's Jr. Lifeguard pro Opinion 6 someone pulling out of a space sureU1atcityrevcnues frompark garage across from the beacl1 gram. Business 8 beforc the dozens of other mo- ing meters would-not be threat routinely offers parking spaces He also lets the city. use his Schools 10 toristsdoing the same beach park- ened. At least two business own at a fee. garage for free during special Sports 14 ing shuffle. ers have run afoul of that prohi- Will Derian, owner of events at the beach such as Fourth Health Enterprisi ng businesspeople bi lion. Irwin Sherwin. who owns Lazydazc in the Atlantic Pavil of July and the Offshore 19 and motel owners as well as some buildings on NE 2 Street, and ion Building on AJA, has a con Powerboat Races. Dining 16 private citizens have jumped in Surfside Mobil on AJA were tract tb manage the building's On May 26, City Manager Churches 21 10 fill the gap by charging fees on 80-space parking garage. Ac- Classified cited by code enforcers forcharg- Larry Deetjen will be asking the ,.. •,;-� 22 Parking continued from pg 1 licensing fee which could same for everyone," he merciallyezonedbusincsses paid and U1e business can- be prorated based on the said. in the beach district to offer not be in default. The ap- number of parking spaces Commissioner Peggy paid parking if they meet plicant must have a prop- available for public use. Noland, who represents the certain qualifications. erlylandscapedparkinglote. Sgt. Bruce Swift, who beach district, agrees that Applicants would have and signs forthe paid park- supervises the city's code it's time to get the prolif ing must be approved by 10 be commercially zoned enforcers, said the licens eration ofillegal paid park and have adequate off- the Community Appear- ing proposal makes sense ing spaces under control. street parking as per city ance Board. because it would regulate "Every weekend, you go to code.Toeapplicantse' prop- Additionally, Deetjen is the "black market" paid the beach and someone else crty taxes and business li- suggesting charging the parking that already exists. has a$5 (parking) sign up," cense fees must be fu lly applicants a "substantial"e. "The rules would be the she said. "We have '0 start regulating it." But even though he and a few otl.).er l>usines'sJ)Cbpie , \V_?u!�Jb�qe,�t•j'f.�r�a. u \cens� �i!I:1 g�m��f}?t;ri,an -,!:isothinksmifu thatbeachgoers'erb'haiititwiiii1c1and ii1- timateiy be.the·losers: ,'.'ff .everyone was · really ''stopped. (from chaniii1g), 'inc!udittgtheprivatehon\es '"onihe side siree�:Swe' d be · ''1',00(l"sj,aces'short for'ali' i·the ' p(iople';who wanttto' 1 ' come to ttie b-each.�' - -�;':;�dJ t.>h?�;; Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida APPENDIX C: Infrastructure Report by City Engineer / Utilities Department HBI Planning• E D SA CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH - - - T soc. , t !R & r,.s ·�--· wiftii �'Wtl E M O RA N D U M APR \\ 1 0 � 81 � =--- ' --- TO: Jerry Ferguson, Director of Planning/Growth Management FROM: Anthony Viola, Director of Engineering/Utilities DATE: April 21, 1998 SUBJECT: Beach/Cove CRA Study City Project No. 10889-P Attached please find the quantity and cost estimates for infrastructure improvements (resurfacing, drainage, water, sewer and sidewalks) within the three (3) areas encompassing the subject matter. These improvements are only within streets owned and maintained by the City. At this time, these numbers are preliminary based on schematic layouts of improvements. As redevelopment becomes more clearly defined, these estimates will probably change. Please call me with any questions or if a different format is desired. AV:smh cc: File: Project No. 10889-P BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE TOTAL AREA I $ 825,000 AREA II $ 130 000 AREA III $ 370 000 TOTAL $ 1, 325 ,000 BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #1Q889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA I UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. Maintenance of Traffic 1 L.S. $8,000 $ 8,000 2 Type S-III Asphalt Con crete Leveling Course w/Tack Coat 700 TONS $ 40 $28,000 3. l" Type S-III Asphalt Concrete Resurfacing Course w/Tack Coat 26,700 S.Y. $ 2.00 $53,400 4 . Thermoplastic Pavement Markings and Striping 1 L.S. $5,000 $ 5,000 5. Ad justments to Existing Manhole Rims and Valve Box Covers 1 L.S. $70,500 $ 7,500 SUBTOTAL (PAVEMENT) $ 101,900 - 1 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA I UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. Maintenance of Traffic 1 L.S. $10,000 $ 10,000 2 • 15" R.C.P. 5,400 L.F. $ 20 $108,000 3. Type "C" Catch Basin w/apron 36 EA . $1,200 $ 43,200 4 • 4' Dia. Junction Box 9 EA . $ 1,500 $ 13,500 5. Break Into and Connect to Existing Structure 9 EA . $ 500 $ 4,500 6 Drainage Line/Sanitary Lateral Conflict Structure 36 EA. $ 400 $14,400 7 • Removal and Replacement of As phalt Streets & Driveways with l'' Type S-III Asphalt; 8" Limerock Base, Primed; 12" Compacted Subgrade , saw Cutting 4,000 S.Y. $ 15 $ 60,000 8. Excavation and Regrading of Swales ; Haul Off Site Excavated Asphalt, concrete Sod , Debris , Etc.0; Fill for Swales0; Removal and Replace ment of Mail Boxes , Sprink lers0, Bushes0, Trees, Etc0. 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 9. Floritam Sod 1,400 S.Y. $ 2 $ 2,800 10. Final clean up 1 L.S. $ 1,000 $ 1,000 SUBTOTAL (DRAINAGE0) $ 262 400 - 2 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA I UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. Maintenance of Traffic 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 2. 6" Water Main w/Fittings 2,700 L.F. $ 20 $54,000 3. Tapping Saddle/Sleeve w/Gate Valve (Full Body) a) 6" X 6" 4 EA . $1,200 $ 4,800 4. 6" Gate Valve 8 EA0. $ 500 $ 4,000 5. Fire Hydrant Assembly w/Tee , Valve & Pipe 5 EA . $ 1,500 $ 7,500 6 Water Sample Point 8 EA0. $ 150 $ 1,200 7 • Water Service Line with Saddle, Corporation, Tubing, Curb Stop, Complete 50 EA . $ 350 $17,500 8 Abandon Existing Water Main 8 EA. $ 500 $ 4,000 9 Connect Existing Water Main to New Water 8 .,EA -- . $ 500 $ 4,000 10. Removal/Replacement of Asphalt with l" Type S-III Asphalt; 8'' Limerock Base, 12" Subgrade 2,000 S.Y. $ 15 $30,000 11. Excavation/Regrading of Swales0; Haul Off Site Excavated Asphalt, concrete Sod, Debris , Etc.; Fill for Swales; Removal/Replace of Mail Boxes0, Sprinklers0, Bus hes, Trees0, Etc0. 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 120. Floritam Sod 700 S.0Y. $ 2 $ 1,400 130. Final Cleanup 1 L.S. $ 1,000 $ 1,000 SUBTOTAL (WATER) $ 139 400 - 3 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY ,PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA I UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANT ITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. Maintenance of Traffic 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000 2 Cleaning & Televising Exist- ing Gravity Sewer Lines 16,000 L.F. $ 1.025 $20,000 3 • Grouting of Existing Gravity Sewer Lines 4,000 L.F. $ .40 $1,600 4 Lining of Existing Gravity Sewer Lines 1,600 L.F. $ 40 $64,000 SUBTOTAL {SANITARY SEWER) i$__--=-90 �0 L1�6 �0 �0 ____ - 4 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJEJ'CT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA I UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. 5 ft. wide 4" Thick Concrete Sidewalk, Inc ludes Excavation/Haul Material Offsite; Import Fill, As Required 4,000 L.F. $ 10 $40,000 2 . 5 ft. wide 6" Thick Concrete Sidewalk, w/6x6x10 WWM , Inc ludes Excavation/Haul Material Offsite; Import Fill, As Required 1,500 L,F, $ 15 $22,500 3. Floritam Sod 1,200 S.Y. $ 2 $- 2,400 4. Final Clean Up 1 L.S. $ 500 $ 500 SUBTOTAL (SIDEWALKS ) $ 65 400 - 5 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA I SUBTOTAL (PAVEMENT) $ 101 900 SUBTOTAL (DRAINAGE ) $ 262,400 SUBTOTAL (WATER) $ 139 400 SUBTOTAL (SEWER) $ 90, 600 SUBTOTAL (SIDEWALK) $ 65,400 SUBTOTAL $ 659 700 +25% CONTINGENCIES $ 164 ,925 TOTAL $ 824 625 USE $ 825 000 - 6 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA II UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. Maintenance of Traffic 1 L.0S. $ 500 $ 500 2 • Type S-III Asphalt Con crete Leveling Course w/Tack coat 60 TONS $ 40 $ 2,400 3 • 1" Type S-III Asphalt Concrete Resurfacing Course w/Tack coat 2,200 S.Y. $ 2.00 $ 4,400 4 • Thermoplastic Pavement Markings and Striping 1 L.S. $1,000 $ 1,000 5. Adjustments to Existing Manha-le Rims and Valve Box Covers 1 L.0S. $1,500 $ 1,500 SUBTOTAL (PAVEMENT ) $ 98,000 - 1 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT �10889-P QUANT ITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA II UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. Maintenance of Traffic 1 L.S. $ 500 $ 500 2 . 15" R.C.P. 450 L.F. $ 20 $ 9,000 3. Type "C" Catch Basin w/apron 3 EA. $1,200 $ 3,600 4 • 4' Dia. Junction Box 1 EA . $ 1,500 $1,500 5. Break Into and Connect to Existing Structure 2 EA . $ 500 $ 1,000 6 . Drainage Line/Sanitary Lateral Conflict Structure 10 EA . $ 400 $ 4,000 7 • Removal and Replacement of Asphalt Streets & Driveways with 1'' Type S-III Asphalt; 8" Limerock Base, Primed; 12" Compacted Subgrade, Saw Cutting 225 S.Y. $ 15 $ 3,375 8 Excavation and Regrading of Swales0; Haul Off Site Excavated Asphalt, Concrete Sod, Debris, Etc.; Fill for Swales0; Removal and Replace ment of Mail Boxes , Sprink lers0, Bushes0, Trees0, Etc0. 1 L.S. $ 1,000 $ 1,000 9 Floritam Sod 225 S.Y. $ 2 $ 450 100. Final clean up 1 L.S. $ 500 $ 500 SUBTOTAL (DRAINAGE ) $ 24,925 - 2 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA II UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. Maintenance of Traffic 1 L.S. $ 1,000 $ 1,000 2 . 6" Water Main w/Fittings 1,000 L.F. $ 20 $20,000 3. Tapping Saddle/Sleeve w/Gate Valve (Full Body) a) 6" X 6" 2 EA. $1,200 $ 2,400 4. 6" Gate Valve 2 EA . $ 500 $1,000 5. Fire Hydrant Assembly w/Tee, Valve & Pipe 1 EA. $ 1,500 $1,500 6. Water Sample Point 2 EA . $- 150 $ 300 7 • Water Service Line with Saddle, corporation, Tubing, Curb Stop, Complete 20 EA , $ 350 $ 7,000 8. Abandon Existing0.Water Main 2 EA . $ 500 $1,000 9 Connect Existing Water Main to New Water 2 EA . $ 500 $ 1,000 10. Removal/Replacement of Asphalt with 1'' Type S-III Asphalt; 8" Limerock Base, 12" Subgrade 500 S.Y. $ 15 $ 7,500 11. Excavation/Regrading of Swales ; Haul Off Site Excavated Asphalt, Concrete Sod, Debris , Etc.0; Fill for Swales ; Removal/Replace of Mail Boxes , Sprinklers , Bushes , Trees , Etc . 1 L.S. $ 2,500 $ 2,500 120. Floritam Sod 500 S.Y. $ 2 $ 1,000 130. Final Cleanup 1 L.S. $ 500 $ 500 SUBTOTAL (WATER) $ 46 700 - 3 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA II UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. Maintenance of Traffic 1 L.S. $ 1,000 $ 1,000 2 Cleaning & Televising Exist- ing Gravity Sewer Lines 2,800 L.F. $ 1.25 $ 3,500 3. Grouting of Existing Gravity Sewer Lines 700 L.F. $ .40 $ 280 4 . Lining of Existing Gravity Sewer Lines 280 L.F. $ 40 $11,200 SUBTOTAL (SANITARY SEWER) i$ ___1� 5� 9� 8� 0�0 --- - 4 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P· QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA II UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. 5 ft. wide 4" Thick Concrete Sidewalk, Includes Excavation/Haul Material Offsite; Import Fill, As Required 350 L.F. $ 10 $ 3,500 2. 5 ft . wide 6 " Thick Concrete Sidewalk, w/6x6x10 WWM , Includes Excavation/Haul Material Offsite; Import Fill, As Required 100 L.F. $ 15 $ 1,500 3 . Floritam Sod 100 S.Y. $ 2 $ 200 4 . Final Clean Up 1 L.S. $ 500 $ 500 SUBTOTAL (SIDEWALKS ) $ 5,700 - 5 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CirY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA II SUBTOTAL (PAVEMENT ) $ 9 800 SUBTOTAL (DRAINAGE ) $ 24 925 SUBTOTAL {WATER) $ 46 700 SUBTOTAL (SEWER) $ 15 980 SUBTOTAL (SIDEWALK ) $ 5 700 SUBTOTAL $ 103 ,105 +2 5% CONTINGENCIES $ 25 775 TOTAL $ 128 880 USE $ 130 ,000 - 6 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA III UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. Maintenance of Traffic 1 L.S. $1,000 $1,000 2. Type S-III Asphalt Con crete Leveling Course w/Tack Coat 200 TONS $ 40 $ 8,000 3. 1" Type S-III Asphalt Concrete Resurfacing Course w/Tack Coat 8,000 S.Y. $ 2 $16,000 4 . Thermoplastic Pavement Markings and Striping 1 L.S. $1,500 $1,500 5. Adjustments to Existing Manhole Rims and Valve Box Covers 1 L.S. $30,000 $ 3,000 SUBTOTAL (PAVEMENT ) $ 29 500 - 1 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA III UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. Maintenance of Traffic 1 L.S. $ 2,000 $ 2,000 2 15" R.C.P. 1,600 L.F. $ 20 $ 32,000 3 • Type "C" Catch Basin w/apron 10 EA . $ 1,200 $12,000 4 4' Dia. Junction Box 2 EA. $ 1,500 $ 3,000 5 . Break Into and Connect to Existing Structure 10 EA . $ 500 $ 5,000 6 • Drainage Line/Sanitary Lateral Conflict Structure 30 EA. $ 400 $ 12,000 7 . Removal and Replacement of Asphalt Streets & Driveways with 1" Type S-III Asphalt; 8" Limerock Base, Primed; 12" Compacted Subgrade , Saw Cutting 800 S.Y. $ 15 $12,000 8. Excavation and Regrading of Swales0; Haul Off Site Excavated Asphalt, Concrete_ Sod, Debris, Etc.; Fill for! Swales; Removal and Replace ment of Mail Boxes , Sprink lers0, Bushes, Trees0, Etc0. 1 L.S. $ 4,000 $ 4,000 9 • Floritam Sod 800 S.Y. $ 2 $ 1,600 10. Final clean up 1 L.S. $ 1,000 $ 1,000 SUBTOTAL {DRAINAGE0) $ 84 600 - 2 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA III UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. Maintenance of Traffic 1 L.S. $ 3,500 $ 3,500 2 • 6" Water Main w/Fittings 2,800 L.F. $ 20 $ 56,000 3. Tapping Saddle/Sleeve w/Gate Valve (Full Body) a) 10" X 6" 4 EA . $ 1,500 $ 6,000 b) 6" x 6" 3 EA. $ 1,200 $ 3,600 4. 6" Gate Valve 8 EA. $ 500 $ 4,000 5 • Fire Hydrant Assembly w/Tee, Valve & Pipe 4 EA, $ 1,500 $ 6,000 6. Water Sample Point 8 EA . $ 150 $ 1,200 7 • Water Service Line with Saddle, Corporation, Tubing, Curb Stop, Complete 50 EA. $ 350 $17,500 8. Abandon Existing water Main 8 EA , $ 500 $ 4,000 9. Connect Existiing Water Main to New Water 8 EA . $ 500 $ 4,000 10 . Removal/Replacement of Asphalt with l" Type S-III Asphalt ; 8'' Limerock Base, 12" Subgrade 1,400 S.Y. $ 15 $ 21,000 11. Excavation/Regrading of Swales ; Haul Off Site Excavated Asphalt, Concrete Sod , Debris , Etc.; Fill for Swales0; Removal/Replace of Ma il Boxes0, Sprinklers0, Bushes0, Trees0, Etc0. 1 L.S. $ 4,000 $ 4,000 120. Floritam Sod 1,400 S.Y. $ 2 $ 2,800 1 3 Final Cleanup 1 L.S. $ 2,500 $ 2,500 SUBTOTAL (WATER ) $ 136 100 - 3 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA III UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. Maintenance of Traffic 1 L.S. $ 2,500 $ 2,500 2. Cleaning & Televising Exist- ing Gravity Sewer Lines 6,000 L.F. $ 1.25 $ 7,500 3. Grouting of Existing Gravity Sewer Lines 1,250 L.F. $ .40 $ 500 4 . Lining of Existing Gravity Sewer Lines 600 L.F. $ 40 $ 24 , 000 SUBTOTAL (SANITARY SEWER) �$ ___�3 4-'-'-- ,5�0�0-'---- - 4 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA III UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANT ITY UNIT PRICE PRICE 1. 5 ft. wide 4" Thick Concrete Sidewalk, Includes Excavation/Haul Material Offsite; Import Fill, As Required 600 L.F. $ 10 $ 6,000 2. 5 ft . wide 6" Thick Concrete Sidewalk, w/6x6xl0 WWM , Inc ludes Excavation/Haul Material Offsite; Import Fill, As Required 200 L.F. $ 15 $ 3,000 3. Floritam Sod 200 S.Y. $ 2 $ 400 4. Final Clean Up 1 L.S. $1,000 $ 1,000 SUBTOTAL (SIDEWALKS ) $ 10 400 - 5 - BEACH/COVE CRA STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #10889-P QUANTITY/COST ESTIMATE AREA III SUBTOTAL (PAVEMENT ) $ 29 500 SUBTOTAL (DRAINAGE0) $ 84,0600 SUBTOTAL (WATER) $ 136 100 SUBTOTAL (SEWER) $ 34 500 SUBTOTAL (SIDEWALK0) $ 10 400 SUBTOTAL $ 295 100 +25% CONTINGENCIES $ 73 775 TOTAL $ 368 875 USE $ 370 000 - 6 - Need for Redevelopment of the Beach/Cove Area Deerfield Beach, Florida APPENDIX D: Annual City and Redevelopment Area Property Values for 1986 - 1997 HBI Planninge• EDeS A CRA ALL ZONES YEAR TAXABLE ASSESSED 86 72,011,240 79,846,590 87 75,069,650 83,674,540 88 80,965,720 89,711 ,870 89 85,322,860 92,224,990 90 85,685,990 92,739,360 91 86,842,830 93,996,530 92 84,673,570 91,780,340 93 84,1 96,630 91 ,401 ,360 94 84,265,130 91 ,470,560 95 85,206,590 92,225,750 96 87,572,080 94,471,340 97 89,644,790 96,322,790 17,633,550 difference from 86 to 97 16,476,200 percentage growth CITY CITY YEAR TAXABLE DIFFERENCE ASSESSED DIFFERENCE 86 1,292,345,353 1,696,699,729 87 1,413,746,617 121,401 ,264 1,832,765,083 136,065,354 88 1,542,937,676 129,191 ,059 1,996,952,087 164,187,004 89 1,700,946,033 158,008,357 2,164,278,374 167,326,287 90 1,781 ,264,269 80,318,236 2,252,515,657 88,237,283 91 1,890,404,838 109,140,569 2,367,280,007 114,764,350 92 1,821,157,682 -69,247, 156 2,298,464,617 -68,815,390 93 1,793,458,076 -27,699,606 2,274,046,387 -24,418,230 94 1,828,763,837 35,305,761 2,313,014,612 38,968,225 95 1,865,052,360 36,288,523 2,365,892,560 52,877,948 96 1,972,523,710 107,471,350 2,479,927,530 114,034,970 97 2,070,581,660 98,057,950 2,588,581,630 108,654,100 778,236,307 891 ,881 ,901 778,236,30? difference from 86 to 97 891,881,9Qj percentage growth THE DIFFERENCES BETWEENTAXABLE AND ASSESSED ARE THAT TAXABLE FIGURES ARE WITHOUT EXEMPTIONS (IE. HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, EXEMPTIONS ON SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, ETC.) Page 1