The URL can be used to link to this page

06-03-08 Agenda Reg ëØÖÈÑÜËúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏðØØÉÔÏÖ ëèñøê÷îëíèûñôúíüëéôúôíüéôîï éÈØÊÙÜÄ óÈÏØ íèûñôúúîððøïé éÕØÍÈÛÑÔÚÔÊØÏÚÎÈËÜÖØÙÉÎÎ××ØËÚÎÐÐØÏÉÊÆÔÉÕÉÕØÎËÙØË ëØÖÈÑÜË Î×ÍËØÊØÏÉÜÉÔÎÏÛØÔÏÖÜÊ×ÎÑÑÎÆÊúÔÉÄêÉÜ××ÍÈÛÑÔÚÚÎÐÐØÏÉÊúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÙÔÊÚÈÊÊÔÎÏ ðØØÉÔÏÖ ÜÏÙÎ××ÔÚÔÜÑÜÚÉÔÎÏúÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÐØØÉÔÏÖÊÜËØÛÈÊÔÏØÊÊÐØØÉÔÏÖÊÜÏÙÉÕØËÔÖÕÉÉÎ ÍÐ öØÏØËÜÑÑÄËØÐÜËÒÊÛÄÜÏÔÏÙÔÇÔÙÈÜÑÆÔÑÑ ÑÔÐÔÉÙÔÊÚÈÊÊÔÎÏËØÊÉÊÆÔÉÕÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏ íÈÛÑÔÚ ÛØÑÔÐÔÉØÙÉÎÉÕËØØÐÔÏÈÉØÊÎËÑØÊÊ éÕØðÜÄÎËÎËÍËØÊÔÙÔÏÖÎ××ÔÚØËÕÜÊÙÔÊÚËØÉÔÎÏÉÎ õØÜËÔÏÖÊ ÜÙÓÈÊÉÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ×ÉÔÐØÜÑÑÎÚÜÉØÙ ÍÐ ùØÑËÜÄûØÜÚÕ úÔÉÄõÜÑÑ ü íÈÛÑÔÚõØÜËÔÏÖÊüÏÄÚÔÉÔÃØÏÔÊØÏÉÔÉÑØÙÉÎÊÍØÜÒÎÏÔÉØÐÊÈÏÙØËÉÕÔÊÊØÚÉÔÎÏ û úÎÐÐØÏÉÊÜÏÙôÏÌÈÔËÔØÊÎÏïÎÏüÖØÏÙÜôÉØÐÊ×ËÎÐÉÕØíÈÛÑÔÚüÏÄÚÔÉÔÃØÏÔÊ ØÏÉÔÉÑØÙÉÎÛØÕØÜËÙÚÎÏÚØËÏÔÏÖÜÏÄÐÜÉÉØËÆÔÉÕÔÏÉÕØÊÚÎÍØÎ×ÓÈËÔÊÙÔÚÉÔÎÏÎ×ÉÕØ úÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÈÏÙØËÉÕÔÊÊØÚÉÔÎÏéÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÐÜÄÆÔÉÕÕÎÑÙÚÎÐÐØÏÉÎË ÙÔËØÚÉÉÕØúÔÉÄðÜÏÜÖØËÉÎÉÜÒØÜÚÉÔÎÏÎÏËØÌÈØÊÉÊÎËÚÎÐÐØÏÉÊ ú ëØÖÈÑÜËüÖØÏÙÜÜÏÙ÷ÔËÊÉëØÜÙÔÏÖôÉØÐÊíÈÛÑÔÚÔÏÍÈÉÎÏÜÖØÏÙÜØÙÔÉØÐÊÎÉÕØË ÉÕÜÏÉÕÎÊØÉÕÜÉÜËØÊÍØÚÔ×ÔÚÜÑÑÄÊØÉ×ÎËÜ×ÎËÐÜÑÍÈÛÑÔÚÕØÜËÔÏÖÊÕÜÑÑÛØÜÑÑÎÆØÙ ÆÕØÏÜÖËØØÙÛÄÚÎÏÊØÏÊÈÊÎ×ÉÕØúÔÉÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏ êôöïôïêõøøé íËÔÎËÉÎÉÕØÊÉÜËÉÎ×ÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏðØØÉÔÏÖÔÏÙÔÇÔÙÈÜÑÊ ÆÔÊÕÔÏÖÉÎÜÙÙËØÊÊÍÈÛÑÔÚÕØÜËÔÏÖÎËÏÎÏÜÖØÏÙÜØÙÔÉØÐÊÊÕÎÈÑÙÊÔÖÏÔÏÎÏÉÕØÊÕØØÉ ÑÎÚÜÉØÙÎÏÉÕØËÔÖÕÉÊÔÙØÎ×ÉÕØÙÜÔÊô×ÄÎÈÜËØÏÎÉÜÛÑØÉÎÙÎÊÎÍËÔÎËÉÎÉÕØÊÉÜËÉÎ×ÉÕØ ÐØØÉÔÏÖÄÎÈÐÜÄÊÉÔÑÑÜÙÙËØÊÊÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÎÏÜÏÜÍÍËÎÍËÔÜÉØÔÉØÐéÕØÍËÔÐÜËÄ ÍÈËÍÎÊØÎ×ÉÕØÊÔÖÏÔÏÊÕØØÉÔÊÉÎÜÊÊÔÊÉÊÉÜ××ÆÔÉÕËØÚÎËÙÒØØÍÔÏÖéÕØËØ×ÎËØÆÕØÏÄÎÈ ÚÎÐØÈÍÉÎÉÕØÍÎÙÔÈÐÉÎÊÍØÜÒÍÑØÜÊØÚÎÐÍÑØÉØÉÕØÊÔÖÏÔÏÊÕØØÉÔ×ÄÎÈÕÜÇØÏÎÉ ÜÑËØÜÙÄÙÎÏØÊÎ üùùëøêêôïöéõøúîððôêêôîï üÉÉÕØÜÍÍËÎÍËÔÜÉØÉÔÐØÍÑØÜÊØÊÉØÍÈÍÉÎ ÉÕØÍÎÙÔÈÐÜÏÙÊÉÜÉØÄÎÈËÏÜÐØÜÏÙÜÙÙËØÊÊ×ÎËÉÕØËØÚÎËÙüÑÑÚÎÐÐØÏÉÊÐÈÊÉÛØ ÜÙÙËØÊÊØÙÉÎÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÜÊÜÛÎÙÄÜÏÙÏÎÉÉÎÔÏÙÔÇÔÙÈÜÑÊüÏÄÍØËÊÎÏÐÜÒÔÏÖ ÔÐÍØËÉÔÏØÏÉÎËÊÑÜÏÙØËÎÈÊËØÐÜËÒÊÎËÆÕÎÛØÚÎÐØÊÛÎÔÊÉØËÎÈÊÆÕÔÑØÜÙÙËØÊÊÔÏÖÉÕØ úÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÊÕÜÑÑÛØÛÜËËØÙÛÄÉÕØÍËØÊÔÙÔÏÖÎ××ÔÚØË×ËÎÐÊÍØÜÒÔÏÖ×ÈËÉÕØËÈÏÑØÊÊ ÍØËÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÉÎÚÎÏÉÔÏÈØÎËÜÖÜÔÏÜÙÙËØÊÊÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÔÊÖËÜÏÉØÙÛÄÜÐÜÓÎËÔÉÄÇÎÉØ Î×ÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÐØÐÛØËÊÍËØÊØÏÉ üííøññüéøíëîúøùèëøê íÑØÜÊØÛØÜÙÇÔÊØÙÉÕÜÉÔ×ÜÍØËÊÎÏÙØÚÔÙØÊÉÎÜÍÍØÜÑÜÏÄÙØÚÔÊÔÎÏÐÜÙØÛÄÉÕØúÔÉÄ úÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏÆÔÉÕËØÊÍØÚÉÉÎÜÏÄÐÜÉÉØËÚÎÏÊÔÙØËØÙÜÉÉÕÔÊÐØØÉÔÏÖÊÈÚÕÍØËÊÎÏÆÔÑÑ ÏØØÙÉÎØÏÊÈËØÉÕÜÉÜÇØËÛÜÉÔÐËØÚÎËÙÔÏÚÑÈÙØÊÉÕØÉØÊÉÔÐÎÏÄÜÏÙØÇÔÙØÏÚØÈÍÎÏÆÕÔÚÕ ÉÕØÜÍÍØÜÑÔÊÛÜÊØÙéÕØúÔÉÄÏØÔÉÕØËÍËÎÇÔÙØÊÏÎËÍËØÍÜËØÊÊÈÚÕËØÚÎËÙ ïæ ÊÉ üÇØÏÈØ ùØÑËÜÄûØÜÚÕ éÕØúÔÉÄÆÔÑÑ×ÈËÏÔÊÕÜÈÅÔÑÔÜËÄÜÔÙÊÜÏÙÊØËÇÔÚØÊÉÎÜ××ÎËÙÜÏÔÏÙÔÇÔÙÈÜÑÆÔÉÕÜ ÷ÑÎËÔÙÜ ÙÔÊÜÛÔÑÔÉÄÜÏÎÍÍÎËÉÈÏÔÉÄÉÎÍÜËÉÔÚÔÍÜÉØÔÏÜÏÙØÏÓÎÄÉÕØÛØÏØ×ÔÉÊÎ×ÜÊØËÇÔÚØ ÍËÎÖËÜÐÎËÜÚÉÔÇÔÉÄÚÎÏÙÈÚÉØÙÛÄÉÕØúÔÉÄúÎÏÉÜÚÉùÎÈÖêÐÔÉÕÜÉ íÕÎÏØ ÕÎÈËÊÍËÔÎËÉÎÉÕØØÇØÏÉÔÏÎËÙØË×ÎËÉÕØúÔÉÄÉÎÜÚÚÎÐÐÎÏÙÜÉØÄÎÈËËØÌÈØÊÉ üÙÜÍÉÔÇØÑÔÊÉØÏÔÏÖÙØÇÔÚØÊÜËØÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ÎËÐØØÉÔÏÖÊÔÏÉÕØúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏ ÷ÜÅ úÕÜÐÛØËÊ ëøöèñüëðøøéôïöüöøïùü ëîññúüññ ôïçîúüéôîï íñøùöøî÷üññøöôüïúøéîéõø÷ñüö üöøïùüüííëîçüñ üííëîçüñî÷ðôïèéøê ðÜÄ ëØÖÈÑÜËðØØÉÔÏÖ ü íëîúñüðüéôîïê ëØÚÎÖÏÔÃÔÏÖôÊËÜØÑêÚÎÈÉªéÃÎ×ÔÐ©÷ËÔØÏÙÊÕÔÍúÜËÜÇÜÏöÎÑÜÏ ü ïÜÉÔÎÏÜÑúÑØÜÏûØÜÚÕØÊæØØÒ§óÈÏØ óÈÑÄ û íëøêøïéüéôîïê ðÄêÜ×Ø÷ÑÎËÔÙÜõÎÐØíËÎÖËÜÐíËØÊØÏÉÜÉÔÎÏ ü úîïêøïéüöøïùü úÔÉÄðÜÏÜÖØËëØÚÎÐÐØÏÙÊüÍÍËÎÇÜÑ üúúøíéüïúøî÷ëôöõéî÷æüäùøùôúüéôîï êæÉÕüçøïèøüÍÍËÎÇØÜÏÙ ü ÜÚÚØÍÉÜËÔÖÕÉÎ×ÆÜÄÙØØÙÛØÉÆØØÏÉÕØúÔÉÄÜÏÙñÎËØÏÃÎÜÏÙíËÔÊÚÔÑÑÜðÔÑÑØË×ÎËÉÕØÍËÎÍØËÉÄ ÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉ êæÉÕüÇØÏÈØ üúúøíéüïúøî÷ëôöõéî÷æüäùøùôúüéôîï êøÉÕüçøïèøüÍÍËÎÇØÜÏÙ û ÜÚÚØÍÉÜËÔÖÕÉÎ×ÆÜÄÙØØÙÛØÉÆØØÏÉÕØúÔÉÄÜÏÙëÔÉÜùØÆ×ÎËÍËÎÍØËÉÄÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉ êøÉÕ üÇØÏÈØ üúúøíéüïúøî÷ëôöõéî÷æüäùøùôúüéôîï ïøÉÕüçøïèøüÍÍËÎÇØÜÏÙ ú ÜÚÚØÍÉÜËÔÖÕÉÎ×ÆÜÄÙØØÙÛØÉÆØØÏÉÕØúÔÉÄÜÏÙçÑÜÙÐÔËëÈÏÉÎÇ×ÎËÍËÎÍØËÉÄÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉ ïøÉÕüÇØÏÈØ üúúøíéüïúøî÷øüêøðøïéùøøùíøùôüéëôúêûäéõøêøüüÍÍËÎÇØÜÏÙÜÚÚØÍÉÜÏ ù ØÜÊØÐØÏÉÙØØÙ×ÎËÉÕØÔÏÊÉÜÑÑÜÉÔÎÏÎ×ÜÊÔÙØÆÜÑÒÜÊÊÎÚÔÜÉØÙÆÔÉÕúÑÜÊÊôçÊÔÉØÍÑÜÏÐÎÙÔ×ÔÚÜÉÔÎÏ×ÎË íØÙÔÜÉËÔÚÊÛÄÉÕØêØÜÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉÉÕØÏÎËÉÕØÜÊÉÚÎËÏØËÎ×êøÉÕüÇØÏÈØÜÏÙêø ËÙêÉËØØÉ ø úîïéëüúéúñîêøîèéúîïî÷ôïüñúüéüñ÷èðîúîïêéëèúéôîïñéùîñù êúõîîñêìèüëøíüëòôïööüëüöøíëîóøúéüÍÍËÎÇØÜúÎÏÉËÜÚÉúÑÎÊØÎÈÉúîïÎ ÷ÔÏÜÑÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× Ù×ÔÏÜÑÍÜÄÐØÏÉÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÉÎ úÜÉÜÑ×ÈÐÎúÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏñÉÙ×ÎËÉÕØÚÎÐÍÑØÉÔÎÏÎ×ÉÕØîÑÙêÚÕÎÎÑêÌÈÜËØíÜËÒÔÏÖöÜËÜÖØ íËÎÓØÚÉ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ öîûÎÏÙôÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉÊîÉÕØËîÑÙ êÚÕÎÎÑêÌÈÜËØíÜËÒÔÏÖöÜËÜÖØ úîïéëüúéúñîêøîèéúîïî ÷ôïüñûëüïöúîïêéëèúéôîïôïúûøåñøä ÷ éëüôñúîððèïôéäíüëòôðíëîçøðøïéêíëîóøúéüÍÍËÎÇØÜúÎÏÉËÜÚÉúÑÎÊØÎÈÉúî ïÎ ÷ÔÏÜÑÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÙØÚËØÜÊØÜÏÙ×ÔÏÜÑÍÜÄÐØÏÉÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÉÎ ûËÜÏÖúÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏôÏÚ×ÎËÉÕØÚÎÐÍÑØÉÔÎÏÎ×ÉÕØûØÅÑØÄéËÜÔÑúÎÐÐÈÏÔÉÄíÜËÒôÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉÊ íËÎÓØÚÉ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ öîûÎÏÙôÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉÊ îÉÕØËûØÅÑØÄíÜËÒ êøëçôúøüèéõîëôãüéôîïïî ðüéõøæêúîïêèñéôïöôïúêæ ÉÕüçøïèø ö üññøäê§íõüêøôüÍÍËÎÇØêØËÇÔÚØüÈÉÕÎËÔÃÜÉÔÎÏïÎ ÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÉÎ ðÜÉÕØÆÊúÎÏÊÈÑÉÔÏÖôÏÚ×ÎËÍËØÍÜËÜÉÔÎÏÎ×ÍÑÜÏÊÜÏÙÛÔÙÙÎÚÈÐØÏÉÊ×ÎËÉÕØÚÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏÎ×ÊØÇØÏ ÜÑÑØÄÊÜÏÙÙËÜÔÏÜÖØÔÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉÊÜÑÎÏÖêæ ÉÕüÇØÏÈØ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ öØÏØËÜÑúÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏ÷ÈÏÙîÉÕØËôÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉêæ ÉÕüÈÛÈËÏüÑÑØÄ ôÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉ ôïéøëñîúüñüöëøøðøïéíüñðûøüúõúîèïéäùøúîëüéôçøêéëøøéñôöõéê õ üÍÍËÎÇØÜÏôÏÉØËÑÎÚÜÑüÖËØØÐØÏÉÛØÉÆØØÏÉÕØúÔÉÄÜÏÙíÜÑÐûØÜÚÕúÎÈÏÉÄ×ÎËËØÔÐÛÈËÊØÐØÏÉÔÏ ÜÏÜÐÎÈÏÉÏÎÉÉÎØÅÚØØÙ ÉÎÚÎÇØËÙÎÚÈÐØÏÉØÙÚÎÊÉÊÎ×ÔÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉÊÜÊÊÎÚÔÜÉØÙÆÔÉÕ ÉÕØÔÏÊÉÜÑÑÜÉÔÎÏÎ×ÙØÚÎËÜÉÔÇØÊÉËØØÉÑÔÖÕÉÊÜÑÎÏÖðÜËÉÔÏñÈÉÕØËòÔÏÖóËðñòùËÔÇØïæÏÙ êÉËØØÉ×ËÎÐïæ ÉÕüÇØÏÈØÉÎïæÉÕüÇØÏÈØ ëøêîñèéôîïïî êîèéõ÷ñîëôùüæüéøëðüïüöøðøïéùôêéëôúé ô ê÷æðù äøüëæüéøëêèííñäíñüïüÍÍËÎÇØÜÏÙÜÙÎÍÉëØÊÎÑÈÉÔÎÏïÎ ÚÎÐÐÔÉÉÔÏÖÉÎÉÕØñÎÆØËøÜÊÉúÎÜÊÉëØÖÔÎÏÜÑæÜÉØËêÈÍÍÑÄíÑÜÏÜÊÜÙÎÍÉØÙÛÄÉÕØêÎÈÉÕ÷ÑÎËÔÙÜ æÜÉØËðÜÏÜÖØÐØÏÉùÔÊÉËÔÚÉ üðøïùðøïéïî éîéõøüöëøøðøïéüëéôêé÷îëüéñüïéôúûëôùöø ó èïùøëíüêêíëîóøúéüÍÍËÎÇØüÐØÏÙÐØÏÉïÎ ÉÎÉÕØÜÖËØØÐØÏÉÛØÉÆØØÏÉÕØúÔÉÄÜÏÙ ÜËÉÔÊÉðÔÚÕÔÒÎòÈËÔÊÈÉÎÔÏÚËØÜÊØ×ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËÉÕØüÉÑÜÏÉÔÚüÇØÏÈØ ûËÔÙÖØèÏÙØËÍÜÊÊÜÉçØÉØËÜÏ«ÊíÜËÒíËÎÓØÚÉ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ êÍØÚÔÜÑíËÎÓØÚÉÊ÷ÈÏÙíËÎ×ØÊÊÔÎÏÜÑêØËÇÔÚØÊîÉÕØËíËÎ×ØÊÊÔÎÏÜÑêØËÇÔÚØÊ úüññéîüëéôêéêùøñôùüúîððèïôéäíüëòúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑÎ×ÜËØÌÈØÊÉÉÎÜÑÑÎÆ ò ÉÕØíÈÛÑÔÚüËÉüÙÇÔÊÎËÄûÎÜËÙÉÎÜÙÇØËÉÔÊØÜÚÜÑÑÉÎÜËÉÔÊÉÊªñÜÏÙÊÚÜÍÔÏÖüËÉÔÊÉÔÏëØÊÔÙØÏÚÄ íËÎÓØÚÉ©ÔÏÉÕØùØÑôÙÜúÎÐÐÈÏÔÉÄíÜËÒ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ êÍØÚÔÜÑ íËÎÓØÚÉÊ÷ÈÏÙíËÎ×ØÊÊÔÎÏÜÑêØËÇÔÚØÊîÉÕØËíËÎ×ØÊÊÔÎÏÜÑêØËÇÔÚØÊ ëøêîñèéôîïïî ü÷÷îëùüûñøõîèêôïöüùçôêîëäúîððôééøøüÍÍËÎÇØÜÏÙ ñ ÜÙÎÍÉëØÊÎÑÈÉÔÎÏïÎ ÜÐØÏÙÔÏÖëØÊÎÑÈÉÔÎÏïÎ ÆÕÔÚÕÚËØÜÉØÙÜÏü××ÎËÙÜÛÑØõÎÈÊÔÏÖ üÙÇÔÊÎËÄúÎÐÐÔÉÉØØÔÏÎËÙØËÉÎÍËÎÇÔÙØÛËÎÜÙØËÐØÐÛØËÊÕÔÍØÑÔÖÔÛÔÑÔÉÄ ëøìèøêééîúõüïöøûèùöøéõøüëôïöùüéøêüÍÍËÎÇØÜÏÙÜÈÉÕÎËÔÃØÊÉÜ××ÉÎÚÕÜÏÖØ ð ÉÕØÉÆÎÛÈÙÖØÉÕØÜËÔÏÖÙÜÉØÊÉÎêØÍÉØÐÛØË ÜÏÙêØÍÉØÐÛØË ëøçôøæî÷üííøüñüûñøñüïùùøçøñîíðøïéûîüëùüúéôîïêüÚÚØÍÉÉÕØÜÚÉÔÎÏÊ ï ÜÏÙÙØÚÔÊÔÎÏÊÐÜÙØÛÄÉÕØñÜÏÙùØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉûÎÜËÙÊ×ÎËÉÕØÍØËÔÎÙðÜÄ ÉÕËÎÈÖÕðÜÄ üæüëùî÷ûôùêüïùúîïéëüúéê î úÎÏÉËÜÚÉÜÆÜËÙÉÎõóúÎÏÉËÜÚÉÔÏÖôÏÚÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËØÅÚÜÇÜÉÔÏÖÜÏÙ ØÅÍÜÏÙÔÏÖÉÕØØÅÔÊÉÔÏÖÍÎÏÙÏØÜËÉÕØ ÉÕÉØØÎÏñÜÒØÇÔØÆöÎÑ×úÎÈËÊØ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ ×ËÎÐ æÜÉØËêØÆØË÷ÈÏÙîÉÕØËôÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉÊëØÚÑÜÔÐØÙæÜÉØË éËÜÏÊÐÔÊÊÔÎÏ íÈËÚÕÜÊØÜÆÜËÙÉÎçØËÐØØËêÎÈÉÕØÜÊÉêÜÑØÊÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËÉÕØÍÈËÚÕÜÊØÎ× ÎÏØ äÜÏÐÜËøÅÚÜÇÜÉÎËÐÎÙØÑçôî ×ÎËÉÕØíÜËÒÊÜÏÙëØÚËØÜÉÔÎÏùØÍÜËÉÐØÏÉ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖ ÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ ûØÜÈÉÔ×ÔÚÜÉÔÎÏéËÈÊÉ÷ÈÏÙðÜÚÕÔÏØËÄøÌÈÔÍÐØÏÉîÉÕØË ðÜÚÕÔÏØËÄøÌÈÔÍÐØÏÉ íÈËÚÕÜÊØÜÆÜËÙÉÎæÜÑðÜËÉÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËÉÕØÍÈËÚÕÜÊØÎ× øÇØÏ×ÑÎ ùÔÊÚÎÇØËÄôÏ×ÜÏÉúÜËêØÜÉÊ×ÎËÉÕØúÕÔÑÙíÜÊÊØÏÖØËêÜ×ØÉÄíËÎÖËÜÐ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖÔÊÜÇÜÔÑÜÛÑØ×ËÎÐ öØÏØËÜÑ÷ÈÏÙîÍØËÜÉÔÏÖêÈÍÍÑÔØÊöØÏØËÜÑîÍØËÜÉÔÏÖêÈÍÍÑÔØÊ ëøöèñüëüöøïùü üííøüñî÷õôêéîëôúíëøêøëçüéôîïûîüëùùøúôêôîï ø êé ü üçøïèøúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÏÜÍÍØÜÑÎ×ÉÕØõÔÊÉÎËÔÚíËØÊØËÇÜÉÔÎÏûÎÜËÙ«ÊÙØÚÔÊÔÎÏËØÖÜËÙÔÏÖÉÕØ úØËÉÔ×ÔÚÜÉÔÎÏÎ×üÍÍËÎÍËÔÜÉØÏØÊÊúîüúÑÜÊÊçêÔÉØíÑÜÏüÍÍÑÔÚÜÉÔÎÏÜÏÙÜÊÊÎÚÔÜÉØÙÆÜÔÇØË ËØÌÈØÊÉ×ÎËÉÕØÏØÆÚÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉÔÎÏÎ×ÜÉÆÎÊÉÎËÄÎ××ÔÚØÛÈÔÑÙÔÏÖÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉ îÑÙ êÚÕÎÎÑêÌÈÜËØõÔÊÉÎËÔÚùÔÊÉËÔÚÉìÈÜÊÔóÈÙÔÚÔÜÑõØÜËÔÏÖüííñôúüïéõüêëøìèøêéøù íîêéíîïøðøïééîüèöèêé ëøöèñüëðøøéôïö úîïêôùøëüéôîïî÷êíøúôüñüúéôîïëøìèøêéî÷÷ôúøùøíîéúçêíõüëðüúä û ûèôñùôïöêúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜËØÌÈØÊÉ×ÎËÚÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÉÔÎÏÉÎËØÙÈÚØÉÕØÍÜËÒÔÏÖÊÍÜÚØÊËØÌÈÔËØÙ ÍÈËÊÈÜÏÉÉÎñÜÏÙùØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉëØÖÈÑÜÉÔÎÏÊñùëêØÚÉÔÎÏ ú ªëØÌÈÔËØÐØÏÉÊ×ÎË úÎÐÐØËÚÔÜÑèÊØÊ©ÛÄÊÍÜÚØÊ×ËÎÐÉÕØ ÍÜËÒÔÏÖÊÍÜÚØÊËØÌÈÔËØÙÉÎÉÕØÊÍÜÚØÊÍËÎÇÔÙØÙ ×ÎËÉÕØî××ÔÚØùØÍÎÉ§úçêûÈÔÑÙÔÏÖÊÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉ ïøÉÕüÇØÏÈØìÈÜÊÔóÈÙÔÚÔÜÑõØÜËÔÏÖ æüôçøëëøìèøêéêî÷÷ôúøùøíîéúçêíõüëðüúäûèôñùôïöêùøçøñîíðøïé ú íëîíîêüñúÎÏÊÔÙØËÉÕËØØ ÇØñÜÏÙùØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉëØÖÈÑÜÉÔÎÏÊñùë êØÚÉÔÎÏÊ ü ÜÏÙªçÔÊÔÛÔÑÔÉÄÜÉôÏÉØËÊØÚÉÔÎÏÊ©ÉÎËØÙÈÚØÉÕØËØÌÈÔËØÙÇÔÊÔÛÔÑÔÉÄÉËÔÜÏÖÑØ ÎÏÉÕØÊÎÈÉÕÊÔÙØÎ×ÉÕØÔÏÉØËÊØÚÉÔÎÏÎ×ÉÕØÙËÔÇØÆÜÄÉÎïøÉÕüÇØÏÈØ×ËÎÐ «ÉÎ «ÜÏÙÉÎ ËØÙÈÚØÉÕØËØÌÈÔËØÙÇÔÊÔÛÔÑÔÉÄÉËÔÜÏÖÑØÊÜÉÉÕØÔÏÉØËÊØÚÉÔÎÏÊÎ×ïøÉÕüÇØÏÈØÜÏÙïøÉÕêÉËØØÉ ÜÏÙÜÉïøÉÕüÇØÏÈØÜÏÙïøÉÕêÉËØØÉ×ËÎÐ «ÉÎ «ìÈÜÊÔóÈÙÔÚÔÜÑõØÜËÔÏÖ æüôçøëëøìèøêéôûðêîèéõøüêéøðíñîäøøê÷øùøëüñúëøùôéèïôîïúÎÏÊÔÙØË ù ÜÆÜÔÇØËËØÌÈØÊÉÉÎÆÜÔÇØñÜÏÙùØÇØÑÎÍÐØÏÉëØÖÈÑÜÉÔÎÏÊñùëêØÚÉÔÎÏÊ û Ú ªôÑÑÈÐÔÏÜÉÔÎÏñØÇØÑÊÜÏÙèÏÔ×ÎËÐÔÉÄ©ÉÎÜÑÑÎÆÔÑÑÈÐÔÏÜÉÔÎÏÑØÇØÑÊÖËØÜÉØËÉÕÜÏ ×ÎÎÉÚÜÏÙÑØÊ ÆÔÉÕÔÏÉÕØÍÜËÒÔÏÖÜËØÜÊ×ÎËÉÕØôûðêÎÈÉÕØÜÊÉøÐÍÑÎÄØØÊ÷ØÙØËÜÑúËØÙÔÉèÏÔÎÏÑÎÚÜÉØÙÆÔÉÕÔÏ ÉÕØùØÑËÜÄíÜËÒÎ×úÎÐÐØËÚØÜÉÉÕØÏÎËÉÕØÜÊÉÚÎËÏØËÎ×úÎÏÖËØÊÊüÇØÏÈØÜÏÙñÜÒØôÙÜëÎÜÙ ïæ ÉÕüÇØÏÈØìÈÜÊÔóÈÙÔÚÔÜÑõØÜËÔÏÖ ôïñôøèíüëòôïö÷øøüöëøøðøïééüçøëïüøëîêúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜËØÌÈØÊÉÉÎÜÍÍËÎÇØÜÏ ø ôÏñÔØÈíÜËÒÔÏÖ÷ØØíÜÄÐØÏÉüÖËØØÐØÏÉÔÏÉÕØÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ×ÎËÉÕØÔÏÑÔØÈÊÍÜÚØÊ ËØÚØÏÉÑÄÜÍÍËÎÇØÙ×ÎËéÜÇØËÏÜøËÎÊÑÎÚÜÉØÙÜÉøÜÊÉüÉÑÜÏÉÔÚüÇØÏÈØ ûôùùôïöêúîíøðôññøëíüëòúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑÎ×ÜÍËÎÍÎÊØÙÜÑÔÐÔÉØÙÊÚÎÍØÎ× ÷ ÔÐÍËÎÇØÐØÏÉÊ×ÎËðÔÑÑØËíÜËÒÉÎÛØÔÙØÏÉÔ×ÔØÙÜÊÉÕØÛÜÊØÛÔÙÔÏÛÔÙÙÎÚÈÐØÏÉÊÉÎÛØÜÙÇØËÉÔÊØÙ×ÎË ÚÎÐÍØÉÔÉÔÇØÛÔÙÊÆÔÉÕÜÙÙÜÑÉØËÏÜÉØÔÉØÐÊÜÊÍËØÊØÏÉØÙ êøééñøðøïéî÷÷øëôïëîûøëéõüèíé÷èõëøëÇúôéäî÷ùøñëüä ö ûøüúõúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜêØÉÉÑØÐØÏÉî××ØËÔÏÉÕØÉÎÉÜÑÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÔÏëÎÛØËÉõÜÈÍÉ×ÈÕËØËÇ úÔÉÄÎ×ùØÑËÜÄûØÜÚÕêÉÜ××ËØÚÎÐÐØÏÙÊÙØÏÔÜÑ õ êøééñøðøïéî÷÷øëôïëîûøëéöëîúõðüñÇúôéäî÷ùøñëüäûøüúõúÎÏÊÔÙØËÜ êØÉÉÑØÐØÏÉî××ØËÔÏÉÕØÉÎÉÜÑÜÐÎÈÏÉÎ× ÔÏëÎÛØËÉöËÎÚÕÐÜÑÇúÔÉÄÎ×ùØÑËÜÄûØÜÚÕ êÉÜ××ËØÚÎÐÐØÏÙÊÜÍÍËÎÇÜÑ üííîôïéðøïééîéõøúîùøøï÷îëúøðøïéûîüëùüÍÍÎÔÏÉÎÏØ ËØÖÈÑÜËÐØÐÛØË ô ÉÎÉÕØúÎÙØøÏ×ÎËÚØÐØÏÉûÎÜËÙÉÎÊØËÇØÜÏÈÏØÅÍÔËØÙÉØËÐØÏÙÔÏÖóÜÏÈÜËÄ ûÜÊØÙÈÍÎÏ ÉÕØËÎÉÜÉÔÎÏÊÄÊÉØÐÉÕØÜÍÍÎÔÏÉÐØÏÉÆÔÑÑÛØÐÜÙØÛÄúÎÐÐÔÊÊÔÎÏØËðÚùÈ××ÔØêØÜÉ Application Process For Communications Facilities", of the Code of Ordinances and enacting a new Chapter 57, "Communications Facilities in Public Right-of-Way", to provide the terms and conditions for the erecting, constructing, and maintaining of a communications facility in the City's public right-of-way for the provision of communications service. G. ORDINANCE NO. 21-08: An ordinance amending Chapter 36, "Finance, City Property Transactions", Section 36.01, "Compliance With Standard Practice Instructions", by providing that bidding for Community Development Block Grant projects shall be included as an exception from the Standard Practice Instruction. 11. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC- IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. City Manager's response to prior public comments and inquires. B. From the Public. 12. FIRST READINGS: A. NONE 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: A. City Manager B. City Attorney C. City Commission MAY 20, 2008 A Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Rita Ellis in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 20, 2008. 1. Roll call showed: Present - Commissioner Gary Eliopoulos Commissioner Fred B. Fetzer Commissioner Woodie McDuffie Commissioner Brenda B. Montague Mayor Rita Ellis Absent - None Also present were - David T. Harden, City Manager Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney Lanelda D. Gaskins, Acting Deputy City Clerk 2. The opening prayer was delivered by Commissioner McDuffie. 3. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was given. 4. AGENDA APPROVAL. Mr. Eliopoulos requested that Item 8.A., Request for Sidewalk Deferral/2001 South Ocean Boulevard be moved from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda as Item 9.A.A., Item 8.B., Request for Sidewalk Deferral/302 Palm Trail be moved from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda as Item 9.A.A.A., and Item 8.C., Acceutance of Right-of-Way Dedication/302 Palm Trail be moved from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda as Item 9.A.A.A.A. Mr. Eliopoulos moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Fetzer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mrs. Montague -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. McDuffie moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 6, 2008, seconded by Mr. Eliopoulos. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mrs. Montague -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 05/20/08 Mr. Eliopoulos moved to approve the Minutes of the SpeciaUWorkshop Meeting of May 13, 2008, seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Montague -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 6. PROCLAMATIONS: 6.A. National Safe Boating Week - May 17-23, 2008 Mayor Ellis read and presented a proclamation hereby proclaiming May 17-23, 2008 as National Safe Boating Week in Delray Beach. Ron Barrett and Tom Thayer of the United States Coast Guard came forward to accept their proclamations and gave a few brief comments. 6.B. Reco~nizin~ Sister Marv Clare Fennell Mayor Ellis read and presented a proclamation hereby extending our appreciation to SISTER MARY CLARE FENNELL for her spiritual leadership at St. Vincent Ferrer Catholic School and wish her all the best in her retirement years and future endeavors. Sister Mary Clare Fennell came forward to accept the proclamation and gave a few brief comments. 7. PRESENTATIONS: 7.A. NONE 8. CONSENT AGENDA: City Manager Recommends Approval. 8.A. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 9.A.A. 8.B. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 9.A.A.A. 8.C. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS ITEM 9.A.A.A.A. 8.D. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION/321 PINEAPPLE GROVE WAY: Approve and accept aright-of--way deed between the City and 321 N.E. 2nd Avenue, LLC, for the property located at 321 Pineapple Grove Way (St. Georges Suites). 8.E. ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER EASEMENT DEEDS/ARNST OCEAN AUTOMOTIVE: Approve and accept two (2) easement deeds for 12-foot sewer easements at Arnst Ocean Automotive and extending south into the property adjacent to Arnst Ocean Automotive. -2- 05/20/08 8.F. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1/WEITZ COMPANY/SEACREST SOCCER COMPLEX PROJECT: Approve Change Order No. 1 to The Weitz Company for an 18 day extension of time to complete the Seacrest Soccer Complex Project. No additional funding is required. 8.G. ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY GRANT APPLICATION/SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD): Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute an application for an Alternative Water Supply (AWS) grant for the 2008/2009 annual grant cycle with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) which provides supplementary funding for the next phase of construction of the City's Reclaimed Water Transmission System. 8.H. ADDITIONAL FUNDING/HOMETOWN CONNECTION NEWSLETTER: Approve and authorize additional funding in the amount of $1,501.00 for Pollack Communications and in the amount of $9,726.00 for CM Graphics for the production of the Hometown Connection Newsletter for the remainder of FY 2007-2008. Funding is available from 001-1316-512-34.90 (General Fund/Other Contractual Services) and 001-1316-512-47.10 (General Fund/Printing/Binding Services). 8_I. AGREEMENT/NEW INNOVATIONS/SUMMER ENRICHMENT PROGRAM: Approve an agreement between the City and New Innovations for a Summer Enrichment Program. Funding is available from 001-4105-572-34.90 (General Fund/Other Contractual Services). 8_J. AMENDMENT NO. 1/INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/135 N.W. St''AVENUE: Approve an alternative Amendment No. 1 to the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for construction renovations to 135 N.W. 5~ Avenue. At the May 6, 2008 meeting, Commission approved Amendment No. l; however, the CRA's attorney drafted an alternative agreement that also provides funding by the CRA in the amount of $30,000.00 as a contingency and the CRA accidentally presented this one to their Board. 8.K. AGREEMENT/MAE VOLEN SENIOR CENTER, INC./MEALS PROGRAM/CONGREGATE: Approve an agreement between the City and Mae Volen Senior Center, Inc. to provide congregate meals for seniors at Pompey Park Recreation Center. 8.L. APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF RESERVATIONS/MIDTOWN DELRAY: Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute an Application for Release of Reservations from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund which recommends full release of a 20-foot road reservation. 8.M. AMENDED GUARANTY AND WARRANTY AGREEMENTS/BOB FEDERSPIEL PARKING GARAGE: Approve Amended Guaranty and Warranty Agreements for the Bob Federspiel Parking Garage. -3- 05/20/08 8.N. REQUEST FOR MEMBERSHIP/INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES: Approve a request from the Green Task Force to join ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) at an annual cost of $1,200.00. Funding is available from 001-2911-519- 54.20 (General Fund/Memberships). 8.0. SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST/4th OF JULY FESTIVITIES: Approve a special event request for the 4th of July Festivities to be held from noon until 12:00 midnight, including granting a temporary use permit per LDR Section 2.4.6(F) for the closure of Atlantic Avenue from the east side of N.E./S.E. 6th Avenue to Ocean Boulevard, and from the south side of Thomas Street to the north side of Miramar on Ocean Boulevard; to waive City ordinances 101.25 "Commercial Enterprises" and 101.32 "Assemblies" to allow assembly on the beach and vendors; to allow all beach parking lots to remain open to approximately midnight; and to approve staff support for security and traffic control, street barricading and banner hanging, new large stage and small stage set up and use, EMS support, use of City generator, signage, and clean up and trash removal. 8.P. REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS: Accept the actions and decisions made by the Land Development Boards for the period May 5, 2008 through May 16, 2008. 8~. AWARD OF BIDS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Contract award to Chaz Equipment, Inc. at an estimated annual cost of $50,000.00 by renewal and extension of the existing annual contract under the same terms, conditions and prices for Sanitary Sewer Manhole Interior Rehabilitation. Funding is available from 442-5178-536-63.82 (Water/Sewer Renewal & Replacement Fund/Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation). 2. Contract award to J & M Pipeline, Inc. in the amount of $43,650.00 for cleaning an existing 16" force main under the Intracoastal Waterway for use as a reclaimed transmission main in serving Area 11 & 12 of the Reclaimed Water System. Funding is available from 441-5181-536-65.96 (Water & Sewer Fund/Reclaimed Water Transmission). 3. Purchase award to Emergency Vehicle Supply (EVS) in the amount of $78,221.79 for the purchase and installation of nine (9) police vehicle equipment packages for the Police Department. Funding is available from 001-2115-521-64.20 (General Fund/Automotive). 4. Purchase award to Riddell/All American in the amount of $14,714.00, to BSN Passon Sports in the amount of $1,767.35, to Gulfstream Sports Group in the amount of $1,415.90, and to GL Sports in the amount of $618.50 for the purchase of football -4- 05/20/08 equipment for the 2008 Delray Beach Rocks Varsity/Peewee Football Teams. Funding is available from 001-4127-572-55.30 (General Fund/Football Supplies). 5. Purchase award to LO. Analytical in the amount of $27,802.00 for the purchase of the first component for the upgrade of the Volatile Organic Compound System. Funding is available from 442-5178- 536-64.90 (Water/Sewer Renewal and Replacement Fund/Other Machinery/Equipment). 6. Purchase award to Duval Ford in the amount of $219,168.00, per the Florida Sheriff's Association bid award #07-15-0827 for the purchase of nine (9) Crown Vic Police Interceptor take-home vehicles for the Police Department. Funding is available from 001-2115-521-64.20 (General Fund/Automotive) and 115-2112- 521-64.20 (Special Projects Fund/Automotive). Mrs. Montague moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, seconded by Mr. Eliopoulos. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mrs. Montague -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Commissioner Eliopoulos declared a conflict of interest on Items 9.A.A., 9.A.A.A., and 9.A.A.A.A. 9. REGULAR AGENDA: 9.A.A. REQUEST FOR SIDEWALK DEFERRAL/2001 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD: Approve a request to defer the installation of a sidewalk in front of 2001 South Ocean Boulevard. Richard Hasko, Director of Environmental Services, stated the two sidewalk deferrals are fairly routine in the neighborhoods where the homes are located. He stated there are no sidewalks in the immediate areas and staff has had no requests from the neighborhood and typically recommend sidewalk deferrals in those areas. The right-of--way acquisition is a requirement on the one property to give us the minimum right-of--ways that the City requires per the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Fetzer moved to approve the sidewalk deferral agreement for 2001 South Ocean Boulevard, seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mrs. Montague -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.A.A.A. REQUEST FOR SIDEWALK DEFERRAL/302 PALM TRAIL: Approve a request to defer the installation of a sidewalk in front of 302 Palm Trail. Mr. McDuffie stated he received communications from someone who lives on Palm Trail who has a sidewalk which crosses one lot and now we are deferring -5- 05/20/08 all the rest of them. Mr. Hasko stated staff did discuss that issue and the sidewalk deferral process is available to builders, homeowners, etc. that they can apply to the City for under certain circumstances. Generally there is no sidewalk in the area (Lake Ida area or in the Palm Trail area). He stated sometimes what happens is a builder may go out and may or may not be familiar with Delray and the default requirement is to build a sidewalk. Mr. Hasko stated he believes what happened in that particular case is the builder built the house, built the sidewalk, and never came in to request a deferral and then he sold the house to the people who are now wondering why they have the only sidewalk on the street. Mr. McDuffie asked if it is a similar process to remove the sidewalk. Mr. Hasko stated staff discussed to allow the removal if the owner wanted to do it and replace it with a deferral. Mr. McDuffie moved to approve the sidewalk deferral agreement for 302 Palm Trail, seconded by Mr. Montague. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mrs. Montague -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.A.A.A.A. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION/302 PALM TRAIL: Approve and accept aright-of--way deed between the City and Ann Driscoll, for property located at 302 Palm Trail. Mrs. Montague moved to approve and accept aright-of--way deed between the City of Delray Beach and Ann Driscoll for the property located at 302 Palm Trail, seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mrs. Montague -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. 9.A. WAIVER REQUEST/82 N.W. 5th AVENUE/WEST SETTLERS HISTORIC DISTRICT: Consider a waiver request to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.5.1(E)(7), "Demolition", which prohibits demolition of any structure within a historic district until the redevelopment plans for the site are approved and a building permit has been issued, for the property located at 82 N.W. 5th Avenue, West Settlers Historic District. (Quasi-Judicial Hearing) Mayor Ellis read the City of Delray Beach procedures for aQuasi-Judicial Hearing for this item and all subsequent Quasi-Judicial Hearings. Lanelda Gaskins, Acting Deputy City Clerk, swore in those individuals who wished to give testimony on this item. Mayor Ellis asked the Commission to disclose their ex parte communications. Mr. McDuffie and Mrs. Montague stated they had no ex parte communications to disclose. Mr. Eliopoulos stated he spoke with Mr. Jeff Costello of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). Mr. Fetzer and Mayor Ellis stated they had no ex parte communications to disclose. Paul Dorling, Director of Planning and Zoning, entered the Planning and -6- 05/20/08 Zoning Department project file # 2008-137 into the record. Mr. Dorling stated this is a request for a waiver to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(7) which prohibits the demolition of all structures within a historic district until such time redevelopment plans and site plan approval have been obtained as well as a building permit issued for the project. He stated the request is to demolish the structure without submission and approval of those plans. At its meeting of May 7, 2008, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) reviewed the proposal and with a vote of 4 to 3 recommended approval of the waiver request subject to the condition that a ten foot (10') perimeter of sod is installed and that all existing trees be retained and maintained on site. The applicant is the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and they have provided a justification request for the waiver (Exhibit "A"). Mr. Dorling stated it is anticipated that redevelopment is forthcoming in the near future and the CRA is negotiating with the Delray Beach Housing Authority at this time. However, Mr. Dorling stated they are not ready to submit those redevelopment plans and given the condition of the property they would like some relief and would like to tear it down to get it underway for future development. Staff recommends that the HPB condition be expanded to acquire that the site be seeded and watered until that grass is established in addition to maintaining the trees on site. In addition to maintaining the trees on site, this is a condition that the City Commission has previously applied to extension requests for site plans and conditional uses. Mr. Dorling stated in making sure that the site is aesthetically appropriate in the interim staff is requesting that the Commission attach that condition of approval. Jeff Costello, Assistant Director of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), entered photographs into the record. He stated the non-contributing structures were constructed in 1982 and went into disrepair quickly as a blighted property on N.W. 5~ Avenue that had significant issues with regard to crime and drug activity. The CRA purchased the property in 2005 as part of their mission which is to eliminate slum and blight. Mr. Costello stated subsequent to that time period there were the improvements that have occurred on N.W. 5~ Avenue and there has been a lot of public and private investment. He stated the CRA has been in negotiations with the Delray Beach Housing Authority and there were some issues with regard to the site itself with regard to access. However, with the condition of that property and the investment that has been made along 5~ Avenue, the CRA Board gave the recommendation to demolish the building. Demolition will have a positive impact on the northwest 5~ Avenue corridor as well as the surrounding area where these investments have been made. He stated with regard to the waiver request, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5) and reiterated that this is anon-contributing structure and it is blighted and eliminating this building will eliminate potentially an adverse or an unsafe situation. Mr. Costello the longer this building stays erect there is more possibility that some other activity could occur on the property. The current property does not meet any of the design guidelines of the CBD (Central Business District) regulations. With regard to the other findings that need to be made, Mr. Costello stated that this particular waiver -7- 05/20/08 would not create a special privilege in that the waiver would be granted in a similar circumstance to eliminate a blighted non-contributing building in a corridor such as this. On May 16, 2008, the West Settlers Advisory Board recommended to support the demolition as well as the waiver request. At its meeting of May 7, 2008, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) approved the Certificate of Appropriateness request for the demolition of the non-contributing structures located at 82 N.W. 5th Avenue. Mr. Costello requested a waiver to the LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(7). Mr. Eliopoulos asked what the intent of the site is going to be. In response, Mr. Costello stated the intent of the site is that the Delray Beach Housing Authority is to have their administrative offices on that site. The approval through the RFP (Request for Proposal) was through a mixed use building and it would be to meet the CBD regulations. Mr. Costello stated last week the CRA received a drawing and noted that they have been tweaking the elevations and began that process. Mr. Eliopoulos asked what the height of the building is. Mr. Costello stated the height of the building is three stories; the maximum height is 48 feet. Mayor Ellis stated if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the waiver request, to please come forward at this time. There being no one from the public who wished to address the Commission regarding the waiver request, the public hearing was closed. There was no cross-examination or rebuttal. Mayor Ellis stated if there are plans to demolish what is considered a historic house or building in a historic district that it would have to come before this Commission to be demolished in every case if there was not an existing approved site plan to take its place. The City Attorney stated the City would require a waiver of that condition for anyone that would come before the Commission for that type of demolition on the timeframe that they want to not do it at the time of the building permit; it would require a waiver. Mr. Eliopoulos stated he realizes this is in the historic district and clearly understands that this is not a historic structure. He asked how this works in the CBD with regard to demolition and whether or not someone would need a waiver. The City Attorney stated it does not require coming to anyone to get a demolition permit; it is really the Historic Preservation Board and their jurisdiction in the historic districts that require this special approval to preserve historic districts. Mr. Dorling stated he believes it only applies to demolitions in the historic district. The City Attorney stated she would have to check on this. Mr. Fetzer inquired as to why HPB had three members vote against this. Mr. Dorling stated this is a new regulation that was just put into place and there was a concern that the first building wants a waiver to it and they were concerned with what kind of precedent this would set. Mr. Eliopoulos stated he feels there was some value in this structure that could have been salvaged. Mr. Eliopoulos stated he will support the -8- 05/20/08 waiver request this evening; however, he is concerned in the future how they are going to be coming forward because of neglect. Mr. Dorling stated this is a suburban building in an urban area and it does not meet the design guidelines. He stated to salvage it is problematic to meet the current codes. Mr. Eliopoulos stated he would like us to be cautious in the future with demolition in the historic districts. The City Attorney briefly reviewed the Board Order with the Commission who made findings according to their consensus (attached hereto is a copy and made an official part of the minutes). Mrs. Montague moved to adopt the Board Order as presented (approving the waiver request subject to the condition that a ten foot (10') perimeter of sod be installed and that all existing trees be retained and maintained on site), seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Montague -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.B. RENEWAL OF LIABILITY, WORKERS' COMP AND PROPERTY DAMAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM AND OTHER OPTIONS: Consider a proposal for renewal of the City's Liability, Workers' Comp and Property Damage Insurance Program with other insurance related options. Funding is available from 551- 1575-591-45.30 (Business Insurance FundBoiler and Machinery Premium); 45.31 (Package Policies), 45.33 (Excess Property), and 45.34 (Crime). Frank Babin, Risk Manager, stated Lisa Rodriguez with Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. put together the proposal package; however, she had back surgery and is out of commission. Mr. Babin introduced Tony Abella, Jr., Area Vice President/Branch Leader and Terry Bozelle, Client Service Representative from Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. who are both present this evening. Mr. Babin stated last June the City re-wrote the excess property coverage at a reduced rate premium and short termed the other coverage that typically renews in October. He stated the entire City's property and casualty insurance programs are ready for renewal June 2008. Mr. Babin briefly reviewed the premium summary and stated it shows the carriers, the coverage and the total premiums that the City is asking approval for June 1, 2008 -June 1, 2009 policy year. He stated the Princeton coverage shows the basic primary property coverage and also provides catastrophic excess liability coverage of $5,000,000 over aself-insured retention of $1,000,000; $24,000,000 in excess property coverage is provided by four excess insurers (Lexington, Max Specialty, Westchester, and Endurance) He stated the ACE American Insurance Co. provides property coverage for Environmental Services and the Water Treatment Plant. Mr. Babin stated a few years ago because of the shortage insurance capacity, Ms. Rodriguez was able to get adequate -9- 05/20/08 limits by breaking out these facilities and the City received a good premium rate. Mr. Babin stated the Hartford Insurance Company provides the life and accident insurance which is the statutory Police and Fire benefit coverage and the employee dishonesty crime policies. All insurance policies at this renewal will total premiums of $1.7 million. Staff is also asking for approval for a special events coverage and at no cost to the City it allows a convenient way for the smaller users of City facilities (i.e. picnics, weddings, and the instructors who teach classes through the Parks and Recreation Department) to use their credit card to purchase a million dollars worth of coverage without having to go out and try to find that type of coverage. Mr. Babin stated staff is also asking to have the City buildings appraised and noted the City has approximately 20 buildings that are valued at over $1,000,000. Over the years the City has used the Engineering Department and estimates of construction costs to value the buildings. Staff is now asking to make a formal appraisal of the 20 major buildings in the City and the cost is approximately $5,400-$5,600. Mr. Babin stated Arthur J. Gallagher has been able to reduce premiums over 18% from the expiring premiums. Mrs. Montague stated with regard to the new option for special events and the policy that would be offered to them, how does the policy compare to policies that they could buy outside of what could be provided through the City? Tony Abella, Jr., Area Vice President/Branch Leader (Arthur J. Gallaher & Co.), stated this tenant user liability insurance program is that it is an event specific policy and is in the name of the City of Delray Beach as well as in the name of the organization or the sponsor of whatever activity and it is priced based on the type of activity, the number of participants, and whether or not alcohol is being provided. The City Manager stated no one would be forced to use this and if they wanted to go buy insurance somewhere else that is fine. He stated as long as the City of Delray Beach has the coverage and is named as an insured that is acceptable. The City Manager stated it would be very convenient and in many cases less costly. Mrs. Montague inquired about the size of the events. Mr. Abella stated there is no real limit to the size of the event for a city the size of Delray Beach. Mayor Ellis stated this is a problem for some of these smaller organizations trying to have an event to find the insurance that meets the requirements of the City in order to have their event. Mrs. Montague stated she just wants to make sure that even though it would not be costing the City anything that it is a comparable price to what they might get outside the City. Mr. Avella stated from an event specific statement it is relatively inexpensive. Mr. Babin stated the City has a policy for the major special events that is handled through Robert Barcinski and noted that this is more so for the smaller events (i.e. picnics, weddings, and the instructors who teach classes through the Parks and -10- 05/20/08 Recreation Department) that need coverage and are forced to go out and buy it themselves. Mrs. Montague stated because they cannot provide themselves insurances another way they are still being offered reasonable rates through this option. Mr. Abella stated some entities pay the money for their annual meetings and the municipality funds these but some clients do not fund any of it. Mr. Eliopoulos asked Mr. Babin to review the appraisal of the property with regard to the City's properties. In response, Mr. Babin stated the City has never done an appraisal and the coverage is based on the estimates he has been able to put together through the Engineering staff or based on estimated costs of construction. Mr. Babin stated the City could be undervalued or overvalued and the policy is such that the City should have coverage regardless and noted it is very reasonably priced. Mr. McDuffie inquired about the $1,000,000 and asked if this is for all structures. In response, Mr. Babin stated all buildings (approximately 20) valued $1,000,000 or more will be appraised. Mrs. Montague moved to approve the insurance proposal as set forth in Item 9.B. including the appraisal and the extra event insurance, seconded by Mr. Eliopoulos. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mrs. Montague -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.C. LETTER OF INTENT/WESTROCK, LTD./OLD SCHOOL SQUARE RETAIL SPACE: Consider a Letter of Intent from Westrock, Ltd. for the sale of the Old School Square Garage Retail Space. The City Attorney stated this is a Letter of Intent and she was visited by individuals who live in Delray and are part of Westrock, Ltd. which is an English company and they have showed interest in perhaps purchasing the Old School Square Garage retail space and think they have lined up a potential tenant for a gourmet market deli. The City Attorney stated the Letter of Intent sets out some essential terms although these are non-binding provisions on either side because it would only be binding if the City enters into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Westrock, Ltd. The Letter of Intent sets forth a purchase price of $208 per square foot or a newer appraiser might show a different or lower income evaluation and in that case that may be what they offer. The City Attorney stated if the Commission approves this it would be with a condition that the City gets to approve the appraiser. It also provides for easements and licenses for certain elevator use and other use. She stated from discussions they understand that any grease traps or venting would be at their expense. The City Attorney stated there is a storage area in there that would be divided in a pro rata square footage for the Chamber of Commerce meeting the square footage for the Chamber and the deli market. They have asked for ten (10) ground floor parking spaces (the closest ten) and staff will work out language about the availability of those during special events, etc. The City Attorney -11- 05/20/08 stated they have some ideas on the earnest money they would be proposing in a purchase and sale agreement that is set forth in paragraph #5. They are requesting a 30 day renewal period (initially it was longer) but they came back and asked for a shorter period and the closing would be a quick closing and the closing costs are set forth in paragraph #8. The City Attorney stated although it says the seller will pay for any transfer taxes or fees it would have to be the buyer because by law the City cannot do documentary stamps and taxes. She stated the Commission will be paid by the purchaser and these are non- binding conditions. The City Attorney stated she feels the City has had some very cooperative and good discussions. She stated Westrock, Ltd. has owned homes here for fourteen years and they are current residents here. Mayor Ellis stated this is before the Commission to grant a 30-day period of time for them to get their parties together and to make it official. She feels 30 days is a reasonable amount of time. The City Attorney stated all of these terms are subject to Federal tax issues that they are aware we have. Mr. McDuffie stated 30 days is for a negotiation period at which time the Commission is to approve a final contract. The City Attorney stated they are to get a final contract to the Commission by that time not to say that they may not ask for an extension. Prior to the vote, Mr. Eliopoulos stated with regard to the possible tenant he feels that if the City gets to this point he would like to be a little more secure with this. He stated he wants to ensure that the tenant they are bringing in is real and somewhere along these thirty (30) days that they might have a little more information on that. The City Attorney stated they have anon-disclosure agreement and asked when they could tell the City who the tenant would be. Chris Lowery, Commercial Real-Estate Broker for Westrock, Ltd., stated they are only asking for thirty (30) days of due diligence and they are not trying to tie it up for six or nine months and go out and find a tenant. He stated he believes that the prospective buyer is identified and has signed anon-disclosure agreement with the prospective tenant. He stated he would imagine by the end of the thirty (30) day period the prospective buyer would be able to identify the tenant to the Commission or at least they can request it. Mr. Fetzer moved to approve the Letter of Intent subject to entering into a Purchase and Sale Agreement that is acceptable to the Commission at a later date and that all the terms meet the Federal tax laws and that transfer taxes and fees will be paid by buyer, seconded by Mr. Eliopoulos. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mrs. Montague -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. -12- 05/20/08 At this point, the time being 7:00 p.m., the Commission moved to the duly advertised Public Hearings portion of the Agenda. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10.A. ORDINANCE NO. 08-08: An ordinance repealing, in its entirety, Chapter 57, "Right-of--Way Application Process For Communications Facilities", of the Code of Ordinances and enacting a new Chapter 57, "Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way", to provide the terms and conditions for the erecting, constructing, and maintaining of a communications facility in the City's public right-of--way for the provision of communications service. (REQUEST POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 3, 2008 DUE TO NEED FOR FURTHER ADVERTISING) The caption of Ordinance No. 08-08 is as follows: office.) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REPEALING, IN ITS ENTIRETY, CHAPTER 57, "RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION PROCESS FOR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 57, "COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY"; TO PROVIDE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE ERECTING, CONSTRUCTING, AND MAINTAINING OF A COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY IN THE CITY'S PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR THE PROVISION OF COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 08-08 is on file in the City Clerk's The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and stated there has been a request for postponement until June 3, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Eliopoulos moved to postpone Ordinance No. 08-08 to June 3, 2008 at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Mrs. Montague. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mrs. Montague -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. Montague. At this point, Mayor Ellis left the dais and passed the gavel to Vice Mayor 10.B. ORDINANCE NO. 21-08: An ordinance amending Chapter 36, "Finance; City Property Transactions", Section 36.01, "Compliance With Standard Practice Instructions", by providing that bidding for Community Development Block Grant projects shall be included as an exception from the Standard Practice -13- 05/20/08 Instruction. (REQUEST POSTPONEMENT TO JUNE 3, 2008 DUE TO NEED FOR FURTHER ADVERTISING) The caption of Ordinance No. 21-08 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 36, "FINANCE; CITY PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS", SECTION 36.01, "COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD PRACTICE INSTRUCTIONS", BY PROVIDING THAT BIDDING FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECTS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS AN EXCEPTION FROM THE STANDARD PRACTICE INSTRUCTION; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (The official copy of Ordinance No. 21-08 is on file in the City Clerk's office.) The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and stated there has been a request for postponement until June 3, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Eliopoulos moved to postpone Ordinance No. 21-08 to June 3, 2008 at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Mr. Fetzer. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Vice-Mayor Montague -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes. Said motion passed with 4 to 0 vote. 10.C. ORDINANCE NO. 17-08 (FIRST READING/TRANSMITTAL HEARING FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-1): Consider on first reading an ordinance adopting Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2008-1 and associated Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendments, and authorize transmittal to the State Department of Community Affairs. Amendment 2008-1 includes the Text Amendment and Future Land Use Map Amendment. (THIS ORDINANCE IS REQUESTED TO BE POSTPONED TO COME BACKAS A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 17, 2008) The caption of Ordinance No. 17-08 is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-1, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE "LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT", FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 163.3161 THROUGH 163.3243, -14- 05/20/08 INCLUSIVE; ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ENTITLED "COMPREHENSNE PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-1" AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTNE DATE. office.) (The official copy of Ordinance No. 17-08 is on file in the City Clerk's The City Attorney read the caption of the ordinance and stated there has been a request for postponement until June 17, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. McDuffie moved to postpone Ordinance No. 17-08 to June 17, 2008 at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Mr. Eliopoulos. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Vice-Mayor Montague -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes. Said motion passed with a 4 to 0 vote. At this point, Mayor Ellis returned to the dais. 11.A. City Manager's resuonse to urior uublic comments and inquiries. The City Manager stated at the last meeting the City Commission received a petition and there were some comments about all of the City's housing assistance going to the Community Land Trust (CLT). Staff has had some informal discussions with some residents regarding the City's sub-recipient agreement with the CLT that assigns all the SHIP (State Housing Initiative Partnership) Funds used for down payment assistance to be managed by the Land Trust office. It appears from the petition that has been read that residents are asking that SHIP Funds be made available for the purchase of affordable housing units other than through the CLT. Thus, providing for options in how affordable units are acquired. The City Manager stated Vice-Mayor Montague has met with Seabron Smith of the TED Center, Angie Gray, Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) board member Bill Sanders and Carmelita Smith from the Delray Community Development Corporation (CDC) regarding this issue. He stated Vice-Mayor Montague invited Diane Colonna, Executive Director of the CRA and Lula Butler, Director of Community Improvement to these meetings to address these concerns. Staff will develop a recommendation for the Commissions consideration after staff completes the necessary meetings with the non-profit partners and do an assessment of the issues. Secondly, the City Manager stated staff received a request from the owner of Nature's Way Cafe for reduction in their outdoor cafe fee. The property was cited by Code Enforcement for not obtaining a sidewalk cafe permit. The City Manager stated Nature's Way has been operating since October 25, 2008 without a permit. He stated Land Development Regulations govern sidewalk cafes and all restaurants operating in the City of Delray Beach must obtain a sidewalk cafe permit for outdoor seating. The Land Development Regulations provide for tables and chairs approved by the City to be situated and maintained outside whether they are on public or private property and used -15- 05/20/08 for the consumption of food and beverages sold by the adjoining business. Even though the tables and chairs are on a private sidewalk the owner is still required to maintain a 5- foot pedestrian walkway. This thicker business has a total of eight (8) tables (4 in front of Nature's Way and 4 in front of the adjoining business locations). The area used for the sidewalk cafe is approximately 160 square feet so their sidewalk cafe fee is $480.00 per year. Staff has looked at this and does not see any equitable way that this business should be treated differently from others. The fee does not seem overly burdensome given the number of tables they have. The City Manager stated there was a concern expressed about the Floranda Trailer Park and the conditions of the property. He stated on May 12, 2008 the Community Improvement Department spoke with the Property Manager for the Floranda Mobile Home Park and staff discussed the concerns of the City as well as the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, a violation is issued by Code Enforcement and this conversation and the following actions have been taken. Several demolition permits have been applied for to demolish and remove abandoned derelict trailers. So far, four permits have been issued and nine are pending. It is the intent of the owners of the mobile home park to remove trailers as they become vacant. The trailers are owned by the occupant while the land the trailer sits on is leased from the property owner. Two abandoned boats and five abandoned vehicles are to be removed within the next two days. Vegetation is being trimmed, grass mowed, and all litter and debris is being removed starting May 13, 2008 and should be done by the end of the week. A violation has been issued to the park owners that put them on notice that the property must be kept clean, mowed, and litter free and that any future abandoned vehicles on the property including trailers must be removed as soon as possible. The City Manager stated they are to comply on this will result in a hearing before the Code Enforcement Board or the issuance of civil citation either of which can result in daily fines up to $250.00 per day per violation. Staff will continue to monitor that situation. Lastly, the City Manager stated there was a concern expressed about parking on the beach and noted that it is the ten (10) northern most parallel spaces that would have changed to a four (4) hour time on this. He stated ten (10) spaces should be adequate to meet the needs of the catamaran owners that park them on the beach. 11. From the Public. ll.B.l. Michael Gosnell, 734 S. Lake Avenue, Delray Beach, stated there are three volunteers from his neighborhood who wish to dedicate their time to him. He expressed concern about the hurricane storm season and noted he has a wood cottage (pre 1960) and noted most of the cottages in Delray Beach will not withstand a Category 3 hurricane (he distributed photographs of his property to the Commission). He stated it is not practical for him to rebuild and pour a new house out of concrete. Mr. Gosnell stated he has lived in this home for thirty (30) years and noted that he built a storm shield (a severe weather fence) around the house so that he would survive a storm. He stated a lien has been placed on his house because he is reluctant to take it down for self preservation purposes and he is also being fined $50.00 a day. Mr. Gosnell stated Florida Power & -16- 05/20/08 Light (FPL) is changing out perfectly good poles for a Category 4 hurricane (145 mph winds). He suggested that maybe he can renew a temporary permit every year. Mr. Gosnell stated this is the only way he can do this without building a new house which is financially out of the question. Mr. Eliopoulos asked Mr. Gosnell if Code Enforcement gave him a violation because he did not get a permit. In response, Mr. Gosnell stated he did not get a permit but he spent months and almost $2,000.00 with surveys and jumping through hoops trying to do things. Mr. Gosnell stated Code has allowed the back part and most of the sides of his weather fence but would like him to take down the front which is like leaving a garage door open during a storm. He stated the weather fence works as a whole unit. 11.B.2. Linda Thompson, 719 S. Lake Avenue, Delray Beach, stated she dedicates her speaking time to Mr. Gosnell. 11.B.3. Tom Durante, 738 S. Lake Avenue, Delrav Beach, stated he dedicates his speaking time to Mr. Gosnell. 11.B.4. Tom Chewnin~, 724 S. Lake Avenue, Delrav Beach, stated he dedicates his speaking time to Mr. Gosnell. 11.B.5. Pauline Moody, 609 S.W. 8t'' Avenue, Delrav Beach, asked if the City has a policy regarding rehabilitation facilities and the people attending these facilities. She stated many people from out-of--state seeking rehab have been coming to Delray Beach and feels like the situation has gotten out of control Ms. Moody asked what the City has set-up with the State of Florida and other states that allows them to come to Delray Beach to get better and then go back to where they are from. She feels there are too many transient people here and asked how and where they are living. Ms. Moody stated she would like a clear explanation as to what kind of program the City has in place because she feels there is a major problem. 11.B.6. John Bennett, 137 Seabreeze Avenue, Delrav Beach, reminded everyone of the upcoming Memorial Day Ceremony at the Municipal Cemetery run by the American Legion Post #65 and #188 starting at 9:30 a.m. Also, the Veterans of Foreign Wars will have their commemoration at Veterans Park at 11:00 a.m. and the Post will also have a spaghetti dinner from 12:00-2:00 p.m. Mr. Bennett stated among those they will honor are Delray's Fallen: Marvin W. Milton, Loney Myers, Harry Fish, Harry Oller, George H. Reiley, Howell Jones, Ben F. McIntosh, Bradley O'Neal, Benjamin F. Jetton, Shelton Lamb, Jr., Logan McNeal, Alfred F. Priest, Charles L. Vreeland, John Jupinko, Arthur R. Sprott, Jr. 11.B.7. Alice Finst, 707 Place Tavant, Delrav Beach, stated it is three months before the Commission has five appointments to make to the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB). She stated as an observer at SPRAB meetings for more than four years she urged the Commission between now and the end of August to act on some suggestions to improve the functioning of this Board. Mrs. Finst stated her -17- 05/20/08 observation is that the appointees have not attended full meetings of the Board if they have attended any meeting at all. She suggested that SPRAB rules be changed to include: (1) alternate members to fill in for absentees so they will be up to speed when they move on to the Board, (2) there needs to be a specific spot for a sign specialist as well as a photometric specialist whose expertise is needed for plan review, (3) the City review of the ins and outs of photometrics. Mrs. Finst stated as the Chair of the Board asks the Board members to comment when it gets to Mr. Youngross who is the photometric specialist there is a silence because the plans that get to him are not reviewed adequately or they are not done correctly. Mrs. Finst stated the major part of the presentation is Mr. Youngross telling them what they need to do to be legal with the Codes and Ordinances of the City, County, State and in some cases the Federal Government mostly related to safety. Mrs. Finst stated out of the goodness of his heart he has offered to tell the architects to call him and has also heard that the City has told the applicants to call Mr. Youngross. Mrs. Finst suggested that the City put Mr. Youngross on as a paid consultant or send whoever reviews the City's plans for photometrics to a class to get him up to speed with what needs to be done in the matter of photometrics. Agenda. At this point, the Commission returned to Item 9.D. of the Regular 9.D. AUTHORIZATION TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT/FIRM SOLUTIONS v. LYON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.: Consider a request for authorization to participate in a Class Action Lawsuit entitled, Firm Solutions v. Lyon Financial Services, Inc. The City Attorney stated this is a class action lawsuit regarding some extra fees and taxes that are claimed to have been assessed on business equipment from Toshiba Business Solutions and staff just needs to file a form. Therefore, staff seeks authorization of the City Commission to file the consent form. Mr. Fetzer moved to approve to file the consent form, seconded by Mrs. Montague. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mrs. Montague -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.E. SETTLEMENT OFFER IN TIMOTHY CULHANE v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: Consider a Settlement Offer in the total amount of $25,922.00 in Timothy Culhane v. City of Delray Beach. Staff recommends approval subject to the receipt of the appropriate releases. The City Attorney stated this is a property damage subrogation claim and the City's adjuster has recommended that we put this forward with his positive recommendation. The property damage is assessed at $25,922.00. -18- 05/20/08 Mrs. Montague moved to approve the Settlement Offer in the amount of $25,922.00 in Timothy Culhane v. the City of Delray Beach, seconded by Mr. McDuffie. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer - Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mrs. Montague -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.F. SETTLEMENT OFFER IN ANDREW BOIS v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: Consider a Settlement Offer in the total amount of $30,200.00 in the matter of Andrew C. Bois v. City of Delray Beach. Staff recommends approval subject to the receipt of the appropriate releases. The City Attorney stated this is an offer of settlement in the amount of $25,000.000 and also $5,200.00 in attorney's fees as it relates to the application and the City's ordinance that is now going under review as it deals with workforce housing and the transfer of those units upon death. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the settlement offer. Mr. McDuffie moved to approve the Settlement Offer in the amount of $30,200.00 in the matter of Andrew C. Bois v. City of Delray Beach, seconded by Mr. Eliopoulos. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mrs. Montague -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.G. APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Appoint one (1) alternate member to the Board of Adjustment to serve an unexpired term ending August 31, 2009. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Mayor Ellis (Seat #5). Mayor Ellis stated she wished to appoint James Houck as an alternate member to the Board of Adjustment to serve an unexpired term ending August 31, 2009. Mrs. Montague so moved, seconded by Mr. Eliopoulos. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mr. McDuffie -Yes; Mrs. Montague -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. 9.H. APPOINTMENT TO THE BOLA BATON AVIATION ADVISORY COMMITEE: Appoint one (1) regular member to the Boca Raton Aviation Advisory Committee to serve a two (2) year term ending May 31, 2010. Based upon the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Mayor Ellis (Seat #5). Mayor Ellis stated she wished to reappoint Robert Conway as a regular member to the Boca Raton Aviation Advisory Committee to serve a two (2) year term ending May 31, 2010. Mr. McDuffie so moved, seconded by Mrs. Montague. Upon roll call the Commission voted as follows: Mrs. Montague -Yes; Mayor Ellis -Yes; Mr. Eliopoulos -Yes; Mr. Fetzer -Yes; Mr. McDuffie -Yes. Said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote. -19- 05/20/08 12. FIRST READINGS: 12.A. NONE. 13. COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. 13.A. City Manager The City Manager stated Mr. Fetzer had inquired about the Fire Academy Program and noted that Chief David James reports that in order to develop the program the City would need to bring a person on board for a year in advance to develop the curriculum and it would cost the City with fringe benefits approximately $50,000- $55,000. Then continuing on beyond that in the second year when the program would actually be up and running they would need approximately $25,000.00 for equipment plus some part-time people to help with the instruction. The City Manager stated this is what the Fire-Rescue Department would need and is a matter of whether the Commission would like to budget those resources. Secondly, he stated with regard to comments expressed by Mr. Eliopoulos about the Federspiel Garage, staff has been sending out emails about this. The City Manager stated staff believes that they have a solution now which will work and they have given the City additional warranties. He stated staff will likely get this resolved within the next week or so. The City Manager stated he will be leaving on vacation on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 and noted the Transforming Local Government Conference starts on the morning of Wednesday, June 4, 2008. Therefore, the City Manager stated he will miss the City Commission Meeting of June 3, 2008, however Robert Barcinski, Assistant City Manager, will be here to cover the meeting. 13.B. City Attorney The City Attorney had no comments or inquiries on non-agenda items. 13.C. City Commission 13.C.1. Mr. Fetzer Mr. Fetzer asked if staff has conveyed the information about the Fire Academy to Dr. Kathy Weigel In response, the City Manager stated this has been communicated to Dr. Weigel. Secondly, Mr. Fetzer stated he has been reading in the newspaper that Boynton Beach is heavy into budget issues. He stated it would be helpful to him if staff could outline the timeline of the budget process and let the Commission know what steps the Commission will be going through and what kind of timeframe to expect. -20- 05/20/08 13.C.2. Mr. Eliopoulos Mr. Eliopoulos stated it is a pleasure to have Mayor Ellis back. He stated although Vice-Mayor Montague did fine, it is nice to have a full Commission. Secondly, he stated that the Commission just had a workshop with the Green Task Force regarding the lawsuit coming up. Mr. Eliopoulos stated they heard from Waste Management and at the end the Solid Waste Authority was there; however, he is not sure if the Commission got the benefit of truly hearing what their product can do with regards to recycling. Mr. Eliopoulos stated he received some responses back from Waste Management to see if the City would like to try and do recycling in all the parks. The Solid Waste Authority has indicated that they would like to try and work with the City of Delray Beach and see how we can work with them. Mr. Eliopoulos suggested that the Commission entertain a Workshop Meeting for the Solid Waste Authority. The City Manager stated the Solid Waste Authority has sent the City of Delray Beach a letter requesting to make a presentation because they would like to recognize the City's success in recycling and some of their plans on what they are doing could also be discussed at this meeting. Mr. Eliopoulos stated Mark Gregory has been on SPRAB many years and when he did get off there was such a void that it could not be filled. Mr. Eliopoulos stated the City actually brought Mr. Gregory back and concurred with comments expressed by Mrs. Finst that SPRAB is an important Board. He stated some Boards the City has alternates for and others we do not. Mr. Eliopoulos suggested that the City may want to consider having alternates for SPRAB. Mr. Eliopoulos commented about an email regarding a house that has been under construction for a long time and noted this has been happening around the community. He stated a lot of the homes that were constructed whether it is from a developer have gotten into a staging pattern and are just sitting. Mr. Eliopoulos stated the developers are not going to throw any more money into the houses until the market starts coming back. He stated it tends to look bad for the area and noted there is one house in Seagate and approximately 12 houses in the Lake Ida neighborhood. Mr. Eliopoulos stated he is not sure if this is a building issue for George Diaz and feels that these properties need to be kept up to look decent. Mr. Eliopoulos stated last night the City Manager and the City Attorney had the pleasure of sitting through the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting where the Lake Ida Guidelines were discussed. Mr. Eliopoulos stated these guidelines will be coming before the Commission on June 3, 2008. He stated there were approximately 150 people in attendance and commented that the atmosphere in the neighborhood was going -21 - OS/20/08 in a different direction and he is happy to see that they all pulled together in the right direction. Lastly, he asked the City Manager to update the Commission on the Franklin House. 13.C.3. Mrs. Montague Mrs. Montague stated they are coming toward the end of the six month period with the newly formed Budget Task Force and the Green Task Force. She suspects that based on the Green Task Force multiple requests that they are going to extend their time. Mrs. Montague stated we have not, to date, received any kind of interim report from the Budget Task Force. The City Manager stated the Budget Task Force expects to present an interim report in June. Mrs. Montague asked the City Manager if he can also see if they are going to come forward with that request because she believes that the end of the six month period for the Budget Task Force may be as early as July. She is not sure what the process is as far as extending the Budget Task Force. The City Manager stated normally with a Task Force if they would like more time they will come before the Commission and ask. He stated in many cases a six month Task Force presents their final report seven or eight months after they were established and ask for an extension. It was the consensus of the Commission to propose that the Task Force let the Commission knows before their time period expires (i.e. four weeks before the Task Force expires). Mrs. Montague welcomed back Mayor Ellis. 13.C.4. Mr. McDuffie Mr. McDuffie welcomed back Mayor Ellis. Secondly, he stated the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Meeting was this past week and the City of Delray Beach had a couple of things on the Agenda the last time regarding the completion reports from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and their reports on the Atlantic Avenue portion (probably does not touch the City limits out west) and A-1-A projects are forecast to be complete on time. Mr. McDuffie stated he is very pleased to see both of these projects on the Agenda and ready to be complete on time. Mr. McDuffie stated there is also a session on transit oriented development coming up soon. banquet. He stated he attended the Police Awards Banquet and it was a wonderful -22- 05/20/08 Mr. McDuffie stated he had a meeting with a representative from the Solid Waste Authority who expressed an intense desire to get back with the City of Delray Beach. With regard to the Budget, Mr. McDuffie stated the estimates come out to the cities on June 1st. Mr. McDuffie stated the analysis was prepared by the Deputy Director of Residential Appraiser for him which he passed on to the City Manager and the Finance Director. Mr. McDuffie stated he does not believe things will vary a great deal from what they have in hand right now although the official ones will get here by law June 1st Mr. McDuffie stated he and Vice-Mayor Montague will be at Spady Elementary School for Career Day. He feels this is nice to give the students a broad brush approach to some things they might start looking at way earlier in life than their senior year in high school. 13.C.5. Mayor Ellis Mayor Ellis stated it is truly a pleasure to be back and she loved seeing the pictures of the rest of the Commission in the paper every week as she was bed bound and wheelchair bound. She stated she was absolutely proud to be an associate of the rest of the Commission. Mayor Ellis commended Vice-Mayor Montague and stated she is grateful to the entire Commission for everything they did. Mayor Ellis stated it is very difficult to get out in the wheelchair so she will still be calling on the rest of the Commission to help with some of the functions. Mayor Ellis stated she is much more appreciative and understanding of handicapped people and what they have to go through. Mayor Ellis stated she will never be able to respond to all the calls, emails, cards and flowers and noted it cheered her spirits every day. She thanked everyone for their caring thoughts and gestures. There being no further business, Mayor Ellis declared the meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m. City Clerk ATTEST: - 23 - OS/20/08 MAYOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Regular City Commission Meeting held on May 20, 2008, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval which may involve some amendments, additions or deletions as set forth above. -24- 05/20/08 WHEREAS, the Israel Scout "Tzofim" Friendship Caravan is a group of Israeli Boy and Girl Scouts chosen to represent their country while traveling and performing across North America; and WHEREAS, the Israeli Scouts sent its first delegation of seven young people to the United States in 1968. These encounters planted the seeds that approximately forty years later are being nurtured and cherished throughout our country; and WHEREAS, the delegation has a broad knowledge of Israeli and Jewish history, a high level of scouting achievement, fluency in English, and strong communication skills. Most of all, they have a love for their country and their people and a desire to share that love with their brothers and sisters in America; and WHEREAS, in 2008 there will be three Friendship Caravans: Caravan Golan, Caravan Ramon, and Caravan Meron. Each Caravan consists of ten Israeli teens; five boy s and five girls, ages 16 and 17 plus two young adult leaders; and WHEREAS, the Caravans will travel to almost fifty states graving approximately 450 performances during the months of June, July, and August before returning home to Israel; and WHEREAS, Caravan Golan will be hosted by Shelly Weil and the Hamlet Country Club while performing in Delray Beach and South Florida Area. NOW, THEREFORE, I, RITA ELLIS, Mayor of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, on behalf of the City Commission do hereby recognize and commend ISRAEL SCOUT "TZOFIM"FRIENDSHIP CARAVAN GOLAN for helping to spread the message of peace, friendship and brotherhood through their performances. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to be affixed the 3`d day of June, 2008. RITA ELLIS MAYOR WHEREAS, the Clean Beaches Council, as part of Great Outdoors Month, has designated the week beginning June 30, 2008 as National Clean Beaches Weep and WHEREAS, beaches represent a critical part of our natural heritage and a beautiful part of the American landscape; and WHEREAS, beaches are sensitive ecosystems, susceptible to degradation and alteration from climate change, erosion, natural forces, untreated sewage, litter and improper use; and WHEREAS, coin~nunities and goveininent have undertaken significant measures to keep beaches clean and healthy; and WHEREAS, 180 million Americans make nearly 2 billion annual trips to the ocean, gulf and inland beaches and contribute over $640 billion annually to the local, state, and national economy; and WHEREAS, 75% of all recreational activity occurs within a half mile comdor around the shorelines of our beaches, rivers, and lakes; and WHEREAS, coastal tourism and healthy, fresh seafood fuels robust economies -sustaining coin~nunitiers and supporting jobs along the coastal United States. NOW, THEREFORE, I, RITA ELLIS, Mayor of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, on behalf of the City Commission, do hereby proclaim the Lek beginning June 30, 2008 as NATIONAL CLEAN BEACHES WEEK in Delray Beach, Florida, and encourage all residents to visit, enjoy and protect our greatest nattnal resource. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, to be affixed this 3rd day of June, 2008. RITA ELLIS MAYOR MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP, City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 22, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION/124 S.W. 5TH AVENUE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Request Commission acceptance of right-of-way dedication at 124 S.W. 5th Avenue. BACKGROUND Dedication includes five feet along S.W. 5th Avenue to create aright-of-way width of 25 feet from centerline. A location map for 124 S.W. 5th Avenue is attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends acceptance of the right-of-way deed. Prepared by: RETURN: R Brian Shutt, Esq. City Attorney's Office 200 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 PIN # RIGHT-OF-WAY DEED THIS INDENTURE made this day of R-• ~ 200 between Lorenzo & Priscilla Miller , with a mailing address of ,-124 SW 5 Avenue as party of the first part and CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, a Florida municipal corporation with a mailing address of 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, as parry of the second part. WITNESSETH: That said party of the first gait, far and in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained and other goad and valuable consideration, does hereby grant, remise, release, quit claim and convey unto the party of the second part, its successors and assigns, all right, title, interest, claim and demand which the party of the first part has in and to the fallowing-described land, situate, lying and being in the County of Pa1rn Beach, State of Florida, to-wit: Eastern 5' of Lot 12, Block 22, Subdivision of the North Half (N %Z) of Block 22, Town of Linton (now Delray Beach, Florida}, according to the map of the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 38, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. This Deed is made for the purpose of giving and granting to the party of the second part, its successors and assigns, aright-of--way and easement in and to said lands for public highway, street, and public utility purposes and the maintenance thereof; and is made, executed and delivered with the express understanding and condition that should the same ever be discontinued or abandoned as a public highway or street, the title to same shall thereupon revert to and revest in the party of the first part or assigns, except that the easement for public utility purposes shall remain unril released. That this right-of--way shall be sub}ect only to those easements, restrictions, and reservation of record. The party of the first part agrees to provide for the release of any and all mortgages or liens encumbering this right-of--way. The party of the first part also agrees to erect no building or effect any other kind of construction or improvements upon the above-described property. Party of the first part does hereby fully warrant the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever claimed by, through or under it, that it has good right and lawful authority to grant the above-described right-of way and that the same is unencumbered. Where the context of this Right-of--Way Deed allows or permits, the same shall include the successors or assigns of the parties. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, together with all and singulaz the appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise incident or appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest, and claim whatsoever of the said party of the first part, in Iaw or in equity to the only proper use, benefit, and behalf of the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said party of the firs# part has hereunto set their hand and seal the date first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered e presence o IC~ {N a printed or } ,.r a.! {Name printed or typed) STATE OF COUNTY OF ~. ft PARTY THE FIRST PART By: Lo o Miller {Nate printed yped) Priscilla Miller (Name printed or typed) 124 SW 5~' Ave, Dekav Beach, l~`L 33444 {Address) F The foreg ' g instrument w acknowledged before rae this day of 200 by ', t ,~~ who is personally know e or has produced as identification. Si a of otary Public Sta a of Florida ALFREDfiTRAC'iW ICY COAUd15SI0N tl DD $59A58 EXPIRES: A1ay 10.2011 Badk nxu Maury Pu6Nc Unden~s 2 Z O H a U D W D r a 3 LL 0 H 2 (7 1 a t Ln N r C~ U (~ N m N O O N MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Randal L. Krejcarek, PE, LEED AP, City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 20, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION/355 S.E. 5TH AVENUE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Request Commission acceptance of a right-of-way dedication at 355 SE 5 Avenue. BACKGROUND This dedication includes two feet along the alley on the east side of property known as 355 SE 5 Avenue. Attached is the right-of-way deed and sketch description that provides details of the limit of right-of-way to be dedicated. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends acceptance of the right-of-way deed. Prepared by: RETURN: R. B-°ian Shutt, Fsq. City Attorney's Office 200 N.W. 1 st Avenae Delray Beach, Florida 33444 PIN # IZI~H7[`-®~-ii'AY I~~EI3 THIS INDENTURE made this -¢--_._._._._ day of 20QC; between 1~ . with a mailing address of t~ ~~'C~°~' ~. ~ ~ ~., , as party of the first part and CITY C3F 1llELItAY BEACH, FL®RIDA, a Florida municipal corporation with a mailing address of I40 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, as party of the second part. WITNESSETH: That said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the rxzL~tL~al promises heroin contained and. other good and valuable consideration, does hereby grant; remrse, release, quit claim and convey unto the party of the second part, its successors and assigns, all right, title, interest, claim aild demand which the party of the Irst part has in and to the following-described land, situate, lying and being in the County of Palm Beach, State of Florida, to-wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto This Deed is made for the purpose of giving and granting to the party of the second part, its successors and assigns, aright-of-way and easement in and to said lands for public highway, street, and public utility purposes and the maintenance thereof; and is made, executed and delivered with the express understanding and condition that should the same ever be discontinued or abandoned as a p~ablac highway or street, the title to same shall thereupon revert to and revert in the parlay of the first part or assigns, except that the easement for public utility purposes shall remain until released. That this right-of way shall be subject only to those easements, restrictions, and reservation of record. The party of the first part agrees to provide for the release of any and all mortgages or liens encumbering this right-of--way. The party of the first part also agrees to erect no building or effect any other kind of construction or improvements upon the above-described property. Party of the first part does hereby fully warrant the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever claimed by, through or under it, that it has good ~•i.ght and lawful authority to grant the above-described right-of way and that the same is unencumbered. Where the context of this Right-of--Way Deed allows or permits, the same shall include the successors or assigns of the parties. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, together with all and singular the appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise incident or appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest, and claim whatsoever of the said party of the first part, in law or in equity to the only proper use, benefit, and behalf of the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said party of the first part has hereunto set their hand and seal the date first above written. in the me printed or typed) ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ {Name printed or typed) STA"I E OF COUNTY OF Tlae fore ~t~ , 200 vy me or hasp •oduced PARTY OF THE FIRST PART ~.~ _. , F~-t r:~~. C°-a ..ter :..~~ (Name printed or typed} -- (Address) P l as before me this '~ day of wha is personally mown to Signature of Notary Public - State o~f Florida ~OT~it~' PL31~1~CMS'1'A'l~-~ RtB.~ ~~,~.~ o shy Ca~issfoa ~ 1~1~506b~4 Expires: lEl3. 03, 20I0 }3anded'I'hcu Atlantic IIonding Co., Inc. 6725 STIRLING ROAt3 t3AVIE (954)587-2100 • b,4VtE, FLORE~3A 33314 BQCA (407)4889628 p` /~/ ~+ p ~ p~ FAX ~95~-)587-5418 ~~i~ 1i G a ~~~,7' ~IVL. LB N0. 5495 2° RIGHT--©F-WAY DEDICATION THE EAST 2.OQ FEET OF THE SOUTH S.QQ FEET OF LOT i 9, ALL OF 20 AND 2 i ARE-SUBDMSION OF BLOCK iii ", IN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH. FLORIDA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK i 3, PAGE 46 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BF1kCH COUNTYa FLORIDA. SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION err ~. ASSUk1EI? GEARING aASE rfcE FAST t1NE aF S.E. STN ,A4~EA#E}E senas N.Ofl'51 ~t]El"1K. ANA Al.S. QTHER BEARIAfc~S CEpICTEl3 NE'RERN ARE REUT3VE TFiERETa. Z. T3~#E GWDs SHOWN HE12EON 6NERE NOT AF3i€RACYE6 BY THIS Or"3r CE F©R ERSEAREl35, RfGFf(-OF-6YAY5, 6SM'NEFZ9HlP OR OTHER INStRU6iEN7S OF RECORD. 2. THE l..EGAL 6ESCfYlPYlON .kNO TNiE A[.Y`Q7SPANYING SKEFCff GOES NOT EON537TUTE A !A}Jtl SUfi'JEY kTLANTIC COST StJRVFYtNG, INC. 8Y ~"'~~ (~,~ DkTE ,~~~~~~ AuL ,7. ST4WEf_L, R ESSI~NAL tANI3 SLRVEYaR Fi.ORiDA CERT#FICkTION NQ. 541 NOT VALiD VdITf-{OUT FHE SIGNATURE AND T}iE OF2IGIPlAL RA#SED S~'AL OF A FLDRfDA LICENSED SUfi'1/EYOR AND hAAPPER. INVOICE 19~i49SL SHEET ~ ®F 2 LEGEND F'.Q.B. ~n#Nr a~ secfNwN~ P.O.C. ~a#IVr aF car~rn~NC~~:ImNr '.~ N LdNE TA;~LE NlJARHER I~IRECTIaN BfS7ANCE LINE 7 S.9Q°a(7'CfD"W. 2.a0' LINE 2 74.90"OD'OCI"E. 2.00' LOT ~9, ELC1aK i91, LESS THE SOUTH 5' Qo C7 ~"'~ ~ Q W N.90'00'OQ"E. 129.80' ~~N~» S 90 DD 00 W 127 8D EAST 2 OF THE SOUTH 5 ' _ TJ~IE__SOLl7H__,~° Olr LOT 99 _BLDCK.111,..LESS' Th!E,F.~S7'_2° TJ~E'~i'~"OF,._al" LaT a9 ~LOaK ~~ ~ 1 ~- -.q.__, e ri ~ LOT 2®, BLOB f 11 LAS' Th~E F..~ST 2' ~-- ~ ThdEREOF ~, ~3 I ''' ~ ~ f ~ ui ~ „'it•, ®~ o ~ ~7 ~ *^- U w a _ (~} • ~ LOT 21, BLOGY~ 111 LE'A' THE"' Ei~,S'T Z° 17~,ERkOF ~~ p ;, i O i ~ `~ ~ (!) ~` ~~~ ~ II 1...,. ..,.~ td.90'Ofl'tlfl"E. 127.80 ~ _. .~ _. 5.90'6D'DD"1N. 129.80' LINE '~ S.E. 3RD STREET 5C5' RIGNT'-OF-NAY '~® O 20 40 ~~ a H S a SHEET 2 ®~ Q s W M =a a° ~= M r' r° Arno °~~ oLL . ~ a. 0 0 N O M MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Randal L. Krejcarek, PE, LEED AP, City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 15, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION/1215 N.E. 8TH AVENUE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Request Commission acceptance right-of-way dedication at 1215 NE 8~' Avenue. BACKGROUND This dedication includes twenty five feet along the west side of the property know as 1215 NE 8~' Avenue. Attached is the right-of-way deed and sketch description that provides details of the limit of right-of-way to be dedicated. FUNDING SOURCE N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends acceptance of the right-of-way deed. Prepared by: RETURN: R. Brian Shutt, Esq. City Attorney's Office 200 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 PIN # RIGHT-OF-WAY DEED THIS INDENTURE made this day of 200_, between Vladmir Runtov , with a mailing address of 1215 NE 8th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483-5903 as party of the first part and CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, a Florida municipal corporation with a mailing address of 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, as party of the second part. WITNESSETH: That said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, does hereby grant, remise, release, quit claim and convey unto the party of the second part, its successors and assigns, all right, title, interest, claim and demand which the party of the first part has in and to the following-described land, situate, lying and being in the County of Palm Beach, State of Florida, to-wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto. This Deed is made for the purpose of giving and granting to the party of the second part, its successors and assigns, aright-of-way and easement in and to said lands for public highway, street, and public utility purposes and the maintenance thereof; and is made, executed and delivered with the express understanding and condition that should the same ever be discontinued or abandoned as a public highway or street, the title to same shall thereupon revert to and revert in the party of the first part or assigns, except that the easement for public utility purposes shall remain until released. That this right-of-way shall be subject only to those easements, restrictions, and reservation of record. The party of the first part agrees to provide for the release of any and all mortgages or liens encumbering this right-of-way. The party of the first part also agrees to erect no building or effect any other kind of construction or improvements upon the above-described property. Party of the first part does hereby fully warrant the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever claimed by, through or under it, that it has good right and lawful authority to grant the above-described right-of-way and that the same is unencumbered. Where the context of this Right-of-Way Deed allows or permits, the same shall include the successors or assigns of the parties. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, together with all and singular the appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise incident or appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest, and claim whatsoever of the said party of the first part, in law or in equity to the only proper use, benefit, and behalf of the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said party of the first part has hereunto set their hand and seal the date first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: (Name printed or typed) (Name printed or typed) STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing 200_, by to me or has produced Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida PARTY OF THE FIRST PART By: (Name printed or typed) (Address) instrument was acknowledged before me this day of who is personally known as identification. 2 I9Z4'049'T9S Xb'3 LLZ4'049'I9S=HNOHd ~'~tCff'I ~ ~ nosNn~ ~zv~1a~~~ _ ~I~II~~n2I11~` aoj o3ava~a ~ ~ o r ~8~££ rltI'H~V~d.Z~2I~I~Q - 1au~~unianznsssedmoa~mmm ~nNanv HZS '~ '1~I SIZE ° .mans eavaenoa _ ~ ~ 0 604££ 73 'H7V:3ff W'IC' I S,S3~ - ~ ~~ 'THH2IOATINt6'~'Ie'I960£ Y 3. m .. I~ ~~: U l~ ~y a / ti _ p `"~~' h~ c ,t'0 - 6°' ~° n v m s YO ~. O > b F ~ ~ ~ O ~ t r c'-o o - ~ ~ U r ~ - o c t ~z m ~- m m o V Y ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ " j y ~ N `m o ~ a ro t N " w o o w ~ ~ ~ ~ s y O ~ m w ~ c y m m z' ° m y d ` a 9 m0 T ~' ova ~ ~~,~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ z ~_ao Y 3 p ~ o- ~ _ - 0 0 ~ ~ m Z ~ c a~om ~ of u c d ~ s o~°'-, 3 ~ ~ m m o N ¢ j N ~ U Q ~ N N ~ ~ L _o _~ ~~~ ~x~ a m >, :' ~L~ ~~~~~ ~Z~N ~ ~ `~ N O~ ~ O ~ c cpZ_ r O F ~ ~.3 ~ U ~ °a ,ri o ~ ~ a ° < m .s~.o~ .. s F o oo°J o n ~ omJC` °' m r c ~a c- ~_ o ~ o o L s ~ au_ o~g ~ ~ ~ o moo ~ r ~~ ~ m U U O ~ ~ ~ m ~ E °~ c o m=' ° o U a o u Q O O 0 j -a ~ C °O O p ~O a ~ ~ zz~ -. CZ.~N J ¢ ~a-O 4 O ~ '. v ~ p ~ cv N O a SS's Oo~ w U O~~b' 9~~~ ~~i ~ o 2 ~` ~O 00'08 a a e r,' r i.i NI ~_ ~~' ~Z'8l ^~ _~_ _ _ ~ ~ ~~ ` £t j ~9~96 i . '~ ~ ~ I c ~ ~ CO N ~ --_-- ,686 ' ~~ L'0 ~ O~ ~ yy ~I ~ I O n Z 8 - O ~ti ,0 9~ Z . N ~i W W d. ~ ~~ ~ ~I ~S~~l Z ~ ~ S~ N ~ ~7 Z a o ~ ~ # N m ~' e C~ pCU w _ I ~ ~ OO n `- n. i~r ~i~ + Q ~ ro ~ ~N ¢4 Z ~- ~ ` ~ i . O ~ .5 ~ ' 1 ~ I ~ ~ ¢ ?' ~8 LI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. i ~ ~ ~ ~~ W ~ ~ 1~ Q Q ~ `-' W .-_ ~£9l lL NI ~m~ ~ N ~~ ~ W m i ~ a! .- ~ R i W ro ~ i ~~ ~£ M~_-~~ QZ (_ O O ~ o Z ~ J U O W d p ~ ~ ~ ~ p b~ ,6'b6 ` -_._____, j ~ ~~ F~--i ~ , o-_ w g Fri 8 f Li z 4 M, c' t1j ~_ B ~ ( ~ A0 F~y1 0' ~ 4 J J I L. ~~ F N W ~ LL O ~` ~ LCi ~~ > >k~ O V ~ x.13 _ ~ ;. w rv w W N W k. II z ,~ G K h M ~ ~ ~°a z° ~~ ~~~¢ '~`s ~ ~ J ~ ~nZ° 4. ~ ~ ~ `ig E- O ~ ~ O W m Z Z ~ q U cn W ~;-°z ® ~ W W 8 c~n~¢ ~,~n¢~ z c'~~o uj W wQ 0 O ~ ow 0 ~ `" o ~ p O W ~ ~a }wa z > ~ U ~ ~ w f-~oa ~ `n o a ~ ~ ~ r ~ O a LLo w w ~~¢ o~ ~ 6 O O m m O ~ ~ O w « w s~o ° ~ ~ ~o t~ 0 w T m~~°o o~ww~ w J o O U a ~ ~ ~ w p s ~ p ~ ~I-w pU ~oaU °~ ^z ¢~~<E_ w O O ~ X n J~ o ~ ~ ~ U ~ N ro G ~- N ci V' vi ~ N Nye' `~~~ ca __. __ ~ ~ y~~~y ovoaiaio 00 08 '° ~(1N~nd .l~ sZ o IlaHdse to i ~o N I ' U --- -- - - - -- - -- --- - --- --------0 . - ~~ O O ~ U ~ Zj Z O W C ~ ~ U ~ ~n ~ ~~ ~ W~ Y Jj 2 ~ ~ et- O ~ ni m ~ S " 2 Zp~ O 2 2 d- N ¢ W O Q ~ 2 W I m o W_ ~ ~ ~ O 2 W `~O02W~ O ~ W C ~~2Z WYm W ? 2 W W j'_W W ~ O~ W~'O YKO40 ¢mO °' Q Q `~~~¢~ hti~~C~ti.tih2tiV aW2Y~4~ti~>.. ~~p~ E v z ~ ~11 W2~WV~~ m ~~~titiIU~2R22o~QZU2ao W~ 2JW~2~~0~~--2~~~a2tiJ0»~ti.WJ2~0~±~ ' ~~2U OW2 ~ ui >.o ~ WO~¢ty~Wti 2=~00¢~ ChO~O~000 ~,~~000~400R UWO ~s mti~¢22Ua~W¢ W W i 0U , N cOm oE_x '~ C~W~s ~g~W°~at of CiY ~oIIIIIII~ Z ~ m W """" 'J] ~~~'~~a°IIIIII~I{~' vi22~Y~~Y ~~a•Z ~a W ~ g~m~ ~ 2~ ~ J 2 C U - , Vj~ ~U~ 00 Z R~ W R~ ~va~n O IG~I I` t~ J ~ ~ ~ _. ,~,. ~ ~ ~~CS. O O p J Z O _lU ~ ~~ ~ o ~ N c~ I I ~, K,. i ICI I a s 00 N r =a a° ~= M r' r° Arno °~~ oLL . ~ a. c~ U (~ N m N 0 0 N O M MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: SCOTT PAPE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: May 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT DEED/PEDIATRICS BY THE SEA ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is acceptance of a sidewalk easement associated with the Class IV site plan modification for Pediatrics by the Sea. BACKGROUND The subject property consists of a portion of Lot 19 and all of Lots 20 and 21, Block 111 of the Town of Delray Subdivision and contains 0.158 acres. The property contains an existing building that is currently occupied by a medical office. At its meeting of November 14, 2007, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board approved a Class IV site plan modification for Pediatrics by the Sea to construct a 730 square foot building addition to the existing medical office. As part of the development responsibilities, apublic sidewalk will be installed along SE 3rd Street. However, due to an existing power pole within the public right-of-way, this sidewalk will meander approximately 6 inches onto the subject property. Thus, a condition of approval was attached to the site plan modification that an easement deed be provided to ensure public access to this sidewalk. RECOMMENDATION By motion, accept the easement deed. Prepared by: RETURN: R. Brian Shutt, Esq. City Attorney's Office 200 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 E~SEIVIE~iT i~EE® THI~ENTURE, made this ~ day of ~(`~~: 200 by anal betty er~J ~ . ,.. _....__ , with a mailing address of SShI~ ~"~ T' arty of the first part, and the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, with a mailing address of 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, a municipal corporation in Pahn Beach Coiuaty, State of Florida, party of the second part: WITNESSETH: That the party of the first part, for and in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained and other good and valuable considerations, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and release unto the party of the second part, its successors and assigns; a right of way and perpetual easement for public pedestrian access and for the purpose of the maintenance of a public sidewalk with full and free right, liberty, and authority to enter upon and to maintain such sidewalk across, through and upon or within the following described property located in Palm Beach County, Florida, to-wit: DESCRIPTION See Exhibit "A" Concomitant and coextensive with this right is the further right in the party of the second party, its successors and assigns, of ingress and egress aver and on that portion of land described above, to effect the purposes of the easement, as expressed hereinafter. That this easement shall be subject only to those easements, restrictions, conditions and reservations of record. That the party of the-first. part agrees to provide for the release or subordination of any and all mortgages ar liens encumbering this easement. The party of the first part also agrees to erect no building or affect any other kind of constriction or improvements upon the above-described property, other than the aforementioned sidewalk. 3t is understood that upon completion of sidewalk construction by the party of the first part to the required standards, the party of the second part shall repair and maintain the sidewalk in conformance with its practices of maintaining public sidewalks throughout the City. 1 Party of the first part does hereby fully warrant the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of alI persons whomsoever claimed by, through or under it, that it has goad right and lawful authority to grant the above-described easement and that the same is unencumbered except as provided above. Where the context of this Easement Deed allows or permits, the same shall include the successors or assigns of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Easement Deed set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. WITNESS # (name printed or typed} PARTY OF THE FIRST PART ~... ~-_._~ By: -• ~ , w~TNESS #z: {name printed or typed) STATE OF~ la ~ti COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 200~Gy ;~""~ , ~ ~ , } ~ (name of officer or agent}, of ~ ~~ _ {Warne of corporation), a~ ~ ~ (State or place of incorporation) corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He1She is personally known to me or has produced ~,~h y~ o[~ ~ {type of id tification) as identification and did/did not take an oat) _ (ti of Notary Public - NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF FLORIDA State i~alerie L. Shy {SEAL) Commission # I)D50bb$4 $xpires: FRS. 03, 2010 $onded Tluu Atlantic Bonding Co., Inc. 2 ~ ~~ ~~ x4 vn.tic csae,~ SURVEYING, INC. 6125 STIRLING ROAD DAME (954)587-2100 DAV1E, FLORIDA 33314 130CA (407)488-3628 FAX (954)587-5418 !.B N0. 5495 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION OF LOT 2 f , ~iE-SUBDMSION OF BLOCK i 11 ; IN THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED !N PLAT BOOK ~ 3. PAGE 46 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ,PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, L10RE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COl~Il~IENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. OF LOT. 2 f ; THENCE SOUTH 90 DEGREES OD AAINUTES 00 SECONDS WES'T' ALONG THE SOUTT-! LINE OF SAID LOT 21 FOR A DISTANCE OF 4.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 90 DEGREES 00 A~INUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 8.02 FEET TO A POINT ON ANON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE Tn THE SOUTH, A RADIAL LINE FR016f SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 53 DEGREES 19 AAINUTE5 37 SECONDS EAST; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT. HAVING A RADIUS OF 5.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 106 DEGREES 39 MINUTES i5 SECONDS FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 9.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 1 i SQUARE -FEET MORE OR LESS. SKETCH AND LEGAL DESCR1PTtON NOTES ~, ASSUMED 9FaRIMc ffas>-: na>: EAST LNE GF S.E 5TH AVENUE eEUtS N.O0'S]'O0`W. AND ALL O77;ER SE/.R1NGS DEPICTED HEREON ARE REL4NE THERETO. 7. 7HC LANDS SHOWN HEREON WERE N.DT iu9STRACT® f3Y THIS OFFICE FGR E45EMEN75, RIGHT-OF-WAYS, ` ^ 3 ` /O J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~I (~ ~+ OWNFA,SHiP OR OTHER INSfRUM'ETNS OF RcCORD. J [v ~/ CJ `'l-J J 1- 1. T}IE LEGAL AESCRIPTIDN AND THE ACDDi~PAN1ING SKETCH DOES NO7 CONSTiRlfE A LAND SURVEI' ATL4NTfC COluT SURVEYING, INC. SHEET 1 OF 2 $Y DATE ~~ ~ ~ ~ LEGEND AUL J. STOWEti, RO SIONAL LA3JD 5URVE1'OR FLORfDA CERTIfiCAT10N N0. 5241 p, Q,~, POINT OF BEGINNING NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR P.Q.G. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT AND 1+IIAPPER. 1 N LINE TABLE NUMBER DIREC770N DISTANCE LINE 1 5.90'00`00"W. 8.02' CURVE TABLE NUMBER DELTA CHORD BEARING RADIUS ARC LC ' CURVE 1 108'39'15" N.90'00'00"E. 5A0 9.31 8.02 ~.or zo w Z } ~. ....... ~.. . ~... ..~.~.. _._.._ ~ - - s-s0'oo'oo"w-i29.so' ~ .~ .~ ____ .._.._.._ ..__.._ .~ .~.. -~ ~~ Q ~ ~ N ~ O ~ W } t OT Z7 g 2 L7 ~~ o ~ `n ~ ~4 CURVE 1 ~ ~ Q W ~ ~ _ .~ N.30'Q~'00"E. 11701' S. L1NE OF LOT 21 ~ . ~ . ~ ~._ ~ - .76 ~ ~ s.9o'oo~o0"w. ~29.so' LINE ~ 5.53' 19'37"E. RADIAL S.E. 3RD STREET PDlNT OF $EG1NN?NG POINT OF COMMENCEMENT 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY SE CORNER OF LOT 21 20 O 20 40 BO Scale ~ " = 20' SHEET 2 OF 2 Iii Q S.E. 15T S.E. 2NQ ~o x ar ~ ~ ~ S.E.. 3RD a z N W W W to U] (/! w ~ a ~ Q a a. ST. ~ W Q S.E. 4TH ST. S.E. 5TH ST. ~ --~~ ~ ~ Q Q S.E. fiTH 5T. ST. J /F- t/ J Q U Q z N PEDIATRICS BY THE SEA ~~ SUBJECT PRQAERTY 285 SE 5TH AVENUE CITY OF DftRAY BEACH, F~ 0 LOCATION MAP PL4NNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT -- plG1rAL B45E M~4P SYSTEM -- MAP REF: S:\Planning &Zoning\DBM5\File-Cab\2-LM 1001-1500\LM1043_Pediatrics 6y the sea «L-,85 AbM ~O 1H9l2~ ,9l ~~~~ V ~ ~'U.Q~ Jl.li~Ci021d ~ h . ap a a 0 9 ~ d..d a y ~c e . R ~~' F-- t0 - d tp v.. m Q ~ ~ a ~ ~ iD (p ~ O ~ a `b a «E~,S ~ ~ «0-,8 U ~~ a a ~ v. ~ W ~ v 'o m ~ .. Q ~0- ~4-,8 ~ ~ U z I a ~~ ~-' ~- U C~3 a Z ~ v a W z a ~b'H13S usna «8'T «~-,~ aO--.B J .-~ ~~ W es F - ~ J z o _ m Q M ~.. 3 Q N ~ ~ M a ~ I- ~ ~ o 0 z F N N 'X W t~l n ~~++ /y~~ ]~ ae (~ ,,++ ^^~~ 0 X8°-.9 ao "CiA.I «ti «~' .v tV J ~ l.s.. ~ ~~ ~~ a ~~ v c av a a Z a ~ ~ ~ W a a J va / 1~~ V < Q _ v ' ~ p z {~ ~ a ~~ ~ -ci ~~11813S c~ ~~' a ~ J_ C~ ~NUS~a ~ ~ «Ol-,Oi ~ d o d I d ~ ~ e ~ < ~a~~s~~~~'~~~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~,~~~'~~ ~ e o ~ : ~ ~~~~~~~ ~LL ~ jU ¢~ y U 2 ~a ffi Q ~R ~R ~ ~ O 0. z 0 e W® t w~ ~~ o ~~ 3 Q i-~I ~~i~b 6kth ~~~~ ~g ' ~~~~ ~€aa a ~~ r ~~ ~~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Y i~~~ ~~, ~~ Y ~~ n ~~ ~ ~ a6 ~ ~ ~~trR~~ ~R ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~} ~~j ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ g~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~6~~3 ~~ ~ ¢A ~~€~ ~ ~S~e~~63 " ~ C ~ R x ~~ ~ ~ ~~ti ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~gggagti~t~ R S~Rri~ ~~~~eE~at I,i ~~~ a ~~ ? $ v ,~..~ o,~,l~ fl 4 U Og M MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Carolanne Kucmerowski, Construction Management Technician Richard C. Hasko P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 16, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 CONTRACT CLOSEOUT/(CHANGE ORDER N0.2/FINAL)/CATALFUMO CONSTRUCTION/OLD SCHOOL SQUARE PARKING GARAGE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a Contract Closeout (Change Order No. 2/Final) in the net deduct amount of (-$7,360,881.18) and final payment amount of $101,688.19 to Catalfumo Construction, Ltd. for the completion of the Old School Square (OSS) Parking Garage Project. BACKGROUND The contract for the OSS Parking Garage Project is a CM at Risk Contract with a total Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) in the amount of $15,708,412.64. The GMP includes a detailed schedule of estimated values for contract line items. As part of the CM at Risk process, the Construction Manager, Catalfumo Construction, Ltd., negotiates and enters into subcontracts for materials, which are then processed as Direct Order Purchases (DOP) to allow the City to receive a tax savings on all DOP items. Separate purchase orders are issued for DOP purchases; and the DOP amounts are deducted from both Catalfumo Construction's contract and purchase order. Line Item #68, Owner's Contingency, represents a possible savings to the City; and monies not spent in this line item are returned to the City as a savings. The original GMP value amount of this line item was $312,597.41. The CM at Risk contract stipulates that, once the construction is complete, if there is any balance in Owner's Contingency, this amount will be returned to the City as a savings. Owner's Contingency increased by $167,601.42; resulting in a total saving of $480,198.83. Palm Beach County (PBC) has previously awarded a grant for this project in the amount of $1 million. Once the project is completely closed out; all final documentation will be submitted to the County along with the City's request for issuance of a check to the City in the amount of the grant. Change Order No. 2/Final includes all DOP's, budget adjustments, and PO adjustments and liquidates the residual from contingency allowances. All changes for the project are itemized on the attached Schedule "A". The project is complete and all closeout documentation has been received. FUNDING SOURCE Residual funds to be liquidated from Purchase Order #638017 to funding account 380-4150-572-63.29 (2004 G.O. Bond/Improvements Other/Old School Square Parking Garage). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Contract Closeout (Change Order No. 2/Final) in the net deduct amount of (-$7,360,881.18) and final payment amount of $101,688.19 to Catalfumo Construction, Ltd. for the completion of the Old School Square (OSS) Parking Garage Project. CI'I"Y Oll+ T3ELRAY BEEACH CHANGE OVER TO ®RIGINAL C`®li~TRAC'T CHANGE NO. 2/Final' PROJECT NO. 2004-044 DATE: PROJECT TITLE: ®Id SchoaT Square Parking Garage TO CONTRACTOR: Catall;umo Construction, Ltd. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT AND TO PERFORM THE WORK ACCORDINGLY, SUBJECT TO ALL CONTRACT STIPULATIONS AT\rD COVENANTS. JUSTIFICATION: Complete changes to project per the attached Schedule "A". SUMMARY OF CONTRACT AMOUNT/CHANGES ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $15,748,412.54 COST OF CONSTRUCTION. CHANGES PREVIOUSLY ORDERED $ p,pp ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT PRIOR TO THIS GRANGE ORDER $15,748,412.b4 COST OF CONS'T'RUCTION CHANGES THIS ORDER $ 7 3fi0 881.18 ADJUSTED CON"T"RACT AMOUNT INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER $ 8,347,531.45 PER CENT DECREASE THIS CHANGE ORDER -46.$5% TOTAL PER CENT DECREASE TO DATE - 45.85 CERTIFIED STATEMENT: T hereby certify that the supporting cost data included is, in zxty considered opinion, accurate; that the prices quoted are fair and reasonable and in proper ratio to the cost of the original work contracted fnr under benefit of competitive bidding. CataTfumo Construction, Ltd. (Contractor to sign & seal] TO BE FILLED OUT BY DEPARTMENT INITIATING CHANGE ORDER Funding is available from account: DEPARTMENT FUNDING DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA by its City Commission RECOMMEND: Environmental Services APPROVED: City Attorney sy CERTIFIED BY Mayor ATTEST: By: City Clerk 5:lEagAdm'tnlP:ojccts'~9~4's2pU4-p44 (RFQ's -BOX-PROD F7LE 2©OG-005)1pFFTC1AL1C6 2 Final Catalfiuno GC06(}30$.doc SGH~DULE `"A" TO CNAAIGE OR[7ER t~d0.2 ! FINAL {CM AT RISC COi~TF2ACT CLOSEO!!1') GAT,4LFE1fvl0 co~as'CFtl1GTI0P~, LTD. OLD SGI-fQOL SQUARE PRFiKIfdG GARAGE PROJECT #2004-044 C9V[ AT R[SFC CC}i~7~tACT CLOSEOUT ITEM NO. t7ESCREPTEON OF WORK GFISP SCHERULEO VALUE P1NAL CNr CONTRACT VALUE DOPIBUDGETlPO At]JU53MENTS 1 PrscanstructionServ1ce $179,536.61 $179,596.81 $0,00 2 Off-Site Sfaf# $168,989.28 $16$,989.28 $D.DD 3 OrrSite Staff $805,562.46 $805,562,46 $O.DD 4 Profit $942,504.76 $942,504.76 $D.DD 5 Cost of the Wodc-Gensrat Conditions $849,392.14 $323,403.13 ($325,989.D1) 6 t]ivision One-General Conditions $179,716,86 $78,626.13 ($101,090.73] 7 Clearing $iD,92D.00 $O.DD {$10,920.00) 8 Make up Sand far Vibroiloatation $17,966.8D $D.00 ($17,986,80) 9 VitfrOfloatation $131,984.26 $114,000.00 ($17,984.2D) 1q SailTreatmenf $4,574.06 $0.00 {$4,574.D0} 11 Dewakering Allowance $6,200.OD $0.00 ($6,2DD.D0 12 Sde Utilities $2p,pDD.00 $52,126.71 $32,126.71 13 Excavattonl8ackf1111Compact $92,490.00 $125,556.77 $33,066.77 14 Paving $83,118,00 $A8,960.Op ($34,218.00} 15 Wheel Stopsl5tripeslTraffic Signage $24,837.75 $40,69354 $75,855.75 16 CurbslGufters $41,685.00 $29,847.D5 ($11,837.95 17 Sidewalks & Header Cvrbs $37.621.5D $50,278.9D $12,657,40 18 Pavers $50,516.10 $3$,038.43 ($?4,477.67} 19 Irrigation & Landscaping $43,251,fi0 $57,844.65 $14,593.05 2fl Exterior Furnishings $17,3$S.OD $0.00 ($'€7,386.06) 21 Concrete Foundations For Precast Garage $714,395.85 $489,238.82 ($225,157.D3) 22 Precast Gara e MTL ~ Erection $6,934,500.00 $1,149,729.OD {$5,784,771,00) 23 Architectural Precast $99,1D9.3D $45,567.82 ($53,541.48} 24 Saw Cutting Allowance $3,500.OD $3,237.50 ($262.50) 25 Masonry $237,675.00 $235,565.68 ($62,1D8.32) 26 Metaf Truss 8 E]eckfng $50,940.00 $28,986.81 ($31,953,19) 27 Removable {6) & #ixed (4) 8o#iards $5,889.85 $5,800.00 ($99.85) 28 Stair Hatxlraits & Ralltt~gs $3x,760.00 $28,111.91 ($2,648.09) 29 Misc. Steel Allowance $98,400.00 $59,fi57,84 ($38,842.16} 30 Rough Carpentry {Cedar and Hailers) $300,725.70 $237.082.39 ($63,643.31 31 Waterproafin9 $6,675.D0 $6,675.00 $0.00 32 Traffic Coating-Over Rooms Below $133,024.50 $155,151,59 $62,127.fl9 33 Traffic Sealer $94,132.50 $23,514,87 {$70,647.63) 34 Fire Stoppin $4,000.00 $0.00 ($4,0OO.OD) 35 Roofing $'I36,fi7fi.40 $123,168.50 {$13,506.9D) 36 Caulking $t7,925.p0 $57,366.pD $39,461.OD 37 ~oersfFrameslHardwars $SD,979.60 $8D,486.95 $29,5D7.35 38 5tarefrortt {G#ass R Windowless Frames) $274,1$7,50 $184,1?6.22 ($90,077.28} 39 Installation i3oorslFrameslHardware $12,935.00 $11,534.45 ($1,400.55) 40 Shutters Allowance $36,14fl.00 $48,88D.p0 $12,74D.g0 4? Awnings $27,175.5D $7,200,00 ($19,975.50} 42 Stucco $197,517,50 $125,047.25 ($72,470.25} 43 €7rywalflFraming $11,307.50 $26,999.OD $9,691,50 44 Ceramia file $4.332.00 $4,346.OD $14.OD 45 AcoustiaaE Ceiling $2,935.5D $1,957,00 ($978.56} 46 Resifkenf Floor Far Elevators $60fl,00 $13,225.00 $12,625.00 47 Painting $1D6,4p0.00 5142,799.31 $6,39$.31 48 Tailet Partitians $13,331.00 $1,740.OD ($11,591.00} 49 ErsterinrlExterior Gada Signage Allowance $6,500.D0 $O.pO ($6,SDD.DO) 5D Garage Signage Atiawarice $S,ODD,DO $26,661.D0 $21,061.00 51 Louvers $?3,fl71.pp $16,360.00 $3,289,(30 S2 Specialties (Knox Box) $450.00 $1,145.65 $695.65 53 Bike Rack $1,5fl0.OD $1,D6D,13 ($439.87 54 Bath AccessarEas $3,515.D0 $3,399.14 {$115.86) 55 Overhead Coilir~ Grills $43,542.Ofl $10,840.71 ($32,701.29} 055 Parking Garage Schedule "A" SCHEDULE '.A„ TO CHANGE DROER N0.21 FENAL (CN{ AT RISFC CONTRACT CLOSEOUTS CATALFUMO GONSTRUGTION, LTD. OLD SGHDOL SQUARE PARKING GARAGE PROJECT #2004-044 cn~ AT Rise coN~rRACT cL,os~o~~r ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION OF WORK GMP SCHEpULEp VALUE FINAL. CM CONTRACT VALUE DOPIBUDGETlPO ADJUSTMENTS 56 Decprat'rve Gales{106A,130,129} $30,518.06 522,368.56 ($8,149.42) 57 Elevators $139,221.00 $i t2,665.4D ($26,555.$D) 58 Plumbing $345,134,63 $281,928.60 ($63,206.x3) 59 FireSprinkfers $541,461.40 $387,276.73 ($154,184,27) 6a FlreExtinguishers $11,020.00 $2,fi39.79 {$8,380.21} 61 HVACNentifatinn $73,890.00 $67,207.30 {$6,682.7D} fit Electrical $837,564.00 $645,248.92 ($192,375.08) 63 Band $104,832.00 $108,478.60 $3,646.00 64 General Liability Insurance $94,250.48 $99,858.48 $5,408.00 65 Bu''€Iders Risk $172,792,54 $172,792.54 50.00 66 Sa€es Tax Recovery ($218,959.86} $o.00 $218,959.88 67 Direct Owner Material $0.00 $6,843,731.35 $6,843,731.35 68 Dwnar's Contingency $312,597.41 $480,198.83 $167,601.42 69 CD #1 • PO #638053-Goreslab $0.0o -$5,737,725.D0 ($5,737,725.00) 7p CO #2 - PO #$39320-Cantir~ental Florida Materials & PO #639321 Construction Materials Ltd, $0 OD -$204,863.20 ($204,863.20) 71 Sheet Piling (Item AddediNOt in Original GMP items} $D.00 $27,332.013 $27,332.00 72 GO #3 PO #539550-SimplexGrinnell; PO #639552-Cummins Power South; PO #&39553-Rexel Consolidated Electrical $0,00 -$&4,79x.24 {$64,79D.24} 73 CD#4 -Tax Correetlan to PO #639320 $p.p0 $11,643.20 $11,643.20 74 CO#5 - PO #639711-Olds Tyme Construction; PO #639714-Superior Steel Components; PO #639822-Electrical Supplies, inc.; PO #639835 Arch Aluminum & Glass ; PO #639836-Rsnker; PO #639837- Construction Materials $0 DO -$345,770.54 ($345,770,54} 75 CO#6 - PO #639959-ScMinder Elevator; PO #639960-Door Systems $0.00 -$113,953.OD ($113,953.00) 76 CO#7 - PO #640041-Mardale Speoialties; PO #640D42 JRJ Ind 1nG DBA PV Foam; PO #640043-Mardale; PO #640044-Paver Systems $0.00 -$45,601.95 ($45,8D1.95) 77 CO#8 - PO #54D'432-McKinsey Steel $0.00 -$56,850.4D ($56,854.40} 78 GO#9 - S4p297-Arch Aluminum; PO #64D298-Ferguson Enferprises; PO #640299-Porter Paints $6.00 -$66,456.06 ($66,45x.00) 79 CO#10 - PO #540547-Textured Coatings of America; PO #646768 American Builders; PO #540770 American Builders; PO #640771- COastai Construction PrpduGts $D.Oa -$105,686.68 ($105,686.68) 8p CO#17 - PO#640812-Carrier Fkarida; PO #640813 EM Corson & Assaf. DBAIGpr-Air $0.40 -$21,023.00 ($21,023.x0} 81 CD#12 - PO #5416$3-Rit7kpr $0.06 -$4,731.00 ($4,731.D0} B2 CO#13 - PO #641873-Jones lumber $0,06 -$68,289.48 (568,289.48] 83 CO#i4 - PO #640770-Amerioan Builders $pA0 -$5,072.54 ($5,072.54) 64 CO#75 - PO #64406-Allied Tube & Conduit DBA GEM FahrYcafion $0.00 -$86,094.D0 ($86,094.00} 85 GO#1$ - PO #644473-Patlersars Pump $0,00 -$24,958.D0 ($24,956.00) 86 CO#77 - Adjustment to PD #644473 a6ave $0.00 -$1,25D.OD {$1,250.00} 67.89 CC #1$! CO #19lCO #2a (Zerp Dollar Adjustments to Pp) $0.06 50.00 $0.00 90 CO #21 - PO #645707-RLS Lighting $6.Oa -$16.$81.D0 ($16.681.00) 91 Cfl #22 - PO #645792-Municipal Lighting $q.DO -$8,260,00 ($8,250.00) 92 CO #23 - PO #646949 -PGAL Additional Services $0.00 -$7,520.00 {$7,520.06) 93 Direct City Purctsase » Benct~:slLight PaleslTrash Gantainer5 $0.00 $24,931.OD $24,931.D0 94 PGAL-Additianal5ervices $o.aD $12,D2o,0o $12,D20.00 95 CO #24 (PO Closeouts) $D.pO 562,419 45 $62,419.45 96 CO #25 {PO Closeouts $0.00 $6,805.D0 $8,8Q5,p0 97 CD #26 (PO Clpseaut5} $6.00 $0.00 $O OD 9$ G4 #27 (Pp Glpseauts} $OAO $7,794.62 $7,794.62 99 CO #28 (Zero $ Adjustment) $O,pO $0.60 ~ $0.04 100 CO #29 (PO Closeouts} $0.00 $9,457.48 $9,457,48 101 CO #30 (PO Closeout) $0.06 $12.96 $72.96 ip2 GO #31 (PO Adjustment) $0.06 $2.D0 $2.OD OSS Parking Garage Schedule "A" SCHEDULE "A'° TO CHANGE ORDER NO.2 ! EiNAL {CM AT RISK CONTRACT CLOSEOUT) CATALI=UiUiO COI~ISTRUCTION, LTb. OLD SCHOOL SQUARE PARKit~lG GARAGE PROJECT #2004-044 CM AT RISK CONTRACT CLOSEOUT ITEM NO• DESCRIPTION OF WORK GMP SCHEDULEl7 VALUE FINAL CM CONTRACT VALUI: OOPlSUDGETlPO A(SJUSTMENTS 103 GO #32 (Pq Closaoutsj $0.00 $17,985.66 $11,985.66 104 CO #33 (Adjustment) $0.00 -$5,534.16 ($5,534.16) 105 CO #34 (p0 C[aseaut) $O.OD $487.03 $487.03 106 CO #35 (PD Closeout) $O.DO $4.g6 $4.56 107 Sales Tax Adjustment $O.OD -$0.12 ($0.12) ADJUSTED GiVIP CONTRACT SUB-TOTALS $9&,708,412.64 $8,827,730.29 {$6,880,882.35} LESS OWNI=R'S CQNTiNGENCY -SAVINGS TO CITY {$4$0,198.83y FINAL CM CONTRACT VALUE $6,347,531.46 - COAITRAGT CLOSEOUT SUMMARY - CHANGE ORDER NO. 21 F6NAL ORIGINAL GMP CONTRACT VALUE $15„708,412.84 FINAL CM CONTRACT VALUE $8,347,5$9.46 CHANGE ORDER N®. 21 FINAL ($7,360,881.'68} - FINAL PAYM6=NT SUMMARY - CM CONTRACT VALUE $8,347,539.4fi PAYMENTS TO CATALFUMO TD BATE ($8,245,843.27} PAYMENT DUE TO CATALFUMO OSS Parking Garage Schedule "A" 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Carolanne Kucmerowski, Construction Management Technician Richard C. Hasko P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 6, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 CONTRACT CLOSEOUT (CHANGE ORDER NO. 1/FINAL)BRANG CONSTRUCTION, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before the Commission to approve a Contract Closeout (Change Order No. 1/Final) in the net deduct amount of (-$29,898.00) and final payment amount of $33,424.82 to Brang Construction, Inc. for the completion of the Bexley Community Park Trail Improvements Project. BACKGROUND The project scope consisted of the installation of a parking lot, lighting, pavilion, gazebo, walking trail, irrigation, landscaping, signage; as well as, water, sewer, and drainage improvements. The change order includes plus and minus quantity adjustments and liquidates the residual from contingency allowances. All changes for the project are itemized on the attached Schedule "A". The project is complete and all closeout documentation has been received. FUNDING SOURCE Residual funds to be liquidated from Purchase Order #646907 to funding accounts 380-4150-572-63.24 (2004 G.O. Bond/Improvements Other/Bexley Park) and 441-5161-536-63.24 (Water/Sewer Fund/Improvements Other/Bexley Park). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Contract Closeout (Change Order No. 1/Final) in the net deduct amount of (-$29,898.00) and final payment amount of $33,424.82 to Brang Construction, Inc. for the completion of the Bexley Community Park Trail Improvements Project. CITY ®~' DFI.,IdAY BFAC'H CHAIi~GF ®ItDFR T® ®RIGINAI.. C®NTItACT CHANGE NO. 1 1 Final {Contract Clnseont) PROJECT NO. ~OD4-ObU DATE: PROJECT TITLE: Bexley Community Parr Trail Improvements TO CONTRACTOR: l3rang Construction, Inc. YOU ARIv HEREBY REQUESTED TO MAKE TIIE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT AND TQ PERFORM THE WORK ACCORDTNGI,Y, SUBJECT "I'O ALL CONTRACT STIPULATIONS AND COVENANTS. JUSTIFICATION: Complete changes to project per the attached Schedule "A". SUMMARY OF CONTRACT AMOUNT ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES PRl/VIOUSLY ORDERED ADJUSTTD CONTRACT AMOUNT PRIOR TO "PHIS CHANGE ORDER COST OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGES THIS ORDER ADJUSTED CONTRACTI' AMOUNT' INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER PER CENT' DECREASE THIS CHANGE ORDER - 5.34% TOTAL. PER CENT DECREASE TO DATIr - 5.34% $559;303.00 .00 5559,303.00 ($ 2 9~ ,,,,,,,,., 8 9 8~ $529,405.00 CERTIFIED STATEMENT: d hereby certify that the supporting cost data included is, in any considered. opinion, accurate; that the prices quoted are fair and z'easonable and in proper ratio to the cost of the original woz=k contracted for under benefit of competitive bidding. Brang Construction, Inc. (Contractor to sign & seal} TO BEd=ILLED OUT BY DEPARTMENT INITIATING CHANGE ORDER Funding is available from account: DEPARTMENT Environmental Services DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA by its City Commission RECOMMEND: APPROVED: City Attorney FUNDING By: Maynr ATTEST: By: city Clerk S:IEngAdininlPr~jects'~2Q04'~20U4-660':OFFIC[AI,1C0 1 .kinal F§ran GC 05200S.doc CERTIFIED SY SCI~EDI7LIs "A" TO CHANGE ORDF,R NO. I !FINAL (CONTRACT CLOSI/OITT} I3RANG CONSTRIICTION,1iYC. HENLEY COMMCINITY PARK TRAIL IVIPROVEMENTS PIIV' 2004-060 t7ERA N!). gE3CRIPTIDN UNIT 1 General Conditions LS 2 General ALLOWANCE 3 Mobilizaticn L5 4 Indemnification 5 Bonds and insurance LS fi Maintenance of Traffic LS 7 As-built t}rawirn3s. Survey and La out LS 8 Video Allowance 9 ©emoliticn -General LS 10 Demolition - Existin Structure LS 11 Clearing and Grubbing, Grading, Debris Removal and Gradin of Site LS 12 Furnish and Install 2 inch Water Meter Bax Assembly Including Backflow Prevention Device EA 13 Furnish and install 2 inch wafer 5erviaB connection LS tIHF? 15 Furnish and install 2 inch water service line LS 16 Furnish and install 4 inch sanitary sewer connection from i;ew restrnam to existi sewer LS 17 6 inch sewer stub at ROW and connect LS 38 Furnish and install 4 inch sanitary sewer aleanout EA 99 "C" T e Inlet EA 20 Asphalt parkin lot paving SF 21 Parkin lot stri in LS 22 Concrete'©` curb LF 23 Valle putter LF 24 Wheel sta s EA 25 Asphalt waikin trails (6 ft. wide SF 28 4 inch concrete sidewalks and sidewalk ram s gF 27 6 inch depth by width of sidewalk concrete. 'Transition ramp &nm sidewalk to drivewa SF 2& Parkitrg signs, "S70P", "NANdECAPPED" EA 29 Double swin in ate at ark entrance LS 34 Electrical diStributian s tern LS 31 Parking lot light fixture assembly, 2p fl. EA 32 1fi ft. hexagonal picnic pavilion with concrete foundation EA 33 12 ft. hexagonal gazebo with concrete foundation EA 34 E3ike rack with concrete ground mount FA 35 Park benches with concrete ad EA 36 Park bench for azeYio EA 37 Picnic tabtes - ADA accessible EA 3$ Trash receptacles including concrete ground mount EA 39 Grills including concrete ground mount EA 44 Park entrance si n at drivewa LS 41 Park sign on existing development sign strucfura at Milita Trai! LS 42 ~ 43 Live Oak tree EA 44 Sabel t'aim tree EA 45 SEash Pine tree EA 46 Orange Geiger tree EA 47 ParsarisJuni er i=A 4$ Firebush ;~A 49 Plumbaga EA 50 Fakahatchee Grass EA 51 Cocopium EA Page 1 of 2 sclllJnuLE „A„ 'I'd CHANGE OI2I3ER NO. I /FINAL (CdM1TRAC3' CLOSEOUT) SRANG CdR'STRUCTION, INC. I;EXLE,1' CEI1~i1dIUI~ITY PARK TRAIL IMPR(JVEivI.E1lTS P!N 2004-060 ITEM NO. DESGR[pTfON UNIT' 52 Indian Hawthorn EA 53 Exotic removal ALLOWANCE LS 54 St. Augustine SF 55 Landsca a irrigation s tem LS 56 Mulch trails LF 57 Mulch Trail Border, Waod LF 58 Supply & Install Pine Straw Mulch per L 1.2 of 31 LP GRAND TOTAL CONTRACT AWARD EST. QTY. UNIT PRICE TOTAL 318 $11.00 $3,476.00 0 $20,000.00 $0.00 525,000 $0.30 $37,560.00 1 $21,000.00 $21,OOOAO 1,900 $7.04 $13300.00 3,890 §4.60 $17,480.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 5558,303.DO Original Contract Award $559,303.00 CONTRACT TO PATE ACTUAL. QTY. UNIT PRICE EXTENDED FOFAL ARICE 316 $11,p0 $ 3,47fi.00 o $20,000.00 $ 125046 $0.30 $ 37,50fl.00 1 $21,000.09 $ 21,000.00 1660 $7.00 $ 11,629.00 3320 $4.6D $ 15,272,OD D $9.00 $ $529,405.00 pUANT ADJ. ~1- $0.00 $4.00 $0.00 $0.00 -$1,680.00 -$2,208.9D $o.no (Szs,a9a.00) 1'revfousEy Approved Changes $D.Do Total AwardlApproved to Date $559,393.9D FinaE Contract to Date $529,a95,0D CHANGE ORCfER t~d0. 7 f FfPfAL $ (2s,ass.oo~ Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Timothy Tack, ESD/CRA Project Manager Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 20, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.G. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 SERVICE AUTHORIZATION N0.07-06/MATHEWS CONSULTING, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Staff is requesting approval by Commission of service authorization #07-06 for Mathews Consulting in the amount of $97,655.00 for preparation of plans and bid documents for the construction of Seven Alleys and Drainage Improvements along SW 12th Avenue. BACKGROUND The scope of this project is a key part of the Southwest Area Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. The plan was initiated as part of an on-going effort by community leaders and the City of Delray Beach to revitalize the City's neighborhoods and commercial districts. The plan seeks to identify core strengths and assets that will move the Southwest neighborhoods towards stability and stimulate private sector investment in the area. Improving the alleys and drainage of this area will allow for future development and implementation of the Southwest Area Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. The alleys are located east and west of SW 12th Avenue and span almost from Atlantic Ave to SW 3rd Street. The four alleys located east of SW 12th Avenue and the three alleys located west of SW 12~' Avenue will be converted from existing dirt alleys to paved alleys with valley gutter to provide drainage. The storm water that is collected from the alleys will be tied into a dry retention system. The addition of the dry retention is a requirement of the Southwest Area Neighborhood Surface Water Management Study to improve flood management. FUNDING SOURCE Funding for this project has been provided by the Community Redevelopment Agency and the account is #334-3162-541-68.49. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of service authorization #07-06 for Mathews Consulting. CITE' ®F DELRAY BEACH C®NSiJLTING SERVICE AUTH®RIZATION DATE: SERVICE AUTHORI7ATION NO. 07-06 FOR CONSULTING SERVICES CITY P.O. NO. CITY PROJECT NO. CITY EXPENSE COIL: MATHEWS CONSULT. PROJECT NO. TITLE: SW 12th Avenue Alle s -Phase I This Service Authorization, when executed, shall be incorporated in and shall become an integral part of the Contract. TITLE: A reernent for General Consultin En ineerin Services I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIOI'~ ~'he scope of this Service Authorization is, but not limited to providing geotechnical services, survey services, final design, permitting, and bidding services for the proposed seven (7) alley improvements, new dry detention area and redesign of two (2) existing drainage structures far the following: East Alle~(fram just south of Atlantic Avenue to SW "a `a Street) • Convert existing dirt alley to paved alley. Mono-pitch to one side and provide valley gutter to control stormwater discharge. Total of 4 Alleys. ~ New stormwater Type `C' catchbasins and 1 S" - 24" piping. The new catchbasins shall be located at alley/roadway intersections. The new drainage system will tie into the existing drainage system. in the project area. • Coordinate with FPL to relocate existing power poles. The location of the relocated power poles shall be shown. on the design drawings. • Additional easerrtent for the alleys will not be obtained {e.g. the alley will ~aot be widened}. Temporary construction easements tnay be required. West Alley (from lust south of Atlantic Avenue to SW 3`d.Street • Convert existing dirt alley to paved alley. Mono-pitch to one side and provide valley gutter to control storzx~water discharge. Total of 3 Alley. SW I2tt~Avenue5/I612008 1 ivIATNEWS CONSULTING ~ New storwater Type `C' eatchbasins and 1 S" - 24" piping. The new catehbasins shall be located at alley/:roadway intersections. The new drainage system will tie into the existing drainage system in the project area. Coordinate with FPL to relocate existing power poles. The location of the relocated power poles shall be shown on the design drawings. Additional easeanent for the alleys wi11 not be obtained {e.g. the alley wi11 not be widened}. Temporary construction easements ~x~ay be required. Dry Detention Area ~a), N W corner of S W 11. ~' Avenue/S W 2nd Street Install a storm water detention area located on the West side of SW 11th Avenue at the intersection of SW. 2nd Street and S. W. l l ~~' Avenue. The retention area wi13 include a control structure which will be connected to the existing drainage structure located adjacent to the proposed retention area with a 24 to 30 inch reinforced concrete pipe. A precast mitered end section will be provided on the terminal end of the outfall pipe into the detention area and will include a steel grate protective cover. The volume of the retention area will be maximized. The retention area will be approximately 4 Ceet deep. The retention area will provide a 5 foot #lat area adjacent to the North and West property lines and a 10 foot flat area adjacent to the South alyd East property line. A 5 foot concrete sidewalk will be provided adjacent to the South and East property line of the retention area. Redesi n Existin Draina e Structl~re NW corner of SW l nth Avenue/SW 2"a Street Due to the lack of depth at this drainage structure, this structure will be replaced in order to tie-in the proposed drainage piping from the west {e.g. SW 14`h Avenue and East & West Alleys}. The drainage influent line will be deeper than the discharge line. lnelude a weephole on the new drainage structure. The possibility nay also exist that the existing drainage structure at the NE corner of SW 12th Avenue/SW 3rd Street may also have to be replaced. This will be reviewed during the design phase and replaced if required. The project limits are shown on Attachment A. II. SCOPE 4F SERVICES Phase I -Study and Report Phase Not Applicable. Phase ~lE - Preli~inary I)esi~n Phase Not Applicable. SW 12thAvenue511b12UO8 2 MAThI~WS C©N~~t,TING Phase 1[II -Final Pesi~z~ Phase Consultant shall provide final design phase services in accordance with Article III.C of the Agreeanent for lnngineering Services with the City, dated March I6, 2004. 1. Field reconnaissance of the proposed project limits shall be performed. Photograph log walk-through will be included. In addition, potential underground and aboveground existing utilities will be identified. 2. Coordination with utility agencies shall be performed to collect record information. This subtask includes reconciling apparent discrepancies between record information and existing photographic and field-verification information. This includes coordination with FPL for relocation of the power poles in the alleys. 3. Consultant shall prepare construction drawings which shall include: cover sheet, general notes, civil plan/profile drawings, alley sections, and detail sheets conforming to the requirements of the current City of Delray Beach Minimum Construction Standards. The drawing scale shall be 1" = 20' for plan and 1" = 2' for profile. Consultant shall prepare the engineering design elements on topographic survey information prepared by Consultant's surveyor using AutoCAD Release 2009 format. 4. Contract documents consisting of "front-end" documents and technical specifications shall conform to City of Delray Beach Standards and the FDOT Standard Specifications for road and bridge work. 5. Drawings and specifications (four copies) shall be submitted for City review at 30°/©, 60%, 90"/° and 100% stages. 6. At the 30%, 60%, 90% and 100% stages, Consultant shall prepare a detailed opinion of probable construction cost based upon the completed final design drawings and specifications approved by the City. The cost opinion shall reflect changes in general scope, extent or character of design requirements incorporated during the various design review stages. 7. Consultant shall prepare drainage calculations for sizing the detention area and associated piping. This shall also include determining the amount of water quality that can be provided with the proposed stormwater improvements. S. Consultant shall attend kick-off meeting and three (3) design meetings with the City and provide a written summary of the issues discussed. SW12thAvet~ue511b{2008 3 MATHEWS C01~SI1LTING 9. Consultant shall provide internal QA/QC reviews on the 30%, 60%, 90% and 104% Design Documents {e.g. drawings, specifications and cost estimates}. 10. Consultant shall furnish with the 100% design drawings, one (1) mylar set and one (1} set of AutoCAD (Version 2009) files in electronic format (*.DWG & ~`.DWF} on CD. Specifications shall be provided in electronic {PDI; & WORD) format. Phase IV - Biddit~glNe~atiatioza Phase Consultant shall provide fznal design phase services in accordance with Article III.D of the Agreement for Engineering Services with the City, dated March 16, 2004. 1. Consultant shall assist City in advertising for and obtaining bids or negotiating proposals far construction {including materials, equipment and labor}. Tt is anticipated that work shall be awarded under a single construction contract for Phase 1. Consultant shall provide twenty {20} sets of bidding documents to the City to issue bid package. The City shall receive and process deposits for bidding documents and shall maintain a record of prospective bidders to whom bidding documents have been issued. 2. Consultant shall attend mandatory pre-bid conference and provide a written summary of issues discussed. 3. Consultant shall issue addenda and shall provide supplemental information or clarification, as appropriate, to interpret, clarify, or expand the bidding documents to all prospective bidders during the bid periad. 4. Consultant shall attend the bid opening, prepare bid tabulation sheets and assist City in evaluating bids and proposals, and in assembling and awarding contract for construction. Consultant shall submit to City a written recommendation concerning contract award. 5. Consultant shall furnish all bid information to the City in electronic format to be used in conjunction with "Demand Star". Phase V - Cflnstr~ctioea f4.dizzistration Phase Upon completion of the final design phase, the Consultant shall submit an Addendum to this service authorization for approval of fees for construction phase services to be provided in accordance with Section III-E of the Agreement with the City (if requested by City}. SWI2thAvenue5/16/200$ 4 MATIIEWS CONSULTING ®tlzer - Permitting At the outset of the Design Phase the Consultant shall meet with the appropriate permitting agencies to determine potential permitting requirements. Agencies anticipated to Dave jurisdiction over the project include: South Florida Water Management District {SFWMD}. A single Individual Permit application shall be completed for SFWMD ("Construction Modification of Conceptual Permit} as required. This will include any required surface water ~~anageznent calculations for the proposed stormwater improvements. Associated permit application fees shall be determined by Consultant and paid by City. In addition to preparing the permit applications far appropriate regulatory agencies, Consultant shall assist the City in consultations with the appropriate authorities. Consultation services shall include the following: Attend up to one (I) pre-application meeting with the staff of each of the regulatory agencies. Attend up to one {lj meeting with each of the regulatory agencies during review of the final pei7nit applications. ^ Respond to request{s} for additional information from each agency. ®ther --Serve Consultant shall furnish the services of a professional surveyor to provide survey services consisting of field topography and horizontal locations referenced by baseline stationing. A11 existing facilities and utilities within the full right-of--way of the established construction limits will be referenced by baseline station with an offset distance {left or right} from baselint; for the project and will include the following: Topography survey at 50-foot intervals and at major ground elevation changes to depict existing ground profile at proposed project area. All topographical surveys shall have stationing established from south to north anal west to east where applicable. This shall be accomplished by creating a baseline in the f eld to collect pertinent data which shall include the following: a. Location of all visible fixed improvements within the right-of way (including 10- feet back on each side of the right-of way} of the project limits, including physical objects, roadway pavement, driveways, sidewalks, curb, trees, signs, fences, power poles, buildings, and other encumbrances, including point of curvature and point of tangency. This also includes the front two corners of the building on each lot. SW12t}iAvenueS/I6/2008 5 MATHFWS CONSULTING b. Location of aII known above and below ground existing utilities: FP&L, AT&T, Cable TV, Natural Gas, Potable Water (pipe diameter, TOP, valves, fire hydrants, and meters), Force Mains (pipe diameter, TOP, and valves}, Sanitary Sewer (pipe diameter, manhole inverts and direction, rim elevations, laterals, and clean-outs), Storm Sewers (pipe diameter, manhole inverts anal direction, catch basins, and rim/grate elevations), and all other accessible structures. This will include coordination with Sunshine and City of Delray Beach. c. Identify platted rights-of--way (including bearing and distances for centerline), lot numbers, house address, ownership tines, block numbers and dedicated easements. d. Elevations shall be indicated every SO feet, at a minimum, to indicate centerline grades, edge of pavement grades and shoulder grades, low points and all right-of way lines. lntermediate grades shall be indicated at all grade breaks, driveways and sidewalks. Two grades (one at the right-of way line and one 15 feet back) shall be indicated on the driveways to indicate direction of grade. e. The survey shall include topography of the complete intersection, 50 feet beyond radius returns, at the terz~inal end of each street. f. Provide 25 ft. grid with tree location over dry retention area. g. Provide and reference benchmarks at maxirnurn 600-foot intervals. Elevations to be referenced to an existing established City or County Benchmark. h. Provide one permanent bench mark tied to State Plane Coordinates. 2. 'The above topographical survey data will be prepared in AutoCAD {Version. 2008) ®tl~e~r - Geateehnieal Consultant shall furnish the services of a professional geotechnical engineer to provide subsurface investigations of the project area that will include: 1. Pet-form up to seven (7} standard penetration test (SPT) borings to an average depth often { 10} feet along East & West Alley's. 2. Perform up to two (2) standard penetration test (SPT) borings to an average depth of fifteen (15) feet ~a the catch basin(s) to be replaced. 3. Perform up to one (l) double ring infiltrometer tests to an average of six (6} feet at the dry detention area. SW 12thAv~nue5/I6/2008 6 MATt-IEWS CONSLTL"I"ING ~. Evaluate field data collected and provide geotechnical engineering evaluation report. Other -Field 1Terifieation Consultant shall fur~~ish the services of a professional underground services company to provide underground field locations of affected existing utilities. The work shall consist of measuring and recording approximate horizontal location and vertical depth of affected utilities within the project limits. It is anticipated that approximately ten (10) utility locations will need to be pot-holed. ASSUIVIPT~ONS Work described herein is based upon the assumptions listed below. If conditions differ from those assumed in a manner that will affect schedule of Scope of Work, Consultant shall advise City in writing of the magnitude of the required. adjustments. Changes in completion schedule or compensation to Consultant will be negotiated with City. 1. City will provide Consultant record drawings of all available existing facilities and proposed facilities, which shall serve as the basis of design in this project. The information will be provided to Consultant within 7 calendar days of NTP. 2. City personnel will assist in #ield verification of affected existing City facilities. This includes painting the locations of water mains, force mains, sanitary sewers and laterals in the field for the surveyor. 3. Consultant can assume that all existing and proposed streetscapelinfrastructure improvement alignments are within City of Delray Beach, rights-af--way. 4. City will be responsible far acquisition of easements (including temporary), if required. 5. City is responsible for all permitting fees, including costs of public notification in local newspapers. 6. A single bidding effort far each Phase is assuaned. Re-bidding of the project is considered an Additional. Services Item. 7. T13e design is to be based an the federal, state and local codes and standards in effect at the beginning of the project. Revisions required for compliance with any subsequent changes to those regulations is considered an Additional Services Item not currently included in this Scope of Work. SW12thAvenae5/16/2008 7 MATH~WS CONSULTING ADDYTII®1®lAL SER.V~CES Consultant shall provide additional engineering services relating to the provision of sanitary, water, drainage, reclaimed water and streetscape improverzme~ats to the project area that are not covered under this Service Authorization. These additional services may be required due to uncertainties discovered during survey, soils, investigations, field veri~eation of existing facilities and conditions, permitting regulations, and potential property or easement acquisitions. Services performed under this task wi11 be on as-directed basis in accordance with a written Notice-to-Proceed from the City Manager. The Notice-to-Proceed issued shall contain the fallowing information and requirements. ® A detailed description of the work to be u~adertaken. A budget establishing the amount of the fee to be paid in accordance with the Agreement. ^ A time established for completion of the work. III. TAE OF P~RFORIVIANCE The completion dates for this work will be as follows (starting at written notice-to-proceed}. Refer to Attachment B - Project Schedule. En~ineerin~; Services Time per Phase Survey 4 weeks Phase 111-Final Designt~t 17 weeks Permitting~~j 6 weeks Phase 1V -Bidding (Phase I) 8 weeks Cumulative Tune 4 weeks 21 weeks * 25 weeks 31 weeks ~~~ Geotechnical crud Field ~erifrcatr.'on will be co»~pleted during Phase III -Final Design time period ~~~ Permitting will be started during Phase III -~ Final Design time period. * The schedule is based upon conducting a review meeting within 7 calendar days after City receives the Submittal. All review comments shall be provided to Cansultant within 7 calendar days after City receives the subrr~ittal. An adjustment to tlae overall schedule will be required in case the review meeting takes longer to be conducted and/or obtaining comments tapes longer to receive. SW 12€hAvenue5/1 ~/2008 8 MATHEWS C©NSULTING ~V. CONIPEI®iSATION The compensation for services provided shall be billed on an hourly basis plus reirnbursabic expenses for each phase of work in accordance with Article VII, Method II, up to the following not to exceed cost for each phase. Refer to Attachment C for fee break-down. En ineerin Services Estimated Fees Phase III -Final Design. Phase $ 44,441.00 Phase IV -Bidding {Phase I) $ 5,272.00 Permitting $ 1,772.00 Surveying $ 37,400.00 Geotechnical $ 3,740.00 Field Verification $ 2,530.00 Out-of-Pocket Expenses $ 2,500.00~~~ Additional Services $ 15,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 97,655.OOt2~ Notes: l~~Dut-of-Pocket Expenses include the fplloi~ing: ~7rlnfing/reproduction and postage, {)Total project cost doer not anclude the X51.5,000 for ~ddr.'tional Services (if authorized by the City). SW12thAvenue5/16/2008 9 MAT`HEWS CONSULTING This Service Authorization is approved contingent upon the City's acceptance of and satisfaction of the completion of tlae services rendered in the previous phase whereas encompassed by the previous Service Authorization. If the City in its sole discretion is unsatisfied with the services provided in the previous phase or Service Authorization, the City txtay terminate the contract without incurring any further liability. The Consultant may not commence work on and Service Authorizatian approved by the City to be included as part of the contract without any further notice to proceed. Approve by: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH: Date: Rita Ellis, Mayor Attest: Approved as to Legal Suffieiency and Form ~~v ~ Natary Public State aP Flarida Nancy Armstrong ~c, ~ ~iy Commission DD7R6482 ~CFta~ irX~]IfB8~5li}6/~Q'i2 MATHEWS CONSULTII~rG, INC. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH The foregoing instrument was ~- acknowledged before the this~~~ day of~'$~... , 2008 by David Mathews, Vtce `President of Mathews Consulting, Inc., a Florida corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He. /She is ersonally 1{nown_rq„to z~ne or (ltas produced identiFtcation), Florida Driver's License and (did/did not) take an oath. Signature of person taking ~_.. acknowledge~tient SW 12thAvenue5116/2448 ] 4 MATHFWS CONSUL"I'1NG Q Z ~''^^ rvi V Q - Q ~ V H 1 a 0 N ~ ~ ~w ~..~` r „~ <8~oi8b _ 6O3€;~ _ §~<~~o~~" Q W ~s~~g~k U a x y gBiLm~?~ m W Z Q w --~~vd'Na ~' J W ~ °ol ~ °„~9~~$~ ~ a ~ z '~ ~ ~ s3o$6'._ w O ~ ww> gg mas o ~ o a 9 ,°~"~Sw9~~wo W d O ~~zoo CUao ~ >N ~ J N I ~ I I ~ I ~ i l ~ ~ ~- _ - -7 -~ `rte ~ T rr~- ~ °' hi ~.~ i ,, ~ I h f i l l I ~ I 1 _i I L I- s 1_L i i i - - ~ ~~~~T ~ ~ ~T i~ ~ ~ i ~ i~ ~~ i f ~ ~ _ o :~ ~~ l I _i i _ ~~! ~~ ~' I I ' ~.~~J ~ ~ ~J ~ it ~ _ ~ ~~ I ~~ ~ I ~ ; a ~f r ~I ' ~ `i __ w z v w ~~~ w~~ x',~~o ~,,,Z~~ o ~Z~ ~aN ~d ~~LL ®Q ~U~ 5 ~~ J W ~ Q N m~ Z n ® Z UW~ ~ i ~ i -_ ~1 ,-~___ Oft H Z w U H ~ ~ ~ ~ °I~ LL G V N D O c~ 0 c 0 N C O U O O .` Q of O f1 d C2„ c J LL C 0 ro :n .~ a U z ~~ W ~> ~ ~R ~ ~. ®u €~ 0. ~~p V W W W ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ N ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,e ~ (~ a C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G Q O ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ fA3 LL. ers c~ ~ r ~ ~1 Q V ~~ /~ V ~ k" y to ~,. ~ ~ ~ ~_ 1 ~ Q v ti Q 0 U m ~' ~ ~ ° oca° a' U) G ~ ~ j I '. ~ ~ ~ ~'~ MIN E~~ M -~: U ~ I I € ''' ~ i ' E E E 3 3 I I F ~~~~E ~E ~~~ . ' 1 1 c0 P '',' ', 00 M~ '''.. ' ~I [ E i i ~~ M O~(D CD tr7 V ~'~.~ I"., ~~h O Q N M P] OOV N''~, X57 r' ~~ ~I ~ ', M~~ N i(7 ''~. '"~' Q1 N''~~p ~ 'I N h I N N: h !~, '~ 00 p ~ a-• h.Mfe- cp N;N V ~ O ~ N' Or cif 6 N h i`; '~I ~ h J fr ~,,~~m ~~,N M N NM N ~ ~ '~E 3Yj~ Y ~ r l k> ~' v ~ stn ea~va rfr Efr tfr e»,F» tfr-~r;v~ E»E ~~~ je~1~ v3 ~r v~~ ~~ f sr i~ ~.. NCO N -N Y~-M~ V Mj .NN (O M~ t ~,,,I N i ~N' ~} if] U 64 € r '' f 1 , ~ € ~'~~ U1 ~.. N O ~6 '~ 7 ~ ~ I ~ N ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e- I ! ~ I i ~ a , i ~i a N ~ LY I 0 ~(} app d i rI r C7 yq ~ ! 1 ~ i W3 ~ 0 ~ '. 3 I ~ c E f I t a 2 c '~, ', ~'. ! '', ' I '.. E v c m v Ey U ~ ~~ v r~~ `'° m'~~ ~ I u~ vi w a: i Ica a fl) ~ ~ va ~ ~ ~ € I i ` ` v 1 [ ) i _~ ~ ~ j i ~ I I ' ~ ~ O C K> f ' ~ 3 3 '. ' € 7 € € ~ E O € f ~ ~ N O ''~, I LLt ~ E I ~ 3 ' ' E f 7~7 I O "' '' i "~, '~ ~ O v N CP '. V M M !. N i N N N N I I to , O M '~, M N O ~ ~ ~ t J i E ~ i I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ t 1 i ! s 7 t f i, 3 ~ ~ i ~ a _ € € I ii E i ~ ~ E I I 'I € m ~ c~ I ~ ~ h u~: o ;a', o,' ~n a m o Y., ~,.~ s o w= o i h i a~ rn ~~ .E ai v5'n.~rs irs:o o ,y.,ol~n v cD N ao; +•nlv v ~ M o, N N; cn a; hi m'i lon m ~~ ~.,~ +- N N r N N N r I N ~ r N ~ '. 01 +- ~, M E1. W e» I '.. ~ e '~ ',, vim, vr% va ~~. urs ba ~ f 1 i ~~ ` IMyi •ia. I ~ I E o ~o: o~ '~ ^ '~ I _ i I 1 '~ ~ ~, ~ I _ _ rn , I N ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ U C .~--~ 7 N C O U 3 .C-~ ! ~ € ~ m~ It m ~ ~ I ~ f N ~ ~ ', c ~ c a~ h ~ a~ .ail ~~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ I , ~ N . ~' a' ~ I a€ '^ n b ~ ~ ~ mr U g ~. w: ~ a~ to ~ \ o sp 3 :~ olm~a~ a~ a~!a~~ N~, N', N Vl N~ N a 3 E '- - °` SO f0 ~~ ~ C ~ ~E O - ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ f77 N y ~ E N'M d '' ~ D. ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ Q I OlI s : i CY7 ~ C G C_ ~ ~ E^^^ ~ ~ > ~ C' ~€ ~ O ,p ~Er I N M M-M ~,M V ~ GOIh 07;1 ''~ Gie•-IN M'~.~ ~: ~ - '. U ~r },. ~j ~~, ' , f~ Ni ' O O'~ O~ ~ Si v+ U .]: N ~,X I.,7G XY Y Y Y Y Y Y.Y Y ~G C, ul in UJ N i to ''. ~ N N N N' N rn N - ~ ' '~ Y;Y Y Y Y qi N: N N j N N ~ ~ Q 'p a3 ~ of;a> ' O O 0 .fa .Cd ~''~ ' ~ U ~~ A ~~ a ~ m ~ ~ m h^' .<a ~a~c ~ ~ m ~ m m m ,~a ca; m tE.,F,F'h.Fi~'t~,Fh-:€- I- I-:€-,f- ~-.~ m ~:~; o3.FH ;- h~H€ . '. a. cn C9iu. ~ , m;m ~ .,..a....,.€I~ . v)iv) sn` ~ I[C! a I i i ~ j ~ ~ ; ro ~ I I d 0 3 0 a ~, o ` E 0 m 0 0 N N T O O ?~ ~ O ~___ U ?~ 7 ~' }~ d i O £, N O ~~ 3 Q M O O € €i I s: 'ii i i i i I ~ i. r :. €ti';`r i '~ __ ~__ I I I I I iI ~ CITY of DELRAY BEACH SW 12TH AVE ALLEYS PHASE 1 DATE:05/21/2008 d ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT LOCATION MAP p0~ 434 80UiH BWNTON AVBVUE, DELRAY BEACH, ROFIDA 39444 2007-013 1 OF 1 r.; L MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP, City Engineer Richard C. Hasko, PE, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 20, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.H. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT/PALM BEACH COUNTY/DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Request Commission approval/authorization for the Mayor to execute an interlocal agreement with Palm Beach County for the installation of decorative street lights along Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) Drive. Interlocal agreement is for $100,000.00. BACKGROUND The MLK Drive committee has discussed several projects for the corridor. One project that is already completed is the installation of a "peace" bench at the east end of this corridor. Another project this committee is considering is the installation of decorative street lights along MLK Drive. Palm Beach County has agreed to participate in this effort and has offered to enter into an interlocal agreement to help fund the decorative street lights. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTS ON MARTIN LUTWER KING JR DRIVEf NW 2N° STREET FROM NW 4TH AVENUE TO NW 5T" AVENUE THIS INTERLOGAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , by and between PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida hereinafter referred to as "GITY" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the CITY is undertaking the installation of decorative street lights along Martin Luther King Jr. Drive/NW 2"° Street from NW 4~" Avenue to NW 5th ', Avenue within the CITY limits hereinafter referred to as "IMPROVEMENTS"; and WHEREAS, the IMPROVEMENTS consist of installing decorative street lights, poles and conduit along Martin Luther King Jr. Drive/NW 2ND Stree# from NW 4T" Avenue to NW 5th Avenue, within the CITY limits; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY believes that the IMPROVEMENTS in street lighting serves a public purpose in the enhancement of the CITY and wishes to support the IMPROVEMENTS by providing supplemental reimbursement funding for the documented costs of the IMPROVEMENTS in an amount not to exceed ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($'100,000.00); and WHEREAS, after the installation of the IMPROVEMENTS, the CITY will be 'responsible for the all subsequent maintenance of the IMPROVEMENTS. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, and ', agreements herein contained, the parties agree as follows: I~ 1. The above recitals are true, correct and incorporated herein. 2. The COUNTY agrees to provide to the CITY reimbursement funding for documented costs of the IMPROVEMENTS in an amount not to ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00). 3. The COUNTY agrees to reimburse the CITY the amount established in paragraph 2 for costs associated with the IMPROVEMENTS, upon the CITY's i 'submission of acceptable documentation needed to substantiate its cost for the IMPROVEMENTS. The COUNTY will use its best efforts to provide said funds to the 1 CITY on a reimbursement basis within forty-five (45) days of receipt of all information required in paragraph 6, below. 4. The COUNTY'S obligation is limited to its payment obligation and shall have no obligation to any other person or entity. ', 5. The CITY agrees to assume all responsibility fior design, bidding, contract '~ preparation, and contract administration necessary for the IMPROVEMENTS, including payment(s) to contractor(s) pursuant to all applicable governmental laws and regulations. 6. The GITY will obtain ar provide all labor and materials necessary for the 'i i design and installs#ion of the IMPROVEMENTS. The COUNTY shall have the final determination of eligibility for reimbursement. The CITY shall furnish the Special Projects Coordinator of County's Department of Engineering and Public Works with a '' request for payment supported by the following: a. A Contract Payment Request Form and a Con#ractual Services Purchases j i i Schedule Form, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" (pages 1 & 2), `which are required for each and every reimbursement to the CITY. Said information ~!, ~ shall list each invoice payable by the CITY and shall include the vendor invoice number, ~ '~~ invoice date, and the amount payable by the COUNTY. The CITY shall attach a copy of each vendor invoice paid by the CITY along with a copy of the respective check and I ~'I ;shall make reference thereof to the applicable item listed on the Contractual Services ', ''Purchases Schedule Form. Further, the CITY's Financial Officer shall also certify that each invoice listed an the Contractual Services Purchases Schedule Form was paid by '', the CITY as indicated. 7. As it relates to this Agreement, the COUNTY may initiate a finanoial systems analysis and/or an internal fiscal control evaluation of the CITY by an independent auditing firm employed by the COUNTY or by the County Internal Audit Department at any time the COUNTY deems necessary. 8. The CITY agrees to be responsible for the subsequent maintenance of the IMPRO~f1=MENTS following installation. The CITY shall be solely responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits, approvals and authorizations from any federal, state, regional, COUNTY or agency which are required far the IMPROVEMENTS. 2 9. The IMPROVEMENTS shall be completed and final invoices submitted to the COUNTY no later than December 31, 2010, and the COUNTY shall have no obligation to the CITY or any other entity or person for any cost incurred thereafter unless the time for completion is extended by modification of this Agreement as provided herein. 1fl. Each party shall be liable for its own actions and negligence and to the ~ extent permitted by law; the CITI( shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the I COUNTY against any actions, claims or damages arising out of the CITY's negligence in connection with this Agreement or the performance by the CITY as it may relate to this Agreement. The foregoing indemnification shall not constitute a waiver of sovereign . immunity beyond the limits set forth in Florida Statutes, Section 786.28, nor shall the same be construed to constitute agreement by either party to indemnify the other party for such other party's negligence, willful or intentional acts or omissions. 11. The CITY shall, at al! times during the term of this Agreement, maintain appropriate insurance. I 12. As provided in F.S. 287.132-133, by entering into this Agreement ar performing any work in furtherance hereof, the CITY certifies that its affiliates, suppliers, sub-contractors, and consultants who perform work hereunder, have net been placed on the convicted vendor list maintained by the State of Florida Department of Management Services within 36 months immediately preceding the date hereof. This ', notice is required by F.S. 287.133(3)(x). 13. The CITY shall require each contractor engaged by the CITY for work associated with this Agreement to maintain; Workers' Compensation coverage in accordance with Florida Statutes, and; a. Workers' Compensation coverage in accordance with Florida Statutes, and; b Commercial General Liability coverage, including vehicle coverage, in combined single limits of not less #han ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,OOO,OOfl.00). The COUNTY shall be included in the coverage as an additions] insured. c. A payment and performance bond for the total amount of the IMPROVEMENTS in accordance with Florida Statute 255.05. 3 14. In the event of termination, the CITY shall not be relieved of liability to the COUNTY for damages sustained by the COUNTY by virtue of any breach of the Agreement by the CITY; and the COUNTY may withhold any payment to the CITY for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the COUNTY is determined. 15. The CITY`s termination of this Agreement shall result in all ob[igatians of the COUNTY for funding contemplated herein to be cancelled. 16. The COUNTY and CITY agree that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, religion or creed, sex, age, or handicap be discriminated against in performance of this Agreement. 17. In the event that any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or provision hereof is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect khe remaining portions of this Agreement and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 18. All notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing, and deemed sufficient to each party when sent by United States Mail, postage paid, to the fiollowing: AS TO THE COUNTY Engineering and Public Works Department Tanya N. McConnell, P.E. Deputy County Engineer P.O. Box 21229 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-1229 AS TO THE CITY City of Delray Beach, Florida '~, ; Randal ~. Krejcarek, P.E. City Engineer ~ ~ 434 South Swinton Avenue ~I Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Phone: 561-243-7322 Fax: 561-243-7314 19. This Agreement shall be construed and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Any legal action necessary to enforce this Agreement shall be held in Palm Beach County. No remedy herein conferred upon any party is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy, and each and every other remedy shall be cumulative and shall be ' in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. hlo single or partial exercise by any party of any right, power or remedy shall preclude any other or further exercise thereof. 4 20. Any costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) associated with the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be borne by the respective parties; provided, however, that this clause pertains anly to the parties to the Agreement. 21. Except as expressly permitted herein to the contrary, no modification, amendment, or alteration in the terms or canditions contained herein shall be effective unless contained in a written document executed with the same formality and equality of dignity herewith. 22. Each party agrees to abide by all laws, orders, rules and regulations and the CITY will camply with all applicable governmental codes during the 1MPR®VEMEfV"TS. 23. Each party shall promptly notify the other of any lawsuit-related complaint, or cause of action threatened or commenced against it which arises out of or relates, in any manner, to the performance of this Agreement. 24. The parties expressly covenant and agree that in the event any of the parties is ~ in default of its obligations under this Agreement, the parties nat in default shall provide to the defaulting party thirty (30) days written notice before exercising any of their rights. 25. The preparation of this Agreement has been a joint effort of the parties, and the resuiting document shall not solely as a matter of judicial constraint, be construed more severely agains# one of the parties than the other. 2B. This Agreement represents the entire undersfianding among the parties, ~ and supercedes all other negotiations, or agreements, written or oral, relating to this Agreement. 27. The County will file a copy of this Agreement with the Clerk of the Circui# Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. 28. This Agreement shall take effect upon execution and the effective date I shall be the date of execution. I 5 I Vli'ITNESS 4NHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement and it is effective on the date first above written. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH By: Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By: City Attorney PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Chair ATTEST: SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK By: Deputy Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By; Assistant County Attorney Date: By: APPROVED AS TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS By; Date: 5 ~,J . L J Q° v~ M r' ~° ~~5 ~° _ ~ Y ~ J a . ~ C~ U (~ N m (~ L 0 0 N O M MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T, Harden, City Manager DATE: May 21, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.I. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 RESOLUTION 17-08/20 YEAR WATER SUPPLY PLAN ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Approval of Resolution 17-08 committing the City to funding and implementing water supply projects sufficient to assure that projected drinking water demands will be met through the year 2030. BACKGROUND In accordance with statutory requirements, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) completed and approved a series of regional water supply plans, including the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan (LEC Plan), in which area Delray Beach is situated. The plan was approved February 15, 2007 and includes water supply projects for all utilities in the LEC area that balance supplies with projected demands. By statute, utilities have until June 22, 2008 to respond to the SFWMD, committing to the water supply projects or equivalent alternatives, and August 15, 2008, to file an amended comprehensive plan with the State that includes a water supply element listing the water supply projects as well as proposed schedules and funding for implementation. Staff presented a proposal for the City's 20 Year Water supply Plan to Commission at the May 13, 2008 Workshop meeting. The plan proposes meeting projected drinking water demands through the year 2030 through conservation programs and expansion of the City's reclaimed water system. Funding for projects will be programmed in the Water & Sewer Fund, and will be supplemented by alternative water supply grants as available. Commission indicated it's agreement with the plan as presented and authorized staff to prepare the appropriate documentation for official response to the SFWMD. This resolution represents that documentation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Resolution 17-08. RESOLUTION NO. 17-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, COMMITTING TO THE LOWER EAST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN AS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) adopted the Lower East Coast (LEC) regional water supply plan on February 22, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach lies within .the boundaries of the LEC and must corrnmit to water supply projects shown on the plan or alternative projects suffcient to meet future drinking water demands. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the recitals set forth above are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. The City hereby commits to meeting the future drinking water demands through a combination of conservation efforts and expansion of its reclaimed water irrigation system as proposed in Exhibits A, B, C and D attached hereto. Section 3. The City hereby commits to funding for the proposed water supply projects as shown on Exhibit E, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the ~ day of ,.2008. ATTEST: MAYOR City Clerk W (~ 1~ •O "~ • ~~ ~I O •~ O 1M !~ W t~ .. ~x+ ~ : ro ? ~ . i cn , c~3 Z ~ ' - ~ ~ ~ yam. ~: 4v w~'_ ' EV _ 1+7 ~ C G7) V C F'i.~_ $ T W t_.: 3. ~ c? iro ~ i ! ~' ~ \i a 1 + 7 ~u - ~. 1 ' ~ ~ T ~ , ~ • j i1, w ~p[ ~ ~'-_3~ ~i 3i,. j~ T ~ c i lV 7 k Iti C ! ti3 h 4'~ 'C~' C 7 7 i - 01 i-.T '2 . c+. in e'~ : J ~ G~ g: C1 --~ [~T: E~ _O - ^J ,. W w? `CSC tT c ~ ~t'3 a. Fes- = 3F1 ' (~ i'~. : C7 p ~ .~ tC3 ;Q? _O~ ' ::. ~i ~.~ 'tV ~:.(+~ X17 Lf:U '~' Ca: J `~- i~. (V~~r '4U Q' aFS;r 7 s5~t'~:~ E!f`: iP ^e r' . ~,:by ~r ~' ' ~~'. '~' L7S - i 1 ~ * ' ^ ? ' ~ ~ t ~ ~ 3 ~q ~ ~' "~ ~ ,:, i rts+ n ;, ca , tea ;. ~ ~ c ;~ ro ^~ 1f ~ ~ ~. ~.~,. ty: ~} Z ' RL f' ~i'~. m EfR; :. RY 'V~ 4 N.G~r ~. ru : ra y"i :iT ~. ir+ : w •. m +~• ' '. C c Ta . ;~ - • 1 ~ ~; 9 ~ :.per Z f ;T -' L. Q V " '~ ' ! ~ ~ i '. _~ . j ~ ~? ~,f ~.~ i f ~ ._. t11 ~ ~ - m r M i"T CC ; ems-- C iw .~ .•t n:.- fir -,r ~ va-w ~~• u: ~ .~ n a~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. . _ ~ c: ' -. ~ (L ~ ~ t .c ~~`. ~.ia ct1 j .~tf -m ~ro t : ~.-`"~~}48, ~~. 'm n n.te °~ ~ eve - : m ~~ epa... C° ~ ~, ~ E . ~~ ?; U :~ ~ Ca A.. ~, ~ ; su , r~•.~ Y. ~:ev. ri i a to ~ in~ ttj, ' ~ ~ ' ' _ ~ jf, cat ~ ~:(~ ~ - . ~ f !. sL~i i'- a tU ;P ~ S? Gz : i? C-.' -k:' 4 a c a3 n .:~~ ra ~- i.~ ~I~CJ ~ c+,F't~ G7 ~.cb iY' f'+ Ai~.!t{3 4'a 4+ cC C'l J 1 f'+, ,L# 4 ~ t ,CQ G.7: , ^1 ' ' d F n ~ P ;. K ~ . . ~ ~.~ ~~ELr tY ~.'t :. 1 ~.~ T `~".3 t`1 ~~~, 'Y C~[~-~,4ti7 ~_a7 ~ . . ti ~ SF ! j ~ _ A"c[~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ t _4 ~ _~. ~. 3 ~ ~ L73 ~ < 4.. , ' z t3' y. G . ~ ~ f ' ' r ~ _ . 9 a N u3 ~ ~ c ;~~-' te. .f :G'J 'V "fi5 C.T O~ ~ ? ~ ° ( 1 aII < +a 7 ri1, . . {y cv ~ 3 rs : i. y r-, t•. rt ,. ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ t ! ~~ ~ r y ~' ~ ~ ' ~ ' Q C$ ~} 0. c y .^Y .y S.~ '~ q i ~ N Cif i ^ ~T ~"3 Q ~ tD ~ N E.~ !, R ~ ~ i~R ~t~'J ~~ ~ -fit ~ 4 .. ~ YX.. . '~w . ~ ~ ri W cis ; t'd ~ T::n : 3 L? t'~ Gw3 fa ~ O ~ ~ `~ ~ ..~ E ~ s+ ~ CL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i t _ ~ ~ ' E -. ~~ ~~ ~ r -a3 c1 ,» :it's ~t a; ,i*~ .e ~ ~ A t~. -~' :n 4'1 t'1- :tom r1 b_T ~ .~ `' ~ ~ ., - ~, N pp~ ~ ~ L`i -..•^v CV cv ~-. C"7 tom- ~7 ~. t.'+V[ N wT '~S Su4(... ~ -aryl `M .~ ~ 7j~ ~.w ~ ~ - ~~ ~ N ~~ ~ •~ : n. v 1 . ~s r~ .n -:- ~X' c'~ ~ n.3 '7 4J . ~ r ita ~ ~ ~ W +'.S''. e^1 Vii- -`1 c~' (`~i .:~ ~,.. ~ G~"y ~. ~ ~ ~ c;i _ ` V 4 I ~ - ~]l7 ~ y -is ~, ~ •{~ it 2 ~ ` ~'°', a 4 9 U?. .~ E ~ ~ ."Yi. i `5' _. .. ~ •1if ,_ ~, ~.~ ~ ~ ~, 6 ~ a T ~ ~ LL ~ ~ f B ~. ~ ~ 23 5~ [.1 - Iii 1 jam. F ~ ~ ~ ~. L.. `` O i4 t3. ~ ~. ' y {~ Ei: 1L ~}~ ~' Q:t~ ~ tF C~~ry ~ ~ fl) ~ .117 il' 'S.• 13 - ) ~ Q .3 t If} . ~ li f, 7 ~ ' a ~ LI:. .. q: ~ C.. -- ~ . ~' 1.F 111 1 - C.~ a.. ~ ?J ~ S ~ a }"' ~ . 1 ~ `a 1... 3 C .. A 3. •T 4 ~ ~i. ~ +D 4 ~, r,[ ~% ~~ *{ x ~ ~~ A i 3 1~ - ~1 f=7 ~ . C31 k~ { -4 a~ . 1 - Si .t~,~:U-'i_ _ t ~ , ~- .n may ~~: ~_~ .,,...y, ~I W C~ A • ^I ~ N ~ N M ~ M o O O p Kj N O ~: N ~ ~ pp i ~ ~ O M C1 ~fi o O N M N O N ~ `p N p ~--i ~ '"~ K' ~ p M M N O ~ N ~ ~ ~ p ~ '~ C O K' M +-~ N p0 O N n ~ ~ to M M N ~ tiO ~ a Q ~ M N C~ N ~ ors uj ,~ M M M ~--~ N o p ''"~ M N N ~ ,..i n D~ ~ M En N ~ o p N M N p ~ M ~ e p ~ ~ M N O O N tip 00 ~ ~ 01 ~ r--i ., M rey N ~ ~ r+ do ri °° ~ M M ~ c, ,~ r'' t ~t o0 ^~ ~ o n C M N ~ ~ M 00 ~ "'~ ~fi N ~", L" ~ i. w V '~~. ~ ~••' ~ O ~ ft= V ~ v ~ Ga ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~" ~~ an ~ ~ .~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ O ~ A ~ a~ ~ o COOOOOOOOOCy00000 O~O~~+tO~~e"JNrCC~00I~~0~ MNNNNNNNNNNrt^~rrr Loaz 9002 SOOZ ~DDZ c 0 £OOZ zDOZ a 4002 r .~ OOOZ G1 a 6664 T 8664 1664 966 4 5664 Exhibit C Alternative Water Supply Projects Reclaimed Water Connection Demand {mgd} Credit {m d) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Atlantic Hi h School 0.11 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 Delra Beach Galf Course 0.65 0.325 0.325 0.325 0.325 0.325 The Hamlet Goif Course 0.45 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 Lakeview Golf Course 0.30 0.15 0,15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Del Aire Golf Course 0.65 0.325 0,325 0.325 0.325 0.325 Rainber Ba HOA 0,57 0 0.285 0.285 0.285 0.2$5 Count Manor HOA 0.23 0 0.115 0.115 0.115 0.115 High Point HOA 0.48 0 0 0.24 0.24 0.24 Carver Middle School 0.12 0 0 0.06 OA6 0.06 Sherwood Park Galf Course 0.23 0 0 0,115 0.115 0.115 Total Reclaimed Demand 3.79 Total credits for replacing Ground water demand 1.08 1.48 1.895 1.895 1.895 Barrier Island North 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Barrier island South 0.45 0 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Total Potable Demand Reduction 0.39 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 1. Reclaimed water demand values are average day flows and not peak flows 2. Credit for replacing ground water demand with reclaimed water is assumed at a 50% avg Exhibit D Supply vs. Demand Projections Potable Demand Projections Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Po ulation 69,335 74,504 81,114 82,233 82,556 Per Ca ita Use d 240 240 240 240 240 Avg. Daily Demand MG 1ti.S4 17.88 19.47 19.74 19.81 Permit Base Condition MGD 19.00 19.00 19.00 19A0 19.00 Excess! Deficit) {MGD) 2.36 1.12 0.47) (0.74) 0.81) Alternative sources Reclaimed Water Credits for Ground Water Demand Removal 1.08 1.48 1.895 1.895 1.895 Potable demand removal 0.39 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Total ExcesslDeficit 3.83 3.44 2.27 2.00 1.92 1. Population figures based on BEER projections released March, 2008. 2. Per capita use assumes a 10% reduction from current permitted value achieved through conservation 3. Permit base condition as provided by Si=WMD per ground water availability rule WaJ •~r I~ V Qa .~ ~I W~ • M~.y y1 W ~, C~ ~A' w ~1 ~y ~I i.~ Qa ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ o ~~ ,nne~ ~ 3 ~ e ~ ~ ° 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ in !C O ~ R ~ VJ ~ V] ~ ~ O y, ~ ~ ~ rE F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `"~ ~ E- E tl0 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 e N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W Ci a+ -- ~ ^Q ~ A ~ ca y °~ +~ ~c ~ ao ~ '~ ~ ct .t~.~ er ~ ~ Q § ~ ~ ~ ` .G z U2 z u ~ U W L U ii O i ~ ~ , i{ N h . -~ ~ O ~ O * rl ~ rl c:~ C1 e G1 N y ?' - ~ y.~ ~ rl N ~ ~ ~ y y.o 70-i FQ.r v •i0i .'ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F LTr ~a ti ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 O ~ ~ ~ N ~ [ ~yg~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~NI 4~t~.~ G1 e~ ~ @ lip N ~ ~ n. 4 y 5?' ~ M ` ~ ~ ~ r , V A ~ Q V r ; ~ 4~ fi ~ ~ ~ ey ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~a1' ~ ~ ~ ~ d ,y ~, ~ ~~ y C O O ~ ~ U ~ l ~ , Y y 1 ~ C ',y . g :':ii ~ §C V O ~ ~ ;,,, ~ C ~ ~ M ~ @ 00 ~ n oa ~ W ~ ~ o o `~~ M ~ ~ ~ M o '~~~ ~ . ~ M o xi W M ~' R ~ ~ O ~ G-, ~ ~ L& ~~~ ~ ~ GL C x N ~ ~ .~ ' O U2 ~ ~ ` ~ ;:~, ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ . .7 a $9 ~ o m o ~~ c~ c ~ ~ _ c ~ a~ ~ ~ O Q A CO O O ~ ~ m ~ s. O M n $$ O N ~ ~ O .. ~~ ~ p N ~ ~ ` ` § w Q~ d ~~+ N ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ''' ` ` i" ' E. O ~ Fn ~ ~ '.V:;~ ~ 4 ,~ ~ O C a N ~ ~ 'Ir ~ ~ FOi d J O ~ 49 ~ ~ N N ~ O ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ :~e'~ N ~ O1 'x"+1.';3 ~ $ ~G ~ ~ i ~~~, GL' ~ a 'S , , ~ , ~~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ © ~~ ui ~ O $ ~ © ~ ~ p ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ M~ N~ ~ M e ~ ~ n~$ ~ ~ M ~ ~ R .R ~0.+ rl ry ~ 3 ~ 1y ~ ~ ' (Ty +`M1tiy~4 a +~ ~ e e O e ~ ~ ~q _ - R~ Q ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~~ w ~ $ ~` ~ ~ O m `~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ d~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ W y g ~~ Gra ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ m . ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '.~~' ~ N v ~ 0.~ ~"~ U~ °~ E~ ~ .~ x~ ~~ ~' O ~ w U 0.$ fs7 `~~ ~ ~~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ a ~ 0.i ~ ,n e es w ~ e ~ n C~ A 3 Q $ ~" ZJ U § 'd ~' a ' ' d` ~ O ¢ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ F o ~, p ~ a ~ r ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ a ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ r N ate" '03 ~ `L O "" O .'~ ~ O i aq ~ $ v O W ~ § d ~ i. ~' 'G Fi :. as W y § ~ m ~ + ~ •~ '~ ~' F V ~ ~ ~S ~ W r7 aR y r ~ B L" • .~ s • w y ~ ' mo ~ ~ ~ ~ •~° d ~ o0 o a, o © .~ c:. ~ °' ~~ ~~ ~ ~ d' ~ ~ ~ m ' . K ~ ~ ya ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ . $ v, ~ ~~0 ~ ' o s, ~ ~.. ~ d' A w a ~ a w w ~ U „ a ~ ~ , . . , a w U w .. ~,~ ~ a U. C~~ ~ ¢ ~ ~. ~ a., O C3 H MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Randal L. Krejcarek, P.E., LEED AP Richard C. Hasko, Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 20, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.,T. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF ,TUNE 3, 2008 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT/ARTIST FOR ATLANTIC BRIDGE UNDERPASS PROTECT ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Request for Commission approval/authorization for Mayor to execute Amendment 1 of Agreement for the Atlantic Avenue Underpass Art Project. BACKGROUND In 2006 the Public Art Advisory Board selected Michiko Kurisu to install public art along the walkway under the Ave. This past month the City finally received approval from the Florida Department of Transportation to proceed with the art installation. Due to the delay in receiving this approval additional costs have been incurred by the artist. The attached spreadsheet provides a breakdown of the additional costs and provides factors contributing to these additional costs. The amendment is for an increase of $20,020.00. FUNDING SOURCE Funding from account #115-1702-579-31.90 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH MICHIKO KURISU DATED JUNE 12, 2006 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Agreement dated June 12, 2006 is entered into this day of , 2008, by and between the City of Delray Beach, a Florida municipal corporation ("City") and Michiko Kurisu, hereinafter referred to as ("Artist") WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City and Artist entered into an agreement to provide for the installation of a light wall, lighting and landscaping under and around that portion of the Atlantic Avenue Bridge that is adjacent to Veterans Park; and WHEREAS, due to the length of time required to obtain FDOT approval for the project there was an increase in material costs for the project; extra professional work was required by FDOT to obtain the permit; and the length of the light wall was increased in order to conform better with the underside of the bridge; and WHEREAS, the delay for the project was out of the control of Artist and both parties agree that Artist has incurred extra cost due to the delay. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants set forth herein, and the good and valuable consideration as provided for herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Recitations. That the recitations set forth above are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2. Revision. Paragraph 12 of the Agreement is changed to provide that the fee shall be $68,500.00 not $48,480.00. 3. Full Force and Effect. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement, not expressly modified by this Amendment No. 1, remain in full force and effect. 4. Entire Agreement. This Amendment No. 1 along with the original Agreement is the entire Agreement between the parties. ATTEST: By: City Clerk Approved as to Form: By: City Attorney WITNESS: (print or type name) STATE OF COUNTY OF CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: Rita Ellis, Mayor ARTIST: MICHIKO KURISU By: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 200_ by Michiko Kurisu. He/She is personally known to me/or has produced (as identification). Signature of Notary Public 2 Q L . LL AW U Q ~+ ~_ C~ U (~ N m (~ L 0 0 N O M m ~_ Q W Z w m w Z w _U H Z Q Q L C6 J J J O w Q ~_ w O O N ~ p p N ~ O) ~ m O O a~ O O CO CO N fA O O O') O M Ef3 O O ~ 67 fA O O ~ Ef3 O O ~ 00 CO EA ~ H co 0 0 o co ~ o 0 N 67 N ~ N N o0 ~ N fA ~ ~ ~ fA E!} ~ ~ EA ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ m U ~ ~ - ~ _ ~ Q ~ ~ U Q Q1 c (6 W N Q (6 ~ c ~ ~ O 'p ~ ~ c ~ ~ U ~ J i O o23 ~ ~ O ~ M LJJ (6 > ~ ~ c6 c N O ~ > L ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ N ~ c _ J _ J J N Q W W ~ ~ U ~ N O _ L Q U 00 c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.U .~ ~ .~ Q U O ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ O O ~ O O ~ ~ O ~ ~ O O ~ ~ U Q ~ O ~ ~ U U O ~ i ~ Q- C ~ U O i ~ ~ O ~ N .~ ~, ~~ ~ O U .~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ U O N ~, 'i ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ N ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~+ '~ a~ fn ~ . Q _ o ~ ~ m ~ ~ U ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w~ o ~~~~ C7 c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O >, O O)~ U - O ~ U ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ CO ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N O ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ `~ H N cn ~ c a~ ~ ~ O ~ N ~_ ~' fn ~ .U ~ ~ C Q ~ L O Q~ U L.LL O O ~ ~_ C ~ U C ~ O ~ ~ ~ V O ~ N L ~ O ~ ~ C U S O N O N , fn (B ~ ~ ~ N •~ U ~ ~ O C Q ~- Q O) C . ~ O '~ ~ O `F O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ O ~ N O C ~ O•- N '~N.~ `~~ ~ ,~ ~ U ~ O .~ fn ~' ~ ~ O ~ ~ U ~ O ~ ~ Q- O ~ O Q- ~ '~ > .~ O ~ • . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q ~ O M N O a~ w .~ Y 0 Y U_ T (0 a N d MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Begonia Krane, E.I. Richartd C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 23, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.K. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 CALL TO ARTIST/ DEL IDA COMMUNITY PARK ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This agenda item is for Commission approval to advertise the Call to Artists "Landscaping Artist in Residency Project" at Del Ida Community Park. BACKGROUND The City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board is looking for one or more artists that can create four cohesive art elements: Hardscape Labyrinth, Site Furniture (seating), Lighting, and Landscape. The location is at Del Ida Park bounded by NE 2nd Ave., Dixie Blvd, and NE 6d' Street. The park is approximately 13,000 square feet. The park has a central grassy open area with one large specimen Ficus tree. The purpose of the Landscape Artist in Residency Project is to create, plan and implement an art project in Del Ida Park with help and participation of the community. Attached Call to Artists Landscape Artist in Residency Project, and location map. FUNDING SOURCE The total cost is $40,000.00. Funding is available in account #115-1702-579-31.90 the Public Arts Program fund. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. Call to Artists Landscape Artist in Residency Project The City of Delray Beach, Florida Public Art Advisory Board DEADLINE FOR ENTRY: July 24, 2008 The 4 X 4 Community Artists in Residency project overview will be held at 11:00 a.m. at Del Ida Park on June 28, 2008 for questions and information concerning this project and application. Attendance is strongly recommended for all interested artists and artist teams. PROJECT GOAL: The goal of the Landscape Artist in Residency Project is to create, plan and implement an art project in Del Ida Park with the help and participation of the community. To use one-on-one contact with the artists who as creative thinkers distinguish our community parks with insightful outcomes, and provide hands-on educational art experiences for our community. OVERVIEW: The City of Delray Beach Public Art Advisory Board is seeking Artists to create four art elements to be installed in a Del Ida community park. Artists will coordinate with volunteers. The project should implement "out of the box" thinking and be uniquely intelligent and site specific to the space of the Del Ida Park. Artists may submit proposals for one or more categories, as listed below and artists who can present a114 categories will also be considered. 1. Hardscape Lab.. r~ -horizontal maze and park path 2. Site Furniture (seating) - intriguing art connected with path and responding to landscape layout 3. Liahting_- Vertical objects with lighting - i.e. contemporary obelisks 4. Landscape -South Florida Native Landscape plant collections for 3 zones: Shade, Wetland Mini-Bog, and Upland plants for one bermed area (contoured earth mound) The board reserves the right to appoint one artist, if 2 or more are selected, to be the lead artist and coordinate the construction of the site. BUDGET: Project budget up to $40,000 for the total project. SHOWCASE: All Four Project Artists will be celebrated at the 4 X 4 Community Artists showcase slated for February 2009. LOCATION: Del Ida Park in Delray Beach is a triangle shaped green area. The park is approximately 13,000 square feet and is bounded by North East 2nd Avenue, Dixie Highway and North East 6th Street. The park has a central grassy open area with one large specimen Ficus tree. Please see attached aerial and perspective photos NOTE: Large Existing Ficus tree maybe trimmed by artist with approved certified arborist and upon approval by the City. Project CRITERIA L Art must be sustainable, and constructed of permanent materials to withstand elements for outdoor longevity. 2. All artists will work together to coordinate the individual Art Elements in order to create one cohesive park. 3. Artwork submitted should be an attractor for neighborhood interaction. 4. Artists will attend neighborhood meetings with the PAAB board and the community volunteers. 5. Artists are responsible for all materials required for the completion of the artwork. 6. Artist will oversee the complete installation, and obtain any necessary approvals or permits working with the City Engineer (PAAB Liaison). Artist Qualifications: • Demonstrated and assessed ability to successfully execute the project under the criteria developed and within schedule and budget constraints. • Previous works, excellence, and appropriateness of artist expression to the proposed project. • Outstanding potential of the community artwork concept. • Ability to work plan project, gather materials, implement artwork, and mentor the community. Payment schedule and reports: Upon selection, the artists may receive a deposit payment to be agreed upon with City. Final payments will be made upon completion and a final report that includes approval of the City Engineer. project receipts, and ar~omplishrncnt of ? mcctin~~s with Dcl Ida ncighhorho<~d v<~luntccrs and PAAB. APPLICATION FORM: A completed application form must accompany the proposal. Applications forms can be downloaded by visiting m.. d~ybeach.com and clicking on ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE: • Call to Artists: (June 8, 2008 ) • Deadline: (July 28, 2008) • Artist Notification of Project Award: August 2008 • Anticipated Art Completion: January 2009 • Landscape Artist in Residency Project Showcase Event February 2009 ARTIST MUST SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING: 1. Application Form 2. Artists biography or resume. 3. Written Proposal Narrative: Outline of the concept and project with details or, one page only, 4. Visual concept sketch on one 8.5"x ll" page 5. Photos of previous completed and realized work.* 6. Photo Identification page. 7. Timeline: Approximate installation timeline, and details of events 8. Budget/ Maintenance: Approximate cost of materials and maintenance requirements if any.* 9. SASE :Supply an envelope with sufficient postage for the return of photos and sketch, or materials cannot be returned. *PHOTOS: To be considered for this project, artist(s) must submit up to 7 printed photos per artist of previously completed artwork. Do not submit CDs or slides. All photos should be numbered and labeled with artist's name, title of work, location, medium, dimensions and date. * MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS: The artwork must be low maintenance, durable, appropriate to a seaside location, and able to withstand the effects of sun, rain, salt spray, and wind. The selected artists will provide the City Engineer with a list of maintenance requirements and specify how the work can deter vandalism. Landscape Artist in Residency Project Application Form: Please attach form to the top of your application copy I Hardscape Labyrinth Please check Selected Art Element Category: II Site Furniture III Lighting IV Landscape Date: Lead Artist Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Country: Phone Day: Phone Cell: _ Fax: Email: Website: Signature of Applicant(s): LANDSCAPE ARTIST IN RESIDENCY PROJECT SUBMISSION CHECK LIST • 1. APPLICATION FORM • 2. ARTISTS BIOGRAPHY OR RESUME. • ~ 3. WRITTEN PROPOSAL NARRATIVE: outline of the concept and project with details, one page only. • 4. VISUAL CONCEPT SKETCH on one 8.5"x 11" page • 5. PHOTOS OF PREVIOUS COMPLETED AND REALIZED WORK.* • 6. PHOTO IDENTIFICATION PAGE. • 7. TIMELINE: approximate installation timeline, and details of events • 8. BUDGET: Approximate cost of materials. • 9. SASE -supply an envelope with sufficient postage for the return of photos and sketch, or materials cannot be returned. CONTACT RANDAL KREJCAREK FOR MORE INFORMATION AT 561-243-7322 ADVERTISEMENT CALL TO ARTISTS ("CTA") LANDSCAPE ARTIST IN RESIDENCY PROJECT Sealed proposals for artwork installation for the Landscape Artist in Residency Project will be received by the City of Delray Beach, Florida at the office of the Purchasing Manager, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444, unti13:00 P.M. onJuly 28, 2008. Any CTA received after the designated closing time, whether by mail or otherwise, will be returned unopened. The time of receipt shall be determined by the purchasing receiving clock located in the Finance office. Copies of the Call To Artists may be obtained from the Purchasing Office, City Hall, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida, 33444 or from the City's website mydelraybeach.com Call Purchasing at 561-243-7163 to insure sufficient supply. All CTA's shall be submitted with an original and eight (8) copies in sealed envelopes/packages addressed to the Purchasing Manager of Delray Beach, Florida, and marked "SEALED PROPOSAL FOR CALL TO ARTISTS: LANDSCAPE ARTIST IN RESIDENCY PROJECT" The Public Art Advisory Board will rank the proposals at a public meeting. Interested persons may call Randal Krejcarek (561)-243-7322 to determine the date and time of the meeting. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals and to waive any technicalities or irregularities therein. The City further reserves the right to award the contract to that Artist whose artwork proposal is deemed most advantageous to the City, as determined by the City, in its sole discretion. No Artist may withdraw their proposal until August 1, 2008. Publish: Palm Beach Post Sunday, CITY OF DELRAY BEACH GENERAL INFORMATION CALL TO ARTISTS LANDSCAPE ARTIST IN RESIDENCY PROJECT DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Call to Artists, "Artist" shall mean contractors, consultants, artists, proposers, organizations, firms, or other persons submitting a response to this Call to Artists. PURPOSE The purpose of the Landscape Artist in Residency Project is to create, plan and implement an art project in Del Ida Park with help and participation of the community. To use one-on-one contact with the artists who as creative thinkers distinguish our community parks with insightful outcomes, and provide hands-on educational art experiences for our community. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND WITHDRAWAL The CITY will receive proposals at the following address: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH PURCHASING OFFICE CITY HALL 100 N.W.1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 To facilitate processing, please clearly mark the outside of the proposal package as follows: SEALED PROPOSAL FOR CALL TO ARTISTS: LANDSCAPE ARTIST IN RESIDENCY PROJECT and also include the date of the opening. The package shall also include the Artist's return address. Artists shall submit an original and eight (8) copies of the proposal in a sealed, opaque package marked as noted above. The Artist will be responsible for timely delivery, whether by personal delivery, US Mail or any other delivery medium. THE CITY MUST RECEIVE ALL PROPOSALS BY 3:00 P.M. ON JULY 28, 2008. The CITY cautions Artists to assure actual delivery of mailed or hand-delivered proposals directly to the City's Purchasing Office at City Hall, 100 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida, prior to the deadline set for receiving proposals. Telephone confirmation of timely receipt of the proposal may be made by calling (561) 243-7163, before proposal closing time. Any proposal received after the established deadline will not be considered and will be returned unopened to the Artist(s). Artists may withdraw their proposals by notifying the CITY in writing at any time prior to the deadline for proposal submittal. After the deadline, the proposal will constitute an irrevocable offer, until August 1, 2008. Once opened, proposals become a record of the CITY and will not be returned to the Artists, therefore, all submittals should be copies, not an original. All Artists who apply will also be placed on the City's Artist Registry unless the Artist indicates otherwise. Upon opening, proposals are subject to public disclosure consistent with Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Artists must invoke exemptions to disclosure provided by law in the response to the CTA, and must identify the data or other materials to be protected, state the reasons why such exclusion from public disclosure is necessary and the legal basis for such exemption. CONTRACT AWARDS The City anticipates entering into an agreement with the Artist who submits the proposal judged by the City to be most advantageous. The City anticipates awarding one agreement per category but reserves the right to award more than one category to the same artist if in the City's best interest The Artist understands that this CTA does not constitute an offer or an agreement with the Artist An offer or agreement shall not be deemed to exist and is not binding until a contract has been approved by the appropriate level of authority within the City, and executed by all parties. A sample Agreement is attached to this CTA. The City anticipates that the final agreement will be in substantial conformance with this Sample Agreement; nevertheless, Artists are advised that any Agreement that may result from the CTA may deviate from the Sample Agreement. The City reserves the right to reject all proposals, to abandon the project and/or to solicit and re- advertise for other proposals. The City reserves the right to cancel the CTA or portions thereof without penalty. The City reserves the right to waive any irregularities and technicalities and may, at its sole discretion, request a clarification or other information to evaluate any or all proposals. All terms and conditions of this CTA, any addenda, Artist's submissions, and negotiated terms, are incorporated into the contract by reference as set forth herein. Document files may be examined, during normal working hours, ten days after proposals have been opened. The proposal with the highest number of points/votes will be ranked first. The City reserves the right to further negotiate any proposal, including price, with the highest ranked Artist If an agreement cannot be reached with the highest rated Artist, the City reserves the right to negotiate and recommend award to the next highest Artist or subsequent Artists until an agreement is reached. DEVELOPMENT COSTS Neither the City nor its representatives shall be liable for any expenses incurred in connection with preparation of a response to this CTA. Artists should prepare their proposals simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of the Artist's ability to meet the requirements of the CTA. INQUIRIES Interested Artists may contact Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer, regarding questions about the proposal at the Engineering Department located at 434 S. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444 -Telephone (561) 243-7322 or by facsimile (561) 243-7314. The City Engineer will receive written requests for clarification concerning the meaning or interpretations of this CTA, until fifteen (15) days prior to the submittal date. City personnel are authorized only to direct the attention of prospective Artists to various portions of the CTA so that they may read and interpret such for themselves. No employee of the City is authorized to interpret any portion of this CTA or give information as to the requirements of the CTA in addition to what is contained in the written CTA document. The City may record its response to inquiries and any supplemental instructions in the form of written addenda. The City may mail or post on its website written addenda up to ten (10) calendar days before the date fixed for receiving the proposals. Artists shall contact the City to ascertain whether any addenda have been issued. Failure to do so could result in an unresponsive proposal. Any oral explanation given before the CTA opening will not be binding. All Artists are expected to carefully examine the proposal documents. Any ambiguities or inconsistencies should be brought to the attention of the City Engineer through written communication prior to the opening of the proposals. DELAYS The City may delay scheduled due dates if it is to the advantage of the City to do so. ADDENDA If revisions become necessary, the City will post the Addenda on its website. All addenda issued by the City will include a receipt form, which must be signed and included with any proposals that are submitted to the City. In the event multiple addenda are issued, a separate receipt for each addendum must be included with the proposal at the time it is submitted to the City. NEWS RELEASES The Artist shall obtain the prior approval of the City Manager's Office for any and all news releases and/or other publicity pertaining to this CTA or the service, study or project to which it relates. LICENSES Artists must furnish satisfactory evidence that they have licenses, where applicable, as required to do business in the State of Florida, in Palm Beach County, and in the City of Delray Beach, including but not limited to, licenses required by respective State Boards and other governmental agencies responsible for regulating and licensing the services provided and performed by the provider. INSURANCE Once selected an Artist must provide insurance in a type and amount that is acceptable to the City, if applicable. PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted Vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime, may not submit a bid on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a contract with a public entity for the construction cr repair of a public building or public work, may not submit bids on leases of real property to a public entity, may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor or consultant under a contract with any public entity, and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Section 287.017, for CATEGORY TWO (Currently $25,000) for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted Vendor list. CODE OF ETHICS If any Artist violates or is a party to a violation of the code of ethics of the City of Delray Beach or the State of Florida with respect to this proposal, such Artist may be disqualified from performing the work described in this proposal or from furnishing the goods or services for which the proposal is submitted and shall be further disqualified from bidding on any future proposals for work, goods or services for the City of Delray Beach. CITY CONTACT The City contact for this project will be Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer, 434 S. Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444 and the telephone number is (561) 243-7322, or his designee. After the Artist has been selected the Artist shall be informed of who the City Contact will be. RULES FOR PROPOSALS All proposals must be received no later than 3:00 PM, on July 28, 2008. Whether a proposal is transmitted by US Mail or any other delivery medium, the Artist(s) will be responsible for its timely delivery. The proposal must name all persons or entities interested in the proposal as principals. The proposal must declare that it is made without collusion with any other person or entity submitting a proposal pursuant to this CTA. SELECTION PROCESS The selection process will occur in two phases. In the first phase, the PAAB will review the submission material and select no more than three semi-finalists per category. In the second phase, the semi-finalists will present an in-person, detailed proposal to the PAAB. The meeting will allow the artist to explain the design concept, garner community interaction and involvement. Following the presentations by semi-finalists, the PAAB board will select a finalist. Lastly the selected finalist will be reviewed and approved by the Delray Beach City Commission before final contracts are executed. The PAAB has an anticipated a not to exceed contract cost of $40,000 for the entire project This contract amount is inclusive of all costs associated with the project including but not limited to the Artist's design fee, other consulting fees such as structural engineering or material testing, permit fees, insurance to cover the scope of the project, materials, fabrication, transportation, installation including any site modifications required, travel to and from the site, per diem expenses, project documentation, signage, and a contingency to cover unexpected expenses. The City of Delray Beach will select the artist/firm that meets the best interests of the City. The City shall be the sole judge of its own best interests, the proposals, and the resulting negotiated agreement. The City's decisions will be final. RIGHT TO REJECT PROPOSALS Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the artist of the conditions contained in this Call to Artists unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the contract between the City of Delray Beach and the artist selected. The City of Delray Beach reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to reject any or all proposals. SCOPE OF SERVICES LOCATION: Del Ida Park in Delray Beach is a triangle shaped green area. The park is approximately 13,000 square feet and is bounded by North East 2nd Avenue, Dixie Highway and North East 6th Street. The park has a central grassy open area with one large specimen Ficus tree. Please see attached aerial and perspective photos. NOTE: Large Existing Ficus tree may be trimmed by artist with approved certified arborist and upon approval by the City. Project CRITERIA L Art must be sustainable, and constructed of permanent materials to withstand elements for outdoor longevity. 2. All artists will work together to coordinate the individual art elements in order to create one cohesive park. 3. Artwork submitted should be an attractor for neighborhood interaction. 4. Artists will attend meetings with the PAAB board and the community volunteers. 5. Artists are responsible for all materials required for the completion of the artwork. 6. Artist will oversee the complete installation, and obtain any necessary approvals or permits working with the City Engineer (PAAB Liaison). CONCEPT SKETCH: Include a color sketch or CONCEPT design of the proposed environment installation. PROPOSAL: Artist(s) shall submit a project statement describing their concept and its relationship to the sketch (one page maximum). PHOTOS: To be considered for this project, artist(s) must submit up to seven printed photos per artist of previously completed artwork. Do not submit CDs or slides. All photos should be numbered and labeled with artist's name. PHOTO LIST: Support your image documentation with a corresponding numbered list indicating the artist's name, title of work, location, medium, dimensions and date. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS: The artwork must be low maintenance, durable, appropriate to a community location, and able to withstand the effects of sun, rain, salt spray, and wind. Attach a list of maintenance requirements and specify how your proposal will deter vandalism. BUDGET: Include an itemized budget list for the project, including all aspects of design, for example, artist(s) fee, landscaping, base requirements, lighting, fabrication, and installation. The City's anticipated budget for this project is approximately $40,000.00 for the entire project. RESUME: Submit a current resume. Catalogs and reviews may be included up to 6 pages for each artist. PROPOSAL WORKSHEET The undersigned, as Artist, hereby declares that the only person or persons interested in the Proposal, as principal or principals, is or are named herein and that no other person than herein mentioned has any interest in the Proposal or the Contract to which the work pertains; that this Proposal is made without connection or arrangement with any other person, company, or parties making a proposal and that the Proposal is in all respects fair and made in good faith without collusion or fraud. The Artist further declares that he/she has examined the Contractual Documents, including the Advertisement, Proposal, Scope of Services, Draft Contract, and has read all addenda prior to the opening of proposals, and is satisfied fully relative to all matters and conditions with respect to the work to which this Proposal pertains. The Artist proposes and agrees, if this Proposal is accepted, to contract with the City of Delray Beach in the form of a contract specified by the City, to furnish all necessary materials, all equipment, supplies, and labor necessary to complete the work specified in the Proposal and the Contract, and in the manner specified. The hereby undersigned representative of the Artist certifies that they are an authorized representative of the Artist who may legally bind the Artist: *SIGNATURE: Name• Printed Company: Address City: Telephone No: State• Zip: Fax No: *Failure to affix signature will result in disqualification of proposal. Note: If there are any terms and/or conditions that are in conflict, the most stringent requirement shall apply. Acknowledgement of Addendums Acknowledgement is hereby made of the following Addenda received since issuance of Specifications: Addendum No. Dated: Addendum No. Dated: Name of Artist's Service Contact: Title: Address: AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND ARTIST FOR THE LANDSCAPE ARTIST IN RESIDENCY PROJECT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of the CITY OF DELRAY BEACH (hereinafter called CITY) and called ARTIST). WITNESSETH: 20, by and between (hereinafter The CITY and the ARTIST in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. The undersigned ARTIST hereby represents that he/she has carefully examined all documents attached hereto, and will perform all requirements, pursuant to all covenants and conditions, as provided by this Agreement and any attachments. 2. The ARTIST, as evidenced by the execution of this Agreement, acknowledges that he/she has examined all specifications and requirements of this RFP. The ARTIST further acknowledges that the "Call to Artist" price includes all costs and expenses required for the satisfactory completion of all requirements provided by this Agreement. The total cost for this project is $ which shall be paid within 30 days of the completion of the project as determined by the City Engineer 3. The Agreement between the CITY and the ARTIST include the Agreement and the documents which are attached hereto . 4. The ARTIST shall complete construction of the art project, hereinafter referred to as the "WORK", within of receiving a notice to proceed from the CITY, unless extended by written agreement. 5. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida as now and thereafter in force. The venue for actions arising out of this agreement shall be Palm Beach County, Florida. 6. All notices, requests, demands, and other given if personally delivered or mailed, certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: As to CTIY: City of Delray Beach, FL 100 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 As to ARTIST: 7. The ARTIST shall not, without prior written consent of the CITY, assign any portion of its interest under this Agreement and, specifically, the ARTIST shall not assign any moneys due or to become due without the prior written consent of the CITY. 8. The CITY and the ARTIST each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party hereto in respect to all covenants, conditions and obligations contained in the Agreement. 9. In consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration, the ARTIST shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the CITY, its officers, agents and employ- ees, from or on account of any liabilities, damages, losses and costs received or sustained by any person or persons by or in consequence of any negligence (excluding the sole negligence of the CITY), recklessness or intentional wrongful misconduct of the ARTIST and any persons employed or utilized by the ARTIST in the performance of this Agreement. ARTIST agrees that negligent, reckless or intentional wrongful misconduct includes, but is not limited to, use of any improper materials or liabilities, damages, losses or costs caused by or on account of the use of any improper materials. ARTIST agrees that negligent, reckless or intentional wrongful misconduct also includes but is not limited to the violation of any Federal, State, County or City laws, by-laws, ordinances or regulations by the ARTIST, its agents, servants or employees. ARTIST further agrees to defend, indemnify and save harmless the CITY from all such claims and fees, and from any and all suits and actions of every name and description that may be brought against the CITY on account of any claims, fees, royalties, or costs for any invention or patent, and from any and all suits and actions that may be brought against the CITY for the infringement of any and all patents or patent rights claimed by any person, firm, or corporation. The indemnification provided above shall obligate the ARTIST to defend at its own expense or to provide for such defense, at the CITY'S option, for any and all claims or liability and all suits and actions of every name and description that may be brought against the CITY which may result from the operations and activities under this Agreement performed by the ARTIST, its agents or employees. This indemnification includes all costs and fees including attorney's fees and costs at trial and appellate levels. The CITY will pay to the ARTIST the specific consideration of ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration as specific consideration for the indemnification provided herein. Furthermore, the ARTIST acknowledges that the bid price includes said consideration for the indemnification provision. 10. The CITY may, in its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement upon 10 days notice to the ARTIST. Upon termination the Artist shall only retain such funds that have been expended to date. The remaining funds, if any shall be returned to the CITY within 30 days of the termination. 11. ARTIST shall provide the CITY with a written Bill of Sale conveying title to the CITY, and a sworn statement of no liens, claims or other encumbrances. Such documents shall be in a form acceptable to the CITY. 12. The ARTIST warrants that the WORK shall be free of defects in material and workmanship and that the ARTIST shall correct at his/her expense any such defects which appear for a period of one (1) year from delivery of the Bill of Sale for the WORK. 13. The ARTIST warrants that the WORK is an original and that the WORK does not infringe upon any copyright. 14. Title to the WORK shall vest in the CITY upon completion of the WORK. The CITY may reproduce images of the WORK, for non commercial use, including but not limited to public information, educational and promotional purposes without written consent of the ARTIST. 15. The ARTIST retains (1) copyright of designs created (2) all rights to the Artists Rights Act of 1990, and any successor act, except that the ARTIST hereby waives the rights under 17 U.S.C. 106A, and (3) all rights expressly granted in this Agreement. 16. The ARTIST hereby acknowledges that the artwork will become an integral part to the streetscape and that installation and integration of the artwork may subject the artwork to future removal, destruction, or other modifications by reason of its removal from the structure or the renovation, destruction or redevelopment of the structure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the ARTIST hereby consents to the incorporation of the artwork into the streetscape and waives any rights in the artwork granted by 17 U.S.C. 106A, Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. 17. ARTIST's rights, including but not limited to all copyrights, if applicable, under this Agreement are not assignable and shall cease with ARTIST's death and do not extend to ARTIST's heirs, successors or assigns. CITY's rights and obligations under this Agreement may be assigned without the consent of ARTIST at any time, without prior notice to ARTIST. 18. ARTIST shall notify the CITY of any permanent change of address from that stated in Paragraph 14 hereof, and the failure of ARTIST to do so shall be deemed a waiver by ARTIST of ARTIST's rights to enforce those provisions of this Agreement that require the express approval of ARTIST. CITY. 19. The ARTIST shall provide insurance in a form and an amount as requested by the 20. This Agreement shall be considered null and void unless signed by both the ARTIST and the CITY. 21. This Agreement and the documents attached hereto constitute the entire agreement between the CITY and the ARTIST and may only be altered, amended or repealed by a duly executed written instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, the day and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney WITNESSES: ARTIST: By: Rita Ellis, Mayor (please type or print name) (please type or print name) CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: (SEAL) CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by (name of officer or agent, title of officer or agent), of (state or place of incorporation) corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is (personally known to me) (or has produced identification) and has used his/her (type of identification) as identification. Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgment CERTIFICATE (If Corporation) STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that a meeting of the Board of Directors of a corporation under the laws of the State of duly passed and adopted: held on , 20 the following resolution was "RESOLVED", that , as President of the corporation, he/she is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement dated , 20 between the City of Delray Beach, Florida and this corporation, and that his execution thereof, attested by the Secretary of the Corporation and with corporate seal affixed, shall be the official act and deed of this corporation". I further certify that said resolution is now in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the corporation this day of , 20. (Secretary) BILL OF SALE KNOW TO ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that (ARTIST) for and in consideration of the sum of ,lawful money of the United States, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold, transferred and delivered, and by these presents does hereby grant, bargain, sell, transfer and deliver unto the City of Delray Beach, Florida, its successors and assigns, a work of art that is TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the City of Delray Beach, Florida, its successors and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ARTIST has hereunto set his hand and seal this day of 200 . (print or type name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was 200_, by produced acknowledged before me this day of ,who is personally known to me or who has as identification and who did take an oath. Notary Public My Commission Expires: CTA SIGNATURE FORM * PLEASE AFFIX SIGNATURE WHERE INDICATED (FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL BE CAUSE FOR REJECTION OF YOUR PROPOSAL) CTA #: Opening Date: CTA TITLE: Landscape Artist in Residency Project COMPANY NAME: DATE: NAME/TITLE: ADDRESS: CITY STATE ZIP CODE FEDERAL TAX LD. #: - TELEPHONE: ( ) FACSIMILE ( ) xSIGNATURE PLEASE ATTACH LETTERS OF SUPPORT. CITY of DELRAY BEACH CALL TO ARTISTS °A~05~~~200B ENVRONMENITAL S9~VICES DEPARTMENT NDSCAPI NG ARTIST I N RESIDENT PROJE 4X4 IS4 l101lM SINlITCN AV~l, AMY ~ACII rLd~A X9414 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Terrill C. Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney THROUGH: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney DATE: May 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.L. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 RESOLUTION 18-08 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Resolution No. 18-08 BACKGROUND The attached resolution amends Resolution 12-08 which created an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. Resolution 18-08 proposes to expand the criteria to attract eligible applicants to the committee in accordance with the language provided by House Bill 1375 (2007). FUNDING SOURCE N/A RECOMMENDATION City Commission discretion. RESOLUTION NO. 18-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COM1Vi<SSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING RESOLUTION 12-08, WHICH CREATED AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COM1Vi<TTEE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE BROADER MEMBERSHIP; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature recently passed House Sill 1375 (2007) requiring cities and counties receiving SHIP funds to appoint an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to recommend monetary and non monetary incentives for affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach does receive SHIP funds; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach desires for the City to continue receiving SHIP funds and desires to comply with the requirements of House Sill 1375 (2007); and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach desires to expand the criteria to attract eligible applicants to the committee in accordance with the language provided by House Sill 1375 (2007). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COM1Vi<SSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee shall be created to recommend incentives for affordable housing and shall be established as set forth below Section 2. That the purpose of this committee is to recommend monetary and/or non monetary incentives for affordable housing Section 3. The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee shall consist of eleven (11) members that meet the following criteria: (a) One citizen who is actively engaged in the residential home building industry in connection with affordable housing. (b) One citizen who is actively engaged in the banking or mortgage banking industry in connection with affordable housing (c) One citizen who is a representative of those areas of labor actively engaged in home building in connection with affordable housing (d) One citizen who is actively engaged as an advocate for lowincome persons in connection with affordable housing. (e) One citizen who is actively engaged as afor-profit provider of affordable housing. (f) One citizen who is actively engaged as anot-for-profit provider of affordable housing. (g) One citizen who is actively engaged as a real estate professional in connection with affordable housing. (h) One citizen who actively serves on the local planning agency pursuant to s. 163.3174. (i) One citizen who resides within the jurisdiction of the local governing body malting the appointments. (j) One citizen who represents employers within the jurisdiction (lc) One citizen who represents essential services personnel, as defined in the local housing assistance plan. If a coon , or eligible municipality, whether due to its small size, the presence of a conflict of interest b~vrospective appointees, or other reasonable factor, is unable to appoint a citizen actively en~a,~ed in these activities in connection with affordable housing, a citizen en~a,~ed in the activity without regard to affordable housing ma,T~ be appointed Section 4. That the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee shall hold at least two (2) regularly scheduled meetings each year. Section 5. That six (6) members of the committee shall constitute a quorum. Section 6. That the approval by the advisory committee of its local housing incentive strategies recommendations and its review of local governmealt implementation of previously recommended strategies must be made by affirmative vote of a majority of the membership of the advisory committee taken at a public hearing. Notice of the time, date, and place of the public hearing of the advisory committee to adopt final local housing incentive strategies recommendations must be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the county. The notice must contain a short and concise summary of the local housing incentives strategies recommendations to be considered by the advisory committee. The notice must state the public place where a copy of the tentative advisory committee recommendations can be obtained by interested persons. Section 7. That the committee shall provide mentoring services to affordable housing partners including developers, banking institutions, employers, and others to identify available incentives, assist with applications for funding requests, and develop partnerships between various parties. 2 RES. N0.18-08 Section 8. That the committee shall create best practices for the development of affordable housing in the community. Section 9. That the committee shall submit a report to the City every three (3) years evaluating the implementation of affordable housing incentives in the following areas: (a) The processing approvals of development orders or permits, as defined in s. 163.31640 and (8), for affordable housing projects is expedited to a greater degree than other projects. (b) The modification of impact-fee requirements, including reduction or waiver of fees and alternatives methods of fee payment for affordable housing (c) The allowance of flexibility in densities for affordable housing. (d) The reservation of infrastructure capacity for housing for very-low income persons, low income persons, and moderate-income persons. (e) The allowance of affordable accessory residential units in residential zoning districts. (f) The reduction of parking and setback requirements for affordable housing. (g) The allowance of flexible lot configurations, including zero-lot-line configurations for affordable housing. (h) The modification of street requirements for affordable housing (i) The establishment of a process by which a local govemmealt considers, before adoption, policies, procedures, ordinances, regulations, or plan provisions that increase the cost of housing (j) The preparation of a printed inventory of locally owned public lands suitable for affordable housing (lc) The support of development near transportation hubs and major employment centers and mixed use developments. 3 RES. N0.18-08 PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on this the day of , 2008. MAYOR Attest: City Clerk RES. N0.18-08 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.M. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 REQUEST TO CHANGE BUDGET HEARING DATES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before Commission for approval and authorization to change the two (2) budget hearing dates to September 3, 2008 and September 16, 2008. BACKGROUND At the March 27, 2008 Organizational Meeting, the City Commission approved the meeting dates of September 9, 2008 and September 23, 2008 for the first and second budget hearings. Staff is requesting the change in the budget hearings. RECOMMENDATION Commission discretion. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Jasmin Allen, Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: May 29, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.N. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 REVIEW OF APPEALABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACTIONS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is review of appealable actions which were made by various Boards during the period of May 19, 2008 through May 30, 2008. BACKGROUND This is the method of informing the City Commission of the land use actions, taken by designated Boards, which may be appealed by the City Commission. After this meeting, the appeal period shall expire (unless the 10 day appeal period has not occurred). Section 2.4.7(E), Appeals, of the LDRs applies. In summary, it provides that the City Commission hears appeals of actions taken by an approving Board. It also provides that the City Commission may file an appeal. To do so: 1. The item must be raised by a Commission member. 2. By motion, an action must be taken to place the item on the next meeting of the Commission as an appealed item. REVIEW BY OTHERS Planning and Zoning Board - Meetin o~y 19, 2008 1. Approved (7 to 0), a request for a determination of similarity of use to allow instructional swimming facility as a conditional use in the MROC (Mixed Residential, Office and Commercial) zone district. No other appealable items were considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. The following items which were considered by the Board will be forwarded to the City Commission for action. - Recommended approval with the inclusion of language addressing additional landscape requirements (6 to 1, Paul Zacks dissenting), of a City initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations amending Section 4.3.3. (Single Family Residential (R-1) District; Subsection (F) "Development Standards" to provide development standards for the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District"; Section 4.5 "Overlay and Environmental Management Districts" by enacting a new Section 4.5.16 "Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District" to create a new overlay district for the Lake Ida Neighborhood; and Appendix "A" "Definitions", to enact a new definition for "floor area ratio". The boundaries of the proposed overlay district are generally described as NW 22nd Street on the north, Lake Ida Road to the south, Swinton Avenue to the east, and LakeIda to the west. - Tabled (7 to 0), the City initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations enacting Section 4.3.3(SS) "Wind Turbines and Solar Panels" to provide regulations for Wind Turbines and Solar Panels, and Appendix "A" "Definitions", to provide definitions for such uses. The Board requested that staff prepare two ordinances to address wind turbines and solar panels separately. - Recommended approval (7 to 0) of a City initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations amending Section 4.7.8 "Resale and Subsequent Rentals of Affordable Units" to expand the circumstances in which title may be transferred without restriction. - Recommended approval with conditions (removal of Barwick Park from the list of public properties that would allow free standing communication towers) on a 7 to 0 vote, for a City initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations amending Section 4.3.3(5) "Telecommunications Towers and Antennas" to add Barwick Park and Lakeview Golf Course to public properties noted under LDR Section 4.3.3(S)(2)(c) that would allow free standing telecommunication towers. - Recommended approval (7 to 0), of a City initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations amending Section 4.6.6 "Commercial and Industrial Uses to Operate Within A Building" enacting regulations for commercial and industrial uses to operate within a building, in order to clarify that all commercial and industrial uses shall conduct business inside regardless of zoning district. Site Plan Review and Appearance Board -Meetin o~y 14, 2008 A. Approved (4 to O,Connor Lynch, Mark Gregory and Johnnny Kincaide absent), a request for a color change for Seagate Towers Condominium located on the west side of MacFarlane Drive, south of East Atlantic Avenue (220 MacFarlane Drive). B. Approved (4 to 0), a request for a color change to add a mural on the east elevation of the Luv Shack, an existing commercial building, located at the northwest corner of East Atlantic Avenue and Pineapple Grove Way (137 East Atlantic Avenue). C. Approved (4 to 0), a request for a color change for Sherwin-Williams Company, located on the west side of SE 6th Avenue, south of SE 9th Street (970 SE 6th Avenue). D. Approved (4 to 0), a request for a color change associated with the replacement of storefront awnings for Hand's OfficeSupply, an existing commercial business, located on the north side of East Atlantic Avenue, east of NE 3rd Avenue (325 East Atlantic Avenue). E. Approved with conditions (4 to 0), a Class I site plan modification associated with architectural elevation changes for Four Tree Plaza, an existing medical office building located at the southeast corner of West Atlantic Avenue and Whatley Road (4760 West Atlantic Avenue). F. Approved with conditions (4 to 0), Class I site plan modification request associated with the installation of storefront awnings for Lemongrass Restaurant, located on the south side of East Atlantic Avenue, east of SE 4th Avenue (420 East Atlantic Avenue). G. Approved with conditions (4 to 0), a Class II site plan modification associated with the installation of a 1,728 sq. ft. temporary modular building for Ed Morse Delray Cadillac, located on the west side of South Federal Highway, south of Linton Boulevard (2238 South Federal Highway). H. Denied (4 to 0), the architectural elevation plan and photometric plan associated with the previously approved Class V site plan for Office Depot/CVS Pharmacy, located west of NE 6th Avenue, between George Bush Boulevard and NE 7th Street. Historic Preservation Board -Meetin of~May 21, 2008 X. Approved with conditions (5 to 0, Jan Kucera and Linda Lake absent), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness associated the installation of a free standing sign for a contributing property located at 120 North Swinton Avenue. Y. Approved with conditions (5 to 0), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness associated with exterior alterations and a blanket sign program for a contributing property located at 102-110 NW 5th Avenue. RECOMMENDATION By motion, receive and file this report. Attachment: Location Map .~PRAR A. SEAGATE TOWERS CONDOMINIUM 8. L UV SHACK C. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY D. HAND'S OFFICE SUPPLY E. FOUR TREE PLAZA F. LEMONGRASS RESTAURANT G. ED MORSE DELRAY CADILLAC H. OFFICE DEPOT AND CVS PHARMACY HPB X. 120 NORTH SWINTON AVENUE Y. 102-110 NW 5TH AVENUE N ~~~~~~~~~~ CITY LIMITS ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ONE MILE ~ GRAPHIC SCALE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT JUNE 2008 DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM - - MAP REF: S:\Planning & MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Victor Majtenyi, Deputy Director of Public Utilities Richard C. Hasko, P.E.; Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 20, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.0.1 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 CONTRACT AWARD/ H & .T CONTRACTING, INC. ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Request a contract award to H & J Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $139,500.00 for excavating and expanding the existing pond near the 14tr' tee on Lakeview Golf Course. The expansion of the pond will allow the golf course to receive and store reclaimed water for use in routine course irrigation. BACKGROUND On June 19~', 2007, City Commission was presented with two options relating to the delivery of reclaimed water to the irrigation system at Lakeview Golf Course; Option #1, installing an in-line booster station to maintain the irrigation system's required 120psi operating pressure, or Option #2, constructing/modifying an existing lake for receiving the reclaimed water and re-pumping it into the irrigation system. Commission approved Option # 2 since it provides reclaimed water storage capacity as well as flow control and product delivery throughout an extended period of time. Subsequently, on July 24, 2007, City Commission approved professional services for the design of the lake expansion. The City opened bids for the Lakeview Golf Course Pond Expansion project on Wednesday, May 14, 2008. The City received six bids, with the lowest responsive bid from H & J Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $139,500.00. Although the City does not have a direct work history with this firm, staff has verified and received positive feedback from their references; H & J Contracting is a subcontractor to The Weitz Company on the Soccer Complex project. FUNDING SOURCE Funding is proposed from account #441-5181-536-65.96, Water and Sewer Fund/ Reclaimed Water Transmission in the amount of $139,500.00. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends award to H & J Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $139,500.00 for excavating and expanding the existing pond on Lakeview Golf Course. S ~ H U `~ d r j `~ ~ a ~ CO ~ a° Z L~ v N N H m o z a o~ ~z '' o m ^ 'm ~ ~ ~ n. ~ U > c0 - - - _ ~ _ _ - - _ ~ - E U ~ E .~ O m m - _ ~ ~ - ~ m ~ - ~ ~ x '~ ~ o x c. ~ __ - E °' U L H U v H m - - _ _ _ - m - o ~ ~ - U - [~ m _ - «s ~ ~ = a ~ `N' v ¢ ¢ v r. c a r• a 3 3 3 ~ m V 4 ~ ~ ~ _ in ~ ~ ~ 3 a ~ m m ~ C7 o ~ 3 m ° ~ ~ E E " `o U m ' _ _ ~ m - E ~ m ~ in r - ~ ` C ` ._ ` ~ ` B m a o ~ o io N a m m ~ o ~ w ~ o a s a i~ w w u~ u~ ~ u~ v ~ o > > ' ~ a m z w c; fi o H MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Joseph Safford, Finance Director Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: May 23, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.0.2 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 PURCHASE AWARD/VERMEER SOUTHEAST SALES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION City Commission is requested to approve the purchase of one (1) Yanmar exavator, model VIO-17 in the amount of $19,722.00, per quote dated 04/09/2008 from Vermeer Southeast Sales. BACKGROUND Vermeer Manufacturing Company (Southeast Sales) is an authorized dealer under GSA contract number GS-30F0016S. Period of contract coverage: 07/19/2006 through 07/18/2011. The The Yanmar VIO-17 with zero tail swing was designed to perform the task of excavating in stringent areas and is the most up-to-date design of mini-excavators. This excavator, because of its design will improve efficiency for special projects performed in Beautification areas and on other City projects where there is a need for much smaller equipment in other to perform the needed task. In many cases the only alternative would require additional man-power and time for manual digging. A mini-excavator will save time, manpower and help prevent back injuries. After much research into a less expensive excavator, we found that the VIO-17 model was well designed for small area excavating due to size and the safety of the zero tail swing feature. Three (3) quotes; all include rubber tracks, diesel engine, canopy and bucket. Vermeer Mfg. Co. (SW) $19,722.00 Bobcat of Palm Beach Florida(:oast Equipment $22,275.00 $20,7(9.29 FUNDING SOURCE 119-4144-572.64-90 BEAUTIFICATION TRUST FUND RECOMMENDATION Parks and Recreation recommends purchase of the Yanmar VIO-17 mini-excavator in the amount of $19,722.00 per GSA Contract No. GS30F-00165 toVermeer Southeast Sales. AUTHORIZED FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE FSC Group 23, Part V, Vehicular Multiple Award Schedule (VMAS) Price List SPECIAL ITEM NUMBERS: 271-i01 Construction Equipment z72-101 Construction Equipment Attachments ~~ VERMEER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1210 Vermeer Road East Pella, IA 50219 Telephone: {641 628-3141) Fax: {641 621-8185} Internet: httpalwww.vermeer.com CONTRACT NUMBER: GS-30F-00165 PERIOD COVERED SY CONTRACT: 7/19/2006 through 7/18/2011 Pricelist Current Through Modification # PO-0006 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE Products and ordering information in thls Authorized FSS Information Technology Schedule Pricelist arc also available on the GSA Advantage? System. Agencies can bron~se GSA Advantage by accessing the Federal Supply Service's Horne Page via the Internet at httnahr•rrws.fss.~sa.eov! "Prices Shown Herein are Net (discount deducted)" Vermeer Manufacturing Company is a Large Business Search Page 1 of 1 Tutorial I Customer Assistance I 1Nl• Adv~a~ta~e ~x ,,~,~ New search: GS-30F-00165 ~ in All Caf odes ~...~. Home > Search Results ~eE;?Y'C~I RLSEd~F,~ ..~~--_i Found 1 product for ! GSA-34F-©oi6S j NSN/Mfr. Part No/Product VERMEfR MANUFACTlFRING COMPANY {view catalog) tir -Indicates quantity discounts available. Price /Delivery Quantity Additional products and services are offered directly from the contractor, please click on the above fink to order directly. Contractor: VERM£ER MANUFACTURING COM£ANY [G5-30F-a01fiS] {o) Can't find what yon"re looking for? Click here to have a Customer Representative contact you hops://v~rww.gsaadvantage.gov/advgsa/advantage/search/search.do?BVSessionID= c(~,(a,(a~... 5/23/2008 RPM-~~-~$ €~ D8 ~ 18 '~~t~EER ~~'~ BCH ilermeerS~w~easi Safe3 8 SarY{c~, Ir:v, •~r Sales Drder Y5E-I~08D6A ~~ ~~1z: ~ ~„ar~c~f~a~a, i~mtfl~ sue, Fc.. a~az~ S~tttl~e~ast phone: 5sf-7d~-7~ far. 55f-T~I2.744~ ~„~',~"~""°*°"" ...~ y..,.....~.-~,~_ - ~.~,,...,...a Mme f~reSs tie Fax ' qty - 6 A g S 4 ~an~snart ~tephorte . . .. as1-za3~~2~a Yartrrjar excavator Mkt Via-17: i True Tsil Svs~ing Nv ~ of #hcs houslr~g $x#ends beyond the #raciss. AllaWs ~ e~it~a-~t ttpetaEiah i~1 tigY~t sp~a.llarEa#te Undercarriage The hacks wilt j E~ydfiaullcstiy reiroct to a narrow 37 Inches for Cr2-reling tI'-rou~h nanou~ 1 pes~agewcya a~td then ea~tnd tc +}7 irt~ites €or greeter stabijiiy while digging. 1Atatk Trough C..arropy `Fhc t~ra~'~ contrQt levers are care[~Ily.ppsitlnn~ ~ permit easy erat~y and Qx~ 30 mid frpm the work SEaI'~ai~. RE'~P~fFCPS Canvey ~ Caktiri t~C3t~S{~'C?PS Gartopy protecCs a~~insC aperaCc~r injury. tntegruted C'.laarrt t_tgtzt CntLgratesi bvortMight is pro#ecCed from ~ssmage. C.arge Apening test klan~i'i=osy scrvic~tng untir civet rear haad. t.ar~ n3ng read i;vpd for er~fer rrtainter~ancc. FtemavalaEe Slcle Cover Etem~rat~e sicCe frame e~nrer for aa~y tr+aintenancrr. t-iydtattf~ lrlnsa Protac~n Hydra~c fx~e inetalfcd inside lire ta4~ i'c~ct #or datna~e pre+~r:tion, Su~ttr ts~'ass~ wing dtstr'dmtian for d~f tresnt visibifliy. C3tode tearCttres andab€e tytode with hinged wings. Sold Steel ~rtsa. Cylinder guard standard How ~ e~dSidc dame #t#1' easy ma~Ce~,ncc. ~~t: ~t3t3 Clrtif f! Tetra: Its per agroun7anE C5A petctr-g through }r~nmar. T~CriCn~ anl3lYtanuals IEtctuded _ _ .~~ Thank Youv_ ._ ... .. _ _-~. ~~. Mist l C3atg ~4f8t2ftC19 f grd~er~ly, _ i Reg Tony Koury ~t~la ~eiiy,~r~d ._._....! ~t#nit I~rice $i9,722.t1[t TOTAC. ~ ~ t ~ 1~,722.t341 i t. t } l 3'alfinertt 'fax fia#e(sa +~rutt+~nis ~. _ _ .. Tt3'~1~ I~amc ~ _ CC # - ro ,~: moires ~ .. ~ .. ~zapt as ex~eressly xctltwn'ltliy wrifirigbanslo arntrur~so proVk~itgritso~r,~ctwer, ,AS s+f#hv ~r?1Cl~HafrsbaHlg 897Pf "as rs° eli4lf ~atdh afi i9ali~ ; a»d yeriAC9rSaw~~na.'therrLl'dlselalnrs and oxehrdas aR+s~truntTes of uda, rx~rl58 warr.usues und/tnptled rvar!'a~r#lsts, tms~r~ ~3~3at ~mftgtl tb, 7rs~+~t~larran~lss 4?malttr~!llty, ffrnnss lnra pariku~r pur~s~ 1~ilrlrr~ryumbrrtaAd #~wse warraetlesur~sN~j autadWS,-~ a{ ~Erade ar course p(daaHlt~ Custt~tr#vr Sfgttatt7 YANMAR AMERICA CORP. BID SPECIFICATIONS OF EXCAVATOR Model : Vio17 Features & Benefits No Features Benefi#s 1 True Zero Tail Swing. Upper structure will rotate 360 de tees without exceeding the crawler width. 2 Safet . 1 ROPS 8~ FOPS Canopy with Seat belt. • Roll Over & Falling Object Protective Structure. ROPS : RoA aver protection. FOPS :Falling ob'ect protection. z Audible Travel Alarm. The traveling alarm cautions people in work areas of traveling machine. 3 Hydraulic piping inside boom bracket. O High visibility. O Low maintenance (To prevent damage to hyd.hoses.) a Codura Hose Covering To rotect hyd. hose from damage & operator from severe in'u 3 Operator Comfort 1 Comfortability Large, Wide & Comfortable Operator's Space. z Joy-Stick Operation Lever with Arrrr-Rest. Joy-Stick levers reduce fatigue & rovides comfort and control for operators. 3 Low Boise. Super low noise level creates quieter work environment. 4 Air-Conditioning NSA 5 Suspension Seat ~ ~ A a Convenience ~ Variable Tracks The Yanmar original slide system. 3'1" (950mm) ~--> 4'2" (1,284 mm) O The Yanmar gauge is designed far both slim-line entry & stability. O Dirt is forced from the pipes when the gauge is reduced, preventing dirt build up. O In both tight & broad workspace, you get high]y efficient ~ reliable service. 2 Walk-Through (Canopy version) dperator can step up & down from left or right side. Increase opera#or productivity. s 3rd Valve. Hyd.PTO pipin to end of arm with 2 way hydraulics far auger or thumb. 4 2 Pattern Control Chan a Lever. The eas change of operation pattern, STD(Excavator)IOPT(Backhoe) with i lever. s Overhead Windshield Storage. ~ ~A 5 Efficiency 1 3 pumps system O Operator get the equivalent smooth performance. O The arm that does not go slaw during compound operation. z Straight Travel Function. ~ Easy to escape from muddy jobsites. ®Easier to load on trailer. s Others t Big opening steel rear hood. O Easy access for regular maintenance. O Easy repair. z Removable Side Frame Cover. Control valve can be Basil accessed. 3 Light Built Into the Boom. O Inner boom light protects light from damage. O Light shines directly onto work area. a An led Crawler Frame. N ~ A s Blade Cylinder hoses. Join#ed outside of frame for eas maintenance. 6 Cylinder Rod Guards. Bucket, Arm, Boom & Blade Cylinders. ~ Automatic Air Venting System. 8 High Grade Undercoating Paint Finish. ,O Professional appearance. OO Quality reputation. O Resists premature fading ~ rust. ®Hold resale value. 9 Engine (Clean & Silent ). ,O In full compliance with EPA regulations. OO Low fuel consumption. ® Wigh Power. Bobcat. Product Quatatron Quotation Number: JMA-01264 Date: 011231200$ Shi to Bobcat Dealer Bill To C1TY OF DELRAY BEACH #2355 Bobcat of Palm Beach CITY Ol? DEI.IZAY BEACH #2355 Attn: STLVE FISCHER 5731 North Military Trail Attn: STEVE FISCHER 434 S. SWiNTON AVE. West Palm Beach FL 33407-1839 434 S. S~i-INTON AVE. Store No. 1 Phone: (56I) 689-9880 DELItAY Bl3ACH, FL 33444 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 Fax: {561} 697-9517 ~ Thane: (561)243-7258 Phone: {561}243-725& -------------------------~. Fax: (561)243-7314 Fax: (561) 243-7314 Contact: J. Michael Aitou Phone: 561-689-9880 Fax: 561.697-9517 Cellular: 561-373-1369 E Mail: mikes mithb.cvm Description 323 Bobcat Compact E~cavatolr In Stock: EES323.028 {5IN:56Z416908} 13.3 HP Tiea Il Diesel Engine 3'2" Dozer Blade with two 7" Blade Extensions 2-Speed Travel Auxiliary Hydraulics Gontral Console Lacks Control Pattern Selector Feature {ISOISTD} Horn Hydraulically Retractable Undercarriage 38.6" - 53" Part l~lo Qty Price I•aa. Total 7107685 I $20,1$6.74 $20,186.74 Hydraulic Joystick Controls Spark Arrestor Muffler TOPSIROPS Canopy includes; Cup Holder, Retractable Seat Bel#, Suspension Seat, Work Lights Tip Over Protective Structure {TOPS) meets requirements of ISO/DIS 12117 Roll .Over Protective Structure (BOPS} meets requirements of SAE-J1040C & ISO 3471 Tracks: 9.06 in. Rubber Warranty: 12 Months Unlimited Hours Attachments 9" Trenching Socket {Pin-On} 6715495 $432.55 $432.55 Total of Iter~.s Quoted Dealer P.D.I. Dealer Assembly Charges Sales total before taxes Quote Total _ US dollars.. . All prices subject to change Customer Acceptance: Authorized Signa#ure: Prin#: ~zo,6~~.~9 ~~sa.oo ~o.aa X20,769.29 tax if applicable).... 520 769.29 prior notice or obligation. This price quote supersedes all preceding price quotes. a tion within 30 da from uate date. Purchase Order: Sign: Date: Page t of i fan 23 t~S qI : ~€2~ Flarirla ~aas~E ~qui~ae»~ 3681282 ~. ~ ~FLOBIDp SALES QUOTE ~~ ~~~r ~~~~ Y~ ~~ ~~~~ Q~~ ~ w. eor~ $~. ~~ ~ sw o~ K,c~as Ave. Bpgntari Beach. R 7 SiuCafi. ~. 34997 tie: #Shc] 3~9~lt424 Pfd l77$ ~- F~o¢ f5fi~j 3~9.1~62 ~ ~~} +I~i-Zg54 y+~tt4COCiSiBQ.C[iYl't '~~'~m ~ B Ew~- 324 Lb. apes+at~ ~'~ (apt Cx+cuvG~c~t' WiH'1 ~ 1 ;tA~C~i1C~'~ '~18 7~+ptC~, i 3.5 HP Y~ 131eS~s1 . T 1Q" fi~t~ t3~g ~p~ ~ ib. t t]~gg~g Ft~e vvt~, 6t[~er8" or 1~' 9 ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ p~'e: 1I?Z/~OS ~G~'t~11 ~@: ~ tlay5 '€o gtgye E~~ ter of D~~rarY Becich P~! §~~ -~3-725 Px,5~1?A3-x'269 11i~~06 Af~OiX1t -- ~' @: ~~..~ ..~ YOk6~ Pi7C@: $~4,TS13.~? '{B~ ~.~as.~o C~ua~e By: Peke tuber 'wank ~rau for dour bus~~e~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Joseph Sanford, Finance Director Lt. B. Hal Knabb, Fire Rescue Patsy Nadal, Purchasing Manager THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: May 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.0.3 -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 PURCHASE AWARD/WAL-MART/CHILD PASSENGER SAFETY PROGRAM ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The City Commission is requested to approve the purchase of six hundred and seventy (670) Evenflo Discovery infant car seats for the Child Passenger Safety Program from Wal*Mart at a cost of $44.76 per unit for a total cost of $29,989.20 per quote, dated 05/01/2008 with shipping charges waived. BACKGROUND The City of Delray Beach Commission on 11/06/2007 officially accepted a grant of $58,000.00 from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the City of Delray Beach Child Passenger Safety Program. The grant is a 100% reimbursable federal grant award and does not require a local cash match. Mercury 670 Seats/2 per Wal*Mart Distributing Babies R Us Unit Price S 44.76 S 44.05 S 49.99 Shipping Per $ 0.00 $ 2.81 Plus Frt.'? Seat/2 Total Per Seat $44.76 $46.86 $49.99 Total Purchase $ 29,989.20 $ 31,396.20 $ 33,493.30 Price Wal*Mart discounted each infant carrier $4.97 for a savings of $3,329.90, above the savings of the shipping charges. Babies R Us offered the Internet pricing only, Target did not respond and Mercury Distributing did not offer a discount for volume and would not waive the shipping cost. The Evenflo Discovery infant car meet the standards and protocol per the FDOT grant. FUNDING SOURCE 001-2315-526.52-20 GENERAL FUND-PUBLIC SAFETY- AMBULANCE & RESCUE SERV RECOMMENDATION The Fire Safety Division recommends the purchase of six hundred and seventy (670) Evenflo Discovery infant carriers from Wal*Mart for the total cost $29,989.20, in accordance with the approved highway safety funds from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). t •, ~ ~ ~ ~ - . ~ - ... Flo~ia~a De, par~tmen~ o,~' 1''r`anspoYta~io C>«nRt,YE c~sr ' ~ GD5 5wvannee Street - GOV~RNOR Tatlaf,assee, ~! 32399-045Q March Z8, 2D08 David T, Hsrden, City Manager City ofDelray Beach l DD 1~'W 1'~ A.veaue Delray Beach, FL 334A4 RE: Project Number: zC2-08-i7~13 DOT CantractNwnl~er: AP35i ]dear Mr. Haden: n .. sr~r xar~~vt~sos SECRETARY Your application to the Florida Depar#nent of Transportation for highway safety funds has beau approved, We are pleased to make this award in the amowrt of $58,DDO.DD for file purpose of impletnentiug a Child Passenger Safbty Program far llew Parents. A copy of the•agproved subgr~nt agreement referenced above is enclosed foryour file. Ali eonrespondenca with the Department should always fefer to the project number and the Deparknent's.contract nuzpber. The effective date of the snbgra~nt agreement is Marciz 25, ZD08, and only.tliose costs >ncurred on at after tha# date and be~'ore October 1, 2DD8 are eligible 1'or.zeimbursesuezrt. Part V-of the subgraut rerjuires that rE+huburse~ment requests be submitted at least once each quarter as costs are incurred. . If your sabgraut includes equipment.costiug more than $SDO per item, the Head of the Implementing Agency must send a letter certifying that roue of the equipment replaces existing items. If you are purchasing a piece of equipment that casts mare than $5,DDD, you must suhttzit a Norc-Expendable Property'Accountab~y Record for the item ~vithyour reimbursement request Tt'yaur subglrant includes funding far public awareness materials, you must send. samples of the uxaterial's for approval pria~r to purciu~se. Pleaso review.l?art V afthe subgrant agree~ettt entitled "Acceptance and Agreement" This section contains the legal conditions of your subgraut. ~ . We lock forward to rwoxldng with you on this }iroject. If you have any questions or need-assistance, .please contact Ralph Salves at ($50) 245-iS2b, who v¢lll be coordinating this activity. ' - - S c ely, Randall G. S . Traffic saf Administrator RG5/rs - - Enclasures . cc: David James, ]lire Chief 1'asep~ M. Safford, CFO - 13. Hal Nabb, Project Director Zoe. Taylor, TSD F~izsancial Spedalist ~OntraCt 1y8y1neAt ~eCtiRli t.'OlltS iict ~'11S ww,w,dot.state.ft.us '~ ~ - 1 i- i I ~ I l& MEMORANDUM Delray Seach Fire-Rescue Department . TO: Patsy Nadal DATE: 05/13/08 FROM: B. Hal Knabb Lieutenant SUBJECT: Infant Car Seat Quotes Dear Ms. Nadal: vendors: I have reviewed the proposals for purchasing infant car seats from the following four {4) Baby's "R" Us Mercury Distributing Target Wal*Mart I think the vendor with the mast appropriate infant seat, to satisfy the needs of our grant, is Wal* Mart. Their infant seat, Evenflo Discovery, provides the structure and the safety components needed to secure a safe environment inside a vehicle. Furthermore, this infant seat meets the standards of NHTSA and the protocol of our FDOT grant. Lastly, this infant seat is economically the best seat per unit price with no additional charge for shipping. 1 appreciate very much your assistance in obtaining these quotes. Please let me know what further assistance I may provide. Thank you, Lt. Hal Knabb cc: rohn Tomaszewski, Assistant Chief BHK/dn Discovery 5 Infant Seat Mme: F~~ ~ ^ kti ~es~ arBab ,~ ^ . • New! 5 point harness for added safety! • New! EPS, Energy Absorbing Foam liner • New buckle and chest clip for increased safety and ease of use • New pad design offers increased padding • Improved canopy adjustment • Comes fully assembled and ready for consumer use • Stay in car base: easy to install and transport • Child size requirements • Rear Facing 5-221bs • Height, 19-29" • Less than 1 year old Featuxes Ber-efits • New! 5 point harness • Added safety for baby • New+. EPS, Energy Absorbing foam liner • Added Safety for baby New! Increased padding throughout seat More comfort for baby • Carry Right® handle Ease of use and #ransportability Increased padding in seat pan Increased Comfort Easy grip handle adjusters • Quick and simple adjustments One-step harness adjustment • Ease of adjustment • Separate base Ease of installing and transporting • Separate, retractable canopy • Comfort and protection far infant • New! 2 Piece Chest Clip • Increased ease of use • Machine washable pad • Ease of maintenance • Rear-facing #or 5-221bs. • Safety for infant • Can be used without base • Increased ease of use • Designed and tested for structural integrity at energy • For travel safety levels approximately 2X the federal crash test standard Specifications Retailer Profit Plan Model Number 3021198 Pattern Factory Select UPC Number 032$84- 14557-~' FOB Piqua, OH Carton Cu. Ft {i} 5.0 Product Weight (1) 9.91bs Product Dimensions 18'/'W x 25'/Z°D x 26°H Standard Pack 'i Master Garton Dim. 18.63"W x 15.25°D x Master Weight 12.07 31.25"H Evenfla Company, Inc. 707 Crossroads Court Vandalia, Ohio 45377 i . ~ Y~ ,• - - . ~L ' Sane rnor+ey. ~:ive b~~t~r..°• . ' ~ ALtSAYS THE LDI~ PRIGS . HANRGER'•GLIVB PR¢YES'[-HERDN' • ' ~ (661. ] 4 5 :- ~i ZT • - r ST# 1589 DP 0040~92•TE#:86 TR# p92~7 . EVFLD.1fSCVR' DD328841~$~(. -` 3Q4 f1T 1 FDR '~ ' ~~#:~ 13,42#~1 ~ ~1FLD~l35GVRY QD328$4148 ' ' ~' 34D~ AT • 1 FDR: • ~i~#T5 .13;4281H3Q' d _ . ' j' " k~1I~C.D ~GyRY DD32$84i~8221F' ~ ~ ~ .•~ . ~--' 78 RT , i. FDR !4q~76 ~r13~f3; ~ • . , :, ..-• ., •, 5118,fQ~T~~ 79; 989i#k20 • ~ ~ ~ e p ~d . .. ~: GR$H.~. TEND X9,•989#2a +~ Z'gi ~ ~ I. • , •.. CHfl~i£ DUE • A#OD ~ 1 .. ~*a ~ : ~NVAL3D ~tEGEIP:f .~: T.RAINI#H3 : ~a~. I rle~ ,PMfduata, La$est 'roi lbacka .. " S!9 UR',3t Wai:~a~t:COrile~iall ~_ ..~_ PRICING QOUTE ONLY -ITEMS NOT PURCHASED ~® ~~ It ~' ,~ Sold To: 7001 Wooster Pike Medina, Ohio 44256 PH 800-815-6330 FAX 800~15~324 City of Delray Patsy - 561-243-7161 Ship To: to be provided Delray Beach, FL 33444 t~UOTE 1-n5192oos Date 5/19/2008 Customer ID Customer PO Pa meet Terms Net 30 Da s Sales Re lD 5hi in Method Shi Date Date D~[e cmb LTL-ESTES Quant' item Desert tion Backorder Q Unit Price Extension 112 3021198 Evenfio Discovery Infant Car Seats $44.05 $4,933.60 (ships 2 per case) $0.00 ~ $0.00 r $O.Oo $0.00 $O.oo $o. n0 912 X 6 SHIPMENTS = 672 SEATS $0.00 $5874.30 X 6 SHIPMENTS =$35,245.80 Subtotal 4, 933.60 Sales Tax QUOTED ESTI=S TO INCLUDE CALL AI~iF~1D, Freight 940.70 LIFTGATE & INSIDE DELIVERY (IF THESE Payment Received SERVICES ARE NOT REQUIRED, DEDUCT $100 PER SHIPMENT FROM FREIGHT TOTAL $5,874.30 CHARGE 0 W G4 I 0 Q~ y W I C~ W C/] U X+" N O U rn Q O Lia t3 ~. /; ~: .. o L d T ~ L v m; [/] m . ~_ N 16 U wR. H v n t7 n v 0 z ' t^^ EA ~ # ~ 01 U a ~ p '~ ~ C3 d v '6 ~ u ~ ~J+ 1~I L Trl L ~ .o as ~; C ~ 3 i = V °' ~^ " '° Q~ v ~ ~~ W>V ¢~ ~ w ~ai~ t ~ ~ v v ~ ~ - (CI V L µ'" ~ ~ C m UJ `J+ ~ ~o ~ L ~ U n ro v L ~L C Y N L Ai w N C ~ ICf f0 ` _ ~'~° ~ C a~ ~, V ~~' m ~~ ~ O R ~ 'a'~i a ~ Q ( ~ H ~ ~ C N (O ~ ~ L f ~ .C "O «' .1.r c, v ~ ~' ~ ~ tv ~ rTo ~ a~a ~/ w m ~ ICS z o v _ ~~ ~ o~~ vu~vmo ~ Q~ W Vf ~ ~~~~E ~ a ~ v ~ ro O ~ ~ a + ~ ~ o ~ } ~ cn ~, CTt o >. c1S Os > ~r c!~ ~ v E~' ~ ~ m u ° ~ L E Q . ~ E u. _ C V1 l!) d. ~ ~ ~ i J Lh LJ.f Sfl Q Q i lL ~ aL+ W 4 W ~ } mot ~~. ~ ul ~ iv v .'' ~ N .. . . V V cu 5 .~ M a p1 ~ _ ~ CC C i~ v ~ ~~.+ Y7 ~ ~ ~ M + -' ~ m , ~ ~ G ~ c L ~ a ' ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~° N v ~ ' ~ E c _ ~ ~ ~ Itl p ~ O m ~^ -a ~ ~ n oC a v v N ~ ~ ~ [iy,. ~ ~' ro ~ Q L 17.. Ia N ~ re. U A a~ L ~ v +-~ 10 ~ ~ {~: s . ~ N ~ J IVO ~: ~: ~ • • • • • oa 0 0 M N O n v~ O '!C U -~ 0 >~ .~ U 0 U v1 O E~enflo Tribute S DLX Car Seat -Sig Brown Plain :Target Page 1 of 3 Skip Page Navigation AEI Products `!~ Sign in { Nev ~.... ~~"~ ~ Save Ip°fp when y~ia open a f~~E3c~rc~s" ~redlt ~~c~unt. Apply E~©w r , . Browse Similar Items Convertible Car Seats All Car Seats New Arrivals in Car Seats Car Seats Convertible Car Seats Navy Blue Gear Evenfio ~ `U ~, ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~a~~ uana~ Ang. Guest Rating: Availability Usually ships within 24 hours. This item is available online, but is not available in stores. Errenfly Tribute 5 DLX C Seat -Big Brvwn Plain $59.99 Quantity: 5i_g`n-in far i-Click _ gun r~~ ,.:_:,~.~ i~.a:r Prices, promotions, styles and availability may vary by store and online. __ _ .... , ~_....~.. __ ~._ .m... ._ _ ... _ _ .. _ .-- _ __ ~. ~A~t3~~L. ~s_~~R€1~'}ooty ~ ,Q~J~E"rEt~P~A.~ t~~CS ~ ,`.a°ii~P1N~ 1hd~~ • Convertible Car Seat • Features 2-Piece Chest Clip, 5-Point Harness • LATCI-t Anchor System, Up-Front Adjustment • Contoured Seat • Puzzle Lock Closure, Buckle Closure • Removable Seat Padding Better Together Buy this Evenflo Tribute 5 DLX Car Seat - Bic~Brown..Pla.n, with Graco Pack 'n _Play..Pla.,y.Y Rise and Shine today! http a/www.target.com/Evenflo-Tribute-DLX-Car-Seat/dp/B000YZAZ8 8/ref=bxgy_ec_im... 5/23/2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Amy E. Alvarez, Historic Preservation Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 APPEAL OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD DECISION/36 S.E. 1ST AVENUE ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is consideration of an appeal of the Historic Preservation Board's (HPB) decision made on March 6, 2008. The HPB denied the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA), Class V Site Plan Application, and associated waiver and variance requests for the new construction of a two-story office building located at 36 SE 1St Avenue based upon a failure to make findings that the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and met the criteria set forth in the LDRs, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. BACKGROUND On March 6, 2008, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) considered a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA), Class V Site Plan Application, and associated waiver and variance requests for the construction of a new, 10,739 square foot two-story office building located at 36 SE 1St Avenue, within the Old School Square Historic District. The first floor contains 5,952 square feet (487 square feet of office-use related space and 5,465 square feet of covered parking containing 14 parking spaces), and the second floor contains 4,787 square feet of office space. The HPB denied the development proposal on a 5-0 vote (one member abstained). The applicant submitted an appeal of HPB's denial and was scheduled for City Commission consideration on May 6, 2008. However, the applicant requested a continuation given concerns over issues related to the ability of the City Commission to consider appeals of variance requests which are normally appealable to Circuit Court. As a result, an amendment has been submitted by the applicant which would allow for variances acted upon by the HPB to be appealed to the City Commission, as opposed to the Circuit Court. This amendment, which is anticipated to come before the City Commission subsequent to review by the Planning and Zoning Board on June 16, 2008, would allow for the entire project including variance requests to be considered by the City Commission. As a result of the pending variance-related amendment, an additional postponement of the subject appeal has been requested until the City Commission meeting of August 5, 2008. A complete analysis of the proposal is found in the attached Historic Preservation Board Staff Report of March 6, 2008. APPEAL On March 18, 2008, Michael S. Weiner, of Weiner, Aronson, and Mankoff, submitted an appeal of the Historic Preservation Board's action of the subject property. The basis of the appeal is that the HPB "failed to apply the ordinances of the City to the decision correctly", and "failed to rule in favor of the appellant The relief being sought is a reversal of the decision and the approval of the development application as presented to HPB at the March 6, 2008 meeting. As the Class V development proposal cannot be constructed without the variances (relief to setbacks and lot coverage), consideration of an appeal and an approval of the related Class V development proposal is premature until final resolution of the related LDR Amendment associated with the variance requests. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Commission take action according to one of the available options: 1) approve the appeal as it pertains to the Site Plan components and waiver requests, and remand the variance requests to the HPB for reconsideration; or, 2) postpone the appeal to the City Commission meeting of August 5, 2008, and await the outcome of the LDR Amendment. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Board followed the established quasi-judicial procedures in considering the project. The applicant offered testimony in support of the development proposal. The Board took testimony from members of the public who spoke both for and against the project. RECOMMENDATION Approve the postponement request to the City Commission meeting of August 5, 2008. HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: March 6, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: II.B. ITEM: Consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness, Class V site plan, landscape plan, design elements, variance requests, and waiver requests for the construction of a two-story office building. u~ GENERAL DATA: OwnerlApplicant: ........................ Southern Development { Services, Inc. 1 _. Agent ..................................•--..... Southern Development I Services, Inc. ~ ".E w Location ..............:.................... ~ x ... 36 SE 'Est Avenue Pro ert Size ..................... ..... 4.20 acres 1 > P Y ---• < Future Land Use Map ................ Other Mixed Use (OMU) Current Zoning ............................ Old School Square Historic r ~. z . Arts Drstrlct (OSSHAD) `. A' T L A N T I C p ,,. Adjacent Zoning ................North: CBD ~ , East: CBD South: OSSHAD j '. West: OSSHAD '' < Existing Land Use ...................... Residential ...; ,. Proposed Land Use .................... OfficelCommercial ~- ,n Water Service ............................. Available on site ~ ~~ ~ R~~~ Sewer Service ............................. Available on site R~ p IT~FM"''_B FORE TH:IE BOARD The action before the Board is that of approval of a~Certifcate of Appropriateness that incorporates the following aspects of the development proposal far 36 SE 15t Avenue, "36 First", Old School Square Historic District, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F): Relocation of Contributing Structure (to be processed as a separate COA); • Class V Site Plan; • Design Elements; • Waiver Requests; • Variance Requests, and; • Landscape Plan. BAC~KGROUN,^ .' ~~ The subject. property consists of Town ofi Delray Lts 16 to 18 InclLess S 75 FtlBlk 69 (Old `School Square Historic District) and is located on the west side of SE 1 S` Avenue approximately seventy feet (70') north of SE 1St Street. The property contains a contributing structure, which :was constructed c.1937. The one-story building is of wood frame construction and has a floor area of 767 square feet with an unenclosed carport of 158 square feet. The structure is in very good condition and retains original internal features such as woad paneling. In June, 2005, administrative approval was given to replace the roof shingles. On October 2; 2007, the applicant appeared before City Commission to request that the property be subject to the standards of the Central Business District {CBD} Zoning District. Staff stated that if would be more appropriate that the regulations for the OSSHAD be maintained for the property and '.any relief be sought accordingly. Staff established this position to avoid the possibility of a development proposal utilizing a taller building height allowance and also to avoid introducing incompatible uses.. 'PRO'JECT D;E,SCRIPTION ~„~,~ The subject application- proposes to develop the property located at 36 SE 1St Avenue by achieving the'following: Relocation of Contributing Structure The existing wood frame structure is a one-story, single-family dwelling, which was constructed c.1937. It is to be relocated to 310 NE 1St Avenue in the Old School Square Historic District. New Construction .The subject application involves construction of a 10,739 square foot, two-story office building. The first floor measures 5,952 square feet comprising a vestibule, stairs, elevator and electric room (487 square feet allocated as office space) and 14 parking spaces (5,465 square feet). The second floor contains 4,787 square feet of office space. The two-story vernacular style building will be approximately 29.5'_ in height to the mean roof level. The east (front) and west {rear) elevations are fifty #eet {50') wide. The east elevation contains a projecting bay for the entrance from SE 1 Sc Avenue. The west elevation contains three, seven foot 30 SE 1''` Avenue, 36 ~ first; 20G8-€164-5~'f=-t-tP3-C;LS HPB t+~eeting March 6, 2(108 f'aae 2 of 20 eight inch (7' $"} square decorative metal security grilles which supply ventilation to the first floor parking area. The south elevation measures 125' 4" long and contains an open walkway for office access at second floor level. The north elevation measures 121' 8" long and con#ains #hree projecting bays wi#h four, 7' 8" square decorative metal security grills that provide ventilation to the first floor parking area. Between the projecting bays are the entrance and exit to the parking area. The exterior contains the following details: • Wall finish -First floor: smooth stucco, Moon Shadow Second floor: stucco siding with smooth stucco to projecting bays, Na#ural Elements; • Windows -single hung, aluminum frame, impact resistant, two-over-two configuration, White; • Doors -aluminum frame, White; • Roof -Standing seam aluminum, Mill Finish; • Shutters -Aluminum, decorative, Gettysburg Gray; • Trimlfascia -Wood, White; • Guardrail -Aluminum, Gettysburg Gray; • Security Grills -Decorative Me#al, Gettysburg Gray. SITE PLAN~EAN.AL.~SIS COMI?LIiANCE..WETH THE LAND CEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: !#ems identifed in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed ~yfhe body taking fiina[ ac#ion on the site and development applicationlrequest. LDR Sectioii.2.4.5(F)(5) -Compatibility (Site .Plan Findings}: The approving body rr~ost make a finding that development Hof .tile property pursuant #o the site plan will be comps#ible. and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as no# #o cause substantial depreciation of property values. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS -Standard Plan I#ems Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.3(6)(75), the location of any buffers, fencing, walls must be indicated. A sketch of the type of such feature shall be provided. Sketches must be provided of the .proposed fencing and the decorative metal security gate on the east elevation. This has been attached as a condition of approval Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.3(B)(1fi), the location of proposed signing with an indication of proposed height and dimensions is required. Note: Sign approval is not a part of a site. plan approval)_ The location of the proposed signage hay been indicated; however, dimensions are required: This has been attached as a condition of approval. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.3(6)(98), the proposed location for solid waste disposal facilities should be noted, with a note or detail provided identifying the height of required enclosures, the type of gating, and the type of materials to be used for the enclosure. Elevations of the enclosure indicating height, ga#ing and materials must be submitted. This has been attached as a condi#ion of approval. The above noted requirements are listed under "Technical Items" and included as part of the Board's direction. 36 Si= 1`'i Aver€ue. ~~ First; 2ag8-g~4-SPA'-t EPB-C~,~ HPB Meeting March 6, 2~1C18 Paa~ 3 of 2~ LDR Section 4.3.4 K Develo rnent Standards Matrix -- Old School S uare Historic Arts District (OSSHAD) Zoning: The following table compares the proposal with the OSSHAD Zoning district requirements of LDR Section 4.3.4{K}: Allowed) proposed Required Maximum Lot Coverage 40°/a 67.2°/a' Maximum Buildin Hei ht 35' 29.5' 2 Minimum Building Setbacks f=ront-East 25' S' 10" s Side Street-North 15' 2' 2" a Side Interior-South 7' S" 4' 10" s Rear=West 10' 13' T/" 9 Variance requested. 2 Scated. 3 Variance requested. 4 Variance requested. 5 Variance requested LDR Section 4.3.4(J}-Height The LDRs define height as the vertical distance from grade to the highest finished roof surface of a flat roof ar to the mean level ,between tie -beams and ridge far gable, hip, or gambrel roofs. The .height to the mean levei has not been indicated. The height to the mean level must be shown on the drawings. This has been attached as a condition of approval. 4.4.24 - OFd School Square Historic Arts District: Zoning Regulations Purpose and Intent The Old Schot5l Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD} is a mixed use district which is intended to: 1. Provide for mixed uses of residential, office, and commercial activities, with an emphasis an the arts, that will encourage the restoration or preservation of historic structures and, yet, maintain and enhance the his#oric and pedestrian scale of the area; 2. Stimulate greyter awareness and pride in the City's architectural heritage, and create an atmosphere and feeling of "Old Defray Beach' ; 3. Improve the environmental quality and overall livability of this Historic District and stabilize and improve property value therein, and; 4. Allow uses which promote preservation and adaptive reuse of all structures within the District. The subject application meets the purpose and intent of numbers 1 and 3 above as an office building is being proposed, which will contribute to improving and stabilizing property values. There is some concern over the proposed relocation of the existing contributing structure as this does not meet the purpose and intent of numbers 2 and 4 above. The proposed relocation is further analyzed below under section "LDR Section 4.5.1-Historic Preservation Sites and District Analysis". Parking Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.24(G}(4}(a}, all non-residential uses, with the exception of restaurants, shad provide one parking space per 300 sq. ft. of. total new or existing floor area being converted to non-residential use. The proposed development has 5,274 square feet of offce space 36 SE 'f `'{ Rvenue, 36 F':rst: 2,08-f764-SPF-I-IP~-Ct_5 HPB Pt~eet~ng r~lerct~ ~; 20018 Pace ~ of 20 therefore 18 spaces are required. The parking area on the first floor contains 14 spaces. Four (4} spaces have also been purchased at the Federspiel Parking Garage. The request to purchase the 4 spaces was approved by City Commission on February 5, 2008, therefore this requirement of the LDRs has been met. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9{E)(2) new harking spaces constructed in the right-of-way adjacent to the property may be issued credit towards required parking. In addition to the above parking spaces, one new on-street parallel parking space has been provided. RIGHTS Ol= WAY -DSMG (Development Services Management Group) At its meeting of February 8, 2007, the DSMG made the following determinations: 5E 15` Avenue Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D}(2) and the Transportation Element of the City's comprehensive plan, the ultimate right-of-way width for a coca! street is 60' while only 40' of right-of-way currently exists far SE 1S` Avenue. For existing streets, the City Engineer, upon a favorable recommendation from the Development Management Services Group (DSMG), may grant reductions in right-of-way width. The City Engineer and DSMG have determined that a reduction in right-of-way width to fifty feet (5(}') would be appropriate~for this portion of SE 1$` Avenue. Therefore, a dedication of five feet (5') of right-of--way is required and has been depicted on the proposed development plans. The dedication must be accepted by the City Commission. This requirement has been added as a condition of approval. Ai_ fey Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3:1{D}(2), the- required width of an alley is twenty feet- {20'} or the existing dominant width. The City Engineer -and DSMG have determined that the subject development shall provide two feet {2'} of new alley right of way, or half the width of the additional four feet {4'} needed to improve the alley to twenty feet {20'). Therefore, a dedication of two feet (2') of right-of--way is required and has been depicted on the proposed development plans. The dedication must be accepted by the City Commission. This requirement has been added as a condition of approval. The right of way dedications shall be made prior to site plan certification for an approved development proposal. Technical Items: The Preliminary Engineering Technical Comments are as follows -and musf either be addressed prior to approvaF of the application or certification of approved plans: 1. Provide copy of certifed boundary and topographic survey meeting requirements of LDR Section 2.4.3 {A), (B} and {D). Existing grades should be taken approximately 10-fleet outside all subject property fines for all adjacent properties. Survey .shall provide sufficient information to determine historical drainage pattern. Survey needs to be completed within the last 6 months per LDR 2.4.3 (B){20). 2. The survey site plan, landscaping plan and prefrminary engineering plan shall be at the same scale per LDR Section 2:4.3 {B) (1). All plans shall be drawn on 24" x 36" sheets and at a scale of 1" = 10', 1" x 20' or 1" x 30", unless approved by the City Engineer. 3. Provide existing elevations on existing roadway including edge of pavement and center line. 4. Provide finished floor elevation. If finished floor elevation is less than 18-inches above centerline of adjacent road a certification is required from a professional registered engineer stating that the property has adequate drainage to ensure that flooding will not occur in a 100-year storm event. LDR Section 7.1.3 {B) (2). 3~ SE '(`` ~venu~. 36 First, 2QQ8-QG~-SPP-F!P~S-C%L5 HPB l~eefii~g ~rlarci~ 8, 2;3Q$ Paae 5 ~i 2Q 5. Site is required to retain 5 year 1 hour storm (3.2"} in addition to meeting water quality criteria {1"). Provide signed and sealed drainage calculations and indicate how storm water will be retained on site. See LDR Section 2.4.3 (D} {4) and {7). fi. Indicate 5-foot right-of-way dedication for sidewalk along SE 15t Avenue. 7. Indicate 2-foot right-of-way dedication in alley. 8. Extend sidewalk brick pavers to right-of--way line in alley. Brick pavers to match those used by property (parking garage) north of site. 9. Clearly indicate limits of right of way and center line of the right-of-way of any adjacent streets per LDR Section 2.4.3 (B} {5}. 10. Show nearest existing fre hydrants and add any necessary hydrants per fire department requirements. 11 _ Provide Eocation of existing water service on engineering plans. Use as-bunts for property (parking garage) north ofi site to tie into existing 8-inch water main on SE 1St Avenue. Please make arrangements to pick-up as-bunts from ESD, Engineering Department. 12. Provide separate tap for water, fire and irrigation lines. 13. Provide mare information on proposed plans to drain into City drainage system on SE 1St Avenue. Only an underground system with the appropriate control structure will be allowed. 14. Provide 12-foot exclusive sewer easerrient aver sewer mains. 15. Indicate typical .configuration and Eocation of proposed sewer services with cleanouts. A cleanout will be required on the existing sewer service at a maximum distance of 1Sanches from the right-of-way line andlor easement line. 16. Provide on the detail sheet City of Delray Beach Standard Detail WW 4.1, WW 5.1 or 5.2 (which ever is applicable). 17. Provide the following note on both the Engineering Plans and the Landscape Plans that, "any trees or shrubs placed within water, sewer or drainage easements shall confiorm to the City of Delray Beach Standard Details; LD 1.1 & LD 1.2." These Details are to be shown on the Landscape Plans. 18. Show and clearly label all easements on Landscape and Engineering Plans. 19. No proposed improvetrtents, buildings or any kind of construction can be placed on or within any sanitary sewer easements. 20. No proposed structures shall be installed within a horizontal distance of 10-feet from any existing or proposed sanitary sewer facilities. 29 ..Developer to ensure that no landscaping is planted over any exfiltration trenches. 22. A minimum 10-feet general utility easement is to be provided through the property for al! other utilities except water, sewer and drainage. 3~ SE 1`' f~ven~e, 36 t=first; 2~(}8-(lf4-S°t~-t iPE~-Ct_5 FiPt3 f~t~eting [arch 6; 2~b~ Pacte 6 cif 2~ 23. Provide signed and sealed calculations indicating current and proposed estimated flaws into existing or proposed lift station and force main. Obtain approval from Deputy Director of Public Utilities that City's system has sufficient capacity to treat proposed flaws. 'WAIVER A~YS,~S -~ ~.. The applicant has submitted three (3) waiver requests to the requirements of the Land Development Regulations. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5}, prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: {a} Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and, {d) Does not result in the grant of a special .privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other. property for another applicant or owner. Maneuvering Area, Aisle Width, Space Width Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(d}, two-way traffic flaw must be used when perpendicular: parking spaces are used. A waiver to allow cone-way traffic flow system is requested. The applicant has provided .the following statement in support of said request: "In order fo keep trafttc circulation within the small building footprint better organized, and in order fo achieve better accessibility fo fhe parking spaces, we request fhaf a one way fraffrc flow be allowed of this parking Iof. Due fo fhe fact that the building users are going fo be familiar with the access fa these private parking spaces, we feel fhaf this waiver is jusfifiecf. As four of the required spaces are. off site, there will be a lower volume of traffic than normal for an office of this size. Also the parking spaces are private and will only be used by office staff familiar with the layout. The layout of the parking otherwise satisfes the requirements of the LDRs, therefore ,positive findings can be made, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(8){5}(a)-(d). Visibility a# Intersections Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.'l4(A)(1), a twenty foot (20') sight triangle is required an both sides of an accessway formed by the intersection of each side of the accessway and the public right-of-way. The proposed sight triangles at the car park entrance and exit are five feet six inches (5' 6"). 1*ar' this reason, the applicant is requesting relief from the subject LDR and has provided the following statement in support of said request: "Due fo fhe fact fhaf a low volume of fraffrc occurs in the area, we feel that fhe reduction is within reason. A similar waiver has been approved on fhe neighboring property to the north". The reduction in the sight triangles is within reason due to the law volume of traffic expected in the garage, which will be used by office staff only, and as the exi# opens an to an alley with a five foot {5') sidewalk with no on-street parking. Therefore ositive findin scan be made, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(8){5)(a)-(d). Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A}(2), a forty foot {40') sight triangle is required at a corner formed by the intersection of two (2) or more public rights~of-way. The proposed sight triangle at the northeast corner of the property at the junction of SE 95` Avenue and the alley, is fifiteen feet four 35 S~ 1"venue, 36 First: 20Q8-oG4-SPP-F!i'E~-C;LS HPB i~pet"sng P~larch ~, 2t3Q8 Page ~ ~f 20 inches {15' 4"). For this reason, the applicant is requesting relief from the subject LDR and has provided the fallowing statement in support of said request: "Due to fhe fact that a low volume of Traffic occurs in The area, we feel That fhe reduction is within reason. A similar waiver has been approved on the neighboring property to the north"_ The reduction in the sight triangles is within reason due to the low volume of traffic expected, which will not create an unsafe situation or adversely affect the neighboring area. The intersection is controlled with a stop sign. Therefore positive fndings can be made pursuant to LDR Section f` VfAR[A,N~CB'ANALYSIS y` ~. The applicant has submitted four {4) variance requests to the requirements of the Land Development Regulations. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.2.G{D){6), the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) shall act in lieu of the Board of Adjustment and is empowered to grant variances from existing ordinances for properties designated as historic sites, within designated historic districts or listed in the Local Register of Historic Places. Prior to granting a variance, HPB must make the following findings pursuant to LDR Sec#ion 2.4.7{A){5): (a) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building. involved and, which are not generally applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings subject to the same zoning (The matter of economic hardship shall nat constitute a basis for the granting of a variance); (b) That literal interpretation of the regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties subject to the same zoning; (c) That the special conditions and circumstances have. not resulted from actions of the applicant; (d) That granting the variance will not confer into the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other lands, structures, and buildings under the same zoning. Neither the permitted, nor nonconforming. use, of neighborhood lands, structures, or buildings under the same zoning shall be considered grounds far the issuance of a variance; (e} That the reasons set forth in the variance petition justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that wi[I make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure; and, (f} That the granting of the variance wilt be in harmony with general purpose and intent of existing regulations will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.'I {.t){2), as an alternative to subsection {.i)(1 }, a variance is necessary #o accommodate an appropriate adaptive reuse of a structure within a Historic District or upon a Historic Site through demonstrating that: (2} That a variance is necessary to maintain the historic character of property through demonstrating that: 36 5E 1 `` avenue, 3B First; ~GGB-Q~~-OFF--t-iPt=i-Ct_~ NPB rvleeting r~t~rcY~ ~, 2t}C18 Aac~e S of ZQ {a} A variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare. {b} The variance would not significantly diminish the historic character of the Historic District or Site. (c) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to effect the adaptive reuse of an existing structure or site. Lot Coverage Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K}, the maximum lot coverage for OSSHAD is 40%. A lot coverage of 68.3% is proposed. Far this reason, the applicant is reques#ing relief from the subject LDR and has provided the following statement in support of said request: "There is no set lof coverage far CBD. Al! existing and proposed CBD-zoned neighboring properties along SE 9st Street (Avenue}, including the City Public Parking sfructure and Worthing Place have close fo 80% lot coverage. The proposed lot coverage is compatible with surrounding properties. This proposed project, however, still complies wifh fhe 25% minimum non-vehicular~open space requiremenf". The variance request is based an the location of the lot, which is adjacent to lots zoned CBD, and also redevelopment that has occurred in the immediate vicinity; therefore special conditions and circufstances exist which are peculiar to the land. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public in#erest, safety, or welfare. The variance would not significantly diminish the historic character of the Historic District as the praposeci development still complies with the 25% minimum non=vehicular open space requirement. The proposal provides 31 % non-vehicular open space, which is mare than other recently approved developments in the historic district and more in keeping with the open space provided historically. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to effect the adaptive reuse of the site. Therefore ositive findin s can be made, pursuant to LDR Sections 2.4.7{A)(5){a-f) and 4.5.1(J)(2)(a}-(c}. Front Setback Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(x), the minimum required front setback far OSSHAD is 25'. A front setback of 5' is proposed (taking into account the 5' right-of -way dedication}. For this reason, the applicant is requesting relief from the subject LDR and has provided the following statement in support of said request: "Decrease fhe 25' required front sefback for OSSNAD to 5' min. and ?Q' maximum sef back, as per CBD regulations. The proposed sefback will be compatible with most existing and proposed buildings on the CBD zoned parcels along SE tst Avenue, including the City Public Parking Garage, Worfhing Place, and the recenfly approved Block fig Office Building". The variance request is based on the location of the lot, which is adjacent to tats zoned CBD, and also redevelopment that has occurred in the immediate vicinity; therefore special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, ar welfare. The variance would not signifcantly diminish the historic character of this section of the Historic District as recent development approvals in the adjoining CBD overlay in the historic district-have similar front setbacks. Granting this request would align the proposed office building with the other recently approved structures. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to effect the adaptive reuse of the site. Therefore ositive findin s can be made, pursuant to LDR Sections 2.4.7{A){5}(a-f} and 4.5.1{J}(2){a)-{c}. 36 S~ 1'~AvBnue, 3~ Pirst; 2po8-O~i~-SPF-FIPS-CL5 HPB t~eefir~g March B, 2QC~f3 Page 9 of 20 Side Street Setback .Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(x}, the minimum required side street se#back to the north adjacent to the .alley is 15'. The proposed setback is 2' 2". For this reason, the applicant is requesting relief from the subject LDR and has provided the following statement in support of said request: N The smaller setback !s compatible with CBD side setback requirements. !n addition, a 20' wide alley right of way will buffer the proposed bullding with fhe previously approved building to fhe north. Al! existing and proposed CBD-zoned structures along SE 95t Street (Avenue) have a 0' interior side sef back requrremenf". The variance request is based on the location of the lot, which is adjacent to lots zoned CBD, and -also redevelopment that has occurred in the immediate vicinity; therefore special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety, or welfare. The variance would not signifcantly diminish the historic character of this section of the Historic District as previously approved developments have smaller setbacks, and the 20' wide alley will .provide space between the proposed structure and the site to the north. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to effect the adaptive reuse of the site. Therefore positive findings can be made, pursuant to LDR Sections2.4.7{A)(5}{a-f} and Side Interior Setback Pursuant to LDR Section 4:3.4(K}, the minimum required side interior setback to the south is 7.5`. The proposed setback is 4' 10". For this reason, the applicant is: requesting relief from the subject LDR and has provided the following statement in support of said request: "The smaller setback !s compatible with CBD side setback requirements, while allowing space for light and ventilation of the structure. All exisfing .and proposed CBD-zoned structures along SE 9$t Sfreet (Avenue) have a 0' interior side setback requirement". The variance request is based an the location of the lot, which is adjacent to lots zoned CBD, and also redevelopment tha# has occurred in the immediate vicinity; therefore special conditions anti circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the .public. interest, safety, or .welfare. The variance would not significantly further diminish the historic character of this section of the Historic District as previously approved developments have smaller setbacks. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to effect the adap#ive reuse of the site. Therefore oositive findings can be made, pursuant to LDR Sections 2.4.7(A)(5)(a-f) and 4.5.1 {J)(2)(a}-(c}. -~ -- - -~ - ;LANpSC~CPE'-~ANALYSIS_;. .~';. The following landscape technical items and notes remain outstanding and need to be addressed: (1 } Please consider eliminating the sod on the west side of the building. {2} Additional ground covers and a mulched path will facility#e future maintenance. 36 SE i``Aven~e, 3B First; 2Q08-064-~PF-FIP6-C;L~ HPE3 Meeting March 0, 2fl08 Pace 10 of 2G -LDR S~C7'ION 7, ' HISTORIC PFiES~R~+'ATION SITES AND ©IS7RIC~[~S~ - ANALY~6S"' LDR Section 2.4.6(H} -Certificate of Appropriateness: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.fi(H}(5), the Board must make a finding that any Certificate of Appropriateness which is to be approved is consistent with Historic Preservation purposes pursuant to Objective A-4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically with the provisions of LDR Section 4.5.1. Future Land Use Element Objective A-~4: The redevelopment of land and buildings shall provide - - _._ for the preservation of historic resources. The objective shall be met through continued adherence fo the Cify's Historic Preservation Ordinance and the fallowing policies: Future Land Use Element Policy Q-4. T : Prior to approval or recommending approval of any land use or development applicafion for property located within a hisforic district or designated as a historic site, the Historic Preservation Board must make a frnding thaf .the requested action is consistent with the provisions of Secfion 4.5.7 of the Land l7evelopmenf Regulafions relating to historic sites and districts and the "Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines': Relocation Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(5}, relocation ofi historic buildings and. structures to other sites shall not take place unless it is shown that their preservation on their existing or original -sites is nflt consistent with the purposes of this .Section or would cause undue economic hardship to the property owner. The existing structure on the site is a contributing structure to the Old ScFioof Square His#oric Iistrict; however, its historic setting has been drastically and irreversibly compromised by recent approvals fior the construction of a new four-story parking garage, the Block fig Office Building and the Worthing Place residential project. Further, the contributing structure on the property to the north was demolished and replaced. with a parking lot due to the irreparable structural damage caused by water ingress and neglect. While relocating a historic structure is preferable to demolition, relocation typically has a negative impact on historic districts. In this particular case, however, the historic character of the block has been lost. Although no documentation or financial disclosures have been submitted, the applicant has stated the following with regard to economic hardship: "There is now undue economic hardship to the property owner because as a residence if has decreased in value and is less desirable to live in due fo the additions of those buildings mentioned in A above". (The additions referred to are the parking garage, Block 69, and Worthing Place). Relocating the house will preserve it for the future and the applicant appears to have found a new site for it at 310 NE 15f Avenue in the Oid School Square Historic District. Mr. John Hock has submitted a letter stating he would like to relocate the structure and utilize it as a guest house at his property at 310 NE 1St Avenue. If approval is given for the relocation of the house, the fallowing conditions of approval must be met: (1) A COA application for relocating the house must be submitted by the prospective owner and the application must be approved by the HPB. 3v SEw ~`'`A~enue, 36 i=ir~t: 2008-0~,4-~PF"-i-iPa-Gi_5 ~IPB Meeting March 6, 2008 Page 11 nfi 20 (2) Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.3(Q)(2}, a guest eoftage shall not occupy more than 1120tH of the Eat area and in no case shall exceed a floor area of 700 square feet. The structure has a total floor area of 767 square feet with an unencfosed carport of 158 square feet. A waiver request for relief from this section of the LDRs will be required. (3) The house must be moved to an appropriate location such as a historic district. If the house is moved to a location outside a historic district, an application should be submitted for individual listing for its future protection. {4) Relocation does not take place until the permit for the redevelopment plans has been issued. LDR Sections 4.5.'I (E)(4, 7 and 8), "Development Standards" provides regulations in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness. (4) A historic site, or building, sfrucfure, site, improvemenf, or appurtenance wifhin a historic district shall be altered, restored, preserved, repaired, relocated, demolished, or otherwise changed in accordance with the Secretary of fhe interior's Standards for Rehabilifafion, as amended ~frorn time to time. The applicable Standards are as follows: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural feafures fo protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (Standard 9) New additions and adjacenf or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in fhe future, fhe essential form and integrity of the hisforic properly and ifs environment would be unimpaired.. (Standard 90J The overall design of the proposed structure is compatible with the Old School Square Historic District but is clearly differentiated from the historic building stack through the use of modern materials such as the standing seam metal roof, aluminum windows, and decorative aluminum shutters. The proposed structure is compatible in terms of massing, size, and scale as it is a two- story structure approximately 29.5' high and has a frontage of 50'_ The north and south facades are longer, measuring 121' 8" and 125' 4" respectively; however, their massing has been reduced. The north elevation massing is reduced by the projecting bays, the openings with metal grills and t#ie parking lot entrance and exit. The south elevation massing is reduced by the projecting bays, the openings with metal grills and the second floor exterior walkway. (7} The construction of new buildings or structures, or the relocafion, alteration, reconstruction, or major repair or maintenance of a non-confribufing building or sfrucfure within a designated historic district shall meef the same compatibilify standards as any material change in fhe exferior appearance of an existing non-contribufing building. Any material change in the exterior appearance of any existing non-contributing building, sfrucfure, or appurtenance in a designated historic district shall be generally compatible wifh the form, proportion, mass, configuration, building material, fexfure, color, and location of historic buildings, structures, or sites adjoining or reasonably approximate fo fhe non-confributing building, sfrucfure, or site. As noted above, the proposed structure is generally compatible with the historic buildings in the Old School Square Historic District. The proposal is generally compatible in terms of form, proportion, mass, material, texture, color, and location with the existing historic structures. (8) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances shalt be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in Perms of height, fronf fagade proportion, proportion of openings (windows and doors), rhythm of solids to voids on fronf facades, rhythm of buildings :, 36 SE 1"~~enue, 38 {~irst; 21108-Ofs4-SPF-i-tPiw3-C~,S HPB M~:etirsg March 6; 2008 Page 'f 2 of 20 on streets, rhythm of entrance and/or porch projections, relationship of materials, texture and color, roof shapes, walls of continuity, scale of building, directional expression of franc elevation. The proposed structure is generally compatible with the historic building stock in terms of height, front facade proportion, proportion of openings {windows and doors), rhythm of solids to voids on front facades, rhythm of buildings on streets, rhythm of entrance andlor porch projections, relationship of materials, texture and color, roof shapes, walls of continuity, scale of building, directional expression of front elevation. The scale of the proposed structure is larger than the historic building stack; however, this is most notable on the north and south facades and not the east (front} fagade. As stated above, the massing of the north and south facades has been successfully reduced. It should also be noted that the proposed structure is much smaller in scale than other recently approved structures on the block. Therefore, ositive findin scan be made with respect to the visual compatibility. The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines suggests the following: In a historic disfrict, consider the surrounding buildings and the compatibility of the addition in terms of size, scale, materials, mass and roof form. All new construction should complement the historic architecture of the district. Materials should be compatible in qualify, color, texture, finish, and dimension fo those commonly found in the historic district.. As stated above, the proposed structure is generally compatible with the surrounding buildings. Analysis As illustrated throughout the analysis of the above noted review criteria, the subject development proposal is generally compatible with the historic building stock in the Old School Square.Historic District. The lot coverage and scale are greater than those found in the historic building stock; however, the applicant has requested a variance for the greater lot coverage and the scale i5 not obvious from the front elevation and is smaller than other recently approved structures on the block. Based on the analysis above and provided throughout this section, positive findings can, be,.made with the respect to-those Hated LDRs in Section 4.5.1. ,: Rtw,QUIRFD FINDINGS .' Pursuant to Section 3.'1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is-part of the official record. This may be achieved through information on the application, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to the following four areas. FUTURE LAND USE MAP: The use or structures must be allowed in the zone district and the zoning district must be consistent with the land use designation. The subject property has a Future Land Use Map designation of Other Mixed Use {OMU} and a zoning designation of Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD). The OSSHA^ zoning district is consistent with the OMU isuture Land Use Map designation. Pursuant to tDR Section 4.4.24{B){3}, business, professional, medical, and governmental offices are permitted. Based upon the above, it is appropriate to make a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 3.1.1 {A}, Future Land Use Map Consistency. 3~ S~ ~'` Flvenue, 3~ i•=first; 20Q8-X64-SPF-HP~3-CLv NPB ~Jleeting PJlarch ~; 20€3 Page 13 of 2Q CONCURRENCY: Facilities which are provided by, or through, the City shall be provided #o new development concurrent with issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. These facilities shalt be provided pursuant to levels of service established within the Comprehensive Plan. Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested Land use andlor development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements in order to maintain the Levels of. Service Standards established in Table Cl-COP-1 of the adapted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Delray Beach. The development proposal is to relocate the existing residential unit and replace it with an office building. The aforementioned use will not have a negative impact with .respect to concurrency as they relate to traffic, parks and recreation, solid waste, drainage or schools. Appendix A contains information with respect to the applicable concurrency items. Section 3.1..1 B - Concurrenc As described in Appendix A, a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water, sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, solid waste, and schools. Section 3.1.1 {C) - Cansistency ~$tandardS for Site Plan Actions): As described in Appendix B, a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. Section 3.1.1 D - Com fiance With the Land Devela ment Re ulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis of this report; a positive finding of compliance. with the LDRs can be made. COMPREHEN, SIVE-.PLAN POLICIES: Fufure Land Use Element Objective A-7: Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensify is appropriate and complies in .terms of soil, fopographic, and other applicable physics! considerafians, is complimenfary fo adjacent-land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. As illustrated in the chart below, the abutting properties are all consistent with the subject property with regard to zoning designation and are generally compatible with regard to use_ Therefore, positive findings can be made with regard to Future Land Use Element Objective A-1. Zonirlp Designation Use North: (Central BusB ess District) Parking Lot South: OSSHAD Single Family Residential (Old School Square Historic Arts District) East: (Central. B s~ ess District) Commercial Wesf: OSSHAD Single Family Residential (Old School Square Historic Arts District} Future Land Use Element Polic C-1.2 The Cify shalt work with the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA} for the improvement of neighborhoods within the CRA boundaries. 30 S 1`'`Avenue, 3~ f=first; 20J8-D~i4-SPf"-HPf3-C~b HPf3 PJleetfng fvlarch 6, 200€3 fags 14 of 2t? The sub)ect property is located within the CRA boundaries. As noted above, the City shall work with the CRA to improve the areas within the CRA boundaries. s`S S~S ~ ENT ND, G!; ~VCLUSi[)N ~ ~ ~ .: ,.~ ~ ~.. The development proposal involves the relocation of a contributing structure and new construction of an office building. Removing a historic structure from a district does have an adverse effect on the districi as a whole; however, the setting of this structure has been adversely affected through recent demolitions and recent development approvals. Relocation of the structure to an appropriate setting will ensure its future continued use and protection. As Hated above, the proposed new office building is generally compatible with the historic building stock in the Old School Square Historic District. Positive findings can be made with respect to the proposal's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compliance with the criteria set forth in the l_DRs, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness, Class V site plan, landscape plan, design elements, waiver requests and variance requests for 36 SE 15t Avenue, 36 First, Old `School Square Historic District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in the t_and Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Presentation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject.,to the following conditions: 1. That sketches are provided of the proposed fencing and the decorative metal security gate on the east elevation. 2. That dimensions of the proposed signs are provided. 3. That elevations of the solid waste enclosure indicating height, gating and materials are provided. 4. That the height to the mean roof level is dimensioned and labeled on the drawings. 5. That the five foot (5') right-af--way dedication for SE 1St Avenue is accepted by the City Commission prior to site plan certification. 6. That the two foot (2') right-of-way dedication for the aEley is acce}~ted by the City Commission prior to site plan certification. 7. That the Site Plan and Engineering Technical Comments noted in the Staff Report be addressed. 8. That the Landscape Technical Comments noted in the Staff Report be addressed. 9. That a COA application for relocating the house is submitted by the prospective owner and the application is approved by the HPB. 14. That a waiver request for relie# from Section 4.3.3(Q)(2} of the LDRs regarding the maximum permitted size of a guest cottage (744 square feet} is submitted by the prospective owner of the house. 3S SE 1`'`Avenue. 36 Fiat; 2Gt38-i1~i4-SF'F-t-4P~3-=`.L~ FiPB ftee#fng "fiarch 6, 24b8 Pace 15 of 24 11. That the house is relocated to an appropriate location such as a historic district or, if the house is moved to a location outside a historic district, an application is submitted by the prospective owner for individual listing. 12. That relocation does not take place until the permit for the redevelopment plans has been issued. 13. That a detailed statement is submitted with revised plans explaining haw each of the aforementioned items has been addressed. C. Move denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness, Class V site plan, landscape plan, design elements, waiver requests, and variance requests for 36 SE 15t Avenue, 36 First, OId School Square Historic District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. .__ STA1=1= REC'O, MEND.`ATIO. By separate motions: Site Plan Approve the Certifcate of Appropriateness, Class V site plan, and landscape plan, for 36 SE 1St Avenue, 36 First, Old School Square Historic District, by adapting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, sub'ect to the follawin conditions: 1. That dimensions of the proposed signs are provided. 2. That elevations of the solid waste enclosure indicating height, ,gating and materials are provided. 3. That the height to the mean roof level is dimensioned and labeled on the drawings. 4. That the five foot {5') right-of--way dedication far SE 15t Avenue is accepted by the City Commission prior to site plan certification. 5. That the two foot (2'} right~ofi-way dedication for the alley is acceptdd by the City Commission prior to site plan certification. 6. That the Site Pian and Engineering Technical Comments noted in the Staff Report be addressed. 7. That the Landscape Technical Comments noted in the Staff Report be addressed. 8. That a COA application for relocating the house is submitted by the prospective owner and the application is approved by the HPB. 9. That a waiver request for relief from Section 4.3.3{Q)(2} of the LDRs regarding the maximum permitted size of a guest cottage (7'00 square feet} is submitted by the prospective owner of the house. 10. That the house is relocated to an appropriate location such as a historic district or, if the house is moved to a location outside a historic district, an application is submitted by the prospective owner for individual listing. 11. That relocation does not take place until the permit for the redevelopment plans has been issued. 12. That a detailed statement is submitted with revised plans explaining haw each of tide aforementioned items has been addressed. 3~ S;= 1``F`~ve~ue, 3f~ First: 2~,o8-~G~-SPF-f-IPt3-CL5 ~iPB Fvt~~ting March 6, 2~OF~ Pa€~~ 1~ of 20 Design Elements Approve the proposed design elements associated with the Certificate of Appropria#eness and Class V Site Plan for 3fi SE 1St Avenue, 36 First, Olcl School Square Historic District, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in the Land Development Regulations, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following condition: 1. That sketches are provided of the proposed fencing and the decorative metal security gate on the east elevation. Waiver Request Recommend approval to the City Commission for the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.9{D}{4}{d), to allow aone-way traffic circulation where atwo-way traffic flow must be used when perpendicular parking spaces are used, based on the ability to make positive findings, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7{B}{5}(a}-(d). Waiver Request Recommend approval to the City Commission far the waiver request to LDR Section to LDR Section 4.6.14(A){1), to .allow sight triangles measured at 5' 6" where twenty foot {20') sight triangles are required on both sides of an accessway formed by the intersection of each side of the accessway and the public right-of-way, based on the ability to make positive findings, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B){5){a)-(d). Waiver Request Recommend approval to the City Commission for the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.14(A){2}, to allow sight triangles measured at 15' 4" where forty foot {40'} sight triangles are required at a corner formed by the intersection of twa (2'} or more public rights-of-way, based on the ability to make positive findings, porsuant to LDR Section 2.4.7{B}(5)(a}-(d}. Variance Request Approve the variance request to LDR Section 4.3.4{K), to allow a lot coverage of 67.2% where the maximum lot coverage for OSSHAD is 40%, based on the ability to make positive findings, pursuant to LDR 5ections2.4.7{A)(5){a-f) and 4.5.1(J}(2){a)-(c). Variance Request Approve the variance request to LDR Section 4.3.4(x), to allow a reduced front yard setback of 5' 10n where the minimum required #ront setback for OSSHAD is 25', based on the ability to make positive findings pursuant to LDR Sections 2.4.7(A}{5)(a-f) and 4.5.1 {J)(2}(a}-(c}. Variance Request Approve the variance request to LDR Section 4.3.4{K), to allow for a reduced side street setback of 2' 2" where the minimum required side street setback is 15', based on the ability to make positive findings, pursuant to LDR Sections 2.4.7{A}(5)(a-f) and 4.5.1(J)(2)(a)-(c). Variance Request Approve the variance request to LDR Section 4.3.4{K}, to allow for a reduced side interior setback of 4' 10" where the minimum required side interior setback is 7.5', based on the ability to make positive findings, pursuant to LDR Sections 2.4.7(A)(5}{a-f} and 4.5.1 {J}(2}{a}-{c}. 3~i S~ 1-`~ven~e, 36 first; 20(18-0164-SPf=-~'PE3-~;LS HPB Meeting PJlarct~ G, 200€3 Page 'i 7 of 20 Reporf prepared by: Warren Adams Attachments: • Survey • Site Plan • Landscape Plan • Elevations • Existing Photos • Photos of Surrounding Properfies • Streetscape • Rendering • Letter from Mr. John Hock 3n ~E 1`'`Au~n~e, 3~ first; 2C08-~i64-SPA-f-IPI'3-C;LS HPB Muting March ~, 2C0£3 Page 18 of 2C ~ ~ X ,3 l'~ ~ ~~~µYC4 _~n' r C ~,-. Pursuant to Section 3.1.1 (B) Concurrency as defined pursuant to Objective 13-2 of the Puture Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use andlor development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision af, needed capital improvements for the following areas: Water and Sewer: • Water service exists via an 8~ water main along SE 1St Avenue. • Sewer service exists via an 8" sewer main along SE 1St Avenue, an 8" sewer main along the alley to the north of the property, and an 8" sewer main to the rear of the property. • Adequate fire suppression is provided via the fire hydrant to the south of the property, along SE 1St Avenue. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build- out. Based upon the above, positive Endings can be made with respect to this lave! of service standards. Drainage: A preliminary drainage plan has been submitted. There should be no impact on drainage as it relates to this level of service standard. Steeets and Traffic: The subject property is located within the TCEA, which, pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, exempts development proposals from submitting a traffic study. However, a traffic statement<was submitted which indicates tha# the proposed development will result in an increase of seventeen (17) am peak trips and twenty {20) pm peak trips. Parks and Open Space: Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.2, whenever a development is proposed upon land which is not designated for park purposes in the Comprehensive- Plan, a fee of $500.00 per residential unit per dwelling unit regardless of the size or occupancy of the unit must be collected prior to issuance of building permits for each unit. No residential units are proposed. Solid Waste: The proposal calls for the construction of office space. Trash generated each year by the development will be 14.24 tons of solid waste per year (Office - 5,274 square feet x 5.4 pounds 28,480).- However, the Solid Waste Authority has indicated that its facilities have sufficient capacity to handle all development proposals until the year 2024, thus a positive Ending with respect to this level of service standard can be made. Schools: A School Concurrency Application is not required. 3~ S~ 1`~~venue, 3~ first; 208-t3G4-SPt~-t-fPQ-~;LS HPE3 i~1P.ef-sng fJlarc fi; 20(18 Pace 'E9 of 2~ -~--~- APi ~E DIX`>;~ ~ ,, STA iS', FOR lT ~ A' ~'CTaONS A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare} shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does nat meet intent B, Separation of different forms of transporta#ion shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclic#s, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X - A bicycle rack has been prodded. Does n'ot meet intent C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed Nat applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent D. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result i`n a degradation of the neighborhood, the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shall be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent [=. Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in #erms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining Land use needs. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent G. Redevelopment and the development of new land shat! result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shad continue tv accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's:, 3f 8E 1'` ~~enue. 3~i i-irat; 2GG8-GGh-SPf=-1-EP}3-£:,L~ HPB P~teeting tvlarch 6, 2GtI8 Page 2f3 0'€ 2G demographic profile, and meet the housing needs identifed in the Housing Element. This shall be accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Nat applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent H. The City shall consider the effect that the' proposal will have on the stability of nearby ne'ighbnrhoods. l=actors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will resu[# in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall 6e modified accordingly or denied. -Nat applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent L Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with -such development would create a r~ew high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to b'ecom'e a High accident location, without such developmen# taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not applicable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and. recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teerES, shall be a feature of all new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households. having a ravage of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified far residential developments located in the downtown area, and for infill projects having fewer than 25 llnitS. Not applicable X Meets intent of standard Does not -meet intent r =n>' ~;'~ ~ ~ti. -, - ~~ . ""7`~A - -. r C fir 1i Yr § f tea;. ~, 5.~._ ~ >~ r :.f ~ .5 . -1 ~~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ x ~ A r ~~~~~ ~. ~ ~ ~,~ 5J • .a~ c 1 Y'7 Y y .~ r 'J - l~ ~~. ~~5 - ~.:-n' ly'3F 3'e~ ~~ ~' ».~. =e >1~ ~ ,n `~ 1 >.. .^r •: ...~ t .. :.>~:r - ' ~ S .,'.~ `i:4. ~r ~~ .~, ~. 4:. ~. . eh p'. - ,~ - i,. s ti ~a,~, 1~,1i5a/j; F5a' ., .- ~. a. ~ ~ ~1 - ~~ ~' - ~~~- ~F z, ~'va~~~~ ~-_~~ °'~ 4t «bv~t`~ - - rG, ~~I j,„y~ry~ 4q :'. Lt'6+~~4.`f~'{Sku ~tl -.-wHr +nx _ ~,. '.w 1 -' t ~YS.~}:53.,,." i ~ i ~' ~ f ' _ rf `/+y ~'~ Nr L! 4 - i,3 _'~•4 ~ 1 1 ~ ~ _ ~~i "~1 Ft~S~' IN ,. h:Y ..' r - h 5~ rt~~ cjh ' ~ ~~~ ' rw1 1W (a }~. r - ' 'h i t.. .i1, .I ,~t L . .5_ ~. ~~• r ~r =r '~ ,.~ ~.-, ~- ~~ :.: .. 6 1 _ ~ ~~ ~ a ,e,. ~~: • - ~ ~ - ~ s,~r. 'i f,, ., spa ~ e ~,~~ ~ = ' ,~ r kt`r+~<, '~•=pry 4 ~~i'e~~<~vt~, tl~` ! ~ Y ~~r.-' ~:~ ...~• '~~+,it3?4~a-. - ~s. -~ 4, ter} a iw i ~~i4 t ?,~ - ~ a 1 1 4~ 1a N a? W`-y, ~' - This " R`~". .. -.:~,;~`.i c'_ ~~ -w: ~. -moo ~?'~.. ~ 7kcY;~e- ~r it r ~ x'•'s~ ~ F'~'~ } ! r< ~. -. `~ r s''~~~"~ ' ~~~`,"r of ..y -x.4 -, sz ~yd~- ~ :. of ~'~`. , ~ - ' 'µF"f y -,~~~ - ;~w# v9`'F ~ ~~ '. `s..,.y,~, S~~}~ir~ i'~' ~ ~ ',rti ~. ~ L Ala ~'~' 4~ __.i°'~ ~~~ ~p, +.+ . SS a s~s~ -, > >~~",kde~d, ar'~~"6' ,5515 4p~~ g~ ~ a 4 ~ -'''-~i ~ i lz ~ r 1y~ ' - t i', ~~~ ~ '~:,~'~ ~ -t,.~"eYe155"'r yf~ -~AT`teYh 5° f T ~:4.¢ ~ «ks ~~`^'~,.„.-,,.--_-•" ~ I - xC•k ; ; y Ana' " ""r~~.~~".-~~ fi ~~~~W,-;~sY;?~t~~~ ~ ~` ~g k .1,1115 , "'g' ~ 4. , a~- F x rssa3't_ '~~ fik' ~' `ll5 i ' ~~ '~ ~n..,S'~c} ri ,n~v~ ; F did qyp s 5 x~- 4 v ~~ yr ~ _ `5.11 ~ 4 y, 5i. ~{,1, ~-~„r~e ~"Y^l;'~ [ a~ A'i, ~, ~;a~ fir. a S u ~' ~ fi k f`a ;~ a'xy-gs3i ~. ~~ ~ t r. - °'s~ ~ ~~ ML x 'r 4 ~ yy~y' ,Ys. W 'n. _ a h. _ bar; ~' ~ ~' S~ ~ ~ ' • E~~-<. ~`~ya`{~y~'~ ,f~ ` 5~~°•~ ;ate ~~~~ a x4ry~} F _'- .~ r ,d'~ o ? t~e " h{ ~5~ t~ to I~ ,yi K ,~C. 5 "~ 1 f' ~ ~k~.~ i,`~''`s.' h. s ~ J 4. ,,~c~. y'i ~ ~~4~{"5.„g .~r~~~~ ~~~s~N~' t .1 ~ V:Fnig~4,~` ! ~` 5 `.~ ~ 64~ ~G~i• w W ~ I1 ~ Q a a c~ c~ z ~G~ a a a a w ~. 0 c~ a N r ILE N m t+! r, S r o Q ~ u O 0 Q w J W 0 W r~ V ~..~,~.~ 0 ~~ ~_ Z 0 w W i.~ 0 w ~i 3 Q ~~ C ~, i 0 {n n 0 ^ u 1_ c N ~ ~Q L ~~ a° ~~ 10 d e~ _~ L O (j ti ~ U ~ a0 U ~ •L ~ ~~ ~~~ ©~~ ~~ Qo m LL ~ ~ o T ~ N L W ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 7 A T L A N T I C w ~' .. 1 S.W. s.w. }sT sr. F ~z~ z~ A V E N U E ~~ S.E. 0 z N W ~ ~ 3RD sr. ST. N SUBJECT PROPERTY J~ 12-43-a6-16-01-069-oi6t 36 SE 1ST AVENUE qTY OF OELRAY BEACH, ~ ,~ ~.- ~~: L.QCATI4N MAP PLANNING k 20NING OEPAftTMENT ---~ D!ClTAL B9SE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: 5:\Plonning &Toning\OBMS\FEe-Cab\2-LM 1001-15DD\LM1061_36 SE fst. Avenue 2Nfl ST. 3RD ST. ' 16 ~ 88. .. ~1.. an .. _.~ . ~ 'D~SIGN'• BUILD Biuli~ing HoMes & Relntianshtpa Genrrnl C.onuaaor CCC 056334 October ~2, 207 ~.ezi~~ rwt-,~ are n~ . 31~ N.~. IstAvenue • DelrayBearh Florida a344A • P3f,ane (bbl) 276-8687 ^ Fax (SG3j z76-821G Tf7TAl P Gib VIIEINER, ARONSON & MANKOFF, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 S.E. 15t Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Teiephane: (561 } 265-2666 Telecopier: (561) 272-6831 E-mail: jmankoff@zanelaw.com MICHAEL S, WEINER CAROLEJ.ARONSON JASON S. MANKOFF KERRY D. SAFIER STEPHEN B. GEBELOFF May 20, 2008 Ms. Chevelle Nubirt City Clerk The City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Mr. Paul Dorling Director of Planning and Zoning City of Delray Beach 100 N_W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Re: 36 S.E. '!St Ave. Our File No.: ZENJ008 Dear Chevelle and Paul: With respect to the above referenced property, we respectfully request a tabling of the appeal to the City Commission of the Historic Preservation Board decision until the Auqust 5, 2008 City Commission meeting. We are also respectfully requesting that Ordinance No. 31-07, to add lots 16, 17 and 18, less the 75' thereof, Block 69, Town of Delray, to the list of lots within the OSSHAD zoning district that can be developed pursuant to the uses and development standards of the CBD zoning district, be tabled until the Auqust 19, 2008 City Commission meeting. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, Jason S. Mankoff JSM: ek cc: Susan Ruby, Esquire (via hand delivery) Mr: Jim Zengage (via a-mail) Mr. Francisco Perez (via a-mail) Michael S. Weiner, Esquire Ms. Ashlee L. Vargo ~~ ~~ ~,.W,~..~.._ ~ MAY 2 0 2008 Pi.~1~J~iF~~ ~ ~v~li'~~ O:IZENJ0081Letter to Nubin and Dorling re postponement. May 20. 2008.doc IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ON THE APPEAL FOR 36 SE 1ST AVENUE 1. This appeal of the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the new construction of a 10,739 square foot, two-story office building located at 36 SE 1st Avenue has come before the City Commission on June 3, 2008. The appeal also addresses a waiver and a variance. 2. The Appellants, Appellee and City staff presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the appeal of the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the new construction of a 10,739 square foot, two- story office building located at 36 SE 1st Avenue and waivers associated therewith. Also denied was a variance request. All of the evidence is part of the record in this case. Required findings are made in accordance with Subsections I, II, III, IV, V and VI. I. LDR REQUIREMENTS: A. LDR Section 4.5.1(E)(8)(a-k), "Development Standards" provides guidelines in evaluating Certificates of Appropriateness for the alteration or addition of exterior architectural features. Are these guidelines met? Yes No II. DELRAY BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES: Have the overall objectives of the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines been met? Yes No III. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION: Have the overall objectives of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation been met? Yes No IV. WAIVERS: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(6)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) shall not create an unsafe situation; and (d) does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. A. Maneuvering Area, Aisle Width, Space Width Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D)(4)(d), two-way traffic flow must be used when perpendicular parking spaces are used. A waiver to allow aone-way traffic flow system is requested. Should the applicant's appeal of the decision by HPB denying the applicant's waiver for aone-way traffic flow system be granted? Yes No B. Sight Visibility at Entrance/Exit to Parking Lot Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(1), twenty foot (20') sight triangle is required on both sides of an accessway formed by the intersection of each side of the accessway and the public right-of-way. The proposed sight triangles at the car park entrance and exit are five feet six inches (5'6"). Should the applicant's appeal of the decision by HPB denying the applicant's waiver for 5'6" sight triangle be granted? Yes No C. Sight Visibility at Intersection Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2), a forty foot (40') sight triangle is required at a corner formed by the intersection of two (2) or more public rights-of-way. The proposed sight triangle at the northeast corner of the property at the junction of SE 1St Avenue and the alley is fifteen feet four inches (15'4"). 2 Should the applicant's appeal of the decision by HPB denying the applicant's waiver for 15'4" sight triangle at the intersection of SE 1St Avenue and the alley be granted? Yes No V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: A. Future Land Use Map/Future Land Use Element Objective A-1: Is the property developed/redeveloped so that the future use and intensity is appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complementary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs and is consistent with the Land Use Map? Yes No B. Concurrence: Objective B-2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan requires that development not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas. Are the concurrency requirements met with respect to water, sewer, drainage, streets and traffic, parks, open space, solid waste and schools? Yes No C. Consistence: Will the granting of the Certificate of Appropriateness be consistent with and further the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan? Yes No VI. VARIANCES: A. LDR Section 2.2.6(D)(6), Act in lieu of Board of Adjustment. The Historic Preservation Board shall act in lieu of the board of Adjustment and is empowered to grant variances from existing ordinances for properties designated as historic sites, within designated historic districts or listed on the Local Register of Historic Places. In addition, the Board is empowered to grant variances from the sign code for those nonconforming signs which existed at the time of enactment of the sign code and relief to Section 4.6.16 through the waiver process [Section 2.4.7(8)]. 3 B. LDR Section 4.5.1 (J)(3), The Board shall otherwise follow all procedures and impose conditions as required of the Board of Adjustments. C. LDR Section 2.2.4(D)(8). All decisions of the Board of Adjustment are final. Any person or persons, or any Board, Taxpayer, Department, Board, or Bureau of the City may aggrieve any decision of the Board of Adjustment and may seek review of such decision in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County. Does the City Commission have the jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a variance? Yes No 3. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan and LDR requirements in existence at the time the original site plan was submitted. 4. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained in the record including but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses supporting these findings. 5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves denies the appeal (and thus the Historic Preservation Board denial remains in full force and effect) and associated waivers therewith hereby adopts this Order this day of June, 2008, by a vote of in favor and opposed. ATTEST: Rita Ellis, Mayor Chevelle Nubin City Clerk 4 (8) All improvements to buildings, structures, and appurtenances within a designated historic district shall be visually compatible. Visual compatibility shall be determined in terms of the following criteria: (a) Height: The height of proposed buildings or modifications shall be visually compatible in comparison or relation to the height of existing structures and buildings. (b) Front Fapade Proportion: The front fagade of each building or structure shall be visually compatible with and in direct relationship to the width of the building and to the height of the front elevation of other adjacent or adjoining buildings within a historic district. (c) Proportion of Openings (Windows and Doors): The openings of any building within a historic district shall be visually compatible with the openings exemplified by the prevailing historic architectural styles within the district. The relationship of the width of windows and doors to the height of windows and doors among buildings within the district shall be visually compatible. (d) Rhythm of Solids to Voids; Front Facades: The relationship of solids to voids in the front fagade of a building or structure will be visually compatible with the front facades of historic buildings or structures within the district. (e) Rhythm of Buildings on Streets: The relationship of buildings to open space between them and adjoining buildings shall be visually compatible with the relationship between historic sites, buildings, or structures within a historic district. (f) Rhythm of Entrance and/or Porch Projections: The relationship of entrances and porch projections to the sidewalks of a building shall be visually compatible with the prevalent architectural styles of entrances and porch projections on historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. (g) Relationship of Materials, Texture, and Color: The relationship of materials, texture, and color of the fagade of a building shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in the historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. (h) Roof Shapes: The roof shape of a building or structure shall be visually compatible with the roof shape of a historic site, building, or structure within a historic district. (i) Walls of Continuity: Appearances of a building or structure such as walls, wrought iron, fences, evergreen landscape masses, or building facades, shall form cohesive walls of enclosure along a street to insure visual compatibility of the building to historic buildings, structures, or sites to which it is visually related. (j) Scale of a Building: The size of a building, the building mass in relation to open spaces, windows, door openings, balconies, and porches shall be visually compatible with the building size and building masse of historic sites, buildings, and structures within a historic district. (k) Directional Expression of Front Elevation: A building shall be visually compatible with the buildings, structures and sites in its directional character, whether vertical, horizontal, or nondirectional. 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Estelio Breto, Senior Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: City Manager DATE: May 30, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL ACTION REQUEST/OFFICE DEPOT/CVS PHARMACY BUILDINGS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Reconsideration of the appeal of SPRAB's approval of special action request for a parking reduction associated with the proposed Office Depot -CVS building (parking reduction of 56 spaces - 155 parking spaces required, 99 parking spaces provided). LDR Section 4.6.9(F)(1), allows a parking reduction by the body which acts on the attendant site plan upon receipt and acceptance of special documentation that demonstrates a reduced number of parking spaces will accommodate a specific use. BACKGROUND The subject property is 2.32 acres and is located on the west side of NE 6th Avenue between NE 8th Street (George Bush Boulevard) and NE 7th Street (700 NE 6th Avenue). At its meeting of February 27, 2008 the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board reviewed and approved the Class V site plan, landscape, and architectural elevations associated with the construction of a 19,000 sq. ft. Office Depot and a 13,012 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy. The Board approved an accompanying special action request to reduce the required parking spaces by 62 spaces (from the 155 parking spaces required to the 93 parking spaces provided), based on receipt and acceptance of special documentation that demonstrated a reduced number of parking spaces would accommodate these specific uses. On March 3, 2008, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board's action was appealed by the City Commission at the request of staff. The proposed basis of the appeal was that the action taken by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDR). The City Commission overturned the SPRAB approval of the special action request to reduce required parking, and instead gave some indication that they would support a reduction to the parking requirement for 56 parking spaces if changes related to access on George Bush Boulevard were made. The City Commission also requested that the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board reconsider the modified special action request (reduction from 62 to 56 spaces) prior to final action by City Commission. Since the appeal by the City Commission the applicant has provided additional information which provides for the installation of six new spaces along NE 7th Street, as well as the utilization and improvement to twenty (20) spaces which exist (although they are not delineated) on the west side of southbound Federal Highway. At its meeting of Apri123, 2008 the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board, at the request of the City Commission, reconsidered and approved a special action request to reduce the required parking spaces by 56 spaces (from the 155 parking spaces required to the 99 parking spaces provided), and also re- approved the Class V site plan subject to conditions that are listed in the attached SPRAB staff report. The SPRAB Board postponed the landscape plan and architectural elevations associated with the construction of the project and gave direction to the applicant to resubmit the landscape plan, photometric plan, and architectural elevations for separate approvals. At its meeting of May 28, 2008 the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board will reconsider the elevations for the Office Depot and CVS Pharmacy building and these actions will be reported to the City Commission. RECOMMENDATION Approve the reduction to parking spaces required pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9 (C) (3) (a), by 56 spaces (from the 155 parking spaces required to the 99 parking spaces provided), subject to the following conditions: 1. That the property be occupied and utilized by an office supply use and a pharmacy use in accordance with the approved application for the project; 2. That a voluntary deed restriction (requiring provision of additional parking or relief with a change of tenant) and the on-site restriction between uses be included in the CVS and Office Depot leases; 3. That in the event one or both uses vacate the property, Centres, its successors and assigns, shall be restricted to leasing that portion of the property so vacated to a permissible use that does not require additional parking demands over and above that which is currently required; 4. That in the event that any proposed new use on the property creates a greater demand for parking than that which is currently required, Centres shall be required to submit any and all proposed new uses for review by the City to ensure that parking requirements are satisfied; 5. That in the event that a waiver is required for any proposed use, Centres shall file an application for a waiver and the City may or may not grant such waiver; 6. That the City Commission approval of the special action request to reduce required parking by 56 parking spaces is based on a prorated square footage, that 55 of the 99 spaces provided, shall be allocated to office supply use (which is a waiver of 31 spaces) and 44 spaces to the pharmacy use (which is a waiver of 25 spaces); That in the event one of the uses ceases, the remaining use shall continue to operate with the spaces allocated subject to the City's waiver and any new use shall be required to comply with the City's current parking regulations, unless a waiver is granted. If both uses cease, then any new use shall be required to comply with the City's current parking regulations. IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ON A RECONSIDERATION OF THE MARCH 18, 2008 COMMISSION DECISION UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE 2/27/08 SPRAB APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL ACTION REQUESTED BY OFFICE DEPOT/CVS 1. The City Commission voted to reconsider its decision of March 18, 2008 upholding the appeal (which had the effect of denying the parking reduction) of SPRAB's February 27, 2008 approval of the special action request. Office Depot/CVS came before the City Commission on April 15 seeking a reconsideration. The City Commission agreed on April 15, 2008 that it would reconsider its decision after remanding the matter to SPRAB for review. At its April 23~d 2008 meeting SPRAB approved the revised special action to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 155 to 99. The appeal being reconsidered is scheduled for June 3~d, 2008 and is now before the City Commission for a hearing on the appeal. 2. The City staff, applicant, and other persons have presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the special action request of Office Depot/CVS. All of the evidence is part of the record in this case. 3. Waivers: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(8)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) shall not create an unsafe situation; and (d) does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. 4. Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(3)(a), "General Commercial Uses shall provide 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area which includes retail floor area, associated warehouse and storage floor area, and employee and management facilities." The applicant desires to reduce the parking spaces at the Office Depot/CVS building located at 700 NE 6th Avenue by 56 spaces (from 155 spaces to 99 spaces (93 on site and 6 on street spaces for a total of 99), which equates to a waiver of 31 spaces for the office supply use and a waiver of 25 spaces for the pharmacy use). The proposed Office Dept building contains 19,000 square feet and the proposed CVS building contains 13,012 square feet. Pursuant to Section 4.6.9(F)(1), "Reduction allowed, when, upon receipt and acceptance of special documentation, it is conclusively demonstrated that a reduced number of parking spaces will accommodate a specific use, the body which acts on the attendant site plan may reduce the parking requirements accordingly." Should the revised special action request to reduce the required parking spaces from 155 to 99, subject to the following conditions listed below be approved? Yes No The Property shall be occupied and utilized by an office supply use and a pharmacy use (collectively referred to herein as the "Uses") in accordance with the approved Application for the Project. In the event one or both Uses vacate the Property, Centres, its successors and assigns, shall be restricted to leasing that portion of the Property so vacated to a permissible use that does not require additional parking demands over and above that which is currently required. In the event any proposed new use on the Property creates a greater demand for parking than that which is currently required, Centres shall be required to submit any and all proposed new uses for review by the City in order to ensure that the City's parking requirements are satisfied. In the event a waiver is required for any such proposed new use, Centres shall file an application for a parking waiver to demonstrate that the parking impacts of the proposed new use have been addressed. However, it is understood that the City may or may not grant the waiver. The City Commission has agreed to waive the parking requirement for 56 parking spaces, Thus, based on prorated square footages, 55 of the 99 spaces provided, shall be allocated to office supply use( which is a waiver of 31 spaces) and 44 spaces to the pharmacy use( which is a waiver of 25 spaces). In the event one of the Uses ceases, the remaining Use shall continue to operate with 2 the spaces allocated subject to the City's waiver and any new use shall be required to comply with the City's current parking regulations, unless a waiver is granted. If both Uses cease then any new use shall be required to comply with the City's current parking regulations, unless a waiver is obtained. City shall have the right to approve, approve with conditions or deny any future proposed uses on the Property that does not meet the then current City parking requirements. The conditions referenced above shall be effective upon approval of this order. The Restrictive Covenant, including the aforementioned conditions, substantially in the form as Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and as approved by the City Attorney's office shall be recorded upon the closing of the sale of the property to Centres Delray, LLC and no building permits shall be issued until such recording. 5. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan and LDR requirements in existence at the time the original site plan was submitted. 6. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained in the record including but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses which supports the findings set forth in this Order. 7. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves denies the special action request, subject to the conditions listed, and hereby adopts this Order this 3~d day of June, 2008, by a vote of in favor and opposed. Rita Ellis, Mayor ATTEST: Chevelle Nubin City Clerk 3 EXHIBIT "A" TO COMMISSION ORDER Return to: (enclose self-addressed stamped envelope) Name: Scott E. Backman, Esq. Address: Siegel, Lipman, Dunay, Shepard, &Miskel, LLP 5355 Town Center Road Suite 801 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 This Instrument Prepared by and return to: Scott E. Backman, Esq. Siegel, Lipman, Dunay, Shepard, &Miskel, LLP 5355 Town Center Road Suite 801 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR PROCESSING DATA SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR PROCESSING DATA DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS This Declaration of Restrictive Covenants ("Covenant"), made this day of March, 2008, by Centres Delray, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, having an address of 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard, Miami, FL 33156 ("Centres"), shall be for the benefit of the City of Delray Beach, a Florida Municipal Corporation, with a post office address of 100 N.W. 1St Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444 ("City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Centres is the fee simple owner of approximately 2.3 acres of land located at 700 N.E. 6th Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto ("Property"); and WHEREAS, Centres made application to the City for the approval of a site plan application, which included a waiver request for a reduction in the parking requirement ("Application"); and WHEREAS, Centres intends to develop the Property with an office supply use (19,000 square foot Office Depot, which, under the City's parking requirements would 4 need to furnish 86 parking spaces) and a pharmacy use (13,012 square foot CVS Pharmacy, which, under the City's parking requirements would need to furnish 69 parking spaces) for a total of 155 spaces ("Project"); and WHEREAS, while the City's parking requirements for the Project require 155 parking spaces, Centres' Application proposes 93 on-site parking spaces and 6 off-site parking spaces for a total of 99 parking spaces for the Project; and WHEREAS, in order to satisfy concerns related to parking demands for potential future users of the Property, the City requested Centres to enter into this Covenant to govern the future utilization of the Property as described herein; and WHEREAS, Centres agrees to grant this Covenant to the City, and the City agrees to accept this Covenant in order to govern future development on the Property following final approval of the Application for the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants herein contained, Centres hereby declares that the Property specifically referenced herein shall be owned, held, used, transferred, sold, conveyed, demised and occupied subject to the covenants, restrictions, and regulations hereinafter set forth, all of which shall run with such property and any part thereof and which shall be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in such property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns. 1. Recitations. The recitations set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Covenant by this reference. 2. Use Restrictions. Upon approval of the Application for the Project, use of the Property identified on Exhibit "A" shall be governed as follows: (a) The Property shall be occupied and utilized by an office supply use and a pharmacy use (collectively referred to herein as the "Uses") in accordance with the approved Application for the Project. (b) In the event one or both Uses vacate the Property, Centres, its successors and assigns, shall be restricted to leasing that portion of the Property so vacated to a permissible use that does not require additional parking demands over and above what is currently required for the Project. (c) In the event any proposed new use on the Property creates a greater demand for parking than what is currently required for the Project, Centres shall be required to submit any and all proposed new uses for 5 review by the City in order to ensure that the City's parking requirements are satisfied. In the event a waiver is required for any such proposed new use, Centres shall file an application for a parking waiver to demonstrate that the parking impacts of the proposed new use have been addressed. However, it is understood that the City may or may not grant the waiver. The City Commission has agreed to waive the parking requirement for 56 parking spaces, Thus, based on prorated square footages, 55 of the 99 spaces provided shall be allocated to the office supply use (which is a waiver of 31 spaces) and 44 spaces to the pharmacy use (which is a waiver of 25 spaces). The offsite parking spaces shall be shared equally now and if a new use is established. In the event one of the Uses ceases, the remaining Use shall continue to operate with the spaces allocated subject to the City's waiver, and any new use shall be required to comply with the City's current parking regulations unless a waiver is granted. If both Uses cease then any new use shall be required to comply with the City's current parking regulations. (d) Nothing contained herein shall in any way impact the parking rights approved for the Project with regard to either of the original Uses, providing one or both Uses continue to exist on the Property. (e) City shall have the right to approve, approve with conditions or deny any future proposed uses on the Property that does not meet the then current City parking requirements. 3. Amendments. This Covenant shall not be further modified, amended or released as to any portion of the Property except by written instrument, executed by the then owner or owners of the portion of the Property affected by such modification, amendment, or release and approved in writing by the City. The appropriate governmental authority of the City shall execute a written instrument effectuating and acknowledging such modification, amendment or release. Any amendment, modification or release of the Covenant shall be recorded in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. 4. Recordation and Effective Date. This Covenant shall be recorded in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida by Centres at its sole cost and expense upon closing on the Property. The Covenant shall not become effective until the Covenant is recorded in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. 5. Severability. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall declare any section, paragraph, or part thereof invalid or unenforceable, then such judgment or 6 decree shall have no effect on the enforcement or validity of any other section, paragraph or part hereof, and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 6. Captions, Headings and Titles. Articles and paragraph captions, headings and titles inserted throughout this Covenant are intended as a matter of convenience only and in no way shall such captions, headings or titles define, limit or in any way affect the subject matter or any of the terms and provisions thereunder of the terms and provisions of this Covenant. 7. Context. Whenever the context requires, any pronoun used herein may be deemed to mean the corresponding masculine, feminine or neuter form thereof, and the singular form of any nouns or pronouns herein may be deemed to mean the corresponding plural form thereof and vice versa. 8. Enforcement. The City shall have all rights allowed under law to enforce this Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Centres has executed this Covenant on the day first above written: WITNESSES: CENTRES (Signature) Print name: (Signature) Print name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF SS. CENTRES DELRAY, LLC., a Florida limited liability company Print Name: Title: Address: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of March, 2008, by , as of Centres Delray, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, freely and voluntarily on behalf of said corporation. He/She is personally known to me or has produced as identification or is known to me personally. NOTARY PUBLIC: Typed, printed or stamped name of Notary Public 8 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION 6ElNAY BEACH ,~~ .,~,~ 1993 200t Agent: SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD MEMORADUM STAFF. REPORT Project Name: Project Location: onxnra~ccw I ~ ~~ ~) 7993 2607 Heidi Belle Henderson, Sun-Tech Engineering, Inc. Office Depot and CVS Pharmacy Buildings West side of NE 6th Avenue between NE 8th Street (George Bush Boulevard) and NE 7th Street {700 NE 6th Avenue). Ww__ ~a..---~:.: _ . ~~.' ~_IT,.€.I~EEFORE TH~~.BOARD Note: Revisions are reflected in this report in boldface italics for updated information. The substance is unchanged; the revisions clarify City Commission action taken. The item before the Board is reconsideration of the C{ass V site plan, and a revised parking reduction special action request for Office Depot and CVS Pharmacy Buildings pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(F}, 4.6.9 (C){3}(A), Section 4.6.9(F)(1). V ~~ _ ~,. '""BAG~(G'ROUNDIA~ALYSIS Background At its meeting of February 20, 2008 the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board {SPRAB} reviewed and recommended approval of five waiver requests, and approved a special action parking reduction request, a Class V site plan, landscape plan, and architectural elevations for the Office Depot and CVS Pharmacy Buildings project. The development proposal included the construction of a 13,203 sq. ft. CVS building with adrive-thru lane on the northwest side of the property, and a 19,002 sq. ft. Office Depot building on the southeast side of the property. At its meeting of March 18, 2008, the City Commission appealed the SPRAB approval of the special action request to reduce the parking spaces required pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C}(3}(A), by 62 spaces (from 155 parking spaces required to the 93 spaces provided), for the Office Depot and CVS Pharmacy buildings. Since. the appeal by the City Commission of the special action request to reduce the required parking, the applicant has provided additional information responding to City Commission direction with respect to on-street parking, and has provided plans which show the installation of six new spaces along NE 7th Street, as well as the utilization and improvement to spaces which exist (although they are not delineated) on the west side of southbound Federal Highway. The Cify Commission appealed SPRAB approval of fhe reducfion to parking spaces required pursuant fo LDR Section 4.fi.9(C)(3)(a), buf gave instructions to modify fhe reduction to 5fi spaces (from the origina162 spaces), subject to the following conditions: Meeting Date: April 23, 2aa8 Agenda Item: V.A. SPRAB Meeting Date: April 23, 2008 Office Depot and CVS Pharmacy Buildings Reconsideration of Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, & Architectural Elevations Page 2 '[ . That the property be occupied and utilized by an office supply use and a pharmacy use in accordance with the approved application for the project; 2. That a voluntary deed restriction (requiring provision of parking ar relief with a change of tenant) and the on-site restriction between uses be included in the CVS and Office Depot leases; 3. That in the event one or both uses vacate the property, Centres, its successors and assigns, shall be restricted to leasing that portion of the property so vacated to a permissible use that does not require additional parking demands over and above that which is currently required; 4. That in the event that any proposed new use on the property creates a greater demand far parking than that which is currently required, Centres shall be required to submit any and all proposed new uses for review by the City to ensure that parking requirements are satisfied; 5. That in the event that a waiver is required for any proposed use, Centres shall file an application for a waiver and the City may or may not grant such waiver; 6. The City Commission appealed the SPRAB approval of fhe special action request fo reduce required parking, and instead supported a reduction to fhe parking requirement for 56 parking spaces, based on a prorated square footage, fhaf 55 of the 99 spaces provided, shall be allocafed fo office supply use (which is a waiver of 31 spaces) and 44 spaces to the pharmacy use (which is a waiver of 25 spacesj; 7. That in the event one of the uses ceases, the remaining use shall continue to operate with the spaces allocated subject to the City's waiver and any new use shall be required to comply with the City's current parking regulations, unless a waiver is granted. If both uses cease, then any new use shall be required to comply with the City's current parking regulations. The City Commission also had a concern with regard to the increase traffic congestion that the drive-way exit located along the north property line will generate along George Bush Boulevard. The Commission requested the elimination of the drive-way exit and conditioned the project to revise the development proposal and obtain site plan modification approval from the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB). Site Plan: The applicant has submi#ted revised plans to address the City Commission's concerns. The following changes to the site plan have been proposed: • The applicant has eliminated the exit-only driveway located along NE 8~h street (aka George Bush Boulevard); ~SPRAl3 Meeting Date: April 23, 2008 Office Depot and CVS Pharmacy Buildings Reconsideration of Class V Site Pfan, Landscape Plan, & Architectural Elevations Page 3 • The drive-thru lane for the CVS building has been redesigned to include an on-site turn- around that complies with the Fire Department requirements, and thus, provides adequate turning radii; • The CVS Building loading bay and dumpster have been relocated with the new design of the CVS drive-thru lane and can now be accessed more adequately; • The proposed Office Depot building dumpster has been replaced with a trash compactor; • Seven parallel parking spaces with landscape nodes have been provided along NE 7fn Street and twenty (20~ parallel parking spaces with landscape nodes have provided along the west side of NE 5 n Avenue. Additional background and a complete analysis of the original development proposal is found in the attached SPRAB report. Conclusion The development proposal will be consistent with Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations provided the conditions of approval are addressed. The conditions of approval from the original staff report are included in staffs recommendation referenced below. =~ ~ R~~QMiltlEND/~Tt~~._--_____...~_'~_"' - .= ~._ ~. ~. ,~ -- By Separate Motions: Special Action Req„pest: Move approval of the reduction to parking spaces required pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9 (C) (3} (a), by 56 spaces (from the 155 parking spaces required to the 99 parking spaces provided), based on LDR Section 4.6.9(F)(1), which allows a parking reduction upon receipt and acceptance of special documentation that demonstrates a reduced number of parking spaces will accommodate a specific use, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall provide on-street parking along NE 7tn Street and NE Stn Avenue in coordination with the City Engineer and Planning Department; 2. That the property be occupied and utilized by an office supply use and a pharmacy use in accordance with the approved application for the project; 3. That a voluntary deed restriction (requiring provision of parking or reliefi with a change of tenant} and the on-site restriction between uses be included in the CVS and Office Depot leases and this be reviewed and approved for legal sufficiency by the City Attorney's office, and subsequently recorded in the Land Records of Palm Beach County; 4. That in the event one or both uses vacate the property, Centres, its successors and assigns, shall be restricted to leasing that portion of the property so vacated to a permissible use that does not require additional parking demands over and above that which is currently required; ,~SPRri18 Meeting Date: April 23, 2008 Office Depot and CVS Pharmacy Buildings Reconsideration of Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, & Architec#ural EIBVatiOnS Page 4 5. That in the event that any proposed new use on the property creates a grater demand for parking than that which is currently required, Centres shall be required to submit any and all proposed new uses for review by the City to ensure that parking requirements are satisfied; 6. The City Commission discussion included the instruction to reduce the parking requirement for 56 parking spaces, based on a prorated square footage, that 55 of the 99 spaces provided, shall be allocated to office supply use (which is a waiver of 31 spaces) and 44 spaces to the pharmacy use (which is a waiver of 25 spaces). This shall be noted in the site plan; 7. That in the event one of the uses ceases, the remaining use shall continue to operate with the spaces allocated subject to the SPRAB special action request, and any new use shall be required to comply with the City's current parking regulations, unless a waiver is granted. If both uses cease then any new use shall be required to comply with the City's current parking regulations. Site Plan: Move approval of the Class V site plan for Office Depot and CVS Building, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent wi#h the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.5(F) and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. That four {4} copies of the revised plans are submitted addressing all conditions of approval as indicated in the staff report; 2. That a seven {7} foot R-O-W dedication along NE 8th Street be depicted on the site plan and executed along with the platting process; 3. That a plat is processed and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit; 4. That the City Engineer shall set the cost of improvements and beautification obligations on Federal Highway and the applicant shall comply with this requirement before issuance of a building permit; 5. That in the event that a waiver is required for any proposed use, Centres shall file an application for a waiver and the City may ar may not grant such waiver; 6. That the photometric plan be revised in coordination with City staff to comply with the LDR requirements for site lighting; 7. That a ffty foot (50'} special building setback along George Bush Boulevard shall be provided from the centerline and be depicted on the site plan and engineering plans; 8. That a contribution of $22,000 is paid prior to certification of the project for the installation of two Palm Tran bus stop shelters {one on each, NE 5th Avenue and NE 6'h Avenue); 9. That the sidewalk from NE 6th Avenue on the south side at the corner of the proposed building line up with the sidewalk going out to the west side of the property, and that the parking get shifted accordingly to provide ADA accessibility; ., SPRAT Meeting Date: April 23, 2008 Office Depot and CVS Pharmacy Buildings Reconsideration of Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, & Architectural Elevations Page 5 10. That the portion of the proposed decorative wall adjacent to the generator and the loading zone be a minimum of six {6) feet in height; 11. That the site plan, landscape plan, and civil engineering plans all be consistent; 12. That the generator be adequately screened and relocated; and 13. That a complete photometric plan be brought back to the Board for approval. 14. That the elevations come back to the Board for additional review with the following recommendations: a. That an additional window element be added to the south side of the drive thru in the available wall panel; and b. That the architect{s} study the site elevations and try to make the buildings more compatible as a whole in its design (to soften it aesthetically). Staff Report Prepared by: Esfelio Breto, Senior Planner Atfachmenf: Site Plan Sfaff Report Dated February 20, 2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Estelio Breto, Senior Planner Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 WAIVER REQUESTS/OFFICE DEPOT/CVS PHARMACY BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consideration of three (3) waivers, one to reduce the required visibility triangle on the south side of the intersection of the driveway to NE 5~' Avenue from 20' to 15'; and the other two, to reduce the required visibility triangles at the intersection of N.E. 5~' Avenue and N.E. 8~' Street and at the intersection of N.E. Gtr' Avenue and N.E. 7~' Street from 40' to 30'. BACKGROUND Waiver Requests LDR Section 2.4.7(B~(5) Findings: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body must make a finding that granting the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. The applicant is requesting reduction in the sight visibility triangle from twenty 20' to 15' (LDR Section 4.6.14 (A)(1)) for the south side (left) of the driveway entry to N.E. 5th Ave. Since traffic flows from the north (southbound) on this one-way section of NE 5th Ave. (Federal Highway), the reduction of the sight visibility triangle on the south side (left) will not create an unsafe vehicular traffic situation. Granting the requested waiver will not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, diminish the provision of public facilities, or create and unsafe situation. Similar waivers have been approved for other projects in the CBD District, such as, Renaissance Village, Cityscape, and Pineapple Grove Village. This waiver would also be supported under similar circumstances and therefore will not result in the grant of a special privilege. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7 (B)(5) (a) thru (d) can be made. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2), a 40' sight triangle is required at the intersection of N.E. 5th Avenue and N.E 8th Street and at the intersection of NE 6th Avenue and NE 7th Street. The applicant has requested a waiver to reduce the required visibility triangles at these intersections from 40' to 30'. The following is an analysis of these waiver requests: In each case, the areas that require the requested waivers are not needed to check for oncoming traffic, since traffic flows one-way from the opposite direction. As no traffic will be approaching from each of these directions relief would appear appropriate and supportable. Therefore, granting the requested waiver will not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, diminish the provision of public facilities, or create and unsafe situation. Similar waivers have been approved for other projects in the CBD District, such as, 5th Avenue Flats, Cityscape, and AtlanticShores. This waiver would also be supported under similar circumstances and therefore will not result in the granting of a special privilege. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5) (a) thru (d) can be made. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) reviewed the waiver requests at their meeting of February 27, 2008 in conjunction with review of the Office Depot and CVS Pharmacy development. After a brief discussion, the Board moved a recommendation of approval of each of the waivers on a unanimous vote of 4-0. A detailed description and analysis of the proposal is contained within the attached SPRAB staff report of February 20, 2008. RECOMMENDATION By separate motions: Move approval of the waiver requests to LDR Section 4.6.14 (A)(1) to reduce the required twenty foot (20') sight visibility triangle to fifteen (15') at the intersection of N.E. 5th Avenue and the western most ingress and egress driveway of the site, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with LDR Section 2.4.7(B) (5). Move approval of the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.14 (A)(2) to reduce the required forty foot (40') sight visibility triangle to thirty feet (30') at the intersection of N.E. 5~' Avenue and N.E. 8~' Street and the intersection of NE 6~' Avenue and NE 7~' Street, respectively, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with LDR Section 2.4.7 (B) (5). IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA WAIVER REQUESTS FOR OFFICE DEPOT/CVS DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 1. The waiver requests, to reduce the visibility triangle in one location from 20' to 15 `and in two other locations from 40' to 30', have come before the City Commission on June 3, 2008. 2. The Applicant and City staff presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the waiver requests for the Office Depot/CVS Development Project. All of the evidence is a part of the record in this case. Required findings are made in accordance with Subsection I. I. WAIVERS: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(1), a twenty foot (20') sight visibility triangle shall be provided where an accessway intersects a public right-of-way. The Applicant seeks a waiver to reduce the site visibility triangle to fifteen feet (15') at the intersection of N.E. 5t" Avenue and the western most ingress and egress driveway of the site. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A)(2), a forty foot (40') sight visibility triangle shall be provided where 2 or more public rights-of-way intersect. The Applicant seeks two waivers to reduce the site visibility triangle to thirty feet (30') at the intersection of N.E. 5t" Avenue and N.E. 8t" Street and at the intersection of N.E. 6t" Avenue and N.E. 7t" Street. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(8)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and, (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. Would the waiver of Section 4.6.14(A)(1) to reduce the site visibility triangle to 15' at the N.E. 5th Avenue intersection comply with the requirements of 2.4.7(8)(5)? Yes No Would the waiver of Section 4.6.14(A)(2) to reduce the site visibility triangle to 30' at the N.E. 5th Avenue and N.E. 8th Street intersection comply with the requirements of 2.4.7(8)(5)? 1 Yes No Would the waiver of Section 4.6.14(A)(2) to reduce the site visibility triangle to 30' at the N.E. 6th Avenue and N.E. 7th Street intersection comply with the requirements of 2.4.7(8)(5)? Yes No 3. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan and LDR requirements in existence at the time the original development application was submitted and finds that its determinations set forth in this Order are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained in the record including but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses supporting these findings. 5. 5. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves or denies the waiver requests as follows: LDR Section Approve Deny 4.6.14.(A)(1) N.E. 5th Avenue to 15' 4.6.14(A)(2) NE 5th Ave/NE 8th St. to 30' 4.6.14(A)(2) NE 6th Ave/NE 8th St. to 30' 6. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission hereby adopts this Order this 3~d day of June, 2008, by a vote of in favor and opposed. ATTEST: Chevelle Nubin, City Clerk Rita Ellis, Mayor 2 SATE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: February 20, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: IV. B. ITEM: Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations associated with the construction of a 19,002 square foot Office Depot building and a 13,203 square foot CVS building with adrive-thru lane. GENERAL DATA: Applicant ............................ Agent ........................................ Location---~---------~--~--~-~--~--~-~--~-.. Pra pe rtySize ............................ . Future Land Use Map ............. Current Zoning ............................ Adjacent Zoning ..............North: East: South: West: Existing Land Use ..................... Proposed Land Use .................. Water Service ........................... Sewer Service ....................... Art Taylor Heidi henderson 700 NE Otn Avenue 2.32 Acres CC (Commercial Care) CBD (Central Business Distric) GC (General Commercial) CBD (Central Business Distric} CBD (Central Business Distric} RO (Residential Office) Car Dealership Retail The property is currently served by a 6" water main located along NE Stn Street r-o-w. Sewer service will is currently provided a service lateral connection to an existi 8" sewer main located along the NE Avenue r-o-w. IV. B. ~_~ ,, ~- .' `' (T ~°.FORE T=IE: BOARD - ~ ~ ~.. ~' .: The item before the Board is the approval of the following aspects of a Class V site plan request for the Office Depot and CVS Pharmacy buildings, pursuant to Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 2.4.5{F): ^ Site Plan; ^ Landscape Plan; ^ Architectural Elevations; and ^ Waiver Requests. T~ BACKGROUND=~. - :.~~. - e The development proposal incorporates the properties consisting of Lots 1-11, Lots 34-39, and Lots 63-64 together with NE 7'" Court lying east of the R-O-W line of NE 5'" Avenue and west of the west R-O W line of NE 6`" Avenue, alf lying in the McGinley Gosman Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 87 of the public records of Palm Beach County. The subject property measures 2.32 acres and is located on the west side of NE 6i" Avenue between NE S~" Street (George Bush Boulevard) and NE 7t" Street (700 NE 6t" Avenue). The property has a Future Land Use Map designation of CC {Commercial Core} and- is zoned CBD (Central Business District). It currently contains four buildings totaling 17,709 sq. ft. for Maroone Chrysler including auto part sales and an automotive sales showroom office that was built in 1995. At its meeting of July 17, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing in conjunction with a rezoning request for the subject property. The Board unanimously voted 5-0 to recommend approval to the City Commission of the rezoning from GC {General Commercial) and AC (Automotive Commercial) to CBD (Central Business District}, for properties located between NE 4th Street and George Bush Boulevard and extending from the FEC Railroad to approximately %2 block east of NE 6th Avenue excluding the properties occupied by Acura of Delray Beach. At its meeting of December 5, 2006 the City Commission approved the rezoning from GC (General Commercial) and AC {Automotive Commercial) to CBD {Central Business District), for those properties. A Class V site plan to build a 19,000 sq. ft Office Depot building and a 13,012 CVS Pharmacy building is now before the Board for action. ..~. ~... =.. _- The development proposal incorporates the fallowing: © Demolition of the four existing car dealership buildings; ^ Construction of a 13,203 sq. ft. CVS building with adrive-thru lane on the northwest side of the property; ^ Construction of a 19,002 sq. ft. Office Depot building on the southeast side of the property; ^ Installation of a 5' high decorative wall along the perimeter of the site; ^ Installation of a loading area and two dumpsters; and, ^ Installation of two bicycle racks and associated landscaping. Site Plan Review and Appearance yard Staff Report: Meeting of D2120108 Office DepotICVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 2 The Class V site plan application also includes a special action for the reduction of parking spaces, and five (5} waiver requests to the following sections of the City's Land Development Regulations: 1. Special Action Request pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9{F}{1), which allows a parking reduction upon receipt and acceptance of special documentation that demonstrates a reduced number of parking spaces will accommodate a specific use; 2. A waiver to reduce the minimum staking distance from the first point of transaction of the proposed CVS building drive-thru lane from one hundred (100') feet to sixty five (65') feet jLDR Section 4.6.9(D} (3) {c} {2)]; 3. A waiver to reduce the minimum stacking distance from 50' to 26' for the access driveway from NE 7th Street r-o-w to the first parking space. [LDR Section 4. A waiver to reduce the required twenty foot {20'} sight visibility triangle to fifteen (15'} at the intersection of N.E. 5th Avenue and the ingress and egress driveway located on the west side of the property. [LDR Section 4.6.14 (A)(1)]; and 5. A waiver to reduce the required forty foot (40') sight visibility triangle to thirty feet {30') at the intersection of N.E. 5th Avenue and N.E. 8th Street and the intersection of NE 6th Avenue and NE 7th Street. jLDR Section 4.6.14 {A)(2)]; and 6. A waiver to reduce: • The required building frontage along NE 6i~` Avenue from a minimum of 162' to 0'; the maximum setback from 10' to 18'; and to increase the remaining length of the building frontage from 70' to 137'; • The required building frontage along NE 5th Avenue from a minimum of 219' to 0'; the maximum setback from 10' to 10.6'; and to increase the remaining length of the building frontage from 94' to 267'; • The required binding frontage slang NE 8th Street from a minimum of 151' to 0'; the maximum setback from 10' to 18.22; and to increase the remaining length of the building frontage from 64' to 96'; and • The required building frontage along NE 7th Street from a minimum of 91 ` to 46'; the maximum setback from 10' to 12'; and to increase the remaining length of the building frontage from 64' to 0' Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13{F)(4}. ._ .~ ~ S1TL-AN AID Ifs ~ `` COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action an the site and development applicatianlrequest. LDR Section 4.3.4fK) -Development Standards Matrix: The following table indicates that the development proposal meets the requirement of LDR Section 4.3.4(K}. However, the proposed development does not meet the requirements of LDR Section 4.4.13(F) as they pertain to the Central Care area of the CBD zoning district. The Site Plan Review and Appearanc ;ard Staff Report: Meeting of 02/20/08 OfFice E3epotICVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 3 applicant has requested an internal adjustment to these requirements. Analysis of the requested internal adjustment is discussed later in this report. Building Setbacks (miJ: Front (North} See Discussion Below Rear (South} 10' 10' Side Sfreet (Easf} 0' 10.6' Side Sfreet (West} 0' 17.83' Building Heiahf: 48' 34'-6" to 3T-6" OAen S,nace: 10% 23.5% Building Frontage and Front Setbacks: - Office Dcp-ot~and~GVS B=wilding -_ -=- -_ _ Road1 ~ ~ E~Eiiding °%~ [3uilding __..~..__..__ _ ~- Req~7~r~d= __ Reyu~re~i E3uil~ding Proposed =c vd1LDR _ E3uilClil~g I eight Frontage Seth~~k~` = Fi~nfage ~tiilding ____ Side, (minlmax} at Sefback Frontige - 1 I ~] IJE_5c~ Finished grade to 70°1° 19D% 1D' max 162' 1209' D' .Avenue. , 37' for a 232' Lot Frontage Remaining l th 15' min. ~7Q~23' 13T~ eng Roach 6uEfti~ilg Building ~~.~e Height --~~~r ~ ~ Finished Avenue grade to _ i 3T for a - 1 313' Lot '~, Frontage I Office Depot and CVS .Build °,~~ t3ualdlrig R~' ' Frantage _ Required Bu ti _ (nnnlmax} _ SPthack Fr.Cil -- -- - at S 70% 190% 110' max Remaining 15' min. length __ co~lip~y ~roposeci '.~r -- E3uddan '- g ~DF;? h _ Fro ntaq ~._.. ~r' f~ 219' 1282' 10' I I 94' 131' 126T I I Site Plan Review and Appearance ,ard Staff Report: Meeting of 02/20/08 Office DepotlCVS - Class V Site Pian, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 4 Gffce Depot and CVS`Building - Gor~i~ly Poadl Buiiding °~ Building Required Required Building Proposed , '~J' ~~~~ Building !-ieight Frontage ~Set~ac~. Frontage Eurlding Sidi (mini~na~:) _ Frontage at S-etback= - - ~~ ra Other ~ Finished 70% 190% 10' max 151' 1 194' 0' R-n-l~''J grade to ~ 25' for a ~~€E c~th Street ' 215 Lot Remaining ' , ' ' Frontage length 15 min. 64 121 96 Office Depot.and CVS~Bu~ldir~g ~; -_ -- - ° ' i ,< Required ` 'N Raadr B~~ilding ,~ t Building ~ ,Required -Proposed Bu31[iing ' LDR~ Euilding Height Fr~ntagi/ i tietbacF Frohta e Bi~ildmg g Side (rninrn~a;~) i _ Frt~ntar T~ ~ at-S.etba c ~: _ - µ~ Y N Other Finished R-b-~1r grade to 25' fora 70% 190% 10' max 91' / 11T 46' " ~lE-7th 130' Lot Street frontage Remaining 15' min 64' 121' D' length . The above table indicates that the development proposal does not comply with the requirements of LDR Section 4.4.13(F) (4) with regard to Building Frontage and front setbacks (as required by the CBD Design Guidelines} along NE 5th Avenue, NE 6m Avenue, NE 8th Street and NE 7th. The applicant has requested a waiver: • To reduce the required building frontage along NE 6th Avenue from a minimum of 162' to 0'; the maximum setback from 10' to 18'; and to increase the remaining length of the building frontage from 70' to 137'; • To reduce the required building frontage along NE 5th Avenue from a minimum of 219' to 0'; the maximum setback from 10' to 10.6'; and to increase the remaining length of the building frontage from 94' to 26T; • To reduce the required building frontage along NE 8th Street from a minimum of 151' to 0'; the maximum setback from 10' to 18.22; and to increase the remaining length of the building frontage from 64' to 96'; • To reduce the required building frontage along NE 7th Street from a minimum of 91' to 46'; the maximum setback from 10' to 12 ; and to increase the remaining length of the building frontage from 64' to 0'; Site Plan Review and Appearance lard Staff Report: Meeting of 02/20/08 Office bepotlCVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 5 Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B} (5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. The applicant has provided the following justification with regard to the waiver request: "The City's LDR's did not envision the rare situation where a parcel will be bounded on a!1 sides by roadways. Although fhe applicant does not fully meet these frontage requirements, the applicant has provided a decorative wall along NE 5th Avenue and NE bth Avenue fo create fhe same feeling of urbanized development thaf fhe Cify is looking far. This decorative wall is similar fa fhat of Public to the south, the applicant is aifempfing fo follow that same site design concept. The applicant confends fhaf the decorative wall would provide a more aesthetically pleasing frontage along NE 5th Avenue and NE 6r"Avenue than a solid structure." The site is constrained by the fact that it is bounded by four roadways. The frontage along Stn Street and 7tn Street present limitations to accommodate the required building frontage and the ingresslegress driveway on the site. In addition, the site has a diminishing width from 235` along 8th Street to 150' along 7th Street which further limits the attempt to situate the buildings and still comply with the LDR requirements. The CBD District Design Guidelines are geared mostly towards the design of mixed-use and residential buildings in the downtown area. The Office Depot and CVS building would be operationally unfeasible, and it would be economically challenging if the required building frontages along the existing right-of-ways were stepped back from finished grade to a height of 37'. Thus, the provision of a decorative wall along NE 5th Avenue and NE 6th Avenue creates the sense of urbanized downtown development which is the intent of the CBD District Design Guidelines. Due to the type of building use proposed, the site constraints, and the location of the project away from a downtown urban area, the waiver to reduce the required frontage and front setbacks should be supported. The waiver will not adversely affect neighboring properties or diminish the provision of public facilities. The waiver would also be supported under similar circumstances and therefore will not result in the grant of a special privilege. Thus, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5 (B)(5}. Special Building Setback: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(H){6), three types of special setbacks are established in order to provide for preservation of area for expansion of roadways andlor streetscape beautification. These are: special building setbacks, special landscape setbacks, and a combination thereof. Within the special building setbacks, no structures shall be altered, erected, or reconstructed. Along George Bush Boulevard, between Swinton Avenue and A-1-A, a fifty foot {50') special building setback shall be provided on both sides of the centerline. The development plan complies with this requirement since a 50' special building setback has been provided. However, a condition of approval is attached, that a fifty foot {50') special building setback shall be provided from the centerline and depicted on the site plan and engineering plans. Site Plan Review and Appearano. yard Staff Report: Meeting of D212D108 Office bepotlCVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural 1=levations Page 6 Special Landscape Setback; Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(H)(6}(b), within the special landscape setback na structures shall be altered, erected, or reconstructed; nor shall any paving be allowed except for driveways and sidewalks which lead to structures on, or provide access to, the site and then only when generally perpendicular to the frontage. However, waivers may be granted to these restrictions at the time of site plan review in order to accommodate landscape features, decorative walls, meandering sidewalks, and other decorative pedestrian ways. Further, LDR Section 4.3.4(H}(6)(b)(2) requires that along Federal Highway, double frontage lots up to 200' in depth require a 10' landscape setback (the property is considered double frontage). The development plan complies with this requirement since a 10' landscape area has been provided. LDR Section 4.4.13 -Central Business District: Height: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(K}, the maximum height of structures in the CBD zoning district is 48'. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.3.4(J)(1), height is defined as the vertical distance from grade to the highest finished roof surface of a flat roof, ar to the mean level between tie beam and ridge for gable, hip, or gambrel roofs. For buildings adjoining more than one street, the grade is established as the average of the mean elevation of the crown of the adjoining streets. Applying `the mean elevation of the adjoining streets', the proposed building is approximately 37'-6" high for the Office Depot building and 34'-6" high for the CVS building. Thus, this LDR requirement has been met. Qff-Street Parking: Special Action Request Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9 (C) (3} (a}, General Commercial uses shall provide 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of grass floor area which includes retail floor area, associated warehouse and storage floor area, and employee and management facilities. Using these calculations the proposed development will require a total of 155 spaces, while the proposal shows a total of 93 parking spaces, resulting in a deficit of 62 parking spaces. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(1=)('[ ), when, upon receipt and acceptance of special documentation, it is conclusively demonstrated that a reduced number of parking spaces will accommodate a specific use, the body which acts on the attendant site plan may reduce the parking requirements accordingly. The applicant has submitted the attached letter dated January 28, 2008 as the "special documentation" to justify the reduced number of parking spaces. The following is an excerpt from such letter: "Office Depot stores do not generate the same parking demands as general retail. Mast Office Depot business is catalogue and online orders. Many private businesses place orders directly from fhe stares and have items delivered to fheir offices. Office Depot stores also commit a large amount of fhe stores square footage fa furniture and product displays as well as fo the storage of excess furniture and products currently not being displayed on the sales floor area. Additionally, Office Depot also provides an in store copy center. Fifty percent or more of the Office Depof square footage is dedicated to fhis storage, display and copy center area. The proposed Office Depot is 79, 002 square feet. The actual square footage that should be considered far parking calculations is 9,501 square feet. Thus the required parking far fhe Office Depot should be ~43 spaces, based on fhe actual square footage utilized by customers. Site Plan Review and Appearanc, yard Staff Report: Meeting of 02/20/08 Office DepotICVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 7 The proposed CVS building footprint is 13,203 square feet. The mezzanine is 2,708 sq. ff. which makes the total square footage 95,289 square feet. The mezzanine area will not be utilized by customers. Also, the CVS provides a minimum of 40 percenf of the footprint for storage of consumer goods. The acfual square footage of the building that should be considered for parking calculations is 7,929 square feet which makes for 36 parking spaces. The two developments together suggest fhat a minimum of 79 parking spaces be provided if providing 4.5 spaces per 9, 000 of floor area. We are providing 93 on-site parking spaces." The argument that the actual square footage to be considered for parking calculations on the Office Depot building should be 9,501 and that the square footage of the CVS building would be 7,955.5 is not consistent with the LDR parking requirement for commercial establishments (the LDRs do not exclude the areas specified by the applicants justification statement). The Land Development Regulations clearly state that General Commercial uses shall provide 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of "grass floor area" which includes retail floor area, associated warehouse and storage floor area. Using these calculations the proposed development will require a total of 155 spaces, while the applicant is proposing a total of 93 parking spaces, which results in a deficit of fit parking spaces. The applicant bases the proposed reduction of parking spaces on the following points: • Most Office Depot business is catalogue and online orders. Many private businesses place orders directly from the stores and have items delivered to their offices. • Office Depot stores also commit a large amount of the stores square footage to furniture and product displays, as well as to the storage of excess furniture and products currently not being displayed an the sales floor area. Office Depot provides an in store copy center. Fifty percent or more of the Office Depot square footage is dedicated to this storage, display and copy center area. The applicant appears to makes a good argument for the reduction of parking based an the functional operation of the Office Depot and CV5 stores which assumes that the proportion of storage floor area and retail commercial activity is split 50%. Currently, there are 20 on-street parking spaces located along the east side of NE 5t'' avenue and adjacent to the west property line of the subject property. These spaces are used by the existing Maraone Chrysler car dealership. There appears to be no other development in the immediate vicinity that will make use of this existing on-street parking. The applicant has indicated his willingness to provide additional on-street parking along NE 7t" Street and NE 6t" Avenue, which would result with approximately 13 additional spaces reducing the deficit to approximately 49 parking spaces. The following facts play a vital role when considering a parking reduction for the proposed development: A reduction in parking requirements for the subject property would be applied for any and all future uses that may be established on this site. The requested reduction would have a negative impact in the functional operation of any future use with regards to parking availability. Site Plan Review and Appearance lard Staff Report: Meeting of 02/20/08 Office ~epat/CVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Ele~atians Page 8 The length of time or permanency of a proposed use is also an important factor when granting this parking reduction request. The long term occupation of the proposed use may be questionable given the proposed closing of the Office Depot store on South Federal Highway at SE10t'' Street. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9 {B)(4), when parking requirements are applied to new development, the City Commission may approve the payment of a fee tawards the construction of a public parking structure in-lieu of providing such required parking on- site. The proposed development is located mare than 300' from any existing public parking facilities of the Central Business District, and thus, the off-street parking fee is not an option. Given the location ofi the proposed development the significant shortage of parking will negatively impact the operation of the proposed use. Based on the above, and since the parking reduction is fior sixty two (62} parking spaces, this parking reduction request cannot be supported. Thus, staff recommends denial of the parking reduction requested for the Office Depot and CVS project. L.DR Article 4.6 - Supplemental District Reaulations: Handicap Accessible Parkin Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C} (1) (b), special parking spaces designed far use by the handicapped shall be provided pursuant to the provisions of Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction. Accessibility for residential structures is covered by the Federal Fair Housing Act. Pursuant to this Act, two percent {2%) of the parking spaces serving the development must be handicap accessible and accessible visitor spaces should be provided at a rate in accordance with the local code. Based upon the 155 parking spaces required, the development needs to provide a minimum of four (4) handicap accessible parking space and #ive {5} handicap accessible parking spaces have been provided. Compact Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9{C) {1 } (g), up to 30% of the required parking for any use may be designated for compact cars. The development proposal includes twenty six {26) compact parking spaces located within the proposed parking area. This represents approximately 29.54% of the total spaces provided, thus meeting the requirement. On-Street Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9{E)(2}, where adequate right-of-way exists, construction of additional on-street parking spaces directly and wholly abutting the lot, or parcel, may be counted tawards the off-street parking requirement of the lot ar parcel it is intended to serve provided that: 1. The adjacent right-of-way has not been previously utilized for parking or, in cases where the adjacent right-of-way has been used for parking only those spaces in addition to the number of existing spaces shall be counted; 2. That such parking spaces are clearly marked on the site plan and designed in accordance with appropriate City, County or State standards, as applicable; and, Site Plan Review and AppearancE ,ard StafF Report: Meeting of o2120108 OfFce DepotICVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 9 3. Such parking spaces shall be publicly accessible and cannot be reserved or restricted by the owner{s} or tenant(s) of the lot or parcel, unless approved by the City Commission for special events or valet parking. Although not counted toward meeting the parking requirements fior the project, a total of approximately twenty (20) public parallel parking spaces currently exist within the NE 5t" Avenue right-of way. Available to the general public, these spaces should also help meet the short term parking requirements ofi customers and visitors of the project. In order to reduce the parking deficit, the applicant is encouraged to provide on-street parking along NE 7i" 5treet and NE 6t" Avenue if the requested parking reduction is granted. These parking spaces can be counted towards the off-street parking requirement of the proposed development. Bicycle Parkinct: LDR Section 4.6.9(C} {1 } (c} and Transportation Element Policy D-2.2 of the Comprehensive Plan recommend that a bicycle parking facility be provided. Two bike racks have been located along the front of the proposed building on NE 5i" Avenue and in close proximity to the main entrance of the buildings. Thus, this requirement has been met. Also, pursuant to Transportation Element A-1.3 of the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant shall provide a bus shelter contribution {$22,000) for the installation of two bus shelters in the vicinity of the project (one on each side NE 5t" Avenue and NE 6~" Avenue) which is attached as a condition of approval. Refuse Enclosure: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.6(C} (1 }, dumpsters, recycling containers and similar service areas must be enclosed on three sides with vision obscuring gates on the fourth side, unless such areas are not visible from any adjacent public right-of-way. The development proposal includes two dumpsters with galvanized metal doors located on the northeast and southeast sides of the subject property. A detail of the two dumpsters has been provided. The landscape plan indicates that the dumpster has been adequately screened. Accommodations for bins for recyclab[es have also been provided. Thus, this LDR requirement has been met. t_ighting• A photometric plan consistent with the requirements of LDR Section 4.fi.8 and Iight/fxture details have been submitted. However, the City standard of 4.0 maximum foot candle and 1.0 average minimum foot candle illumination level need to be maintained. The applicant is proposing summary value of 23.0 maximum foot candles while the maximum allowed City standard is 4.0 foot candles. The photometric plan shall be revised to comply with City standard illumination levels, and thus, this is attached as a condition of approval. Plat: The development proposal involves the construction of improvements across previously platted lots, dedication of easements, and dedication of right-of-way. Therefore, a condition of approval is that a boundary plat of the property shall be processed pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Land Development Regulations and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. It is also, attached as a condition of approval that the existing 25' r-o-w located along NE 6'" Avenue on the southeast side of the subject property shall be abandoned and recorded along with the required plat, and thus, this is attached as a condition of approval. Site Plan Review and AppearancE ;ard Staff Report: Meeting of 02/20/08 Office C]epotlCV5 - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 10 Vehicular Stacking Distance for a Parking Area. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D){3){c}(1 }, the minimum stacking distance for a parking area that has 51 or more parking spaces is 50'. With a total of 93 spaces in the parking area, the proposed driveway located along NE 7tn Street on the south property line does not provide the minimum stacking distance required. The proposed stacking distance for the access driveway from the NE 7tn Street r-o-w to the first parking space is approximately 26'. The applicant has requested a waiver to reduce the minimum stacking distance from 50' to 26' for the access driveway from the NE 7tn Street r-o-w to the first parking space. Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(8) (5}, prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: {e) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; {f} Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; {g) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and {h) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property far another applicant or owner. The applicant has provided the following justification with regard to the waiver request: "This site location between 4 roadways presenfs several life development limitations and restrictions. Currently the sife plan shows S parking spaces on the east side of the egress/ingress driveway, which is also the entrance to the proposed Office Depot building. In order fo meet this stacking distance requiremenf the applicant would need to eliminate 3 parking spaces at fhe front of the building. The elimination of parking spaces is not in the best interest of the overall site design and fhe general infenf of the Cify's code requirements. The additional grass area that would be created in front of the Office Depof building would not serve a specific purpose and would not contribute to the overall function of the proposed site plan. The City should grant fhe proposed waiver in order fo accommodate additional required parking and eliminate an excess of unusable space on fhe site." Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(D) (3) (c), provisions are to be made for stacking such that traffic will not backup into the public street system. The development proposal has provided three ingresslegress points. One is from NE Stn Avenue, which is one of the primary paint of entry into the development; a second one is from NE 6tn Avenue, and a third one is from NE 7tn Street. Because the NE 7th Street access serves as a supplemental ingresslegress into the development, the reduced stacking distance will not result in an unsafe driving environment. The 26' stacking distance provided is clearly adequate for vehicles to enter the site without obstructing the flow of traffic from NE 7th Street. This is an urban area and 50' stacking distance is more appropriate for a suburban parking lot, where roads are abundant with high speed traffic. Due to the location of the project in an urban area, the waiver to reduce the stacking distance should be supported. The waiver will not adversely affect neighboring properties or diminish the provision of public facilities. The waiver would also be supported under similar circumstances and therefore will not result in the grant of a special privilege. Similar stacking distance waivers were granted to the Cityscape, Miraflores, West Fifth Condos, and Atlantic Shores projects in the CBD District. The Miraflores project was granted a 39' reduction to its stacking distance off an alley, Cityscape was granted a waiver of 36' to its stacking distance required from an alley, and Atlanta Shores was granted a waiver of 6' off SE 2`~d Ave, which is Site Plan Review and Appearance ,ard Staff Report: Meeting of 02/20/08 Office DepotICVS _ Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 1'l its primary ingress/egress into the property. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7{B)(5) can be made. Vehicular Stacking Distance #or the Drive-thru Lane: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.fi.9(D){3){c}{2), the minimum stacking from the first point of transaction for the proposed CVS building drive-thru lane one hundred (100') feet. The applicant has requested a waiver to reduce the minimum stacking distance from 100' to 65' far the for the proposed CVS building drive-thru lane. Pharmacy drive-thru are provided as a convenience to customers particularly the elderly, parents with sick children, or customers that have a special need far prescription drop off or pick up. This customer base does not represent more than four vehicular trips per hour. The proposed stacking distance of 65' appears to be adequate and will accommodate approximately four cars. Due to the location of the project in an urban area, the waiver to reduce the stacking distance for the drive-thru lane should be supported. The waiver will not adversely affect neighboring properties or diminish the provision of public facilities. The waiver would also be supported under similar circumstances and therefore will not result in the granting of a special privilege. Based an the low traffic generation rate of the proposed drive-thru positive findings can be made with respect LDR Section 2.4.7(6)(5) Sictht Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14(A){1 }, a 20' sight triangle is required at the intersection of N.E. Stn Avenue and the ingresslegress driveway to the proposed parking area. The applicant has requested a waiver to reduce the required visibility triangle on the-south side of this intersection from 20' to 15' [LDR Section 4.6.14(A}(1 )]. The following is an analysis of the waiver request: Waiver Analysis: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7{B} (5}, prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b} Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; {c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; or {d} Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances an other property for another applicant or owner. The applicant is requesting reduction in the sight visibility triangle for the south side (left} of the ingresslegress driveway entry off N.E. 5"' Ave. Since traffic flows from the north on this one-way section of NE 5t" Ave. {Federal Highway), the reduction of the sight visibility triangle from the south side (left) will not create an unsafe vehicular environment. Granting the requested waiver will not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, diminish the provision of public facilities, or create and unsafe situation. Similar waivers have been approved for other projects in the CBD District, such as, Renaissance Village, Cityscape, and Pineapple Grove Village. This waiver would also be supported under similar circumstances and therefore will not result in the grant of a special privilege. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(6}(5) can be made. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.14{A)(2), a 40' sight triangle is required at the intersection of N.E. 5"' Avenue and N.E 8t" Street and at the intersection of NE 6t" Avenue and NE 7t" Street. The Site Plan Review and AppearancE and Staff Report: Meeting of 02/20/08 Office DepatICVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 12 applicant has requested a waiver to reduce the required visibility triangles at the intersection of N.E. Stn Avenue and N.E. Stn Street from 40' to 30' and at the intersection of N.E. 6tn Avenue and N.E. 7tn Street [LDR Section 4.6.14(A}(2)]. The following is an analysis of the waiver request: Since traffic flaws from the north an this one-way section of NE Stn Ave. (Federal Highway}, drivers coming from the east and taking a left turn on NE Stn Avenue will not have any visibility obstruction, and thus, the reduction of the sight visibility triangle from 40' to 30' will not create an unsafe vehicular environment. The traffic signal at the intersection of N.E. 5t" Avenue and N.E. Stn Street will slow traffic flaw alleviating the necessity of the required sight visibility requirement of 40'. Traffic flaws from the south on this one-way section of NE 6th Ave, and thus, similar arguments can be presented for the visibility triangle located at the intersection of NE 6m Avenue and 7th street. Granting the requested waiver will not have an adverse affect on the neighboring area, diminish the provision of public facilities, or create and unsafe situation. Similar waivers have been approved far other projects in the CBD District, such as, 5th Avenue Flats, Cityscape, and Atlantic Shares project at the N.E. 2"d Avenue intersection. This waiver would also be supported under similar circumstances and therefore will not result in the grant of a special privilege. Consequently, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5) can be made. Right-of-Way Dedication: Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D) the ultimate right-of-way width for N.E. 7th Street is 60' and only 50' of right-of--way currently exists. For existing streets, the City Engineer, upon a favorable recommendation from the Development Management Services Group (DSMG), may grant reductions in right-of way widths. The City Engineer and DSMG determined at their meeting of November 1, 2007 that a reduction in right-of-way width to 50' would be sufficient for this section of NE 7th Street. Pursuant to the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the ultimate right-of- way width for N.E. 8th Street is 80' and only 73' of right-af-way currently exists. For existing streets, the City Engineer, upon a favorable recommendation from the Development Management Services Group (DSMG), may grant reductions in right-af-way widths. Pursuant to LDR Section 5.3.1(D} {3}, additional right-of--way width may be required to promote public safety and welfare; to provide for stormwater management; to provide adequate area for street trees; and to ensure adequate access, circulation and parking in high intensity use areas. The City Engineer and DSMG determined at a meeting in November 1, 2007 that the r-o-w of NE Stn Street should be expanded to 80', which is consistent with the widths provided with recent redevelopment proposals. Therefore, a dedication of seven feet {7') from the subject property is required. A seven (7) foot r-o-w dedication has been depicted on the site plan. The 7' r-o-w dedication on NE Stn Street shall be executed along with the platting process, and thus, this is being attached as a condition of approval. OTHER ITEMS: Federal Hlahwav Cost of Imporovements Obli:aations: The proposed project is located at 700 NE 6tn Avenue (Federal Highway} and as such improvements cost for Federal Highway will apply. The City Engineer shall set the cost of improvements obligations on Federal Highway and the applicant shall comply with this requirement before issuance of a building permit. Thus, this is attached as a condition of approval. Site Plan Review and Appearanc: ;ard Staff Report: Meeting of 02/20/08 Of#ice DepotICVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 13 Undergrounding of Utilities: Pursuant to LDR Section 6.1.8, utility facilities serving the development shall be located underground throughout the development. A note to this effect has been placed on the site plan, and thus, this LDR requirement has been met. Site and Engineering Plan Technical Items; Revised plans have accommodated all of staff s concerns, and thus, there are no preliminary technical comments to be addressed by the applicant Preliminary engineering technical items have been addressed. ~~~A~VDSGAPE PPLAN ANALYSIS -~,.: ~" m ~~r~_ A landscape plan has been submitted and evaluated by the City Horticulturist. The plan provides for perimeter and interior landscaping of the proposed buildings and parking area. A variety of large plants, shrubs, and groundcover materials are employed to enhance the development. The City Horticulturist has reviewed the landscape plan submitted by the applicant and has found that all landscape technical comments have been adequately addressed. Based on the above analysis, the Landscape Plan complies with LDR Section 4.6.16, provided and no technical items need to be addressed. ~ ~ ARCHITI~,CT-1~$~LEVA~[ONSA!r~=ALYS~S~ --_ LDR Section 4.6.18(E) -Criteria for Board Action: The following criteria shall be considered by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB), in the review of plans for building permits. If the following criteria are not met, the application shall be disapproved: 1. The plan or the proposed structure is in conformity with goad taste, goad design, and in general contributes to the image of the City as a place of beauty, spaciousness, harmony, taste, fitness, broad vistas, and high quality. 2. The proposed structure, or project, is in its exterior design and appearance of quality such as not to cause the nature of the local environment or evolving environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. 3. The proposed structure, or project, is in harmony with the proposed developments in the general area, with the Comprehensive Plan, and with the supplemental criteria which may be set forth for the Board from time to time. The architectural style of the structure is best described as masonry vernacular. The roof is standing seam metal that includes towers with hip roofs. The windows appear to be single hung with prefabricated suspended concrete hangers and burgundy awnings. The front doors of both the OfFice Depot and CVS buildings are proposed to be clear anodized aluminum storefront with impact resistant glass. Awnings are proposed far all windows. The standing seam metal roof will be galvalume (galvanized aluminum) mill finish. The tower elevation walls will be painted with a softer tan color. The molding and trim will be painted white. The exterior doors, door frame, and the overhead sectional door will feature a white color while the rest of the elevation walls of the building will be painted with a moderate white. The roof structure for the drive-thru lane is a hip structure and contains a standing seam metal roof. The architectural styles of the buildings are architecturally harmonious. The balance and rhythm of the buildings are consistent and the treatment of all sides of the building has been addressed. Based upon the Site Plan Review and Appearanc card Staff Report: Meeting of 02/20/08 Office Depat/CVS - Gass V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Ele~atians Page 14 above, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 4.6.18(8)(14) and Section 4.6.18(E). _,~ __ .. ,M. - ~:. .~ ~ R~~IJIRf~D~ ~ ' r ~~~~ ~" , Pursuant to LDR Section 3.1.1 (Required Findings), prior to the approval of development applications, certain findings must be made in a form which is part of the ofgcial record. This may be achieved through information on the application, written materials submitted by the applicant, the staff report, or minutes. Findings shall be made by the body which has the authority to approve or deny the development application. These findings relate to the following areas: LDR Section 3.1.1(A) -Future Land Use Map: The subject property has a Future Land Use Map {PLUM} designation of Commercial Core (CC} and a zoning designation of CBD which are consistent with one another. Pursuant to LDR Section 4.4.13(B}(1), office furniture, office equipment and supplies and retail uses are allowed as a permitted use in the CBD zoning district. Thus positive findings can be made with respect to PLUM consistency. LDR Section 3.1.1 (B) - Concurrency: As described in Appendix "A", a positive finding of concurrency can be made as it relates to water and sewer, streets and traffic, drainage, parks and recreation, open space, and solid waste. LDR Section 3.1.1 (C) -Consistency (Standards for Site Plan Actions): As described in Appendix "B", a positive finding of consistency can be made as it relates to Standards for Site Plan Actions. LDR Section $.1.1(D) -Compliance with the Land Development Regulations: As described under the Site Plan Analysis section of this report, a positive finding of compliance with the LDRs can be made when all outstanding items attached as conditions of approval are addressed. Comprehensive Plan Policies: A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following objective is noted. uture an se em_,., ,,, ent Obfective A-7: Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate and complies in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complimentary to adjacent land uses, and fulhlls remaining land use needs. There are no special physical or environmental characteristics of the land that would be negatively impacted by the proposed development. The property is bordered on the west side NE 5'",Avenue, the east by NE 6f" Avenue and by NE 8t" Street and NE 7f" Street on the North and south side respectively. The project has been designed with an attempt to comply with the Downtown Design Guidelines. The proposed buildings {Office Depot and CVS Building) are not necessarily types of buildings that can be designed to comply with the stepping back frontage required in the Downtown Design Guidelines. However, the applicant is requesting a waiver to Site Pian Review and AppearancE ,ard Staff Report: Meeting of Q212o1Q8 OfFice Depot/CVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 15 the frontage required by the design guidelines. The applican# has proposed a decorative wall combined with a trellis and picket fence system that creates the image of a decorative firontage in-lieu of the stepping-back frontage that is required. Since the adoption of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan the downtown has changed from a somewhat seasonally oriented shopping area to a more dynamic and vibrant retail, service, and entertainment area with an active nightlife. A critical housing and mixed-use element has been slowly added to the downtown area. The proposed Office Depot and CVS development will help to fulfill the need of retail and commercial services required by the adjacent office, mixed- use, and residential areas. The proposed development will be complimentary to adjacent land uses. ousmq lective A-12: To assist residents of the City in maintaining and enhancing their nei hbo g rhoad environment, the City shall take steps to ensure that modifications in and around the neighborhood do not lead to its decline, such as those described in the following policies. Housing Policv A-12.3: In evaluating proposals for new development or redevelopment, the City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. As noted previously, the incorporation of this development will aid in the economic stability of the downtown area. The introduction of the commerciallretail component will also likely improve the safety of the area by introducing more nighttime commercial activity and more "eyes on the street" to observe what is happening in the area, which will be a deterrent to criminal activity. While the development proposal will result in the generation of 15 AM and 63 PM peak hour trips onto the surrounding roadway network, the number of daily trips generated will not negatively impact the area. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with Housing Policy A-12.3. Transportation Element Policv A-f.3: The Cify endorses fhe continued operations of fhe Palm Tran Transit System and its operations in Delray Beach, and through policies of this Element related to fhe TCEA, will coordinate with Palm Tran to improve the system. Given the potential impacts the proposed development will have on the surrounding road network and the location of Palm Tran bus stop in close proximity to the site, it is appropriate that the development contribute toward the provision of two bus shelters at this location (one on each, NE 5~' Avenue and NE 5th Avenue). Thus, it is attached as a condition of approval that a contribution of $22,000 is paid prior to certification of the site plan for the development. Subject to this condition of approval being addressed, the development will comply with Transportation Element Policy A-1.3. Transportation Element Policv D-2.2: Bicycle parking and facilities shall be required on al! new development and redevelopment. Particular emphasis is to be placed on development within the TCEA Area. The development proposal has accommodated two bicycle parking facilities (i.e. bike rack) on site. The provision of two bicycle parking facilities have been accommodated along NE 5i" Si#e Plan Review and Appearance .,ard Staff Report: Meeting of 02/20/08 Office DepotICVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural E[e~atipns Page 16 Avenue in close proximity to the entrance of the Office Depot and CVS buildings. Based upon the above, the development will comply with Transportation Element Policy D-2.2. LDR Section 2.4.5(F) (5} - Compatibility (Site Plan Findings]: The approving body must make a finding that development of the property pursuant to the site plan will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties and the City as a whole, so as not to cause substantial depreciation of property values. The following table identifies the zoning designations and uses that are adjacent to the subject property: Zonin Use: North General Commercial {GC) Former Mexican Restaurant (commercial South Central Business District (CBD) PPG Architectural Finishes Commercial East Central Business District (CBD) Commercial (primarily office across Federal Hi hwa Wesf Residential Office (RO) NE 5` Avenue and the FEC railroad ri ht-af-wa . With respect to the uses, compatibility with the adjacent uses is not a concern. The development proposal will enhance the aesthetics of the subject property. Further, the neighborhood and the downtown as a whole will benefit by the inclusion of new commerciallretail development. Based on the above, a finding can be made that the proposed development will be compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby properties and the properties will not experience a depreciation of property values. -___ _--- ~° F -- R~'LIl:E1N BY QTHER~.~~~~~ Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA}: At its meeting of November 15, 2007, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) reviewed the development proposal and recommended approval of the Class V site plan for Office Depot 1 CVS building. Courtesy Notices: Courtesy notices have been sent to the following homeowner's andlor civic associations: - Neighborhood Advisory Council - Pa[m Trail HOA - Del Ida HOA - Seacrest HOA Letters of objection or support, if any, will be presented at the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board {SPRAB) meeting. A~~S~~S~ AN D rG~ f~l~~~~~ =~-. The development proposal is to construct two single-story buildings: a 19,002 square foot Office Depot building and a 13,203 square foot CVS building. The development proposal also includes five (5) waiver requests: a waiver to reduce the minimum staking distance from the first point of transaction of the proposed CVS building drive-thru lane from one hundred {100') feet to sixty five (65') feet [LDR Section 4.6.9(D) {3) (c) (2)]; a waiver to reduce the required twenty foot Site Plan Review and Appearance ward Staff Report: Meeting of 02/20/08 OfFice DepotICVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 17 {20') sight visibility triangle to fifteen (15') at the intersection of N.E. 5t" Avenue and the ingresslegress driveway located on the west side of the property. [LDR Section 4.6.14 (A){1 )]; and a waiver to reduce the required forty foot {40') sight visibility triangle to thirty feet (30') at the intersection of N.E. 5t" Avenue and N.E. 8th Street and the intersection of NE 6t" Avenue and NE 7t" Street respectively. [LDR Section 4.fi.14 {A)(2)]. Positive findings can be made with regard to these waiver requests and the special action parking reduction request. The provision of additional commerciallretail development within the downtown area will further the long term revitalization and stabilization of the CBD. The proposed development is consistent with required findings under Chapter 3 (Performance Standards), Section 2.4.5{F)(5) {Compatibility) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, provided the conditions of approval are addressed. ~~-a'~ERNATiVE_~4~TIDNS ~ ~ - ~.. A. Continue with direction. B. Move approval of the waiver requests, special action request, Class V site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevations for Office Depot and CVS Building, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.5(F}, 2.4.7(B) (5), and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to conditions. C. Move denial of the waiver requests, special action request, Class V site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevations for Office Depot and CVS Building, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.5(F), 2.4.7(8) (5}, and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations. _._ _ ::~ - - ~::_ ~. ~.. ; ~ STAFF Rts~:Q~l-1fF1.~1TiON ~-_ --~--- :; By Separate Motions: Waiver Requests: 1. Move approval of the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.9{D} (3) (c) (2} to reduce the minimum staking distance from the first point of transaction of the proposed CVS building drive-thru lane from one hundred (100'} feet to sixty five {65') feet, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with LDR Section 2.4.7(B) {5). 2. Move approval of the waiver request to LDR Section 4.fi.9(D)(3)(c)(1) to reduce the minimum staking distance from 50' to 26' for the access driveway from NE 7th Street ro- w to the first parking space, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with LDR Section 2.4.7{B) (5). 3. Move approval of the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.14 (A)(1 } to reduce the required twenty foot (20') sight visibility triangle to fifteen {15') at the intersection of N.E. 5th Avenue and the most western ingress and egress driveway of the site, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with LDR Section 2.4.7(B} {5}. 4. Move approval of the waiver request to LDR Section 4.6.14 (A)(2} to reduce the required forty foot {40') sight visibility triangle to thirty feet (30') at the intersection of N.E. 5th Site Plan Review and Appearance and Staff Report: Meeting of 4212DI08 Office DepotICVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 1 S Avenue and N.E. 8th Street and the intersection of NE 6th Avenue and NE 7th Street respectively, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with LDR Section 2.4.7(6} {5). 5. Move approval of the waiver request to LDR Section 4.4.13{F} {4} to reduce: • The required building frontage along NE 6t" Avenue from a minimum of 162' to 0'; the maximum setback from 10' to 18'; and to increase the remaining length of the building frontage from 70' to 137'; • The required building #rontage along NE 5th Avenue from a minimum of 219' to 0'; the maximum setback from 10' to 10.6'; and to increase the remaining length of the building frontage from 94' to 267'; • The required building frontage along NE 8th Street from a minimum of 151' to 0'; the maximum setback from 10' to 18.22; and to increase the remaining length of the building frontage from 64' to 96'; and • The required building frontage along NE 7th Street from a minimum of 91' to 46'; the maximum setback from 10' to 12'; and to increase the remaining length of the building frontage from 64' to 0' by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with LDR Section 2.4.7(8} {5}. Special Action Repuest: Move denial of the reduction to parking spaces required pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9 {C} {3} {a), by 62 spaces (from the 155 parking spaces required to the 93 parking spaces provided), based on LDR Section 4.6.9{F}(1), which allows a parking reduction upon receipt and acceptance of special documentation that demonstrates a reduced number of parking spaces will accommodate a specific use. Class V Sife Plan: Move approval of the Class V site plan for Office Depot and CVS Building, by adopting the findings of #act and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with fhe Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.5{F) and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: That four (4) copies of the revised plans are submitted addressing all conditions of approval as indicated in the staff report; 2. That a seven (7) foot R-O W dedication along NE 8~" Street be depicted on the site plan and executed along with the platting process; 3. That the applicant revise the photometric plan to comply with City standard illumination levels and be consistent with the requirements of LDR Section 4.6.8; 4. That a plat is processed and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit; 5. That, if the ~arking reduction is granted, the applicant shall provide an-street parking along NE 7f Street and NE 6f" Avenue in coordination with the City Engineer and Planning Department; Site Plan Review and Appearance yard Staff Report: Meeting of 02/20/08 Office DepotICVS - Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations Page 19 6. That the City Engineer shall set the cost of improvements and beautification obligations on 1=ederal Highway and the applicant shall comply with this requirement before issuance of a building permit; 7. That a fifty foot (50') special building setbac[< along George Bush Boulevard shall be provided from the centerline and be depicted on the site plan and engineering plans; and 8. That a contribution of $22,000 is paid prior to certification of the project for the installation of twa Palm Tran bus stop shelters {one on each, NE 5'" Avenue and NE 6t" Avenue} Landscape Plan: Move approval of the landscape plan for Otflce Depot and CVS Building, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request meets criteria set forth in Section 4.6.'16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. That three (3) copies of the revised plans are submitted. Archifecfural Elevafrons: Move approval of the architectural elevations for Office Depot and CVS Building, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request meets criteria set forth in Section 4.6.18(E=} of the Land Development Regulations. Aftachments: Appendix `;4'; Appendix "8';' Site Plan; Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations. Staff Reporf Prepared by: Senior Planner, Senior Planner -~ CONCUR CY Fl f~f)fNGS ~ ~ Pursuant to LDR Section 3.1.1(8), Concurrency, as defined pursuant to Objective B-2 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, must be met and a determination made that the public facility needs of the requested land use andlor development application will not exceed the ability of the City to fund and provide, or to require the provision of, needed capital improvements for the following areas. Water and Sewer: ^ The property is currently served by a 6" water main located along NE 8'~` Street r-o-w which will probably have to be up-graded to an 8" water main in coordination with the City Engineer. ^ Sewer ^ Adequate fire suppression will be provided via installation of a fire hydrant along NE 7i" Street and NE 8~" Street. A technical item is attached that the nearest fire hydrant is noted on the engineering plans along NE 5t" Avenue and NE 6t" Avenue. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, treatment capacity is available at the City's Water Treatment Plant and the South Central County Waste Water Treatment Plant for the City at build-out. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to this level of service standard. Streets and Traffic: A traffic statement has been submitted that indicates that the Office Depot and CVS buildings will generate only 23 a.m. peak hour net new trips and 92 p.m. net new peak hour #rips. A letter from the Palm Beach County Traffic Division that indicates a finding of concurrency for the proposed development has been provided. Parks and Open Space: Park dedication requirements do not apply for non-residential uses. Thus, the proposed development will not have an impact with respect to this level of service standard. Solid Waste: The trash generated by the retail use consisting of a 19,002 Office Depot building and a 13,203 sq.ft. CVS building will be 964.24 tons per year {32,205 x 10.2 = 328,491 1 2,000 = 164.24). The total trash generated by the proposed development will be 164.24 tons per year. This will be a net increase of 97.43 tons per year compared to the car dealership, which generates approximately 66.81 tons per year (14,526 x 9.2 = 133,63912,000 = 66.81). The Solid Waste Authority has indicated that its facilities have sufficient capacity to handle ali development proposals till the year 2021, thus a positive finding with respect to this level of service standard can be made. Drainage: Drainage will be accommodated an site via an exfiltration system with an outfall into the Federal Highway system. There should be no impact on drainage as it relates to this level of service standard and there are no problems anticipated in complying with SFWMD requirements. Schools: The project contains no residential component. Therefore, school concurrency is not applicable. _ - ~D,4RD _ ~C~ Rl.,4N ~ACTiOhIS.~ ~ °~ _~ :. A. Building design, landscaping, and lighting (glare) shall be such that they do not create unwarranted distractions or blockage of visibility as it pertains to traffic circulation. No# a livable Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent X -This standard will be met once the attached conditions of approval pertaining to the photometric elan have been addressed. B. Separation of different farms of transportation shall be encouraged. This includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in a manner consistent with policies found under Objectives D-1 and D-2 of the Transportation Element. Not a livable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent C. Open space enhancements as described in Policies found under Objective B-1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element are appropriately addressed. Not applicable.,,,, ,,,., __j_ X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent D. The City shall evaluate the effect that any street widening or traffic circulation modification may have upon an existing neighborhood. If it is determined that the widening or modification will be detrimental and result in a degradation of the neighborhood, the project shall not be permitted. Not applicable ~ X Meets intent of standard Does not mee# intent E. Development of vacant land which is zoned for residential purposes shalt be planned in a manner which is consistent with adjacent development regardless of zoning designations. Not applicable ~ X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent F. Property shalt be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensity are appropriate in terms of soil, topographic, and other applicable physical considerations; complementary to adjacent land uses; and fulfills remaining land use needs. Not applicable ~ Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent G. Redevelopment and the development of new land shall result in the provision of a variety of housing types which shall continue to accommodate the diverse makeup of the City's demographic profile, and meet the housing needs identified in the Housing Element. This shall be accomplished through the implementation of policies under Objective B-2 of the Housing Element. Not a livable X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent H. The City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traf#ic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to nega#ively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development wilt result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. Not a 6cable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent 1. Development shall not be approved if traffic associated with such development would create a new high accident location, or exacerbate an existing situation causing it to become a high accident location, without such development taking actions to remedy the accident situation. Not a livable Meets intent of standard X Does not meet intent J. Tot lots and recreational areas, serving children from toddler to teens, shall be a feature of all new housing developments as part of the design to accommodate households having a range of ages. This requirement may be waived or modified for residential developments located in the downtown area, and for infill projects having fewer than 25 units. Not applicable ~ X Meets intent of standard Does not meet intent ,~ ~~ D BOND WAY i.i 7 Q WITHERSPOON LA McKEE LN. ~~ r rn G~ ~o~P~ N.E. 5TH TERR. Q N.E. 5TH CT. 0 a N.E. 5TH 5T. 4r z Y Bt35H a Z O 07 ~ t- O si 1 N.E. 4TH I N.E. ^ 5TH 0 z vi w ST. I~ z I~I~J a ~~ N CVS PHARMACY AND OFFICE DEPOT ~~ ROPERTY 700 NE 6TH AVENUE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL D LOCATION MAP PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT -- DlC1TAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: S:\Planning &Zoning\DBMS\File-Cab\Z-LM 100t-1500\LM1044_CVS Pharmacy and Office Depot N.E. 11TH ST. 1..~-~__~'.:... ~~ 4^ fl ~' G rY ~ v '. _,i i'~ ~ _ ~ z ~~ w +_. ~ ~~ } ~~ ~ ~, Y ~e ~ ~~ ~~ ~k ~~ E 4 u[ a U N Q z 4 a b Ly ~ S ~ 4[ ~ •~ M L n b Y y S~ r~ C a E b~ M k~%= 33~' I b_ A R± k~ 4 $ ~ ~ ~ ~ K gg ° 9 4~~ b a_ E i A~ e~ a ~i~~~~~~~k~~: ~~ -d ~~°-~~ ~ ~~sa~~~~~~ ~~~~a ~~dp~p~~~~ C C R '~ 8 E C S ~ N-- =~ § K ~YI L' a k~ a i i i i~ Y 4 E ~~ - '1 ~ ~E ~f : M ~ tl ~ b i b ~ 4 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ L L ~ < i B . ,Cdy C 1 S A ~ w ~ 7f __ 1 3 5 y 4 k~ h k d ~~~i~ ~~a°~~p e I ~ A g g ~ e e~ ~~ 4 d~ e xx ~ ~ i ~~ty c S ~ 5~i ~._ ~ g ~ ~ S d Y y~ -~ u 8 ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ C ~ ~ ~ Y S ~ 1~ ~ 6 31f 31F 31: #E ~E ^ a F A~~ b~ F k~~ 3 a G c g~g Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ d a ~ ~ If i ~ ~ ~ C e Y~~Y ~ ~ ~ b ~ - i i~~~ E 6 3~ }Y~ a z s ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ '~ ~~~~t ~~ ~ ~~~~. ~• :~ a ~ ~~ ~~~ d~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~¢ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~9 ~~ g ~5~ ~ ~~a ~na~~ ~N~~~R sc~3~~~ ~~ Q ~o~ $~ ~N~ ~N cj A 44 N ~~ l-R YJ~ YJ~ V01!!07! 'Hav38 Atl21130 '8A78 H5118 3'~a039 A 'JINN -Itlll3o-3! ~'n ~ZY+a asm - Fne~ - vpwv - lnvp ~wlyp - n une - •uiw avr~ 7~ e6~e Z ~.Od~d ~.7~~~~ ca-al-z` 1~311li~21V .`'~/'I'tI 'NOlIIW`dH 'CI iN3N Z-d a, ~ ~~ ~~~~g~ ~~~~~g ~ W ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~3~~ ~ ~a~ ~ aab a~~~~~ ~W~s~~ W ~-~~-_r~ -_~ > R' z 0 7 J 6 ~ ~„ tl 3 b ~ F ~ w 2 } ky ~d F ~~ ~~ yy F ~ ~~ ~ y3 Y '~ @~ ~~ @ 333 3 N s ~ ~ 0. 7 R yy F ~ p a d a O 0 ® ~ ® @ ~3 ® ~ ~ ~I. a~ H Z O f- a a JW 4iA a~ o~ °z~ O z a W W b x: a~ z~ ~~ z ! ~ w N ~ ~ ~ x~ ~ z D ~ b J '.• H. ~. W~ .~ 0 4 W Z ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ J ~ ~~ ~ 55 ~ {! ~ y ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ d. ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ R ~ 6 ~ ; ~ E ~a o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a S 8 ~ E E S a s N R ~ ~~ xe ~~~e ~~93~ w e®~ ~ ' ~~~~ ~ a~ p~p~~9~~t~~~' `~~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~~#~~~~~~g~~~~ ~~~a~~~~~~~x~ r~ieav 'H]V36 A1Itl'S3tl "GA'IB Ns°9 30tl0~, ii 'LASH ~V83°3! dvn o~+~ asm - s~.~e - .rawv - invu ivrra . ~e n.h . ~.,w ,rw. ~x .ns a '~NI S32l1N3~ `°~a`_Z, ""~"'" '°""' l-l8S xa3 rmd 3FI5 G35°doad oo-co 1331ffi021'd "H'I'br 'NOlI[Wb'FI 'd 1N3)f __ p~~~B ~~f~~~ ~ a ~$~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ € ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~I' ~ i~ ~~ ~~ a ~ ~~~ 3 ~~ ~r ~~ W~g 8 g ~'s ~ ~~ ~~ aa~ z ~ ~ ~ A W r ~ O G ` H ~ ~. ~ J W ~ c N n fl W a§ ~~ = L N ~ _ 1 YQItlO'la 'H~Y38 AYtll30 "ame HSn~ 30tJO37 A 'AM17 14a3Q3! '~Ni S~2#1N3~ tl0! 1KEd 3115 MW N6LLY/313 i!3ladISAQ GCQ ~; pU"'~,, $~ N V~~~. t O O cn ~~~ o=~": ~~ w 0.~ ~ A~ ff a~ qq~ Ke O o! x 8 8~ e o ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~a w 8 d ~ ~~ a~ J ~Z~ w~, C i~i+4 dH~~+s N ~.OG 2 Uoz~ Wx aQ ~~ V Oe~u ~~~ <~~ N~~r ~o°~ Z a. J ~~ a Q ~ii a Vy ~~~ 8a eee~+o sm - . _. n - vaws1. Navp Avxwa . f~ eons - •~xx ivww/ ~ rws a mad ~•b•rv ~~o~.~iwv~ -a tN~~ _n ~~ a e'Il ~ Q < ~~ ~u~ o~~ . ~ o°W# +e+wx £ gat pnz~ N 2 6U0 W; ' ~W Jw W ~Z ; Uo~~ 2 d !• J --~---- g oe g a! d ~~ VC C 2 g SIEGEL, LIPMAN. ]~I~NAY, SHEI'ARD & MISKEL, LLP GARY S. DUNAY THE PLAZA SE11TE 801 (56[3 368-7700 KENNETH W. LIPMAN BONNIE MISKEL JONATHAN L. SHEPAR© CARL E. SIEGEL 5355 TOWN CENTER ROAD BOLA RA"1"ON, FLORIDA 33456 FAX: (5613 368-9274 SCOTT BACl~CMAN LINDA B_ LYMAN January 28, 2008 ~~~ 3 WWW.SLDSMLAW.COM ~~ ~. _ f r ~=::' ~~ ~ 1 3v } 1 h~ ti~~` .~fS?1f ~ tl _ F~1 f ~ ~I~ ~~i~i'~ ~jj ~f Paul Dorling, Director City of Delray Beach Planning & Zoning Department 100 NW 15t Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Re: Waiver Request for Office Depot/CVS Building (700 SB 6"' Avenue} Dear Mr. Darling: On behalf of our Centres, Inc., the Developer of the proposed Office DepotICVS located at 700 NE 6th Avenue, requests that you please accept this letter as a formal request for waivers in accordance with Land Development Regulation Section 2.4.7(6) ("Applicant"}. The specific waivers as well as the justification for the waivers are detailed below: REQUEST FOR PARKING WAIVER Parking Requirement LDR Section 4.8.9 (D)(3J(cj The City`s Land Development Regulations regarding parking far the commercial site requires 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. Using these calculations the proposed site plan would require a total of 155 spaces, while the applicant is proposing a total of 93 spaces. The applicability of the City's parking requirements to the subject property is excessive given its proximity to the Downtown area and the site's location on U.S. Highway 1, a major mass transit corridor far the City of Delray Beach as well as Palm Beach County. The City's parking requirement was designed for suburban settings, whereas the subject property is being regulated by other Land Development Regulations that encourage a more urbanized development. Office Depot stares do not generate the same parking demands as general retail. Mast Office Depot business is catabgue and online orders. Many private businesses place orders directly from the store and have items delivered to their offices. Office Depot stores also commit a large amount of the stores square footage to fumiture and product displays as well as to the storage of excess furniture and products currently not being displayed on the sales floor area. Additionally, Office Depot also provides an in store copy center. Fifty percent or more of the Office Depot square footage is dedicated to this '..storage, display, and copy cen#er area. The proposed Office Depot is 19,002 square feet. The actual square footage of the building that should be considered for parking calculations is 9,501 square feet. Thus, the required parking #or the Office Depot should be 43 spaces, based upon the actual square footage utilized by customers. The proposed CVS building footprint is 13,203 square feet. The mezzanine is 2,078 sf which makes the total square footage 15,281 square feet. The mezzanine area will not be utilized by customers. Also, the CVS provides a minimum of 40 percent of the footprint for storage of consumer goods. The actual square footage of the building that should be considered for parking calculations. is 7,921 square feet which makes for 36 parking spaces. The two developments together suggest that a minimum of 79 parking spaces be provided if providing 4.5 spaces per 1,000 of building. We are providing 93 on-site parking spaces. Rarely do you ever see mare than 10 people parked at an Office Depot including the employees in particular the newly constructed Office Depot to the south of our property. Unfortunately, it is difficult to calculate parking specifically for Office Depot stores because they are often inline stores in large shopping plazas. Most importantly, considering the proximity of the Office Depot and CVS, it is expected that the occupancy of a single parking space will be used to satisfy two trip purposes. We are providing 93 spaces onsite #or both the CVS and the Office Depot. Currently, there are approximately 20 on-street parking spaces adjacent to our site along the west side of NE 5~' Avenue {southbound US Highway 1) which must be for the existing Car Dealership. There are no other deveiaprrlents in the immediate vicinity that the on-street parking could be used for. The Car Dealership is #o the east and train tracks to the west. We ask that you please consider these spaces as available parking for the proposed development which would increase the number of available parking to 113 spaces. The Applicant is also willing to accommodate additional parking along NE 4th Street {northbound US Highway 1) if the City feels it is necessary to pursue with FDOT. The Applicant believes that this waiver is deserved and warranted due to the nature of the proposed use and the Applicant's willingness to provide additional parking off-site. REQUEST FOR BUILDING FRONTAGE AND SETBACK WAIVER Building Frontage & Sefbacks LDR Section 4.4.13(FJ(4}(6} and (c) The City`s Land Development Regulations requires structures to be situated close to the roadway in order to create a more urban type of development. See tables below for required and provided setbacks and frontage requirements. Office Depot and CVS Building ° Required Comply F?oadl /~ Building Proposed Building Required Building `w1Lt]R Building Frontage ' Building Heighf Setback Frontage at Side (minlmax); Setback Frontage `Y ~~ 8~ Finished 70% .190% 10` max 164' / 211' 123' " Avenue.:. grade to 37 Remaining 234' Lo# 15' min. 70' 123' 65' Frontage length Office Qepot and GVS BuiitEing Roadl Building e. /o Building ' . Required Requ+red building Proposed Com f p Y. wlLDR? - Building Height Frontage; SetbacEc Fr nta e at Building - Side (rrtiNmax); g o ; Frontag@ ~ $ettiack Y NE 5« Finished grade to 70°1° _190% 10' max ifi2' 12p9' 0' Avenue 3T 232' Lot Remaining length 15' min. 70' 123` 241' * Frontage Office Depot and CYS Building Roadl Building Building °,% Building Frontage Required Side Height (minlmax)r Setback Other Finished 7p% .1 90% 10' max R O'-W ` grade to ' 25 NE 8th 130' Lot Remaining 15' min Street Frontage length . Required Comply Building Proposed wl Frontage of Building Frontage: LDR? Setback Y N 91' / 117' 13' 39' / 13' 1151' Office Depot and-CVS Building i Required Comply Roadl % Building Proposed ; Building Required Building wl B,ui1ding Frontage Building HeigYrt Setback Frontage at ' - LDR? Sitle (minlmax), Frontage - _ Setback Y N Other Finished R O'-W grade - to 7t]% .l 90% 10' max 151' 1194' 0' * ' 25 NE 7th 21 S' Lot Remaining i5'min. 65'!22' 23' * Street Frontage length As noted above, the City's LDR's regarding building frontage were designed to promo#e a more urbanized feel along major roadways such as US 1. The City's LDR's did not envision the rare situation where a parcel of Sand would be bounded on all sides by roadways. Although Applicant does not fully meet these frontage requirements, the Applicant has provided a decorative wall along NE 5tt' Avenue and NE 6~' Avenue in older to crea#e the same feeling of urbanized development that the City is looking for. This decorative wall is similar to that of the Publix to the south; the Applicant is attempting to follow that same site design concept. The Applicant contends that the decorative wall would provide a more aesthetically pleasing frontage along US Highway 1 (NE 5th Avenue and NE 6th Avenue rather than a solid structure. The building frontages along NE 7"' Street and NE 8t Street cannot be modified without interfering with the 40 foot clear line of sight triangles at all intersections as required by the City's Land Development Regulations. As previously mentioned this site is constrained by the fact that it is bounded by four streets. The linear frontage along NE 8th Street and NE 7~' Street is relatively limited in order to accommodate the required sight triangle, the required building frontage as well as the required ingress/egress to the site. In addition, the fact that the subject property is bounded on all 4 sides, the frontage requirements create a significant hardship on developing the property with the proposed use. The Applicant believes that this waiver is warranted due to the physical site constraints of the property's location on 4 roadways. We believe the proposed development will compliment the newly constructed buildings in the immediate vicinity. REQUEST FOR STACKING DISTANCE AT DRIVE-THRU WAIVER Stacking Distance at Pharmacy L.DR Section 4.6.9{D)(3}(c)(2) and (3} The City's Land Development Regulations require the Applicant to provide a 100 foot stacking distance for the proposed pharmacy drive thru. The Applicant has provided a 6b #oot stacking distance and requests a waiver of 35 feet. Pharmacy drive thrus are provided as a convenience to customers. Typically, they are utilized for special need customers (the elderly as an examplej, parents with sick children, or customers who have no other needs other than prescription drop off or pick up. This customer base is minor and does not represent a significant number of vehicular trips. A stacking area of 65 feet is more than adequate to handle the few cars per hour that come through the drive thru. Rarely is there a line that would utilize the full 900 foot requirement at the drive thru for those wishing to utilize this convenience. The current stacking distance accommodates approximately 4 cars. The additional 35 feet that is required by the Land Development Regulations would only accommodate an additional 2 cars. The Applicant maintains that because the City requires the site to comply with urban development standards, the reduced size of the proposed drive thru complies with such development. Therefore, the Applicant feels that this waiver is deserved based on the minor traffic generation rates of the proposed drive-thru and the Applicant's commitment to a more urban development within the City of Delray Beach. REQUEST FOR STACKING DISTANCE WAIVER Stacking Distance along egress/ingress drr'veway on NE ~h Street i.DR Section 4.6.9(D)(3}(c} The City's Land Development Regulations require the Applicant to provide 50 feet of stacking for the egresslingress driveway at NE 7'h Street on the east and west side. Neither the east nor the west sides of the driveway da not meet this minimum requirement. As previously mentioned, this site's [ocatian between 4 roadways presents several site development limitations and restrictions. Currently the -site plan shows parking on the east and west side of the driveway where stacking would be required by the land development regulations. The east side of the egresslingress driveway is the entrance to the proposed Office Depot. In order to meet the stacking requirement on the east side of the Applicant would need to eliminate 3 parking spaces at the franc of the building. The elimination of the parking spaces in order to meet the stacking requirements is not in the best interest of the overall site design and the general intent of the City's code requirements. The Applicant feels that it is more important to the overall function of the site to maximize the amount of parking provided an the site. The additional grass area that would be created in front of the proposed Office Depot building would create an area of additional landscaping that would not serve a specific purpose and would not contribute to the overall function of the proposed site plan. Additionally, the need for the entire 50 feet of stacking is not a critical element to the function of the site plan, as the subject property has access to and from the site on all 4 sides of the site. The Applicant feels that this stacking requirement was intended to accommodate traffic access to and from a site that has 9 or 2 access points. This is not the situation on the subject site, which is bounded by and has access to 4 streets. The City should grant the proposed waiver in order to accommodate additional required parking and eliminate an excess of unusable space on the site. REQUEST FOR SITE TRIANGLE WAVER trsibility Triangle of NW & SE Corners of Site LDR Section 4.fi.94{A) The Applicant is requesting a waiver from the visibility triangle requirements at the northwest and southeast corners of the site. The proposed site plan shows that the buildings are currently encroaching into the proposed sight triangles. The City of Delray code regulations require that the Applicant provide an urban development which includes pulling the buildings up towards the roadways. However the City's development regulations do not account for the rare situation where a site is bounded by roadways on ail four sides. The northwest and southeast corner visibility triangles are not necessary because the traffic flow on NE 5'n Avenue and NE 6~' Avenue are both one way. As such, the sight triangles are not warranted because the traffic flow in both cases does not interfere with the visibility triangle encroachment. Visibility Triangle at Entrance of NE 5~' Avenue L,DR Section 4.6.94(AJ The Applicant is requesting a waiver from the visibility triangle requirements at the driveway entrancelexit off of NE Stn Avenue {southbound US Highway 1}. Currently the site plan shows a trellis that encroaches into the visibility triangle on the south side of the egresslingress driveway. In order to meet the urban development style that is required by the City of Delray Beach, the Applicant has constructed a wall with trellis features similar to that en a site in the general vicinity. As previously mentioned, the subject site is bounded by 4 roadways, 2 of these roadways have one way traffic flow. As was the case above, this waiver should be granted because the sight triangle on the south side of the egresslingress driveway does not interfere with vehicular visibility lines. The traffic flow an NE Stn Avenue (southbound US Highway 1}only travels from north to south, therefore, a person exiting the driveway onto NE Stn Avenue {southbound US Highway 1) would only need a clear line of sight to the north for the oncoming traffic. The Applicant respectfully requests a favorable recommendation from staff related to the above-mentioned requested waivers. Should you have any questions, concerns, or if you need additional information please do not hesitate to contact me at (561} 237-1537 or Heidi Henderson at (954} 777-3123 ext. 301. Sincerely, a v, ~,,~ s Bonnie L M kel Siegel, Lipman, Dunay, Shepard, & Miskel, LLP MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: SCOTT PAPE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: May 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 WAIVER REQUEST/IBM SOUTHEAST EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The action requested of the City Commission is consideration of a waiver from the following Land Development Regulation associated with the Class III site plan modification for IBM Southeast Employee Credit Union: 1. LDR Section 4.6.8(B)(3)(c), which requires a maximum illumination of 4 foot candles within the parking areas of the project. BACKGROUND The subject property consists of a portion of Tract N of the Delray Park of Commerce and contains 3.035 acres. The property contains an existing 23,000 square foot office building that was formerly occupied by Florida Power and Light. The office building was approved by the City Commission at its meeting of December 13, 1988. At its meeting of May 14, 2008, the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB) approved the Class III site plan modification for IBM Southeast Employee Credit Union. The development proposal consists of the conversion of 2,960 square feet of the office building to a financial institution and construction of two additional drive-through lanes. The remaining portion of the building will be occupied by the regional corporate offices of the credit union. The SPRAB considered the waiver identified above at this meeting and recommended approval. WAIVER ANALYSIS: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and (d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8(B)(3)(c), the maximum permitted illumination levels within parking and vehicle circulation area is 4 foot candles. The proposed illumination levels within the area beneath the drive-through canopy have a maximum of 17.8 foot candles. The applicant has submitted the following verbatim narrative in support of the waiver: "...The site lighting photometric values exceed the requirements of the LDR Section 4.6.8 (B) (3) (c). This is due to the requirements of Florida Statutes, Title XXXVIII, Chapter 655, Article 655.965 for illumination of outdoor automated teller machines. The Florida Statute requirements are for safety during night-time use. The values set forth in the Statute are minimum values. Transitioning between the different illumination levels required for the specific areas (dimensional zones) outlined in the Statute creates illumination values in excess of the LDR maximums. This is unavoidable given the design parameters... " Waiver Analysis: The State Statutes require that a minimum illumination level of 10 foot candles be provided at an automated teller machine and that this extend five feet from the machine. Further, the State Statutes preempt local jurisdiction with respect to this requirement. It is noted that the illumination level exceeds 10 foot candles beneath the canopy and that it extends beyond the five-foot distance. Thus, a waiver is still necessary from the City's illumination standards. It is noted that the illumination levels within bank drive through lanes are typically greater for safety purposes. The light fixtures within the drive through are completely recessed into the ceiling of the structure and a fascia is provided that extends below the ceiling. Since the light fixtures will be adequately screened to eliminate glare from the public right-of- way and in the interest of public safety, the waiver to the illumination levels can be supported. Consequently, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5)(a thru d), Waiver Findings. RECOMMENDATION By motion: 1. Approve the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.8(B)(3)(c), which requires a maximum illumination of 4 foot candles within the parking areas of the project, based on a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7(B)(5)(a thru d). IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA WAIVER REQUESTED BY IBM SOUTHEAST EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION LOCATED AT 1000 NW 17T" AVENUE TO ALLOW THE LIGHTING PLAN TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED FOOT CANDLES WITHIN THE PARKING AREAS 1. This waiver request came before the City Commission on June 3, 2008. 2. The City staff, applicant, and other persons have presented documentary evidence and testimony to the City Commission pertaining to the waiver request for the IBM Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union located at 1000 NW 17th Avenue. All of the evidence is part of the record in this case. 3. Sight Lighting: Pursuant to Section 4.6.8(B)(3)(c), the maximum permitted illumination levels within parking and vehicle circulation areas are four (4) foot candles. 4. Waivers: Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(8)(5), prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: (a) shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; (b) shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) shall not create an unsafe situation; and (d) does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. Should the waiver be granted to allow the illumination levels within the area beneath the drive-through canopy to have a maximum of 17.8 foot candles? Yes No 5. The City Commission has applied the Comprehensive Plan and LDR requirements in existence at the time the original site plan was submitted and finds that its determinations set forth in this Order are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The City Commission finds there is ample and competent substantial evidence to support its findings in the record submitted and adopts the facts contained in the record including but not limited to the staff reports, testimony of experts and other competent witnesses which supports the findings set forth in this Order. 7. Based on the entire record before it, the City Commission approves denies the waiver requests subject to the conditions set forth herein and hereby adopts this Order this day of June, 2008, by a vote of in favor and opposed subject to the condition that states: Rita Ellis, Mayor ATTEST: Chevelle Nubin City Clerk 2 Z N.W. 1370 O o: x 3 ~L1 ~ ~. Z ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~c1 ~ ~ ' 3. ~ ,? a N ~ ~ Q rn ~' ~ z z ~ z N.W. 1dTH 5T. 57 N.W. 9TH ST. ~ Q~ ~ 4~~~5 N ~ ~~~~ z ~P~r10 L A K E ~b,~ Ro ~~ ~ ~ 0 94 Z ~'pi~ 9 ~ V N SU$JECT PROPERTY IBM SOUTHEAST EMPLOYEES, ~'~ O FEDERAL CREDIT UNION PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY DF DELRAY BEACH, FL LOCATION MAP -- DIG?AL &ASE M4P SYSTEh! -- MAP REF: 5:\Planning &Zoning\DBMS\File-Cob\Z-LM tD01-150D\L.N11071_IBM Southeast employees Federal Credit Union ~~~~dP ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~' ~~l~~~rs"~9 ~~~~s~~~~~,~~ti p~' F J a~ © ~da8= ~Z~~C 4v a ~ ~. ~ ~~~ ~ v~v is s's~ ~ qP~ W u>e~w.at „~ w 0 w (~ ~ t~ ~ t U 4 @@EE $~~$ ~Id auS ~ ~,~ ~_ Noon iia~x~ .y~.g_I _ ~~~s~ epuo~ yazag Rv~a~~o .cu, ~ a~ A e 2 s ~ a a a a a a a ~ s---1 oK"moo" ~ ~~ a .- ~nN~ n Fez ~ v ~i /+ m `~ o ~ a of m o ~°a '~ ~o ae ~s ~F a w ° P~Q ~- W C zz ~~~c~cf O wi 6 ~~ ~ ~ ~¢ z4 ~~ a ~~ r <<'~0~3 i o~ ~ yyy 44 ~ a~ ~S~a gg>° W~ aU 61 w "~~ p SS os w aLLNZaa sN adz a'e ws`V^x 9 ~azz `~ w o x°~ii~ cn~z ~~z zw v 4' u° ~o~a ~o au m 2mv1 ~ , ~, `~i < d ~~ Yl~ ~ ;f ~ i I~ ` ~ "s 4a~, e / ~ ~~ III ~ .ots~ °~ 1 I 1 `. - I 1 ~ ~ / I 1 I ~ ~ / I I 1 p ,~ 1/ Gr ~ 1 ~ 8 F °~~y / ~~ d ~~°11 ~~If ~ O n / ~~ _ _ +5~~t 1 1 I o f ~~ I I .~ / g ~ b a N O r`7 ~~ = O H ~ W ~ O J Z M Q U 0 -j~-: ~ . t `i E 1 ~~~ ~9[p1 ~~el ~g ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ~9~ 0 ~i~ 's~:€i {3fE ~4 ~ ;IB ~ W . ~ -- p p _ as ~a N f W z ea " ~~~ o ~ A ~ -- ~-_-_~~: ~ ~\ ~ n < s a ~~ ~ ~g f ~~~~iu ?p~'q ~~~n Z ~<a~ 0. <u~^ ~ ~amem ~~m n q~. o ~o~~_ ~~~~~ ~~~ u~ ~mau~ ~u d '~~ ~~~ ~ '~~`°~ ~' '+c., ~ ~~ .r3~~ ~j' 88 za+n- ` Ns~ ~ 1 1 1 ~M'~ 1 I ~ b e ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8~~ `°~"'~ 1 N alp o r ~ I ° ~ ~ ~ a ~ I ~ o I I I I I 1 ~ ~ R r q I n ~ I ~~~ I ~k ~~~~ ~ ~~Qdi~ ~^ I ~Ns•~ ~ I I ~~l ~ I . ~ / II I n $3 1 ~a~ ~ ~ n - ~ 1 f M„ ~ ~ ~ s ~ F ~ I ~ 7 7 A ~~ 7 1 ~ fq °~8 q afig ~ 8~ .. ~ g ' ® I °+ ~ C 8 8 -1 I Y ~ ' _ / a~~ ~~ -~ - L I ~ f i 95 B / a, ~, a ~.__ ~ 1 11 . ~ --`~a ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~= e ~, y' L ` ~~ ~ a ~ - O _ ~' 7 E 3 ~~ ~r ~;~ ' ''~ ~ ~-0 1 1 ~ r r g < I I 1 _-- _ Or ~ ~ ~ I _ _ ~ ~ ~ Npp -- ~ ,~ ~ ~~',. ~ _ ~g$ga _'Oa ~ g~x ~- ~~ 3 `~ .~;~ _ +: Y N NE ~ N ~ ueid ade~sptie-Z s 8 A~~B~ AA~~ TT~~77~~ rr77 ~~TT TAT ~~ ~ g° ~ _ ~ N ~a ~~ p~~a~~ 1~OlF~L11 ~L.~1Q3 Q~ .TAT. ~.~ - ^ ~ C ~ ° 4--1 ~B~~et~~~~a~~y ~,~o~yo.~aa~oaJa~a~ '~aaE$~k ~aaa©QQ~ '~ ~--I 0 `~ o r~ ~ ~ ~ _ °m ~'8~~~ ~ ~ ~ zM y U p 4 y ~ '~~ ! F 3 ~ ~ ~ _N ~ z N~ w~ ~~ a ~ "A"NN ~ ~ z ~ ~ F ~ m~N~^N n ~ ^E^~~Uno~ {7 ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ Q• ~ r n if n ~f ~: N p a n n m v'~`f'n :i W 8 e 2 ~ r~_i~'~ _~.~- uP H ~=H iii Sr] N ~ '~ ~ ~ g ~ ~'¢ ~ nn~f ~ v`IOg m~tip®y U ~°v!°i~U iIV°a a a"c ~ uo a H'oo c°_.~ ~z : ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~e lea' N~a®am®:II ~II Q ~da~a`a e'S ~N C7 - [~ rni-rnod~f~ ® nron°v U 'o cr,o~?a`¢~v ~ Fs4 p~ ~ `°ma tli~v~in~~n'~a~~~mv_ ~ ~'~" °u°uu ~ w~~I~ QOM ~ a f~~e}vaa~ , ~ ,~~~-Q a ~~~_ - U ¢'~c~ - u -W ~uuEa U Dui, ~-~ .- o~~ a ~ q~oa ~o~ _ _ _ ~Es i°n3EE"E W 'c n'c~ J~",_3' ~` i-]. ~¢_~ _a dd a 'X ~ `v, rr wiz i _-T ~ / ~ eey_ B '~h °L ' ~"'ti tJ ~ ~ - ~s~s~ ~ \ 1 I p r.~r`, ` ! `~ 1 / E ~~ \ \ 1 ~ d l 1 ~~~ ` i gg a ~. m- rs~ ~ r~~ i r r - p ' R r ~ ~~ s 1I 1 ° ~ ~Ks ~ ~ ~~ ~ e _ ~ 7` _ 1 p ~C s; tl1 Pa Q ~ ~ - R ~ .~ ~~~~ ~~~I ° p F_ ~ _~ X _ _ _ ~ y`8 f p _ f ~~ -- ~ ~ ~ p ~ 1 ~ r _ ~~ r€ - -__ ~ YN ~ _ ~n 4 N p~ "~I~, ,~ rd ~ L ~ z° ~ v ~ x~ 3~ $g~ _~ _~~ ~~ ~ 34 ~ 2 ~_, Z S a ~ o r °s b s a i ~ d i : .:~ -~ ~ i a 5 7 ~ ! ~ 3 .r F' #- ~ i a ~ .~ p~ . ~ .- E ~ ~ i ~ '~ ~ ~ EE ~ ~ e ~ d ~ E ~ $ 3 {a EF E4 ~~ 5 : ~ : ~ E ~" +~ ~ H :~ E a ~ gggg g~ ~ 34 ~~ F g a ` ~ 9 ~ ° g ~ $~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ g 8 ~ ~ €a ~ s ~ g; g ~~ 3 ~ ~ g d pg] ~ ° $ ~~ p ~~ S 5 7 g g ij g ~3 $ 9 ~ - - a x ~~ ~ q E a a a n F a E ~ "a $ e $ 9[CP-1ri S12U a ~w ~a+^oA'~~x.~^w~x wwm wi ~mrin ~rc+n:wi 54YEE tldlNCll3 'H~tl39 CVil'f~d "~: Rz~l~d wuc~ime 37lli0 ~ ~w~+wo m 3fIhLaAVSflL['M'N 0001 ~~°Pj'~3~4~5{1~1 L~1 AQ~S1tIDA10Dtl~k1D'TJ ~ •""" eo xe n3xJ3tYJ ~ ~ rouvxri xu-moo~uarrxosaoa ;Lama N ~~ ~j' mcro ~ au 035N3N A r,- II,. ~1 a~i,v .~r~rr Aa .~,o ~sa°wv~e ~+ ~vn ' ~ SII 35tIHd} SNOIi+dA3l3'8 SM~IId fl2JH1-3AIa0 avu ~ ~~s _: ~~~~~ .~ ~ .r. tr ) 7E- qy ° ~~~ ~ - /~ FB o „ ~ ~@e ,, : S ~' ~' ~~ • 4 ~~ ~~9 ~ ~ a ~t ~ ~ ~ /: 1 p Z Eti ~ ~~ ~ ~~ w.wvna~nuwum I ~~~ g v _...~~.~ e 4 ~~_ ° g ~ Ie! _~ - ~ y': k i ~ ~- - -_ 3 77 .E r- { ~c S ~~ ~, ~ ~ • ti ~:1 g ~ ~ T_,,,, „~ z ~ _~#:: ~ $ aE . ~~ w ; ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~; ~~~ _ k G 3 ~ }. O'~ `~ ~~ ~ ~I a S~ b ~ ;, ~~ _ ~ _______~ _ ____ __ _ _ _ ~ ~~ E a~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ s ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ 0 ` 1 ~ . a o ~~ ~ g __ _.... ¢~ ~ s. ~~ ~~ 5 L~ ` o ~ l -...--.-.... ._~. - - ___ __... _ ___ ..~ __;-~ ~"."."_._-""_I, ,. ,-*~ _ iii . R ~~ + 4 . g a a ~ ,. ~$~~~~~.. 5 ~~ ~~€§~~~~ ' 4 a i $ § ~~ § ~ o o SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ---STAFF REPORT--- MEETING DATE: May 14, 2008 ITEM: IBM Southeast Employee Federal Credit Union -- Class III Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan, And Architectural Elevations Associated With The Conversion Of 2,960 .Square Feet Of The 23,000 Square Foot Office Building To A Financial Institution. GENERAL DATA: ApplicantlOwner .......................... IBM Southeast Employee Federal Credit Union Agent .......................................... Nicole R. Simpson. Location ...................................... Within the ^elray Park of Commerce a# the northeast corner of Congress Avenue and Lake Ida Road {1000 NW 17t" Avenue). Property Size .............................. 3.04 Acres Future Land Use Map ............... Commerce Current Zoning ............................ PCC (Planned Commerce Center) Adjacent Zoning ................North: PCC East: PCC South: PCC West: PRD (Planned Residential Development) Existing Land Use ...................... Business Office Proposed Land Use .................... Conversion of 2,960 square feet of the 23,000 square foot office building to a financial institution. Water Service ............................. Existing on si#e. Sewer Service ............................. Existing on site. ,~ Q~ ~l ~1 I~ -- ITEM,-BEF=ORE THE BOARD The action before the Board is that of approval of the following aspects of a Class III site plan modification for the IBM Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5{G)(1)(c): ^ Site Plan Modification; ^ Landscape Plan; ^ Architectural Elevations; and ^ Waiver. The subject property is located within the Delray Park of Commerce at the northeast corner of Congress Avenue and Lake Ida Road (1000 NW 17th Avenue). .~ B A C K G_~ ~=~I~b.~=- ~,- - The subject property consists of a portion of Tract N of the Delray Park of Commerce and contains 3.035 acres. The property contains an existing 23,DOD square foot office building that was formerly occupied by Florida Power and Light. The office building was approved by the City Commission at its meeting of December 13, 1988. The current site plan modification has been submitted to convert a portion of the office building to a financial institution and adding drive-through lanes. This request is now before the Board far consideration. ~.~ .~_ ~~~ PRQJE~~ D.ESC=.R_IPTIaN The development proposal involves the following: ^ Conversion of 2,960 square feet of the 23,000 square foot office building to a financial institution, ^ Reconfiguration of the drive-throughlvehicular drive along the north side of the building to accommodate the construction of two additional (four total) drive-through lanes and extension of the canopy; ^ Elimination of 15 parking spaces to accommodate the construction of the two drive- thraugh lanes; and © Installation of associated landscaping. The development proposal includes a waiver to the following section of the Land Development Regulations: 1. LDR Section 4.6.${B){3)(c), which requires a maximum illumination of 4 foot candles within the parking areas of the project. SPRAB Staff Report IBM Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union -Class III Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations Page 2 .~ --- -~ :SITE _P_L;A~N MOQIFICATION A-NALYSIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Items identified in the Land Development Regulations shall specifically be addressed by the body taking final action on the site and development appl icationlrequest. Lot Coverage: Per LDR Section 4.4.18(D){2}(c}, the maximum lot coverage by structures is 50% of the lot area. The proposed development complies with this requirement since a lot coverage of 10% is proposed. Parking: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.9(C)(4}(a), the 23,000 square foot officelfinancial institution requires a minimum of 81 parking spaces (3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet}. The proposed development complies with the minimum parking requirement since 144 parking spaces are provided following the reconfiguration of the vehicularlparking area. Site Lighting: Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.8(6){3}(c}, the maximum permitted illumination levels within parking and vehicle circulation is 4 foot candles. The proposed illumination levels within the area beneath the drive-through canopy have a maximum of 17.8 foot candles. The applicant has submitted the following verbatim narrative in support of the waiver: "...The site lighting phofomefric values exceed the requirements of fhe LDR Secfion 4.6.8 {B) (3} (c). This is due to the requirements of Florida Statutes, Title ~OCXVIII, Chapter 655, Article 655.965 for illumination of outdoor automated teller machines. The- Florida Statute requiremenfs are for safety during night-time use. The values sef forth in the Sfatufe are minimum values. Transifioning between the different illumination levels required for the specific areas (dimensional zones) outlined in the Sfafute creates illumination values in excess of fhe LDR maximums. This is unavoidable given the design parameters..." Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.7(6)(5}, prior to granting a waiver, the approving body shall make a finding that the granting of the waiver: SPRAB Staff Report IBM Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union - Class lil Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations Page 3 {a) Shall not adversely affect the neighboring area; {b) Shall not significantly diminish the provision of public facilities; (c) Shall not create an unsafe situation; and {d) Does not result in the grant of a special privilege in that the same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances on other property for another applicant or owner. Waiver Analysis: The State Statutes require that a minimum illumination level of 10 foot candles be provided at an automated teller machine and that this extend five feet from the machine. Further, the State Statutes preempt local jurisdiction with respect to this requirement. It is noted that the illumination level exceeds 10 foot candles beneath the canopy and that it extends beyond the five-foot distance. Thus, a waiver is still necessary from the City's illumination standards. It is noted that the illumination levels within bank drive through lanes are typically greater for safety purposes. The light fixtures within the drive through are completely recessed into the ceiling of the structure and a fascia is provided that extends below the ceiling. Since the light fixtures will be adequately screened to eliminate glare from the public right-of--way and in the interest of public safety, the waiver to the illumination levels can be supported. Cansequen#ly, positive findings can be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7{B}{5){a thru d), Waiver Findings. LA--N~~Sm'CAPE PLAN ANi~-LYSIS - In addition to the existing landscaping, the proposal includes the installation of additional landscaping. This landscaping consists of Silver Buttonwood trees, Maypan Coconut Palms, Live Oak trees, Orange Geiger trees, Purple Trumpet trees, and Sabal palms. These areas will be underplanted with Cocoplum, Muhly Grass, Dwarf Crown of Thorn, Croton, Fakahatchee Grass, and Dwarf Yaupon Holly. Based upon the above, the proposed landscape plan will comply with LDR Section 4.6.16, subject to the following: Landscape Technical Items: The following Landscape Plan items remain outstanding, and will need to be addressed prior to building permit submission unless as otherwise stated. 1. That a hedge be installed along the east side of the required landscape along Congress Avenue per LDR Section 4.6.16(H}(3){a). -_ -.: m.~ ~.=AR..C H 1 T ~C T=-=U R A L I_L L ~=A T 1 O N 'S Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.18(E}, the following criteria shall be considered, by the Site Plan Review and Appearance Board, in the review of plans for building permits. If the following criteria are not met, the application shall be disapproved. SPRAB Staff Report IBM Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union -- Class III Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations Page 4 1 } The plan or the proposed structure is in conformity with good taste, good design, and in general, contributes to the image of the City as a place of beauty, spaciousness, harmony, taste, fiitness, broad vistas, and high quality. 2} The proposed structure, or project, is in its exterior design and appearance of quality such as not to cause the nature of the local environment or evolving environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. 3} The proposed structure, or project, is in harmony with the proposed developments in the general area, with the Comprehensive Plan, and with the supplemental criteria which may be set forth for the Board from time to time. As noted in the Project Description of this staff report, the modification to the building elevations consists of the expansion of the drive through canopy to cover the additional lanes. The building elevations indicate that the canopy will have a flat roof and will have a stucco finish. The canopy will be painted off-white to match the existing building. The building elevations indicate that the canopy light fixtures will be completely recessed into fihe ceiling of the structure and that a fascia has been provided to eliminate glare onto adjacent propertylright-of-way. Based on the above, a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 4.6.1$(E} can be made. _ REQU[RED FINDINGS Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5{G}{1){c){Class III Site Plan Modifcation), a Class Ill site plan modification is a modification to a site plan which represents either a change in intensity of use, or which affects the spatial relationship among improvements on the Land, requires partial review of Performance Standards found in LDR Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.3, as well as required findings of LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(5). Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5 (G)(5) (Findings}, with a Class III site plan modification formal findings under Section 3.1.1 are not required. However, a finding that the proposed changes do not significantly affect the originally approved plan must be made concurrent with approval of a Class III modification. The development proposal involves the conversion of 2,960 square feet of the 23,000 square foot office building to a financial institution (IBM Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union). The remaining portion of the building (20,040 square feet} will be utilized as the corporate offices of the financial institution. The improvements to the property consist of the construction of a canopy addition for the additional drive through lanes and associated parking area modifications. Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5{G){5), this minor modification does not significantly impact the previous findings as they relate to consistency with the Future Land Use Map, Concurrency or the Comprehensive Plan. Compliance with the Land Development Regulations was discussed earlier in this SPRAB Staff Report IBM Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union -Class III Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations Page 5 report. Minor impacts of the development proposal on Concurrency issues are discussed below. Traffic: The proposed 2,960 square foot conversion to a financial institution will generate a net increase of 277 average daily trips and 49 peak p.m. trips. A finding of concurrency has been received from the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering Division. Solid Waste: The solid waste generation of the 2,960 square foot conversion to a financial institution will result in a net increase of 5.18 tons per year. The 5.18 ton increase can be accommodated by existing facilities and thus, will not have a significant impact on this level of service standard. The Solid Waste Authority has indicated that its facilities have sufficient capacity to handle all development proposals until the year 2024, thus a positive finding with respect to this level of service standard can be made. - = _ .- ~~~VIEW B~ OTHER-S-_: The property is not located in an area that requires review by the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) or DDA {Downtown Development Authority). Courtesy Notices: Special courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowners and civic associations: o Pines of Delray North o Neighborhood Advisory Council o Chatelaine o Delray Shores o Progressive Residents of Delray (PROD} o Rainberry Bay o Rainberry Lake Villas Letters of support and objection, if any, will be presented at the .SPRAB meeting. ..._ -- - - - - - -- ~--~ S E S~-S--NICE N T AND C O f~f_C L EI S I O N The development proposal involves conversion of 2,960 square feet of the 23,000 square foot office building to a financial institution. The impacts of the conversion on public facilities will be minimal. Further, the proposed conversion will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding community. The physical improvements to the property include the extension of the canopy to cover the additional drive through Panes, SPRAB Staff Report 1BM Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union - Ciass III Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations Page 6 The architecture of the canopy is consistent with the existing canopy and the architecture of the building. The proposal will be consistent with LDR Section 3.1.1 and Section 2.4.5{G){5) of the Land Development Regulations, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. ~. ~ ,m .. ~~ ~__ ALTERNAT1mm1~~ ACTIONS =' A. Postpone with direction. B. Move approval of the request for a Class 111 site plan modification, landscape plan, architectural elevations, and waiver for IMB Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.5(G}(5), 2.4.7{B){5)(a thru d}, and Section 3.1.1 {Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the attached condition of approval. C. Move denial of the request for a Class III site plan modification, landscape plan, architectural elevations, and waiver for IBM Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.5{G){5}, 2.4.7(8)(5){a thru d), and Chapter 3.1.1 (Performance Standards} of the Land Development Regulations. ~; STAFF RECOM-~1=ENDATIQN ._'; By Separate Motions: Waiver; 1. Recommend to the City Commission approval of the waiver to LDR Section 4.6.8{B){3)(c}, which requires a maximum illumination of 4 foot candles within the parking areas of the project, based on a positive finding with respect to LDR Section 2.4.7{B){5)(a thru d). Site Plan: Move approval of the Class III site plan modification far IBM Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union, based upon positive findings with respect to Chapter 3 {Performance Standards}, and Section 2.4.5{G){5} of the Land Development Regulations, and the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, SPRAB Staff Report IBM Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union -Class III Site Plan Modification, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations Page 7 Landscape Plan: Move approval of the landscape plan for IBM Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan meets criteria set forth in Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following condition: 1. Address all Landscape Technical Items and submit three {3) copies of the revised plans. Building Elevations: Move approval of the request for architectural elevations for IBM Southeast Employees Federal Credit Union, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 4.6.18{E) of the Land Development Regulations. Attachments: • Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Building Elevations Report prepared by: Scott Pape, AICP, Senior Planner MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Scott Aronson, Parking Management Specialist Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Director of Environmental Services THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 21, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 IN-LIEU OF PARKING FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENT/TAVERNA EROS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is that of approving an In-Lieu of Parking Fee Payment Agreement for the in-lieu spaces recently approved for Taverna Eros located at 8 East Atlantic Avenue. BACKGROUND At it's meeting of January 15, 2008 the City Commission approved a request from Taverna Eros, located at 8 East Atlantic Avenue, for four (4) in-lieu parking spaces, in the amount of $62,400. The approval was to accommodate the creation of an outdoor dining area in the front portion of the parking lot, on the west of the building, adjacent to Atlantic Avenue. At the time of approval, the presentation emphasized that payment would be made upon issuance of the building permit as the applicant was the tenant of the property. The owner of the property has contacted staff and is now requesting to pay for the approved spaces in accordance with Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.6.9(E)(3)(d) via an In-Lieu of Parking Fee Agreement, which requires 50% payment ($31,200) upon signing of the agreement with two (2) subsequent payments of 25% ($15,600), on the second and third anniversaries of the agreement. Considering the in-lieu of parking spaces remain with the property in perpetuity, thereby benefiting the owner of the property, staff supports the applicant's request. REVIEW BY OTHERS At its meeting of May 27, 2008, the Parking Management Advisory Board unanimously approved the request from the owner of 8 East Atlantic Avenue to enter into an In-Lieu of Parking Fee Agreement, in the amount of $62,400, for the in-lieu spaces recently approved for Taverna Eros. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve the request from the owner of 8 East Atlantic Avenue to enter into an In-Lieu of Parking Fee Agreement, in the amount of $62,400, for the spaces recently approved for Taverna Eros, by adopting findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 4.6.9 (E)(3)(d) of the Land Development Regulations. Prepared by: RETURN: R. Brian Shutt, Esq. City Attorney's Office 200 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 IN-LIEU OF PARHING FEE/REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of the day of , 2008, by and between THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation of the State of Florida ("City"), and AL SHEURING, owner of the property ("Owner"). WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of certain real property located at 8 East Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida, and referred to herein as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, Owner has applied to the City for approval for the development of an outdoor cafe referred to as Taverna Eros on the Property; and WHEREAS, as a condition of approval for the development on the Property, Owner has received a waiver to Land Development Regulations of the City for the removal of four (4) parking spaces to provide the aforementioned outdoor cafe. Section 4.6.9(E)(3) of the Land Development Regulations provides that the City Commission may approve the payment of a fee to the City in-lieu of replacing the required parking; and WHEREAS, Owner has requested that the City Commission approve the payment of a fee to the City in lieu of providing four (4) of the required parking spaces for the development of the Property and the City Commission has approved this request; and WHEREAS, Section 4.6.9(E)(3) of the Land Development Regulations also provides that the in-lieu parking fee shall be Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($15,600) per parking space; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this Agreement in order to confirm the terms of the in-lieu fee and reimbursement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement, and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 1. The parties hereby represent and warrant that the foregoing recitals are accurate and correct and hereby incorporate them in this Agreement. 2. The Property to which this Agreement applies is legally described as follows: See Attached Exhibit "A". 3. The City hereby confirms that, pursuant to Section 4.6.9(E)(3) of the Land Development Regulations, it has approved the payment of the fees described in this Agreement in-lieu of replacing four (4) of the required number of parking spaces for the development of the Property. 4. Owner shall pay to the City a total in-lieu of parking fee of Sixty Two Thousand Four Hundred dollars ($62,400) (which represents $15,600 per parking space). The total fee shall be paid as follows: (a) One payment in the amount of Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred and 00/100 dollars ($31,200) by check delivered to the City upon execution of this Agreement by the Owner. (b) Two payments, each in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred and 00/100 dollars ($ 15,600), due on the second and third anniversary of the date of this Agreement. (c) Each payment shall be made to: Finance Department City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. First Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 5. In the event Owner fails to make the payment in the time allowed, the City shall provide written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested to Owner at or at such other address as may be designated by Owner by written notice to the City. The City's notice shall request that Owner make the past due payment no later than thirty (30) days from the date the notice is received. 2 Failure of Owner to remit payment within this thirty (30) day period shall be deemed breach of this Agreement. The City shall thereby be entitled to file suit in a court of law seeking all payments due, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. 6. All of the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon, inure to the benefits of and be enforceable by, the parties to this Agreement and their respective successors, legal representatives, and assigns. 7. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. All prior understandings and agreements between the parties with respect to such matters are merged into this Agreement, which alone fully and completely expresses their understanding. 8. This Agreement may not be amended, modified, altered, or changed in any respect, except by a further agreement in writing duly executed by each of the parties to this Agreement. 9. This Agreement is not valid unless signed by the City's Mayor and City Clerk. 10. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida and venue shall be in Palm Beach County. 11. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Public Records for Palm Beach County, Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to the Agreement have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on their behalf as of the dates set forth below. ATTEST: CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA By: City Clerk Approved as to Form By: City Attorney WITNESSES: Print Name: By: Rita Ellis, Mayor OWNER: By: 3 Print Name: (CORPORATE SEAL) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 200_ by (name of officer or agent, title of officer or agent) of (name of corporation acknowledging), a (state or place of incorporation) corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is personally known to me or has produced as identification. Signature of Notary Public -State of Florida 4 N a V I- Z Q a. O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ Q ~, ~ ~ Q U ~ = E o ~~ ~a m mm w ~ F m m ' ~ C ~ L `• ~ Q (~ ~ q C~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Yp ~{/ Q E C C ,~ r t~ ` ~g F C ~ ~ x i C90Z 1M71iU.dp7 - p31M210da0pNl Fg630 Z3N3d io dues w~ uay),~y s:a,d~a aN lno y}!M pB~nyvdar eq yov j~oye pu0 p3yyypdilppNl N963p Z3a3d le .Syndaid a i{~ cy yue urn~op e~yl !~. ~, ~.. ~. w. p l '-' C ~~ -~ ~~ T -{ ~ ~ ` L.. ~~ ~~ ~y w r~ 4~; ~= ~r,~ ~~ .~ ~~ ~~ 4 3 _ ~~ ~ ~ :.;.,M. ~= W~; ~~__ .. r ~»,.. _ ~" f . ~ ~ r ... u ~~ `_ t y ~,;.. ~~ ~~4 . V '• ' ~ ~; ~~ -4 r~ ~. ~ x ~° _ ~ ~l' ;c =,- c ~ ,~ , y ~ ~ ~ s ~ , -. _> ~~c-`i'ti..i Tave~na Egos MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Richard C. Hasko, P.E., Environmental Services Director THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 21, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 BIDDING SCOPE/MILLER PARK ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Staff is proposing a limited scope of improvements for Miller Park to be identified as the base bid in bid documents to be advertised for competitive bids. Remaining proposed improvements will be included in the bid as add alternate items. Staff will review the bid proposal format with Commission and request authorization to proceed with competitive bidding as presented for project construction . BACKGROUND Upon completion of design plans and specifications for proposed improvements to the Miller Park baseball facilities, a guaranteed maximum price for construction of the project in excess of $7,000,000 was submitted by The Weitz Company, the Construction Manager retained to build the improvements. The project budget was previously established at $5,700,000. As a method for reducing the construction cost to a value more in line with the established project budget, the City terminated the Construction Manager's contract, opting to advertise for competitive bids for project construction. It was felt that the current economic conditions in the construction industry had created an aggressive bidding environment that would yield reduced construction costs. To ensure that bids would be within the range of the project budget, staff was to review the scope of improvements and establish a base bid scope that could be expected to be completed for the budgeted $5.7 million, with remaining improvements listed in the bid as add alternates to be awarded as funding allowed. Staff has completed that effort and will review the proposal with Commission seeking approval to proceed with the bidding process as presented. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends advertising for competitive bids using the base bid scope and add alternate items as presented. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Terrill C. Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney THROUGH: Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney DATE: May 23, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.G. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 SETTLEMENT OFFER IN CLAIM OF ROBERT HAUPTFUHRER V. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Settlement offer in the claim of Hauptfuhrer v. City of Delray Beach BACKGROUND On May 20, 2008, Mr. Hauptfuhrer, through his attorney, Frederick Ford, offered to settle a claim he has against the City. After Hurricane Wilma in 2005, Mr. Hauptfuhrer's boat was impaled on the dock at the City's Marina. The boat was removed from the dock and towed away on a barge by the City's contractor, Vance Construction. Mr. Hauptfuhrer alleges that the City is responsible for the replacement value of his Searunner 37 Cruising Trimaran and all personal property that he claims he had inside the boat when it was towed away. The City Commission approved a counteroffer ($25,000.00) to the Plaintiff's original proposal ($1,089,450.00) at the May 6, 2008 meeting. The Plaintiff did not accept the offer of $25,000, but instead countered with another offer in the amount of $726,300.00. FUNDING SOURCE N/A RECOMMENDATION The City Attorney's Office recommends denial. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Catherine M. Kozol, Asst. City Attorney/Police Legal Advisor THROUGH: City Attorney DATE: May 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.H. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 SETTLEMENT OFFER IN ROBERT GROCHMAL V. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the Commission is the settlement offer made by the plaintiff's attorney in the case of Robert Grochmal v. City of Delray Beach. BACKGROUND The case arose from an auto accident where the plaintiff failed to stop at a stop sign and was hit by former Police Officer Ron Brown who was allegedly speeding. The plaintiff's medical bills amount to $28,592.00. The plaintiff's attorney, on behalf of his client, has offered to settle this case with the City of Delray Beach for the sum of $12,500.00. RECOMMENDATION The City Attorney's Office recommends approval. - - - _ -~__ - :`~ _~. a, - . _.~ ~tP' ~ .. ~ -~ r~ rv~ r. - i !~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: City Manager DATE: May 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.I. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 APPOINTMENT TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before City Commission for an appointment to the Code Enforcement Board. BACKGROUND Ms. Susan Kay, regular member of the Code Enforcement Board, submitted her resignation effective May 10, 2008. This creates a vacancy for a regular member to serve an unexpired term ending January 14, 2010. Mr. Mackenson Bernard and Mr. George Thacker are both alternate members and would like to be considered for regular membership. All members of the Code Enforcement Board must be residents of the City. Appointments to both regular and alternate member positions shall be on the basis of experience or interest in the fields of zoning and building control. The regular and alternate membership of the Board shall, whenever possible, include an architect, a business person, an engineer, a general contractor, a subcontractor and a realtor. The following individuals have submitted applications and would like to be considered for appointment: Mackenson Bernard Business Owner-Real Estate Attorney (Incumbent) Shannon Dawson Real Estate Consultant/Business Owner Gerald Franciosa Retired-Law Enforcement Albert Richwagen Business Owner Frank Rozzo President-Roofing George Thacker Accounts Manager (Incumbent) Karla Vaillancourt Graphic Operations Manager (currently serving on the Green Task Force) A check for code violations and/or municipal liens was conducted. None were found. Voter registration verification was completed and all are registered. Based on the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner McDuffie (Seat #3) for one (1) regular member to serve an unexpired term ending January 14, 2010. RECOMMENDATION Recommend appointment of one (1) regular member to the Code Enforcement Board to serve an unexpired term ending January 14, 2010. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 01/08 TERM EXPIRES REGULAR MEMBERS OCCUPATION POSITION FILLING 01 /14/2010 Susan Kay Case Manager Layperson Amt 01/02/07 alt Unexp Appt 03/05/07 reg 01 /14 /2010 Stanley Srodka Financial Services Real E state tmexp Appt 09/05/06 Re t 01/02/07 Re 01 /14 /2011 Kelli Freeman Staffing Manager Business Person Appt 01/03/08 reg Unexp Appt 10/2/07 alt 01 /14 /2010 David Hawke, Qiair Architect Architect Unexp Appt 01/07/03 Unexp Regular Appt 04/15/03 Reappt 01/06/04 Re t 01/02/07 01 /14/2009 Robert Marks Construction General Contractor Unexp Alt Appt 01/07/03 Unexp RegAppt 04/15/03 Re t 02/07/06 01 /14/2009 Anthony Veltri Retired/General Sub Contractor Alt Amt o1/02/01 Adjuster Unexp Regular Appt 02/02/01 Reappt 01/07/03 Re t 01/17/06 01 /14/2009 Mark Behar, Vice Qiair Property Mgmt. Engineer Appt. 09/09/03 alt Unexp Appt 10/05/04 Reappt 02/07/06 ALTERNATES 01 /14/2010 Mackenson Bernard Business Owner- Layperson unexp Amt o1/15/08 Real E state Attorney 01/14/2010 George Thacker Accounts Layperson Unexp Appt 03/20/07 Manager Contact: Danise Cleckley 243-7213 S/City Clerk/Board 08/Code Enforcement Board MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: City Manager DATE: May 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 9.,T. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF ,TUNE 3, 2008 APPOINTMENT TO THE POLICE & FIREFIGHTERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF TRUSTEES ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before City Commission for an appointment to the Police & Firefighters Retirement System Board of Trustees. BACKGROUND The term for Mr. Adam Frankel, regular member on the Police & Firefighters Retirement System Board of Trustees, will expire on June 30, 2008. Mr. Frankel will have served an unexpired term, is eligible and would like to be considered for reappointment. The term will be for two (2) years ending June 30, 2010. In accordance with Section 33.65 (A)(2) of the City Code, the City Commission appoints two (2) public members of the Board of Trustees. All members must be either a resident of, own property, own a business or be an officer, director or manager of a business located within the City of Delray Beach. All appointees must take an oath of office. The following individuals have submitted applications and would like to be considered for appointment: Adam Frankel (Incumbent) Glenn Goss David Haycock A check for code violations and/or municipal liens was conducted. None were found. Voter registration verification was completed and all are registered. Based on the rotation system, the appointment will be made by Commissioner Montague (Seat #4) for one (1) regular member to serve a two (2) year term ending June 30, 2010. RECOMMENDATION Recommend appointment of one (1) regular member to the Police & Firefighters Retirement System Board of Trustees to serve a two (2) year term ending June 30, 2010. POLICE & FIRE FIGHTERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF TRUSTEES (No Term Limits) 04/08 TERM EXPIRES REGULAR MEMBERS APPT SY Indefinite Greg Giaccone Fire Chief T° replace ~'~~ Aaan,s Battalion Fire Chief effective 05/17/06 Fire Departrrtent Indefinite Captain Ralph Phillips, Jr. Police Chief Amt o9/01/07 Police Department 04 /22 /2009 Melvin Sacharow City Amt 05/17/05 Commissioners Reaoot 05/01/07 (2 term) 04 /22 /2009 Sergeant Brady Myers Police Dept Amt o4/22/05 Police Department Reappt 04/07 06 /30 /2008 Adam Frankel City Unexp Appt 03/03/08 Commissioners (2 term) 04 /22 /2010 Officer Charles 1VL Jeroloman, QZair Police Dept Reappt 04/04 Police Department Reappt 04/06 Re t 04/08 04/22/2009 Lt. Jce Ligouri, Vice Clair Fire Dept t 04/99 ~ Fire D t ~n R t 04/01 Reappt 04/03 Reappt 04/05 Re t 04/07 04/22/2010 Lt. James Tabeek Fire Dept unexp Amt 10/05 Fire Department Appt 04/06 Re t 04/08 Doug Smith (sitting member) Contact: Anne Woods 276-0512 (telephone/fax) 243-4707 delrayp-f@comcast.net Commission Liaison: Mayor Rita Ellis S/City Clerk/Board 08/Police & Fire Pension Board of Trustees MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: AMY E. ALVAREZ, HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: May 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.A. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 ORDINANCE N0.31-07 (SECOND READING/SECOND PUBLIC HEARINGI ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is a privately initiated amendment to LDR Section 4.4.24 Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), subsections (B) Permitted Uses and (F) Development Standards. The proposed amendment is to add Lots 16, 17, and 18, less the South 75' thereof, Block 69, Town of Delray, to the list of lots within the OSSHAD zoning district that can be developed pursuant to the uses and development standards of the CBD (Central Business District) zoning district. BACKGROUND At its October 2, 2007 meeting, the City Commission considered this item on first reading and voted to approve the proposal by a vote of 4-0. However, the City Commission also directed the applicant to meet with Staff before second reading to discuss possible alternatives. The applicant met with Staff and subsequently requested a postponement of Second Reading. As an alternative to this amendment, the applicant requested a Class V Site Plan Application and Certificate of Appropriateness along with the appropriate waiver and variances to the current OSSHAD regulations which were reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board at its March 6, 2008 meeting (see attached HPB Staff Report). The development application and its associated waiver and variance requests were denied and have been appealed to the City Commission. If the appeal is not approved, the applicant will move forward with the subject LDR amendments. Pending the consideration of the appeal scheduled for City Commission on August 5, 2008, the applicant has requested a postponement of this amendment until the August 19, 2008 City Commission meeting. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Historic Preservation Board (HPB) considered the subject LDR Amendments at its meeting of September 5, 2007. A recommendation to deny the amendment was made by a vote of 4-1. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) considered the subject LDR Amendments at its meeting of September 6, 2007. A recommendation to deny the amendment was made by a vote of 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Board considered the subject LDR Amendments at its meeting of September 17, 2007. A recommendation to deny the amendment was made by a vote of 6-0 (Perez stepped down from the item). RECOMMENDATION Approve the postponement request and move this item to the City Commission meeting of August 19, 2008. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS FROM: AMY E. ALVAREZ, HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # - REGULAR MEETING -OCTOBER 2, 2007 CONSIDERATION OF A PRIVATELY INITIATED AMENDMENT TO LDR SECTIONS 4.4.24(B)(12)(c) AND 4.4.24(F)(1)(a) TO ADD LOTS 16-18, LESS SOUTH 75 FEET THEREOF, BLOCK 69 TO THOSE PROPERTIES ZONED OSSHAD (OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT) WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE PERMITTED USES OF 4.4.13(8) AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF 4.3.4(J)(4), CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT, EXCLUDING EXCEPTIONS TO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS PROVIDED IN 4.3.4(J)(4). ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is a privately initiated amendment to LDR Section 4.4.24 Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), subsections (B) Permitted Uses and (F) Development Standards. The proposed amendment is to add Lots 16, 17, and 18, less the South 75' thereof, Block 69, Town of Delray, to the list of lots within the OSSHAD zoning district that can be developed pursuant to the uses and development standards of the CBD (Central Business District) zoning district. BACKGROUND The subject LDR Amendment is privately-initiated to accommodate a new office building. The subject property is located on the west side of SE 1St Avenue, approximately seventy-five feet (75') north of SE 1St Street, and contains a contributing structure within the Old School Square Historic District. The frame vernacular structure, which is still maintained as asingle-family residence, was constructed in 1938 and would be relocated to an unidentified location. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to add Lots 16, 17, and 18, less the South 75' of each, Block 69, to the list of properties that can be developed pursuant to the CBD uses and development standards. The proposed changes would increase the types of permitted uses that could be established in the OSSHAD zoning district allowing for a wider range of retail, service, and office uses, more dense multi-family residential, and greater and more intense development given more liberal setbacks and height (see Development Standards comparison chart in attached Planning and Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report.). The properties to the west of the subject property are contributing structures within the Old School Square Historic District, and will be affected by the proposed amendment. The properties to the north are located within the Old School Square Historic District and are subject to the CBD uses and design standards. The east-west alleyway just north of the subject City Commission Documentation, Meeting of October 2, 2007 Privately-Initiated Amendment to the LDRs RE: CBD Overlay within OSSHAD property serves as a physical boundary between properties currently subject to CBD regulations and the subject property. In the applicant's justification for the changes, they utilize the assumed impact of development outside of the designated historic district to justify the intensification (i.e., Worthing Place located across SE 1St Avenue). If development outside of the historic districts justifies changing regulations within the historic district, then the same rationale could be applied to Block 70, located just to the south of the subject property and within the Old School Square Historic District. Staff believes this sets forth an inappropriate precedent. The justification for the request centers on the desire to build an office building. However, Office is an allowed use in the OSSHAD zoning district and if site specific adjustments or relief are necessary or are desired for these lots, it would appear more appropriate to request relief from the OSSHAD zoning regulations rather than apply CBD regulations. The OSSHAD district is typified as a low intensity mixed use district that allows single family residential, professional offices, boutiques, etc., and is consistent with the current development request. Introduction of the more intense principal permitted uses of the CBD on the subject property, along with the associated more liberal development standards such as setbacks and height, is incompatible with the historic district. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Historic Preservation Board (HPB) considered the subject LDR Amendments at its meeting of September 5, 2007. A recommendation to deny the amendment was made by a vote of 4-1. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) considered the subject LDR Amendments at its meeting of September 6, 2007. A recommendation to deny the amendment was made by a vote of 5-0. The Planning and Zoning Board considered the subject LDR Amendments at its meeting of September 17, 2007. A recommendation to deny the amendment was made by a vote of 6-0 (Perez stepped down from the item.). RECOMMENDATION By motion, deny on first reading Ordinance No. 31-07, to amend Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Sections 4.4.24(B)(12) and 4.4.24(F)(1)(a) to allow the permitted uses and development standards excluding the exceptions to additional height in the CBD for Lots 16 thru 18, Less the South 75', Block 69 by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Attachments: ^ Ordinance No. 31-07 ^ Planning and Zoning Staff Report of September 17, 2007 2 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: IV. D AGENDA ITEM: PRIVATELY INITIATED AMENDMENT TO LDR SECTIONS 4.4.24(B)(12)(c) AND 4.4.24(F)(1)(a) TO ADD LOTS 16-18, LESS SOUTH 75 FEET THEREOF, BLOCK 69 TO THOSE PROPERTIES ZONED OSSHAD (OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT) WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE PERMITTED USES OF 4.4.13(8) AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF 4.3.4(J)(4), CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT, EXCLUDING EXCEPTIONS TO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS PROVIDED IN 4.3.4(J)(4). ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a privately initiated amendment to LDR Section 4.4.24 Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD), subsections (B) Permitted Uses and (F) Development Standards. The proposed amendment is to add Lots 16, 17, and 18, less the South 75' thereof, Block 69, Town of Delray, to the list of lots within the OSSHAD zoning district that can be developed pursuant to the development standards and uses of the CBD (Central Business District) zoning district, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations may not be made until a recommendation is obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND/LDR AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION The subject LDR Amendment has been privately-initiated to accommodate a new office building. The subject property is located on the west side of SE 1St Avenue, approximately seventy-five feet (75') north of SE 1St Street, and contains a contributing structure within the Old School Square Historic District. The frame vernacular structure, which is still maintained as a single-family residence, was constructed in 1938 and would be relocated to an unidentified location. Should the relocation consist of a location outside of any of the city's five (5) historic districts, the Historic Preservation Board should consider a requirement that the structure be individually designated to ensure its protection. This issue will be further discussed and analyzed during the site plan approval process. In 1990, with the citywide rezonings, the OSSHAD (Old School Square Historic Arts District) zoning district was created and applied to properties located within the historic district including all of Block 69. All lots within Block 69 were rezoned from GC (General Commercial) to OSSHAD. There are other lots in the immediate vicinity located within the OSSHAD zoning district that may be developed in accordance with the permitted uses and development standards of the CBD. Those lots, which are identified in Exhibit B, are located immediately to the north and across the east/west alley from the subject property and include a surface parking lot, the City parking garage, and a recently constructed mixed-use building. Those three lots were included in one text amendment adopted on January 4, 2000 (Ordinance 47-99) which provided for the expansion of the CBD overlay district (uses and development standards), for the primary purpose of constructing the Block 69 parking garage. Planning and Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report, September 17, 2007 Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a) Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(1), amendments to the Land Development Regulations may be initiated by the City Commission, Planning and Zoning Board or City Administration; or an individual. The proposed amendment is aprivately-initiated text amendment to the Land Development Regulations. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to add Lots 16, 17, and 18, less the South 75' of each, Block 69, to the list of properties that can be developed pursuant to the noted CBD standards and regulations. The CBD development standards would permit a maximum height of forty-eight feet (48'), versus athirty-five foot (35') maximum height permitted within OSSHAD. In the OSSHAD zoning district, the required setbacks are twenty-five feet (25') for the front, seven feet, six inches (7'6") for the side interior, and ten feet (10') for the rear whereas the CBD setbacks are as follows: • Front setback may vary from five feet to ten feet (5'-10') for 70%-90% of the front elevation depending upon the proposed use on the ground floor and at least fifteen feet (15') for 10%-30% of the front elevation. These setbacks are required up to a height of thirty-seven feet (37'). The remainder of the building could contain up to 70% with a fifteen foot (15') setback, with up to thirty percent (30%) containing a setback of five feet to ten feet (5'-10'); • Side setbacks may be zero (0) if there is vehicular access to the rear. Otherwise, one side must be setback at least ten feet (10'); • Rear setbacks are ten feet (10') up to thirty-seven feet (37') in height while the elevation over thirty-seven feet (37') must be setback twenty-two feet (22') as the subject property abuts a zoning district with a maximum height requirement of thirty-five feet (35'). The proposed changes would also increase the types of permitted and permitted conditional uses that could be established in the OSSHAD zoning district to allow for a wider range of retail, service, and office uses, as well as more dense multi-family residential. A chart containing the above noted information has been provided on pages five and six of this report. LDR TEXT AMENDMENT ANALYSIS REQUIRED FINDINGS LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings): Pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings), in addition to LDR Section 1.1.6(A), the City Commission must make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. A review of the objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan was conducted and the following applicable Objectives and Policies were noted: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT: GOAL AREA "A" LAND WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA SHALL BE DEVELOPED OR REDEVELOPED, TO ENHANCE THE EXISTING QUALITY OF LIFE, COMPLIMENT EXISTING LAND USE AND RESULT IN A MIXED, BUT PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WITH A BALANCED ECONOMIC BASE. Future Land Use Element Objective A-1 -Property shall be developed or redeveloped in a manner so that the future use and intensity is appropriate and complies in terms of soil, 2 Planning and Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report, September 17, 2007 Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a) topographic, and other applicable physical considerations, is complimentary to adjacent land uses, and fulfills remaining land use needs. Future Land Use Element Objective A-4 The redevelopment of land and buildings shall provide for the preservation of historic resources. The objective shall be met through continued adherence to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and the following policies: Future Land Use Policv A-4.1 Prior to approval or recommending approval of any land use or development application for property located within a historic district or designated as a historic site, the Historic Preservation Board must make a finding that the requested action is consistent with the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations (see below) relating to historic sites and districts and the "Delray Beach Design Guidelines" Pursuant to LDR Section 4.5.1(A), Historic Preservation Sites and Districts: In recognition of findings as set forth in the original enactment of Ordinance 13-87, passed March 10, 1987, this Section is created in order to provide for the identification, preservation, protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and the use of districts, archeological sites, buildings, structures, improvements, and appurtenances that are reminders of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, and national history; that provide significant examples of architectural styles of the past; that are unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighborhoods; or that provide this and future generations with examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived; and other purposes. Future Land Use Policv A-4.2 In order to protect the City's historic resources, the Land Development Regulations shall include provisions for designation of historically significant buildings, structures, archaeological sites, or districts. The City shall conduct periodic neighborhood surveys to identify and evaluate potential historic resources. Objective A-1 noted above requires that development be complimentary to adjacent land uses. The proposed amendment would allow for the subject property to be developed in a manner complimentary to both those properties located across SE 1St Avenue, outside of the historic district and zoned CBD, or those located in the historic district but recently developed under the CBD Overlay. The amendment would not provide for complimentary development with the historic properties within the subject historic district and would allow for the incursion of more intense development with reduced setback requirements and the potential for greater height. The OSSHAD zoning regulations were established as a mixed use district with less intensity with respect to uses, density, and scale and massing than those allowed in the CBD. The adjacent properties to the west and south are also zoned OSSHAD and consist of either contributing single-family residences or non-contributing mixed-use development (contributing per 2005 Old School Square Historic District resurvey). The proposal is not consistent with Objective A-4 which requires that the amendment provide for the preservation of historic resources through the redevelopment of land and buildings. Further, Policy A-4.1 requires that the Historic Preservation Board make a finding that the requested action is consistent with the provisions of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations. The provisions of the Section are to provide for the preservation of districts, buildings, and structures. The proposed amendment not only does not provide for the preservation of the subject structure, the potential intensification of future development does not encourage preservation of the historic structures located immediately to the west of and abutting the subject property. Therefore, positive findings cannot be made as the proposed LDR text amendment is not consistent with and do not further the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element. 3 Planning and Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report, September 17, 2007 Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a) HOUSING ELEMENT: GOAL AREA "A" TO MAINTAIN A SAFE AND ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF HOUSING BY PRESERVING EXISTING STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS, STABILIZING AND ENHANCING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE IN TRANSITION, AND RESTORING AND REHABILITATING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE DECLINED. Housing Element Objective A-10 The City shall support the conservation and rehabilitation of historically significant housing, especially where such housing is an identifying characteristic of a particular neighborhood. Housing Element Policv A-10.1 This objective will be implemented in accordance with the standards and criteria of Section 4.5.1 of the Land Development Regulations, Historic Preservation Sites and Districts. Housing Element Policv A-10.2 The City will promote the use of historic designations as a revitalization tool in its preparation of Neighborhood Plans for those areas which have a significant inventory of historic structures. Housing Element Objective A-12 To assist residents of the City in maintaining and enhancing their neighborhood environment, the City shall take steps to ensure that modifications in and around the neighborhood do not lead to its decline, such as those described in the following policies. Housing Element Policv A-12.3: In evaluating proposals for new development or redevelopment, the City shall consider the effect that the proposal will have on the stability of nearby neighborhoods. Factors such as noise, odors, dust, traffic volumes and circulation patterns shall be reviewed in terms of their potential to negatively impact the safety, habitability and stability of residential areas. If it is determined that a proposed development will result in a degradation of any neighborhood, the project shall be modified accordingly or denied. Housing Element Policv A-12.4: The City will provide planning and technical assistance to implement neighborhood-supported initiatives aimed at preserving the character of existing residential areas. Such assistance may involve the formulation of regulations that would limit the size and scale of new homes to be consistent with existing structures within a defined neighborhood, and analysis of the housing inventory to determine if the area qualifies for designation as a historic district, and similar measures. The increase of density within this historically designated area will increase the traffic volumes and with this particular amendment proposal could negatively modify circulation patterns. Further, it will allow development inconsistent with the desired development pattern of the OSSHAD district. This desired development pattern is explained in the "Purpose and Intent" section of the LDRs and calls for encouraging the restoration or preservation of historic structures and, maintaining and enhancing the historic and pedestrian scale of the area. Uses and development densities that are currently allowed in the OSSHAD promote the preservation and adaptive reuse of all structures within the District. Increase in the intensity of use of the property available under the CBD will have an adverse impact on the stability of this historic area and allow development inconsistent with the scale of the remainder of the historic district. Additionally, the proposed amendment has the potential to negatively affect the historic neighborhood environment of the Old School Square Historic District by impacting the safety, habitability, and stability of the residential area. The properties to the west continue to be single- family residences (although vacant), as are the majority of the properties along the west side of 4 Planning and Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report, September 17, 2007 Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a) SE 1St Avenue, within Block 70, located to the south. Therefore, positive findings cannot be made as the proposed LDR text amendment is not consistent with and do not further the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. ANALYSIS As previously noted, the property is currently regulated by the OSSHAD which is a mixed use zoning district intended to: 1. Provide for mixed uses of residential, office, and commercial activities, with an emphasis on the arts, that will encourage the restoration or preservation of historic structures and, yet, maintain and enhance the historic and pedestrian scale of the area; 2. Stimulate greater awareness and pride in the City's architectural heritage, and create an atmosphere and feeling of "Old Delray Beach"; 3. Improve the environmental quality and overall livability of this Historic District and stabilize and improve property value therein, and; 4. Allow uses which promote preservation and adaptive reuse of all structures within the District. The CBD was "established in order to preserve and protect the cultural and historic aspects of downtown Delray Beach and simultaneously provide for the stimulation and enhancement of the vitality and economic growth of this special area. The regulations within the Central Core, within which the subject property lies, are "intended to result in development that preserves the downtown's historic moderate scale, while promoting a balanced mix of uses that will help the area evolve into a traditional, self-sufficient downtown. Further, "residential development is permitted at higher densities in this area than any other part of the city, in order to foster compact, pedestrian oriented growth that will support downtown businesses." There are clear differences between the purposes and intents of the OSSHAD and CBD zoning districts. Overall, the CBD does not note the preservation of historic structures. CBD strives to protect historic aspects of the downtown, such as the scale, which is low-scale, particularly when looking to the surrounding municipalities and their larger height maximums. However, when compared with the historic districts, the CBD scale is not compatible in that it is taller and permits more scale and massing. Therefore, the OSSHAD intent is more appropriate as are its development requirements with the intentions to maintain the historic development pattern of the original Town of Delray neighborhood. As previously noted, the proposed amendment will allow the incursion of a more intense development having reduced setback requirements and a potential for greater height into an historic district having zoning regulations that established a mixed use district with a less intensity of uses, density, and scale and massing. The chart below gives a comparison of the development standards applicable to the proposed amendment and conditions of the subject property: OSSHAD CBD -Central Core Difference Height* 35' 48' +13' Lot Coverage 40% --- Cannot determine difference Open Space 25% 10% -15% Lot Size 8,000 square feet 0 --- Lot Width 80' 0 --- Lot Depth 100' 0 --- 5 Planning and Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report, September 17, 2007 Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a) OSSHAD CBD -Central Core Difference Lot Frontage 80' 0 --- Setbacks** 1St & 2~d Stories Up to 25' 5'-10', depending on 70%-90%=15'-20' Front 25' ground floor use; ' ' closer; 70%-90% = 5 -10 max.; 10%-30%=10' closer; 10%-30% = 15' min. Side-Interior 7'6" 0' 7'6" closer 5'-10', depending on 70%-90%=5'-10' Side-Street 15' ground floor use; closer; 70%-90% = 5'-10' max. 10%-30%=No 10%-30% = 15' min. difference Rear 10' 10' No Difference 3~d Story-Over 25'-48' The floor area for the At least 70% = 15' min ; Front third floor shall be . ° Up to 30 /o = 5'-10' min . Cannot determine limited to 50% of the 0' 10' second floor area and or difference. Side-Interior (depending on vehicular the building setbacks access to rear of property) or planes of the facade Side-Street are offset and varied to See Front (above) Rear provide visual relief. 10' 4th Story -Over 37' Front At least 70% = 15' min.; Up to 30% = 5'-10' min. N/A 0' or 10' Side-Interior (OSSHAD height limit (depending on vehicular OSSHAD height limit ' is 35') access to rear of property) is 35 Side-Street See Front (above) Rear 22'*** "Additional height exceptions would not apply "" See LDR Section 4.4.13 """ Pursuant to LDR Section 4.6.4(A)(1)(a)(ii). Otherwise, rear setback is 10'. See Appendix A for a comparison of the permitted uses within both the OSSHAD and CBD zoning district. The following statement was submitted in justification of the subject amendment: "The applicant is seeking to build an office building, which is much more in the character of the surrounding area. The development pattern surrounding this property is more typical to the CBD development regulations than the OSSHAD zoning regulations. To the north of the property is the Bob Federspiel Parking Garage which is subject to the CBD development regulations, as are all the lots to the north of the garage, to Lot 24. To the east of the property is the proposed Worthing Place project, which is located in the CBD zoning district. " As stated in the narrative, the applicant notes that the development of an office building is desired, which is in character with the surrounding area. The surrounding area includes the CBD zoning district (located both within, as an overlay, and outside of the Old School Square 6 Planning and Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report, September 17, 2007 Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a) Historic District) and the Old School Square Historic District (properties zoned OSSHAD). The properties to the west of the property are contributing structures within the subject historic district, and will be the most affected by the proposed amendment. This is of concern as those properties that have not yet benefited from redevelopment could be further hindered as there would be less incentive for the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of those properties. The properties to the north are located within the Old School Square Historic District and subject to the CBD uses and design standards. However, the east-west alleyway serves as a physical boundary between those properties and the subject property. Further, it appears that development outside of the designated historic district is being used to justify inappropriate regulations within the historic district such as the Worthing Place development located across SE 1St Avenue. If development outside of the historic districts justifies changing regulations within the historic district, then the same rationale could be applied to Block 70, located just to the south of the subject property and within the Old School Square Historic District. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION The desire is "to build an office building, which is more in character of the surrounding area." It is noteworthy that a historic structure is located on the property, and that the subject property is located within a designated historic district. The justification centers around the desire to build an office building. However, office is a use allowed in the OSSHAD zoning district. While the development pattern surrounding this property is of CBD, the lots to the east (across SE 1St Avenue) are not in a designated historic district. While the lots to the north are located in a designated historic district, they contain a physical boundary (alleyway) between the adjacent properties within the Old School Square Historic District. It should be noted that it was made clear during the review for the amendment to the north that providing CBD overlay of permitted uses and development standards for those properties would not be precedent setting. The justification statement for the subject request illustrates the opposite. The OSSHAD district is typified as a low intensity mixed use district that allows single family residential, professional offices, boutiques, etc. The intensity allowed as principal uses as well as the more liberal development standards in the CBD zoning district, such as setbacks and height, for the subject property is incompatible with the historic district. Consequently, a positive finding cannot be made with respect to LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5). The Comprehensive Plan calls for the preservation of historic resources, which is not achieved by the proposed amendment. Therefore, a positive finding can be made that the amendments are consistent with and further the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. REVIEW BY OTHERS The Historic Preservation Board (HPB) considered the subject LDR Amendments at its meeting of September 5, 2007. A recommendation to deny the amendment was made by a vote of 4-1. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) considered the subject LDR Amendments at its meeting of September 6, 2007. A recommendation to deny the amendment was made by a vote of 5-0. Public Notice Since the proposed LDR text amendment is site specific, a public notice has been provided to property owners within a 500' radius of the subject property. 7 Planning and Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report, September 17, 2007 Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a) Letters of objection and support, if any, will be presented at the meeting. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulation Section 4.4.24(B)(12) and 4.4.24(F)(1)(a), Ordinance 31-07, allowing the permitted uses and development standards excluding the exceptions to additional height in the CBD for Lots 16 thru 18, Less the South 75', Block 69 by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulation Section 4.4.24(B)(12) and 4.4.24(F)(1)(a), Ordinance 31-07, allowing the permitted uses and development standards excluding the exceptions to additional height in the CBD for Lots 16 thru 18, Less the South 75', Block 69 by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend denial to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulation Section 4.4.24(B)(12) and 4.4.24(F)(1)(a), Ordinance 31-07, allowing the permitted uses and development standards excluding the exceptions to additional height in the CBD for Lots 16 thru 18, Less the South 75', Block 69 by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). Attachments: ^ Appendix A -Chart of Permitted Uses within OSSHAD and CBD ^ Exhibit "A" [Proposed Amendment] ^ Exhibit "B" [Context Map] ^ Location Map ^ Justification Statement 8 Planning and Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report, September 17, 2007 Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a) APPENDIX A OSSHAD CBD -Central Core Permitted Uses Single family and duplex dwellings X --- Business, Professional, Medical and X Governmental Offices X (Except Governiment Offices) Retail sales through specialty shops (single purpose businesses) X X 'Restaurants of a sit down nature X X ' Arts related businesses X X Educational and/or Instructional activities (including training, vocational, or craft schools, the X X arts, personal development, and libraries, museums, and social and philanthropic institutions) Libraries and museums X X Personal services (barbershops, beauty shops, salons, cosmetologists) X X Catering services X ... .. X Permitted Conditional Uses ~ Multi-family dwellings in a mixed-use structure 9 Planning and Zoning Board Memorandum Staff Report, September 17, 2007 Amendment to LDR Sections 4.4.24(B)(12), 4.4.24(F)(1)(a) Permitted Conditional Uses Multi-family dwelling units, excluding duplexes, at a density greater than thirty (30) units per acre, on property located south of N.E. 2nd Street and --- X north of S.E. 2nd Street Wash establishment, with automatic/mechanical systems only, for vehicles X Flea markets, bazaars, merchandise marts, and similar retail uses --- X Playhouses, dinner theaters, and places o ' f assembly for commercial entertainment purposes ' X ' Movie theaters ___ X Veterinary clinics ___ X Recreational establishments such as bowling alleys, gymnasiums, health spas, miniature golf ___ X courses, skating rinks Gasoline stations or the dispensing of gasoline directly into vehicles X Funeral homes including accessory uses ___ X I Financial institutions Child care and adult day care Amusement game facilities Residential licensed service provider ' Adult congregate living facilities X I X X ' X X 10 ORDINANCE NO. 31-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CTI'Y OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.424, "OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT (OSSHAD)", SUBSECTION 4.424(B), "PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES" TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY THAT IS ALLOWED THE PERMITTID USES OF THE CBD ZONING DISTRICT; AlV1II~IDING SUBSECTION 4.424(F), "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS", TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY IN THE OSSHAD DISTRICT THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDS OF THE CBD ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on September 17, 2007, and voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the changes be denied; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is not consistent with and does not further the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach adopts the findings in the Planning and Zoning Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach finds the ordinance is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. Section 2. That Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)", Subsection 4.4.24(B), "Principal Uses and Structures" of the Code of Ordinances of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: (B) Principal Uses and Structures: The following types of uses are allowed within the OSSHAD as a permitted use: (1) Single family detached dwellings. (2) Duplex structures. -1- (3) Business, Professional, Medical and Governmental Offices. (4) Retail sales through specialty shops (single purpose businesses) such as: bath shops, book stores, gift shops, florists, hobby shops, kitchen shops, boutiques, bicycle shops, excluding liquor stores, convenience stores and drug stores. (5) Arts related businesses such as craft shops, galleries, and studios within which is conducted the preparation of, display of, and/or sale of art products such as antiques, collectibles, custom apparel, jewelry, paintings, photography, picture framing, pottery, sculpture, stained glass. (6) Educational and/or Instructional activities including training, vocational, or craft schools, the arts, personal development, and libraries, museums, and social and philanthropic institutions. (7) Restaurants of a sit down nature such as a cafe, snack shop, full service dining but excluding any drive-in and/or drive-through facilities or features. (8) Providing of personal services such as barbershops, beauty shops, salons, cosmetologists. (9) Bed and Breakfast Inns. (10) Catering services not associated with a restaurant, subject to the special regulations of Section 4.4.24(H). (ll) Group Home, Type 1, pursuant to restrictions set forth in Section 4.3.3(I). (12) Within the following described areas, the uses allowed as permitted uses in Section 4.4.13(B) pursuant to the base district and special regulations of the Central Business District regulations shall also be allowed in the OSSHAD: (a) Lots 13 -16, Block 60 (b) Lots 1- 4, Block 61 (c) Lots 1- 7 and 19-24, and Lots 16 - 18, less the south 75 feet thereof, Block 69 (d) Lots 7- 8, and the South 34.75 feet of Lot 6, Block 75; and (e) Lots 1- 6, Block 76 Section 3. That Section 4.4.24, "Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD)", Subsection 4.4.24(F), "Development Standards", of the Code of Ordinances of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: (F) Development Standards: The development standards as set forth, for the OSSHAD -2- District, in Section 4.3.4 apply, except for as modified below: (1) The following locations shall be subject to the development standards of the Commercial Core (CC) area of the CBD Zone District, excluding exceptions to height limitations provided in Section 4.3.4(J)(4): (a) Lots 1- 7 and 19-24, and Lots 16 - 18, less the south 75 feet thereof, Block 69 (b) Lots 7- 8, and the South 34.75 feet of Lot 6, Block 75; and (c) Lots 1- 6, Block 76 (2) The following locations shall be subject to the development standards of the West Atlantic Neighborhood (WAN) area of the CBD Zone District: (a) Lots 13-16, Block 60 (b) Lots 1- 4, Block 61 (3) Parcels located along N.E. 1st Avenue between N.E. 2nd Street and N.E. 3rd Street (Banker's Row) shall comply with either provisions of Section 4.3.4 or provisions of the Banker's Row Development Plan, whichever is more permissive. (4) Except for properties identified in Sections 4.4.24(F)(1) and (2) and the Old School Square Cultural Arts Complex, the maximum width of a building fronting a street shall be limited to 60' and shall have a minimum separation of 15' between buildings fronting a street in a development site that contains more than one structure. (5) The floor area for the third floor shall be limited to 50% of the second floor area and the building setbacks or planes of the facade are offset and varied to provide visual relief. (6) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4.424(F)(4), or elsewhere in this code, residential-type inn developments, shall be permitted to: (a) Connect adjacent on-site buildings using all-weather, covered walkways, that are constructed of not less than 70% vertical transparent glass or similar material. Said walkways shall be on the ground floor only, shall be located not closer than 15 feet from the front building face, and may be joined to elevators, lobbies, or accessory use facilities permitted herein: Section 4. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 5. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. -3- Section 6. That this ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of _ 2007. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk First Reading Second Reading -4- VIIEINER, ARONSON & MANKOFF, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 S.E. 15t Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Teiephane: (561 } 265-2666 Telecopier: (561) 272-6831 E-mail: jmankoff@zanelaw.com MICHAEL S, WEINER CAROLEJ.ARONSON JASON S. MANKOFF KERRY D. SAFIER STEPHEN B. GEBELOFF May 20, 2008 Ms. Chevelle Nubirt City Clerk The City of Delray Beach 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Mr. Paul Dorling Director of Planning and Zoning City of Delray Beach 100 N_W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Re: 36 S.E. '!St Ave. Our File No.: ZENJ008 Dear Chevelle and Paul: With respect to the above referenced property, we respectfully request a tabling of the appeal to the City Commission of the Historic Preservation Board decision until the Auqust 5, 2008 City Commission meeting. We are also respectfully requesting that Ordinance No. 31-07, to add lots 16, 17 and 18, less the 75' thereof, Block 69, Town of Delray, to the list of lots within the OSSHAD zoning district that can be developed pursuant to the uses and development standards of the CBD zoning district, be tabled until the Auqust 19, 2008 City Commission meeting. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, Jason S. Mankoff JSM: ek cc: Susan Ruby, Esquire (via hand delivery) Mr: Jim Zengage (via a-mail) Mr. Francisco Perez (via a-mail) Michael S. Weiner, Esquire Ms. Ashlee L. Vargo ~~ ~~ ~,.W,~..~.._ ~ MAY 2 0 2008 Pi.~1~J~iF~~ ~ ~v~li'~~ O:IZENJ0081Letter to Nubin and Dorling re postponement. May 20. 2008.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: SCOTT PAPE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER PAUL DORLING, AICP, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH: CITY MANAGER DATE: May 28, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.B. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 ORDINANCE N0.24-08 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARINGI ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before the City Commission is that of approval of a text amendment to LDR Section 4.4.3(F) [Single Family Residential (R-1) District -Development Standards] and Article 4.5 [Overlay and Environmental Management Districts] to establish the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District and associated design guidelines. BACKGROUND The purpose of the overlay district and associated design guidelines is to encourage new houses and building additions that are compatible with the character of the neighborhood. The boundaries of the overlay district are generally described as NW 22nd Street on the north, Lake Ida Road to the south, Swinton Avenue to the east, and Interstate 95 to the west. This area is commonly known as the LakeIda neighborhood. The neighborhood consists of single family homes and includes the R-1-AA, R-1-AAA, and R-1-AAAB single family zoning districts. The City of Delray Beach received the attached letter dated March 6, 2008 from the Lake Ida Neighborhood Task Force that identifies the requested changes to the development regulations within the proposed Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District. The changes involve the following topic areas: ^ Maximum lot coverage ^ Maximum floor area ratio (FAR) ^ Maximum percentage FAR for 2nd floors ^ Modify front and rear yard setbacks for 2-story homes ^ Propose a definition for `floor area ratio' ^ Introduce landscape requirements At its meeting of Apri121, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and approved the initiation of the amendment to the Land Development Regulations to establish the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District and associated guidelines. At this meeting, the Board requested that the proposal be scheduled for a workshop prior to consideration at a public hearing. The Planning and Zoning Board conducted the workshop on May 12, 2008. At this meeting a representative of the Lake Ida Property Owner's Association (LIPOA) described the proposed changes. Further, City staff discussed recommended changes with respect to the Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) definition, the changes to the front setback as it relates to R-1-AAA and R-1-AAAB zoning districts, and the need to clarify maximum heights for first floors as well as upper floors. At its meeting of May 19, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed text amendment. Following discussion of the proposed text amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6 to 1 (Zacks dissenting) to recommend approval of the staff version of the overlay district and design guidelines as noted in Exhibit "A" of the attached Planning and Zoning staff report dated May 19, 2008. The reasoning behind this recommendation is to address several issues that were not included with the LIPOA version. It was noted that the version proposed by the LIPOA identified requirements for the second story of houses. However, the R-1-AA, R-1-AAA, and R-1-AAAB allows for a building height of 35 feet, which would accommodate a three story house. Thus, staff recommended that the references to a two-story house be changed to the "upper story" of a house. The FAR definition was clarified to specify the areas that are not included in the FAR calculation. The proposed front and rear setbacks for the R-1-AAA and R-1-AAAB zoning also were modified to achieve the 5-foot offset originally envisioned by the task force. A definition of first floor and upper floor heights is included with the text amendment to ensure that the massing of new houses and additions is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Finally, the character of the properties with frontage on LakeIda consists typically of larger lots and homes. The FAR for these properties are increased to .40 and the 75% maximum rule eliminated for the upper floors. It is noted that all of the changes suggested by staff and recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board with the exception of the increase for lake lots from .35 to .40 were considered by the LIPOA and supported. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve on first reading the Ordinance [Staff Version] to amend Land Development Regulations (LDR) Section 4.4.3(F) [Single Family Residential (R-1) District - Development Standards] and Article 4.5 [Overlay and Environmental Management Districts] to establish the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District and associated design guidelines, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the Staff Report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5), with second reading to occur on June 17, 2008. ORDINANCE NO. 24-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COM1Vi<SSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4.3, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS, GENERAL PROVISIONS", BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.3, "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT", BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (F), "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS", TO PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT; AMENDING ARTICLE 4.5, "OVERLAY AND ENVIRON1ViENTAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS", BY ENACTING A NEW SECTION 4.5.16, "LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT", TO CREATE A NEW OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD; AMENDING APPENDIX "A", "DEFIl~IITIONS", TO ENACT A NEW DEFINITION FOR "FLOOR AREA RATIO"; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on May 19, 2008 and voted 6 to 1 to recommend that the changes be approved; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach adopts the findings in the Planning and Zoning Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach finds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COM1Vi<SSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Article 4.3, "District Regulations, General Provisions", Section 4.4.3, "Single Family Residential (R-1) Districts", Subsection (F'), "Development Standards", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be amended to read as follow: (F) Development Standards: The development standards as set forth in Section 4.3.4 shall apply, except as modified below: (1) In addition to the provisions of Section 4.3.4(K), properties located within the North Seach/Seagate and Ocean Neighborhood Overlay Districts shall comply with the provisions of the adopted Seach Property Owners Design Manual for the North Seach and Seagate Neighborhoods including but not limited to visual compatibility standards relating to lirrdtations on height, width, mass, scale, materials, color, style, fortry and square footage. (2) In addition to the provisions of Section 4.3.4(K~properties located within the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District shall comply with the following regulations: (a) Maximum Lot Covera 1. Fort percent (40%) for one story houses 2. Thirtypercent (30%) for multi-story houses The maximum Floor Area Ratio is .35 for amulti-story house. Property with frontage on Lake Ida are allowed a Floor Area Ratio of .40 for a multi story house. (c) The area of the upper floors shall not be greater than seventy-five percent (75%) of the area of the first floor. Properties with frontage on Lake Ida are allowed to have upper floors with up to 100% of the area of the first floor. (d) Minimum setback for multi-story homes in the R-1-AA zoning district shall be twenty-five feet (25') for the front yard and fifteen feet (15') for the rear yard. (e) Minimum setback for multi-story homes in the R-1-AAA and R-1- AAAB zoning districts shall be thirty feet (30') for the front yard and seventeen feet (17') for the rear (fl Additional landscapin~quired for both new multi-story houses or additions to existing multi-story houses shall be as follows: 1. New houses: landscaping requirements shall be the same as the Beach Districts as provided in the Beach Property Owners Design Manual for the North Beach and Seams Neighborhoods. 2. Additions: supplemental landscaping shall be provided along that portion of the house where the new upper floor addition occurs within 5' of the minimum required setback lines. The intent of the requirement is to soften and screen the second story addition and shall generally consist of additional vertical landscaping which would include fourteen foot (14') shade trees or eighteen foot (18') Palm trees at spacings determined by the City Landscape Department to be sufficient to meet the intent of this requirement. ORD NO.24-08 (g) First Floor Maximum Heim 1. Single-story or first floor limits shall be established b~ a. Height from finished floor elevation to top of beam (tie or bond) shall not exceed fourteen feet (14'). b. Andportion exceeding the dimensions described in Section 4.4.3(F)(2)(g)l.a. above shall be considered multi-story structures. (h) Upper Story Height: 1. Height from finished floor elevation to finished floor elevation or top of beam (tie or bond) shall not exceed twelve feet (12'). Section 2. That Article 4.5, "Overlay and Environmental Management Districts" of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Seach, Florida, shall hereby be amended by enacting a new Section 4.5.16, "Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District" to read as follows: Section 4.5.16 Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District: A) The Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District is hereby established as the area bounded by NW 22nd Street on the north, Swinton Avenue on the east, Lake Ida Road on the south, and~Interstate 95 on the west for the properties that are zoned R-1-AA (Single Farruly Residential), R 1-AAA (Single Family Residential), and R-1-AAAB (Single Family residential All development within the overlay district is subi ect to the svecial vrovisions included within the Single Family Residential (R-1, Districts. Section 3. That Appendix "A", "Definitions", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Seach, Florida, shall hereby be amended to read as follows: Floor Area Ratio The term "Floor Area Ratio" shall mean the ratio of the "total floor area' of the structure(s) to the area of the lot. "Total Floor Area' shall be defined as the gross horizontal areas of all floors of all buildings measured from the exterior walls or other t~~pes Section 4. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, clause or Ord be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part hereof other than the part declared invalid 3 ORD NO.24-08 (covered or uncovered or crawl spaces. Section 5. are hereby repealed Section 6. reading That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same That this ordinance shall become effective upon its passage on second and final PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 2008. MAYO R ATTEST: City Clerk First Reading Second Reading 4 ORD NO.24-08 ORDINANCE NO. -08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COM1Vi<SSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4.3, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS, GENERAL PROVISIONS", BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.3, "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R 1) DISTRICT", BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (F'), "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS", TO PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT; AMENDING ARTICLE 4.5, "OVERLAY AND ENVIRON1ViENTAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS", BY ENACTING A NEW SECTION 4.5.16, "LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT", TO CREATE A NEW OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD; AMENDING APPENDIX "A", "DEFINITIONS", TO ENACT A NEW DEFINITION FOR "FLOOR AREA RATIO"; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on that the changes be approved; and 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the and voted to to recommeald WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zoning Board, siding as the Local Planning Agency, has detemlined that the change is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach adopts the findings in the Planning and Zoning Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach finds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COM1Vi<SSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Article 4.3, "District Regulations, General Provisions", Section 4.4.3, "Single Family Residential (R-1) Districts", Subsection (F), "Development Standards", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be amended to read as follow: (F) Development Standards: The development standards as set forth in Section 4.3.4 shall apply, except as modified below: (1) In addition to the provisions of Section 4.3.4(K), properties located within the North Seach/Seagate and Ocean Neighborhood Overlay Districts shall comply with the provisions of the adopted Seach Property Owners Design Manual for the North Seach and Seagate Neighborhoods including but not lirrdted to visual compatibility standards relating to lirrdtations on height, width, mass, scale, materials, color, style, fortry and square footage. (2) In addition to the provisions of Section 4.3.4(K~properties located within the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District shall comply with the following regulations: (a) Maximum Lot Coverage: (i) Fort percent 40%) for one storehouses (ii) Thirtypercent 30%) for t~ store houses (b) The maximum Floor Area Ratio is .35 for a t~ story house. (c) The area of the second floor shall not be greater than seven , -five percent (75%) of the area of the first floor. (d) 1VTinirrntm setback for two store homes shall be twenty five feet (25', the front card and fifteen feet (15') for the rear (e) Additional landscaping required for both new t~ story houses or t~ store additions to existing houses shall be as follow: Design Manual for the North Seach and Seagate Neighborhoods. (ii) Additions: supplemental landscaping along the side of the house that the new second floor is being added to shall be landscaped with a fourteen foot (14') shade tree evere ten feet (10', or an eighteen foot (18') Palm tree ever~ght feet (8'~ Section 2. That Article 4.5, "Overlay and Environmental Management Districts" of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Seach, Florida, shall hereby be amended by enacting a new Section 4.5.16, "Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District" to read as follows: Section 4.5.16 Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District: (A) The Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlae District is herebe established as the area bounded by NW 22nd Street on the north, Swinton Avenue on the east, Lake Ida Road on the south, and ORD NO. Interstate 95 on the west for the properties that are zoned R 1-AA (Single Family Residential, , R 1- AAA (Single Family Residential), and R 1-AAAB (Single Family residential). All development within the overlay district is subiect to the special provisions included within the Single Family Residential (R- 1 Districts. Section 3. That Appendix "A", "Definitions", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Seach, Florida, shall herebybe amended to read as follows: Floor Area Ratio The term "Floor Area Ratio" shall mean the ratio of the "total floor area' of the structure(s) to the area of the lot. "Total Floor Area' shall be defined as the gross horizontal areas of all floors of all buildings measured from the exterior walls or other t~~pes of enclosures and shall include garages, carports and portcocheres, excluding attics (unless used as a living space, enclosed decks or patios, covered porches, exterior balconies covered or uncovered or crawl spaces. Section 4. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, clause or Ord be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part hereof other than the part declared invalid Section 5. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed Section 6. That this ordinance shall become effective upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 2008. MAYO R ATTEST: City Clerk First Reading Second Reading 3 ORD NO. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMORANDUM STAFF REPORT MEETING OF: MAY 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO ESTABLISH THE LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT AND ASSOCIATED DESIGN GUIDELINES. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is that of making a recommendation to the City Commission regarding a text amendment to LDR Section 4.4.3(F) [Single Family Residential (R-1 }District - Development Standards] and Article 4.5 [Overlay and Environmental Management Districts]. The intent of the amendment, is to create the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District and apply associated design guidelines. Pursuant to Section 1.1.6(A), an amendment to the Land Development Regulations may not be made until a recommendation is obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND The purpose of the overlay district and associated design guidelines is to encourage new houses and building additions to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. The boundaries of the overlay district are generally described as NW 22"d Street on the north, Lake Ida Road to the south, Swinton Avenue to the east, and Interstate 95 to the west {location map attached). This area is commonly known as the Lake Ida neighborhood. The neighborhood consists of single family homes and includes the R-1-AA, R-1-AAA, and R-1-AAAB single family zoning districts. The City of ^elray Beach received the attached letter dated March 6, 2008 from the Lake Ida Neighborhood Task Force that identifies the requested changes to the development regulations within the proposed Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District. The changes involve the following topic areas: ^ Maximum lot coverage ^ Maximum floor area ratio (FAR} ^ Maximum percentage FAR for 2"d floors ^ Modify front and rear yard setbacks for 2-story homes Propose a definition for `floor area ratio' ^ Introduce landscape requirements At its meeting of April 21, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and approved the initiation of the amendment to the Land Development Regulations to establish the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District and associated guidelines. At this meeting, the Board requested that the proposal be scheduled far a workshop prior to consideration at a public hearing. Planning and Zoning Board Staf€ Report Amendment of the LDRs to Create the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay and Associated Design Guidelines The Planning and Zoning Board conducted the workshop on May 12, 2Q08. At this meeting a representative of the Lake Ida Property Owner's Association (LIPOA) described the proposed changes. Further, City staff discussed recommended changes with respect to the Flaar-Area- Ratio (FAR) definition, the changes to the front setback as it relates to R-1-AAA and R-1-AAAB zoning districts, and the need to clarify maximum heights for first floors as well as upper floors. ANALYSIS As noted in the background section of this report, the LIPOA submitted the proposed text amendment to address the compatibility of new homes and building additions with the character of the neighborhood. This section of the Staff Report provides staff recommendations to strengthen the proposed text amendment and provides a comparison of the proposed changes against the existing development regulations. LOT COVERAGEIMAXIMUM FARIMAXIMUM 2N° FLOOR FARISETBACKS The following table identifies the proposed changes and current development regulations: Pro aced Existin Overla District i R-1-AA; R~1-AAA R-1-AAAB Maximum Lot Coverage 40% one-stor house None None None 30% two-stor house None None None Maximum Floor Area Ratio .35 for two-stor house None None Nane Maximum 2" Floor Area Percenta e 75% of first floor None None None Minimum Front Setback 25' for two-stor houses 30' 35' 35' Minimum Rear Setback 15' for two-stor houses 10' 12' 12' These requirements provide thresholds that would appear to prohibit very large houses within the neighborhood and provide increased setbacks to the rear of new structures. Staff is recommending some changes to the language as it relates to the front and rear setbacks for two-story houses. As written, the proposed changes would increase the rear setback from 1Q feet and 12 feet to 15 feet. Conversely, the modification would decrease the front setback from 34 feet and 35 feet to 25 feet. The purpose of this setback is to reduce the impact on adjacent properties by increasing the building separation from the neighboring properties to the rear. The staggered front setback proposed by the task force was to represent a 5-foot reduction, however, it did not account for the increased requirements of the R-1-AAA and R-1-AAAB zoning districts. The LIPOA has verified that it was the intent of this regulation to only apply a 5- foot offset for multi-story houses in a!I districts within the overlay district. Thus, the off-set would need to be changed to a front setback of 30 feet and a rear setback of 17 feet in the R-1-AAA and R-1-AAAB zoning districts. The modified staff version of the amendment attached as Exhibit "A" accommodates this change. At the Workshop meeting, certain members of the Board expressed concerns with the FAR requirement. To address these concerns, additional information has been collected by the applicant (not verified by staff} from representative blocks throughout the neighborhood. The following table provides a sampling of average subdivision blocks, and the existing and proposed development potential of each of the proposed changes on typical lot sizes and house sizes within the overlay district: 2 Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report Amendment of the LDRs to Create the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay and Associated Design Guidelines Location Lot -Size (Square Feet) , .__ Average House Size (Square Feef} and Corresponding FAR Range of House Sizes (Square Feet)r, .,_ .W..... -_ _ Proposed: FAR Cap (square Feet _.... :Average Expansion :with Cap S uare Feet NW 17 St.* 7,605 1,975 .26 1,546-2,273 2,662 687 NW 18 St. 10,160 2,260 .23 1,900-3110 3,556 1,272 NW 17 St.** 10,160 2,077 .20 1,449-2,455 3,556 1,479 Pine Lane 8,250 1,$65 .23 1,500-2306 2,888 1,014 Dale Lane 8,250 1,769 .22 1,390-2,322 2,888 1,120 NW 6 Street 14,300. 2,934 .21 2,110-3,934 5,005 2,071 NW 5 Street 14,300 2,712 .19 1,965-3,177 5,005 2,293 NW 16 Street 12,285 1,759 .14 956-2,568 4,300 2,541 Eldorado Lane 11,000 2,745 .25 1,924-3,446 3,850 1,150 Gardina Ter. 11,000 2,707 .24 2,186-3,851 3,850 1,143 *Between NW 2"d Avenue and NW 4th Avenue **Between NW 2"d Avenue and Swinton Avenue As evidenced by this chart, the current FAR proposal appears to be well above the average FAR's for the neighborhood and would allow substantial improvements to existing structures. As noted in the workshop, concerns over the impact of the FAR regulations on smaller lots would appear unfounded. Using the two graphic examples far 7200 and 8850 lots attached to this report, without the proposed FAR regulations houses of 3,780 and 4,646 square feet respectively could be built. These square footages represent an FAR of .52, which clearly exceed the scale and mass of typical development in the neighborhood. While staff feels the FAR of .35 is appropriate for the majority of lots, the Board may want to consider additional flexibility for lots having frontage on Lake Ida. It is noted that the properties that border Lake Ida are typically larger and have larger houses. Thus, the Planning and Zoning Board may want to consider increasing the development requirements for these properties to a FAR of .40 and eliminate the 75% rule for the upper stories. This addition would allow the construction of new homes or additions to maintain the character with the existing development pattern of properties with lake frontage. It is also noted that the changes submitted by the applicant refer only to requirements associated with the second story of a house. Since the district regulations could allow for a three story house, the reference to "second floor" should be changed to "upper floors." The modified staff version of the amendment attached as Exhibit "A" accommodates the recommendations for lake lots (FAR) and references to upper story versus second story. Further, the attached sketch plans graphically depict the effect of the proposed design changes for several lot sizes that are typical within the overlay area These sketch plans identify the size of houses that could be built under the proposed standards on the selected lot sizes. DEFINITION OF "FLOOR AREA RATIO" The proposed development regulations include a definition of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). To specify the building area to be included in the FAR calculation, the Lake Ida Neighborhood Task Force submitted the following definition: "The term Floor Area Ratio shall mean the ratio of fhe `iota! floor area" of fhe structure(s) to the area of the lot. "Tots! Floor Area" shall be defined as the gross horizontal areas of al! floors of a!1 buildings measured from the exterior walls or other types of enclosures and shall include 3 Planning and Zoning (3oard Staff Report Amendment of the LDRs to Create the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay and Associated Design Guidelines garages, carports and port cocheres, excluding attics (unless used as a living space), enclosed decks or patios, covered porches, exterior balconies (covered or uncovered) or crawl spaces." There is a concern with respect to the proposed definition of "Floor Area Ratio." The building areas that are excluded from the calculation of "total floor area" should be more clearly delineated. Thus, the following excerpt from the proposed definition should be revised accordingly: "...shall include garages, carports and port-cocheres. The floor areas of attics (unless used as a livfig space), enclosed decks or patios, covered porches, exterior balconies (covered or uncovered) or crawl spaces are excluded from the total floor area used in the Floor Area Ratio calculation. " The modified staff version of the amendment attached as Exhibit "A" accommodates this change. During the Planning and Zoning Board workshop, it was noted that there was no definition of a first hoar. Thus, a "single-story" house with a unique design could have a height of 35 feet without having to comply with the maximum lot coverage, 1=AR, or setbacks that apply to a multi- story residence. This scenario would result in the same massing issue that the proposed development regulations are intending to avoid. In order to address this issue, the following definition of the maximum floor heights should be included in the text amendment: First Floor Maximum Height: a. Single-story or frst floor limits shall be established by: Height from finished floor elevation to top of beam {tie or bond) shall not exceed fourteen feet (14'). Any portion exceeding the dimensions described in i. above shall be considered multi-story structures. Upper Story Height: a. Height firom finished floor elevation to finished floor elevation or top of beam (tie or bond} shall not exceed twelve feet {12') per story. The modified staff version of the amendment attached as Exhibit "A" accommodates this change. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS The landscape changes address the buffering for new two-story houses and 2"d floor additions. The proposed changes for new two-story houses are 'the same as the landscape requirements for new two-story houses in the attached Beach Property Owners Design Manual. However, the proposed changes for existing houses that propose a new 2"d story or addition would require the provision of a 14 foot shade tree every 10 feet or an 18 foot Palm tree every 8 feet along the side of the property affected by the addition. While there was some concern expressed by the Board with the proposed spacing of this landscape ir~aterial, it should be noted each plan will be 4 Planning and honing Board Staff Report Amendment of the LDRs to Create the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay and Associated Design Guidelines reviewed by the Building Division {landscape department) and only those species appropriate for the proposed spacing requirements will be approved. REQUIRED FINDINGS LDR Section 2.4.5 M 5 Amendment to the Land Develo ment Re ulations Findin s: In addition to the provisions of Section 1.1.6(A), the City Commission must make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy A-12.4 of the Housing Element - The City will provide planning and technical assis#ance to implement neighborhood initiatives aimed at preserving the character of existing residential areas. Such assistance may involve the formulation of regulations that would limit the size and scale of new homes to be consistent with existing structures within a defined neighborhood, and analysis of the housing inventory to determine if the area qualifies far designation as a historic district, and similar measures. As noted earlier in this staff report, the proposed text amendment is an initiative of the Lake lda Neighborhood Association. It is also noted that the City has received the attached correspondence regarding the proposed text amendment. The processing of the text amendment furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with LDR Section 2.4.5(M}{5). `»SUMMARY As noted earlier in this staff report, the proposed text amendment is an initiative of the Lake Ida Neighborhood Association. it is also Hated that the City has received the attached correspondence regarding the proposed text amendment that express concerns with respect to the proposed changes. The processing of the text amendment furthers the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with LDR Section 2.4.5{M){5}. However, there are several issues that should be addressed with the proposed modification. The FAR definition should be clarified to specify the areas that are not included in the calculation. The proposed front and rear setbacks for the R-1-AAA and R-1-AAAB zoning should be modified to require a front setback of 30 feet versus 25 feet as proposed and a rear setback of 17 feet ra#her than 15 feet as submitted. A definition of first floor and upper floor heights should be included with the text amendment to ensure that the massing of new houses and additions is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Finally, the character of the properties with frontage on Lake Ida consists typically of larger lots and homes. The FAR for these properties should be increased to .40 and the 75% maximum rule for upper floors should be eliminated. The attached ordinance identifies the changes as proposed by L[POA. The modifications to the proposed text amendment as identified by staff are delineated in Exhibif "A." It is noted that the three of the changes suggested by staff were considered by the LIPOA and supported. The adjustment to the FAR {.40 and exempting the 75% rule for upper floors for lake lots) were not considered by the LIPOA. REi/IEW SY OTHERS The Lake Ida Neighborhood is not located in an area that requires consideration by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) or Downtown Development Authority (DDA}. 5 Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report Amendment of the LDRs to Create the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay and Associated Design Guidelines RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission far the text amendment as noted in Exhibit "A" [Alternative Staff Ordinance] to LDR Section 4.4.3(F) [Single Family Residential {R-1} District ~- Development Standards] and Article 4.5 jOveriay and Environmental Management Districts] to create the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District and apply associated design guidelines, by adapting the findings of fact and law contained in the Staff Report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5). Attachments: ^ Exhibit "A" [Alternative Staff Ordinance] ^ Location Map ^ Letter from Sam Shannon dated March 6, 2008 ^ Beach Property Owners Design Manual Landscape Regulations ^ Sketch Plans ^ Letters of Support and Opposition ^ LiPOA Proposed Ordinance 6 Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report Amendment of the LDRs to Create the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay and Associated Design Guidelines EXHIBIT "A" ALTERNATIVE STAFF ORDINANCE Section 1. That Article 4.3, "District Regulations, General Provisions", Section 4.4.3, "Single Family Residential {R-1) Districts", Subsection {F), "Development Standards", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be amended to read as follows: (F) Development Standards: The development standards as set forth in Section 4.3.4 shall apply, except as modified below: {1) In addition to the provisions of Section 4.3.4(K), properties located within the North BeachlSeagate and Ocean Neighborhood Overlay Districts shall comply with the provisions of the adopted Beach Property Owners Design Manual for the North Beach and Seagate Neighborhoods including but not limited to visual compatibility standards relating to limitations on height, width, mass, scale, materials, color, style, form, and square footage. 2 In addition to the rovisions of Section 4.3.4 K ro erties located within the Lake Ida Ne_ ighborhood Overlay District shall comply with the following regulations: ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ {a} Maximum Lot Coverage: (i) Forty percent (40%} fo,r one story houses ii Thirty percent (30%) for multi-story houses b The maximum Floor Area Ratio is .35 for a multi-sfo house. Pro erf with fronfa eon Lake !da are allowed a Floor Area Ratio of .40 for a multi stony house. (c) .The area of the upper floors shall not be greater than savant -five ercent 75% of the area of the first floor. Pro erties with fronfa a on Lake Ida are allowed to have upper floors with up to 100% of the area of fhe first floor. (d) Minimum setback for multi-sfo homes in the R-1-AA zonin district shall be _twenty-five feet {25') for the front yard and fifteen feet {15' for the rear yard. e Minimum setback for_ multi-story, ____ T homes in the R-T-AAA and R-~-AAAB zoning disfricfs shall be thirfy feet (30'} for the front and and seventeen leaf 97' for the rear ord. {f) Additional landscaping required for both new multi-stony houses or additions to existing multi-story houses shall be as follows: {i) New_~ouses: landscaping requirements shall be the same as the Beach Districts as rovided in the 7 Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report Amendment of the LDRs to Create the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay and Associated Design Guidelines Beach Property Owners Design Manua[ far the North Beach and Seagate Neighborhoods. Additions: supplemental landscanina along the side of the house that the new upper floor is being added to shall be landscaped with a fourteen foot 14' shade tree eve ten feet 10' or an ei hteen foot (18') Palm tree every eight feet (8'}. (3) First Floor Maximum Hei ht: (aj Sin_gle-story or first floor limifs shall be established by: i. Height from finished floor elevation fo top of beam (tie or bond) shall not exceed fourteen feef 74' ii. An orfion exceedin the dimensions described in i. above shall be considered multi- story_sfructures. (4) Upper Story Height: Hei ht from finished floor elevafr"on to finished floor elevafion or fo of beam tie or bond shall not exceed twelve feet (72'). Section 2. That Article 4.5, "Overlay and Environmental Management Districts" of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be amended by enacting a new Section 4.5.16, "Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District" to read as follows: Section 4.5.'i6 Lake Ida Nei hborhood Overly District: + established as the area bounded b NW 22"" Street on the north Swinton Avenue an the east Lake Ida Road on the south, and_Interstate 95 on the west for the properties that are zoned R-1- AA Sin fe Famil Residential R-1-AAA Sin le Famil Residential and R-1-AAAB (Single Family residential). All development within the over[av district is subiect to the special provisions included within the_Single Family Residential (R-1,) Districts. Section 3. That Appendix "A", "Definitions", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be amended to read as follows: Floor Area Ratio The term "Floor Area Ratio" shall mean the ratio of the "total floor area" of the structurP~s) to the area of the lot. "Total Floor Area" shall be defined as the grass horizontal areas of all floors of all buildin s measured from the exterior walls or other types of enclosures and shall include g rages, carports and part-cocheres. Th ~~~ a e floor areas of attics (unless used as a living space), enclosed decks or 8 Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report Amendment of the LDRs to Create the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay and Associated Design Guidelines patios, covered porches,_ ex#erior balconies (covered or uncovered) or crawl spaces,,a,rP excluded from the total floor area used in the Floor Area Ratio calculation. REaoNAt WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY PaRx CF C ~0 LAKE EDEN WAY p 1 __._ e 9 UNITY CNURCN ,fin ~ M AND ELFMENTARY SCHOOL re 3 1o C F '. N.W 2IKD SiR TV PINI i;. ' d _ 71 S' Td' r ~ :~ ~ v ~ ; y ~ m s] a r: p qK 5 ~ ~ 9 % _ C_NWRCH ~ L . , • CC2J `+1 zG I ae ^~ Al s] ~ - OFTT'HE r d '' v ~ 4 ~-:~ f+ E x x}_ P.41LM5 ro ate` ~ T ~ -- •~ y T F S T- 1 u _ ME N k 12T~1 ,T. 11 1f IT ] 7 ] I, ] 71 e P < d f1 11 p1 _ 'N H l: Tn s y re x' ~ ra -a.. 1C Nn ~rln r~4 ° ~ r = I" ` n 4AFE. s; .f ~ f.. iI f i2 16TH r 1 12 - - y I I f ~ ] ~ IO N1WF~ N,E rs ' ~ T x ~ _ ~;' Kn 1 TH - e ] e ] a ~ f ~A .z _ ~ I I Imo! I ~ -T --- i OSR ~ ~~ ~U r 4 ~ ` F ~-E DELRAY r„ tti QP BEACH !• _ ~' HOUSL' ~yAOFE PARK J. _ 4, x- a d ~ , agw ID i 0 ANg iDN PgNT J dl 4:p u II © L TGC~ K A r 2 I7 `~ ~ R rdI ~ ree ~ _ TIP~CE K a uxE roa Roao IXfURCH OF CHRIST TETT R-1-A H ., it C ` I 1 ~C , I N .LAKE IDA OVERLAY DISTRICT ~~. OVERLAY DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT L"~~..,,.J ZONlNG MAP GITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL -- DIGITAL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: U'\AUTOCAp\PAUL\LAKE IDA OVERLAYMAP REF: IDA DVERLAY D15TRICT~ LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE VERSION ORDINANCE NO. -08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4.3, "DISTRICT REGULATIONS, GENERAL PROVISIONS", BY AMENDING SECTION 4.4.3, "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT", BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (F'}, "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS", TO PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT; AMENDING ARTICLE 4.5, "OVERLAY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS", BY ENACTING A NEW SECTION 4.5.16, "LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT", TO CREATE A NEW OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD; AMENDING APPENDIX "A", "DEFINITIONS", TO ENACT A NEW DEFINITION FOR "FLOOR AREA RATIO"; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section proposed text amendment at a public hearing held an that the changes be approved; and 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Berard reviewed the ____.. and voted to to recommend WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4) (c), the Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is consistent with and fiirthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Co~xatxiission of the City of Delray Beach adopts the findings in the Plaruiing and Zoning Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach finds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Article 4.3, "District Regulations, General Provisions", Section 4.4.3, "Single Family Residential {R-1} Districts", Subsection (F}, "Development Standards", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be amended to read as follows: (F) Development Standards: The development standards as set forth in Section 4.3.4 shaIl apply, except as modified below: (1) In addition to the provisions of Section 4.3.4(I~, properties located within the North Beach/Seagate and Ocean Neighborhood Overlay Districts shall comply with the provisions of the adopted Beach Property Owners Design Manual for the North Beach and Seagate Neighborhoods including but not limited to visual compatibility standards relating to limitations on height, width, mass, scale, materials, color, style, form, and square footage. (21 In addition to the provisions of Section 4.3.4(x}, properties located within. he Lake lda Neighborhood Overlay District shall comply with the following xegulations (a) Maximum Lot Coverage: (i1 Fort percent (40%) for one story houses (iii Thirtypercent 30%) for two story houses (b1 The maximum Floor Area Ratio is .35 for a two story house. (cl The area of the second floor shall not be greater than seventy-:five percent (75%) of the area of the first floor. ,(d) Minimum setback for two story homes shall be twenty-five feet (25', for the front yard and fifteen feet (15') for the rear yard. ~~ Additional landscaping required for both new two story houses or two stormsadditions to existtn~ houses shall be as follows: (il New houses: landscaping requirements shall be the sane as he Beach Districts as provided in the Beach Property .Owners Desi Manual for the North Beach and Sea ate Neighborhoods. Additions: supplemental landscaping along the side of the house that the new second floor is being added to shall be landscataed with a fourteen foot (14 ,) shade tree every ten feet (10') or_ an eighteen foot (1 S') Palm tree every eight feet 8 ,Z 2 ORD NO. Section 2. That Article 4.5, "Overlay and Environmental Management Districts" of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be amended by enacting a new Section 4.5.1G, "Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District" to read as follows: Section 4.5.1G Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District: {A1 The Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District is hereby established as the area bounded b NW 22"d Street on the north Swinton Avenue on the east Lake Ida Road on the south and Interstate 95 on the west for the ro ernes that are zoned R-1-AA Sin le Fami1 Residential R-1- ~Single Family Residential), and R-1-AAAB (Single Family residential). All development within the overlay district is subject to the special provisions included within the Single Fa ply Residential ~R- 1 D1st11CtS. Section 3. That Appendix. "A", "Definitions", of the Land Development Regulations of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall hereby be amended to read as follows: Floor Area Ratio The term "Floor Area Ratio" shall mean the ratio of the "total floor area" of the structure( to the area of the lot. "Total Floor Area" shaIl be defined as the oss horizontal areas of all floors of all buildin s measured from the exterior walls or other es of enclosures and shall include a es c orts and oxtcocheres excludin attics unless used as a living space, enclosed decks or patios, covered porches, exterior balcoataies (covered or uncovered or crawl spaces. Section ~. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, clause or word be declared by a court of coxxipetent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whale or part hereof other than the part declared invalid. Section 5. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section G. That this ordinance shall became effective upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 2008. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk 3 ORD NO. First Reading Second Reading ORD NO. Sam Shannon 1500 N. Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 (561) 243-8167 March 6, 2008 Paul Dorling Director, Planning and Zoning Department 101 N.W. 1 s{Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Dear Mr. Dorling: ~~~~~~~ MAR 1 S 2008 PLANNING $: ZQNIi~G It is requested that the City establish an Overlay District in Article 4.S of the City Code that would establish a special overlay district for the Lake Ida neighborhood. The purpose of the special overlay district would be to adapt a series of design guidelines for the neighborhood that could be implemented and enforced through the current City review and permitting process. The special overlay district would be similar to the North Beach and Seagate Neighborhood Overlay Districts currently included in the City code. The Lake Ida overlay district would incorporate a series of development requirements only far single family homes being constructed in the neighborhood or additions to existing single family homes. This request is being submitted on behalf of the members of a Task Force comprised of over twenty residents of the Lake Idea neighborhood that have met during the past fourteen months to develop the recommended guidelines. The Task Force was created by the Lake Ida Neighborhood Property Owner Association after they held two neighborhood wide meetings and distributed a survey to all residents requesting input on certain. characteristics of new homes being constructed in the neighborhood, A general concern of the Association and the residents that participated in these meetings was that several of the homes being built were out of character with the current housing pattexn within the neighborhoods. The incornpatibiiities primarily related of the size and bulk of the new homes. 'The Task Force, which I might note was open to any neighborhood resident that expressed an interest to participate, held nearly a dozen meetings. The Task Force took a bus trip throughout the neighborhood to identify various houses that appeazed to be out of character with their neighbors. Also, the Task Force reviewed the current City requirements for the Overlay District that have been established by two beach neighborhoods along with the code for other nearby communities that have addressed the issue of compatibility as it related to the size and bulk of new homes. The Task Force did not attempt to manic the approach used by the City for the two Beach districts because those requirements were on whole felt to be somewhat too restrictive for the Lake Ida ;, neighborhoods. The Task Force upon developing its recommendations invited residents of the neighborhood {via a letter to every residence) to attend a neighborhood wide meeting. This meeting was held last November and approximately 20 to 25 residents attended. At the meeting, each recommendation was presented and explained as well as residents were given an opportunity to ask questions of the Task Force. As a result of the input received at this meeting, the Task Force again met and modified the recommendations to provide greater flexibility far new houses to meet the proposed requirements. The modified recommendations were again presented at a neighborhood wide meeting February 21 of this year. All the recommendations were again explained along with the modifications that had been incorporated since the November meeting. There was substantial discussion by nearly all of the 45 residents that attended and at the conclusion of the meeting by a show of hands; the residents expressed an overwhelming support for the Task Force recommendations {only two residents indicated that they did not support the recommendations). Attached is a copy of the Task Force recommendations for Design Guidelines for the Lake Ida neighborhood. The recommendations address five substantive concerns and two administrative matters. The substantive recommendations address; • Lot area coverage • Floor area ratios Ratio far the second floor to the first floor • Set back for two story structures • Additional landscaping for two start' homes The two administrative recommendations address • Nonconforming uses • District boundaries Again, I wish to request, on behalf of the Task Force, that the City initiate an amendment to appropriate codes and ordinances to establish a Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District that will implement the attached recommendations and requirements. Certainly, l would be pleased to meet with you or ethers at City Hall at your earliest convenience to review the Task Force's recommendations and to answer any questions or concerns that you may have. It would also be appreciated if you could contact me when any public meeting or discussion may be anticipated related to the recommendations. Thank you and l look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Sincerely .--~ Sam Shannon Chair, Lake Ida Design Guidelines Task Force Lake Ida Neighborhood Design Guidelines Task Force Recommendations 1 Maximum Lot Coverage • 40% for one story houses • 34% for two story houses 2 Maximum Floor Area Ratio • .3 5 for a two story house The term Floor Area Ratio sha11 mean the ratio of the "total floor area" of the structure{s) to the area of the lot. "Total Floor Area" sha11 be defined as the gross horizontal areas of all floors of all buildings measured from the exterior walls or other types of enclosures and shall include garages, carports and pone-cocheres, excluding attics (unless used as a living space), enclosed decks or patios, covered porches, exterior balconies (covered or uncovered) or crawl spaces. 3 The area of the second floor can not be greater that 75% of the area of the first floor. 4 Minimum setback for two story homes shall be 25 ft. for the front yard (currently 3o ft.) and 15 ft. for the rear yard (currently 10 ft.). 5 Additional landscaping to be required for both new two story houses or two story additions to existing houses . ~ New Houses -Landscaping requirements would be the same as the Beach Districts. • Additions -supplemental landscaping along the side of the house that the new 2~d floor was being added. * a 14 ft. shade tree every l0 ft. --or-- * an 18 ft. palm tree every 8 ft. 6 The City has indicated that the current interpretation of the Zoning Code would allow an existing house that was damaged or destroyed by fire, hurricane or other "Acts of God" to be rebuilt to the extent of an existing "Non- conformity". The Task Force recommends that the Code be amended to explicitly allow for such a rebuilding. 7 The District Boundaries for the Lake Ida Neighborhood to be set as follows.* North - N. W. 22~d Street [propcrties on both sides of the street East -- Swinton Ave. South -Lake Ida Road West - I-95 right of way j * The "Lakes of Delray" subdivision world be specifically excluded from the District..] W z F--1 C!] O r~ ', F1 W E~ V F~1 A 1~+1 ~-+ w ..o ~ ~ m a ~O ~ a s ~ v, a a u a;' ~ .~ a ~ ~ v~ ~ ~v ~ O~ ~~~ id ~ ~~ '".~~ o~ a'"iov `~ '"o 'tea ~~° ~ •~~ v a°tin aam, ~ ~ ~a o~e4 a ~~, a'~~ G~ ~ ~o ~ ~ o ~ u u .~ ~ ~ ~' ~ a ^o o tq -o ~° v ~' ~ ~, ~ '~ ~ o ~ ~ '~ m ~ ~ °1 O m N ~1 'C} sa ~ O "L~ f, ~ '~ ~. ~-.-~ r-a v a m ~ ¢~ a`'i~~-' ~os°1, u~~v~~o .~~~Q"~ ~ ~;~~~~°u v~ "O ai~"a,~cn 0.4:~ ~ O +.+ rn ~ri'~ tdfr cC u ~ S~ ~ td 7-i ~ ~,, -~ ~ v ~ [~ X'-" ~ ~ ~ O •Q: ~ eGd ~ ~ w O v ~ O w ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~' O ~w O ~ O ••-+w ~ +~o a~~_'aObO ~'~b4 ~_bA ~~a~bA v.~bA a a a~bD ~-ry' cd ~ ~ ~ ,~ R+ ~" bD ~ :~ s'~-~ ~~ .~ V ~ '.~ U] ~ 'Zri bA~ .~ +~+ o '+~""". ~+ bA ~ ~ p v v ~.., ~~asoc~...ss. v vS~~,.~ Q.. ~ S~uf~~.~oS~, v~ ~~~ ~ ~ ca-d~ a`~i~ ~ rig ~~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a o ~ '~ ro~ ~~ a:~-~ a~i ~ ~ ~C ~ ~~ w .....s,~ ~v ~ ca cn ~~.~~ tea.--~~~ idd 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ vat a~ yw°°~ ~~~ ~~ v >w°~.~s ~~ ,~~ a~..~° u+. a ~ ~ ~+a maim W v ~ {+i ~-+ ~ ~ H P-« d' ~ ~ ~ Ey ~ c~i 0.'1 cn cri ~ uj U w ~ ~ ~ c6 A ~ ~ E~ ~ ° ~ ~ _ _ -~ r'r d ~,- ~ ~ '~- ~ ` 'Sn t °5 ~ { ~ ~ _ "~' H ~~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ._ ~ t _ ~' ~' ~ ~ =} ~ w ~ a r - .,..,~.~.. U] ~ r• '~-- - ~f ~ z ~ m I~ h~ ~4 _~ -.. -LL -~ - ~.~a as -` L3C; ~ rn - o - ~ ~~`- > W W w Ow - 1,,, v ~i ~~ ~ - _- ` Sao as Q ~ [l1 ~ ~ ~ ,Wrc wo p~ U_ ~"~ r m3 W ~ d '~~ ~a 5° - y ~ ~ ~~ A ~ ~ ~ _ ~` ~ a ~:` L},. --=, ~. ~ C vi 61 s' o ~, u ~~ cn,~° 0 ~ ~.~ ~~~~ '"" ~ 61 ~a,U~ O m i •~ a 't3 Cn ~ v ~ w ~ Q ~,~a ~ ~cV ~ a ~°~~' U ~ •+' ~ ~ C qV1 U ~ G U] a fI] ~ o o „o o'er ~ .F *~' Qa~~ O ~ ~--~ O V ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~~ w '~ ~ C~ ~~~~ o~ ~~ z~..,N r-1 ~i ~ ~O ~ v '~ ~ ~ ~ u ,~ '~ 'C m ~ ~ ~ ,:~ O ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ a°J, o ,~ ~+ ~ u H ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ .~. ~ '~ ~ ~ ~° ~~ ~~ '`~' 'J ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ Q ~ ~, f` ~ O ~ w ~, ~ o [, ran N °' `~ o ~~ ~ o w ~ •~ ~ ,o o ~ o ~ O N ~ ~ .~ ~ ~" o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m .~ v ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ +, V ~J U '~Ft '~ D O ~ w ~~ ~ v -~ w O +, ~ vi ~ o ~ ~ ~ •~ O ~ ~ Q.*~ ~ ~ ~ ~u r-I *~ fii .~ a~ ~o .~ O ~' O v 'CS O U .~ x ~, ~~ x ~i ~I z 'o al ~ N `~ I I U ~~ x in `"~ m X O F~ a~ W ~' a O ~, .~ '.~ ~. O .~ 0 O w Q u '~ m a U .~ a W v u v v .~ 0 0 0 '.d .~ 0 :p a 0 as O v bfJ ~3 O O v .~ .~ .~ .o .o .o .o .Q O i.C) ls7 d O e.f') 1!} o d1 r7 r-+ da rn c*) c-{ ~+ ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~W ~o v Lr U ~l U ~ O v GBH ~' a~ v ~ ~ cn U w ~ r~-~ 00 .`_`.~_- r-i _~ x W ~~~ 4 x W a~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O "~ a ~ •~ o t~ u ~"` '~ O ~~ ~~ D w~ ~ .~ •~ i-i ~ w ~ O v •~ .~ }, a ~ ~ a ~' zv ~ •~ s~ ~ a .~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~~ a °' ~' '~ v ~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~ U O ~ O +' .~ ~ u ~ O ~ ~~ .r., y-.r ~ O ~ ~ ~ '~ 0 ~. cy <'.: r,~ ;., ~. W L~ L~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ U C]. ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~v v ~ az - ©~ ~ = -. ~, ~ ~s ~~~ ~ rte.- ~~~ o~ m _, ~, 0 t•~-t U W U3 ~ ~ U .~ c~ ea ~ ~~ u ~ ~ o o a ~ ~ ~ a ~ o ~ ~ ,. , o o •~ .~ u o o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r, ~ 'i'' ~ ~, O ~ ~ ~ N ~ O ~ O ~f i O O -~~N O O O O O 4~ W ~~' ~+ ~ ~ d ~ ~ Sa.~ ~ ~i ~ a II ~ ~ ~Or ~ ?N ~w ~ ~'' ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ©~ O ' Q ~ C ~ .$~' ~ v ~ u O '~ +, O ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ QJ u~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..~ O ~ ~ ~ ca ~ H cC O ~ U S~-e ~ v .,~ .~ o ~ U] v ~ v t~ .--.~ ~ ~ ~ O r, Oi N ~ ~y id ° ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~~, ~ o a ~ o u ~, ~v ° ~ ~ `~ ~~' v , Q ~ i-i ~ .~ •~ ~ Cf] ~ p .G N~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ O ~ p m . e p p v ~ ~ ~ w "~ ~ 00 ~' w ~ ~ .mr d: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u w "" ~ '~'. O~ '+'~ v ~ v -r-r O Q .O O R ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ 4' + c ~ 4J ~ ~ ' "~~' m p ^' ""CC +~' G ~ ~ ~ ~ u (~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •D ~ X '~ '""~ ~ "." ~ ~ X ~i X ' ' r~i ~ ~ u ~ `n ~ ~ II U ~ ~~~. ~.o ~x~~ ~ O •~ ~-•' ' ~ ~ ~ 1•i / ^ V i-• ~ y • C/l ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~y O ~ j ~ ~ i~l ~ ~ •ti I~ (1~ ~ O ~ w ~' ~ ~ ~ r o i-t o ( ~ ~~ ~ o •~ •~ ~;.;• ~ ~ off' a~ ~ 6' ~ •~• ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ . ~,-:,~~ ~ ~ ' , ~ zs ~ o ti ~ .-~ ~ ° ~ o v o ~ ~ a • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -Y ~ ~ -d ~ ao ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ " °' N A O V id ~ O pp v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ v, v ~ Q ~ ~ ? C ~ • ~GV ~ ~ ` ~ ~,? W N ,~+" ~.. o y ~ e~ 'O ~ V ~ i C a ~ O ~ y ~~ ^ ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o •~ ~ ~ ~ u p., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~u ~' ~ ~ a ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~3 vi ~ ~ p U '~. 'b a~ ~ sM ~ ~ d ~ ~ ,~ a~ c~ ~ ~ ~ v O a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O P N y aS ~ p ~ O d L: ~ ~ c .+ ' + . p,, r of ~ 3 .., ~, bA OA O ~ ~ ~ ' • ~--~ ~ 1~ U ,~ ~ "~ ~ ctiS". y U C ~0 f ~ ~„~ ~ O ~ O ~"" ~ ~ f cd Py ~ 'C3 ~ Q3 ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ z ~' ` -+ U s0]. ~ ~ ~ • 'p ~~a . 6 .1 ~o Cy cC a~~~ ~ ~ . c ~~~o ~ ~ a p i WSW ~ ~ U~U d~ i o a+ Rio o a r~Qf..aw W ~ ~ ~~CI o ~,~ x U z 0 w U z ~. o a~ b ~ ~ 3 ~ © ~' ^M ~ >, -°a ~ ~' ~ N • ~ ~ [ 'd ~ ~ O x~ ---- ~ x vi ~ • ~ i ~ O ~ s , ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ o v U O •~ Y ~ ~ ~ b~ ~ ~o ~~.~ ~~ ~ o .~ ~ ~ ~, ' ~ ~ rc a ~ ~ ~ H ~~~ z~ a~ Z ~~ w 3w~ ~ a- U ~ a ~;= U ~ ~ o ~~ ~-+ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ O ~ :~ vii d0 en~x~ ~~~o~ ~ O ~ p ~ C o ~ ~ °o N U H~~a~ ~~ ~~~ V _N ~ CCU i-i H ~ {, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o •~ 4° a b ~ ~ v ~ ~ o OA U ~ ~"• b s. ai C ~o ~ . ~ bA ~ o~ o~ ~ ~ S`i v •~ ~ O N id ~ ~ ~~ ~~ _ o Y ~ ~ ~ ,~ a~i w ~~b~ ~°~~ a~w~ x~~~ •~ '~ ~. ~""~ N ~ ~ O F~ a~~ ~ ~~ 7 3 U ~ ~ w '~ ~`w-~.n U .,~" ~ ~Y w '~b~A .~ ~~ ~" ~ U ~ +~ `~ ~ ~r ~ ~ O ~' O ~,' ~~ ~~~ ~ ~` w ~ O ~~+ ~ ~ ~ ~4 {fir u,: e-i v ~ ~ ~ ~ v`~i CJ U i ~ it ~ `~+ ~ 7-i 41 CJ r-+ N ~ .~ ~ 'i+ ''.~~ j ^ ~ -N a ~p •~ Cad N 6~~1 CMG .~ o ~ ~ ~ j `~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ as ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 'G ~ ~ ,""~ U] Y [~ ,~ ~ a~] O W ~ ttt .~ Z ~ .~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'd ~ ~ ~ W ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .cd ~ ..O ~ O O C ~ .~ ~ ° ~ ~ x E~ an ~ G" G ~-" fW~ a~u~ ~ ~ c~a AG ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,•j w ~ ~ ~ w., cd a~ a~ ~ tyo ~ y ~ ~+. G 23 ~ ~ `d ~., .--~ ~ a~ p Z c~ cd 's' ~~.+ ~ bA ~ C ~' ~ ~, r~ ~ .~ o V a N ~ ~ ~ i ~. Q'-Vr V 12' C~ ONE-STORY REAR SETBACK 83.25' 15' ®TWO-STORY REAR SETBACK REAR ^F L^T 12' SIDE SETBACK 12' SIDE SETBACK 0 I H o `~ TWO-STORY o ~ J LOT COVERAGE o 0 (60'x83.25') ~ ~ ONE-STORY 35' ®ONE-STORY LOT COVERAGE & FAR FRONT SETBACK (60'x110') 5' ®TWO-STORY FRONT SETBACK 1S0'-0" FR^NT ^F L^T R-1 AAA, R-1-AAAB ZONING DISTRICTS DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL PER EXISTING ZONING REQUfREMENT5 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL PER PROPOSED OVERLAY GUIDELINES STORY SQUARE FOOTAGE EQUIVALENT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SITE AREA: 16,650 FlRST 8,064 LOT COVERAGE 4g% LOT COVERAGE TOTAL SQUARE FEET SECOND 8,064 FAR 1.63 ONE-SrORY O 40X = 6,660 THIRD $,064 TWO-STORY O 30% = 4,995 (FOOTPRINT) TOTAL 27,192 FAR ONE-STORY O .4O = 6,660 TWO-5TORY O .35 a 5,827.5 NOTE: IAAXiMUM HEIGHT 15 35', WHICH ALLOWS AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE EQUIVALENT 70 THE 2ND STORY OR LESS. N ~ SCALE: 1' = 3p~ LAKE [DA NEIGHBORH40D OVERLAY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISTRICT GTY OF DEUtAY BEACH. FL -- DIGITAL QELSE MAP SYSTEM --- MAP REF: 5:\Planning & honing\D8M5\Projeets\HistoY~e Distritl\LAKE iDA Neighborhood OVERLAY DISTRICT 10' ®ONE-STORY REAR SETBACK REAR ^1= ~^T 15' CAD TWO--STORY REAR SETBACK LOT COVERAGE & FAR 00 0 ~ 10' SIDE TWO-STORY SETBACK LOT COVERAGE (40'x6fi.375') 30' (~ ONE-STORY FRONT SETBACK 25' ®TWO-STORY FRONT SETBACK 40' 50' 75' FR^NT ^F L^T R-7-AA ZONING dISTRICT dEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL PER EXISTING ZONING REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL PER PROPOSEd OVERLAY GUIdELINES STORY SQUARE FOOTAGE EQUIVALENT dEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SITE AREA: 8,850 FlRST 4.290 LOT COVERAGE 48X LOT COVERAGE TOTAL SQUARE FEET SfCOND 4,290 FAR 1.45 ONE-5'FDRY O 40X = 3,54D THIRD 4,290 TWO-STORY O 30X = 2655 (FOOTPRINT) TOTAL 12,870 FAR ONE-STORY O .4D = 3,540 TWO-STORY O .35 = 3,098 NOTE: MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 3S', WHICH ALLOWS AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE EQUIVALENT TO THE 2ND STORY OR LESS. N LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY J~ SCALE: 1' = 3p' PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISTRICT CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL DIGITAL &ASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: S:\Plonning & Zoning\DBMS\Projects\Historlc District\LAKE IDA Neighborhood OVERLAY DISTRICT 12' CAA ONE-STORY REAR SETBACK REAR ^F L^T OE~TE=STC~R LOT COVERAGE 12' SIDE 15' CAD TWO-STORY & FAR SETBACK ' ' REAR SETBACK 60 x96.S ~~ 12' SIDE ~ SETBACK ~ a m TWO-STORY o 0 LOT COVERAGE I I (50'x87') ~ u' 35' ®ONE-STORY FRONT SETBACK 50'-0" 25' CaP TWO-STORY FRONT SETBACK 60'-0° 100'-0° FR^NT ^F L^T ~ , _ LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY SCALE. 1 - 30 DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL R-9-AAA, R-9-AAAB ZONING DISTRICT DEVELOPIIAENT POTENTIAL PER EXISTING ZONING REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL PER PROPOSED OVERLAY GUIDELINES STORY SQUARE FOOTAGE EQUIVALENT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SITE AREA: 94,500 FIRST 7,448 LOT COVERAGE 51 X LOT COVERAGE TOTAL SQUARE FEET SECDND 7,448 FAR 1.54 ONE-STORY O 40% = 5,800 THIRD 7,448 TWO-STORY O 30K = 4,350 (FOOTPRINT) TOTAL 22,344 FAR ONE-STORY O .40 = 5,800 TWO-STORY O .35 = 5,075 NOTE: LIAXlMUM HEIGHT IS 35', WHICH ALLOWS AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE EQUIVALENT TO THE 2ND STORY OR LESS. -- OMr1TAL QELSE M4P SYSTEM -- MAP REF: 5:\Planning do Zoning\DBMS\Projects\Hiskoric District\EAKE kDA Neighborhood OVERLAY DISTRICT 90' ®ONE-STORY REAR ^F L^T REAR SETBACK ONE-STORY 15' (~ TWO--STORY, REAR SETBACK 10' SIDE TWO-STORY SETBACK LOT COVERAGE (40'x54') 30' CAD ONE-STORY FRONT SETBACK 25' ®TWO-STORY FRONT SETBACK 40' 50' ~z'-o° FR^NT ^F L^T R-1-AA DEVELO ZONING DISTRICT PMENT POTENTIAL PER EXISTING ZONING REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL PER PROPOSED OVERLAY GUIDELINES STORY SQUARE FOOTAGE EQUIVALENT DEVELOPMI=NT POTENTIAL SITE AREA: T,200 FIRST 3,30D LOT COVERAGE 44% LOT COVERAGE TOTAL SQUARE FEEF SECOND 3,306 FAR 1.32 ONE-STORY O 40X = 2,880 THIRD 3,300 TWO-STORY O 30X = 2,180 (FOOTPRINT) TOTAL 9,900 FAR ONE-STORY O .40 ~ 2,880 TWO-STORY O .35 = 2,52D NOTE: MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 35', WHICH ALLOWS AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF 541JARE FOOTAGE EOVIVALENT TD THE 2ND STORY OR LESS. _~ , ~ LAKE IDA NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY SCALE. 1 - 30 DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT GTY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL --- DIGITAL Q4.SE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: 5:\Planning do Zoning\DBMS\Projecta\Hlstoric District\LAKE 1DA Neighborhood OVERLAY DISTRICT Page 1 of 1 Pape, Scott From: Valek, Denise Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 '1:06 PM To: Pape, Scott Subject: FW: Lake ida Building restrictions For the file De~ae ,g 2/ Executive Assistant Planning & 2'oning Department City of Delray Beach 100 NW 7st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Phane:567-243-7047 Fax:567-243-722? valek@ ci. delray-beach. fl. us From: Randy Porter [mailto:randycporter@bellsouth.net] Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 11:02 AM To: PZmail@MyDelrayBeach.com Subject: Lake ida Building restrictions Ms. Allen, My name is Randy Porter, and I live at 720 Enfield Rd. This email is register my opposition to the proposed building restrictions in Lake Ida. if you drive through the neighborhood, you can't help but notice how many signs there are in homeowner's yards against the proposed restrictions. As a believer in democracy, I do not think that these new regulations should be imposed on us because of the efforts of a vocal minority. Just because there is a squeaky wheel does not mean that we ail need to be greased. if the issue were put to a vote, I do not believe that a majority of homeowners would support the new restrictions. Perhaps the issue could be on the ballot for November's election. In any case, the new building restrictions should not be implemented against the will of the majority of homeowners. Sincerely, Randy Porter 5/28/2008 Page 1 of 1 Valek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of Eliis, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:51 PM To: Valek, Denise Subject: FW: Petition verification From: ACBIueChip@aol.com [mailto:ACBIueChip@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 12:08 PM To: Fllis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetrer, Fred; gpe@DelrayBeach.com; lakeidaoar@gmail.com Subject: Petition verification This email is to verify that I did sign the petition submitted to STOP ALL RESTRICTIONS. I can only wonder what Bureaucrats did before email. Perhaps they #ook names and addresses at face value and proof of sincerity. We, the residents of Lake Ida Gardens should be the oniy thing that counts to the council. You can't make decisions on traffic and turnabouts without having to reverse #hem. Why would we want you involved in our lives and future? Please do things you know about {if you can find them) and don't pay for any more surveys. Ask the residents who this will effect. Get it? Allen L. Carpenter 1130 NW 6th Avenue Delray Beach, FL. 33444 Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking_with Viler Florence" on AOL Food. s~2~i2aos Page 1 of 2 Valek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of Ellis, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:51 PM To: ValeK, Denise Subject: FW: STOP LAKE IDA RESTRICTIONS From: tonyshelly@aoLcnm [mailtvaonyshelly@aoLcom] Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 2:35 PM To: pcolnoni@bellsouth.net; Ellis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetzer, Fred; Eliopoulos, Gary Subject: STOP LAKE IDA RESTRIC7'IOlV5 May 24, 2008 To Delray Beach Commissioners, This email is to verify that L._did sign the petition submitted to STOP ALL RESTRICTIONS in Lake Ida. I find it difficult to understand how the Planning and Zoning board approved this `Neighborhood Initiative' when the majority of the neighborhood does not support the proposed change. In comments made by board members during hearings, they attributed the non-supporters as neighbors who were not involved until just recently and then basically discounted their current involvement. Unfortunately, the very language used in promoting this initiative was misleading and evasive as to the agenda. Had the task force used words such as `restrictions' or `regulations' or `code adjustments', many more residents would have been actively involved from the onset. A letter from Mr. Colnon was my first indication that the task force was attempting to place our community into an `Overlay District' and impose further regulations on future building. I understood the language of a `neighborhood-supported' initiative to be just that, Neighborhood Supported. This initiative is not. It was thought up by a very small minority group of residents and seemed to have gained momentum by the support of many outside-the-community powers that be in city positions. I believe support of this initiative should be coming from within the neighborhood, and not from outside. The city's involvement without ample proof of neighborhood support smacks of something other than a city aiding a community backed initiative. The Planning and Zoning board all but ignored a recent petition drive of which 1 SO homes were surveyed resulting in 83 opposing the new restrictions. And note that the 83 opposing were 83 residences. There were many more signatures on the petition however, in all fairness; each address was counted only once. I hope that you will give this issue your fizil and undivided attention. There is a distinct feeling here in Lake Ida amongst many residents that this initiative is being driven not only by the small minority of residents who initiated it, but also by certain people in powerful city positions. I can only hope this is not the case but I find myself asking the question `how could such an important neighborhood-specific issue reach the level of commission approval without a true consensus of residents supporting it?' 5/27/2008 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Shelly Petrolia of 2002 NW 4d' Ave. Delray Beach, Fl 33444 Stay informed, get connected and more with AOL onyour phone. 512'712008 Page 1 of 1 Valek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of Ellis, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:51 PM To: Valek, Denise Subject: FW: STOP Lake ida Restrictions From: gpanzalone@aoi.com [mailto:gpanza[one@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 3:49 PM To: Ellis, Rita; montague@mydelraybach.com; wmcduffie@myderaybeach.com; Fetzer, Fred; Eliopouios, Gary; lakeidaaar@gmaii.com; gary@aerotoystore.com Subject: STOP Lake Ida iestrictions Dear Ladies and Gentleman of the Commission, This email is to verify that I did sign the petition submitted to STOP ALL RESTRICTIONS. Unfortunately I was traveling for business and I was unable to attend the Last meeting. None the less I am adamantly opposed to this proj ect. I lived in Delray Beach years ago, and only recently returned. If I had known that Lake Ida was considering imposing such restrictions, I would have not moved back to the area. I believe that Delray Beach is defined by the diversity of its people and the fixsian of their styles and taste. I am offended that a community commission believes they have the right to decide what is good taste and what is not. What next? Are we going to say that Atlantic Avenue can only have Seafood restaurants? If this restriction is passed, I for one will sell my home and move. Sincerely, Gary and Angela Anzalone 608 N. Swinton Ave (Sbl) 274-9930 Stay informed, get connected and more with AOL on your phone. s~27~2aos Page 1 of 2 Vaiek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of Ellis, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:53 PM To: Valelc, Denise Subject: i=W: STOP LAKE IDA RESTRICTIONS From: sally wheeler [mailtoaallywing2001@hotmail.comj Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 11:53 AM To: Ellis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetzer, Fred; Eliopoulos, Gary Subject: STOP LAKE IDA RESTRICTIOf~S To Delray Beach Commissioners, This email is to verify that I did sign the petition submitted to STOP ALL RESTRICTIQNS in Lake Ida. This is my second letter to you. I did not get an acknowledgement from my first letter and re-sent it, just in case you had not received it. I still have no idea whether you have. I think it's important that you elected officials realize that the volunteers on the Planning and Zoning board have sent a proposal to you with absolutely no majority backing of the neighborhood involved. This Lake Ida Neighborhood Initiative was NOT supported by the majority of owners. The P&Z board members accepted at face value the remarks from the Lake Ida Task Farce that the entire neighborhood had been polled, included, cajoled into taking an interest over the past two years. For that matter, I may even have received a survey myself since T am a member of the Lake Ida Property Owners Association. Whatever was "surveyed" it was not the same as what was proposed to the P&Z. It morphed from being a Design Guidelines (suggestions} to a Design Restrictions {coded law) proposal, with little input from or dissemination of information to anyone not on the Task Farce, no matter what the Task Force states. At best, they actually did send out the mailings they said they did, but these were ignored or tossed as junk mail. Something about them made them not compelling enough to open or respond to. The P&Z did not pay any attention to the opposition at the workshop who explained in great detail that we did not vote on nor support the work of the small number of people on the LIPOA Task Force. It was quite inequitable at the P&Z Workshop to allow Sam Shannon {the head of the Task Force) to address the board for over 20 minutes yet not allow Phil Colnon (the most vocal of the opposition spokesmen} to address the board for a similar time. Why was Mr. Shannon allowed the time in two week-to-week P&Z board meetings to present essentially 5/27/200$ Page 2 of 2 the same information in 20 minutes or more each time yet no one opposing was offered the same opportunity? The P&Z staff member spent the same time to present the same proposed restrictions. How is this possible? Both the city staff and the tiny group in LIl'OA supported each other and were allowed to do so with no concomitant opposition. Three minutes for each public speaker was the only allowance for opposition (as well as for those supporting the proposal). It was not made clear that these speakers would be counted as if they were voting just to show that so many voted for, so many against yet this is what the first P&Z board member pointed out after the speakers were done. There are many of us who are not able to attend these meetings or that cannot speak in public for one reason or another; you are making the decision that these people have no voice when someone runs a "quick count of the votes". Even so, one pro~Regulation speaker suggested we all vote right then and make that count. She made jokes about the small number of people who vote in any election, as if that were a good reason NOT to go back and poll the people in the neighborhood regarding "Design Restrictions". I was just flabbergasted that SIX of the board members voted to pass these proposed restrictions on to you, the city commission, with comments that indicated these regulations were not restrictive enough? The study that the Task Force undertook absolutely showed that only 7 houses at most would have been restricted given the proposed regulations; taking that in hand, the board members decided that the proposal was not nearly strict enough but that it was good start! Tell me why the P&Z should make that decision in our neighborhood. I understand that the city has codes to be followed. I do not understand why the city should present a stranger code on one part of the city {our neighborhood) based on less than even a simple majority of the owners. This smacks of Taxation without Representation, especially when the restrictions seem to be pushed by a small number of people from our neighborhood along with their friends or political allies who do NOT live in OUR neighborhood. Please do not allow this proposal to pass the commission. It should be backed by all the owners in our neighborhood or, at the very least, a majority of the owners. Thank you for your honest consideration. Sincerely, Sally W Wheeler 2001 NW 4 Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Change the world with a-mail. Join the I'm Initiative from Microsoft. 5/27/2008 Vale~C, Deniise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of E[[is, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 20Q8 12:53 PM To: Valek, Denise Subject: FW: No to Restrictions -----Original Message----- From: katemoran@bellsouth.net [mailto:katemoran@bepsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, May 25, 200$ 5:19 PM To: Ellis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetzer, Fred; gpe@mydelraybeach.co Subject: No to Restrictions Dear Commissioners: I am typical of the out-of-the-loop resident of the Lake [da community who have finally realized what was going on -restrictions (not guidance) re: the future of our homes and neighborhood. I am totally against any additional rules and regulations and signed the petition that was presented at the P&Z meeting the other night. This neighborhood is wonderful, is not under siege from high rise builders, and needs to be left alone. The boogeyman of "two story houses!ll" doesn't scare me. I moved to this neighborhood precisely because it exhibits a refreshing sense of freedom with homes, big, small, old, new and in every color (mine is tangerine). We have enough citywide rules in place to keep things moving along nicely. Please do not pass the proposed restrictions. Thank you. Kate Moran 2025 NW 4th Avenue Delray Beach Page 1. of X Valek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores an behalf of Ellis, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:56 PM To: Valek, Denise Subject: FW: Lake Ida restrictions Fran: Ccrdbarr~am@aol.com [mailto:Ccrdbamom@aaLcorri] Send; Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5;55 AM "ra: Eliis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; Fetzer, Fred; McDuffie, Woodier Eliopouias, Gary Su4sy~ct: Lake Ida restrictions This e-mail is to verify that I did sign the petition submitted to sop all restrictions. Alan L. Rosenberg, I~7.®. 1111 i~.11V. 4th Avenue Delray beach, F~ 33444 1 attended the lengthy 3~- hour commission meeting where the panel clearly acknr~wledged that the proposition's points did not establish the concerns which were mast pressing to the community, yet proceeded tQ rubber stamp it in an effort to pass "something" rather than nothing. The proposed restrictions are NAT the will of the majority and are clearly poorly th©ught out. Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. 5/27/2008 Page 1 of 2 Valek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of Ellis, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:57 PM To: Vaiek, Denise Subject: FW: No Lake Ida Restrictions Importance: High From: Moran, Clayton [mailto:CMoran@StanfordEagle.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:04 AM To: Ellis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetrer, l±red; Eliopoulos, Gary Subject: fVo Lake Ida Restrictions Importance: High To Delray Beach Commissioners, I hope this email finds the appropriate people. I am a Lake Ida resident. I do not support restrictive zoning policies. I have never voted for restrictions and I purposely moved to the neighborhood because I do not want to be in an association that restricts my freedoms. Apparently, some volunteers on the Planning and Zoning board have sent a proposal to you with absolutely no majority backing of the neighborhood involved. This Lake Ida Neighborhood Initiative was NOT supported by the majority of owners. As such, I assume your fiduciary responsibility requires you to deny the proposal. In any case, I do not agree with this proposal and want you to be aware of my dissension. I believe that I and every Lake Ida homeowner deserve a vote on such matters. Please confirm receipt. Thank you. Clayton Moran 235 NW 22 Street Delray Beach, FL 33444 Any information or data provided in this message has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Such information reflects current market conditions, is subject to change without notice and should not be relied upon for tax purposes. Any transactional details are provided at your request and do not supersede your normal trade confirmations or monthly statements. Any product recommended is subject to prior sale. Stanford Group Company, its affiliated companies, and/or officers, directors ar employees, may at times have a position in or make a market in any security described above, and/or may act as an investment banker or advisor to any company referenced. Stanford Group Company reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all a-mail communications sent and/or received by its employees. Stanford Group Company does not accept time-sensitive transactional messages, including orders to buy and sell securities, via e-mail. This information is intended to be confidential and solely for the use of Stanford Group Company and those persons or entities to whom it is directed. It is not to be reproduced, retransmitted, or in any other manner redistributed. If you received this message in error, please contact Stanford Group Company 5/27/2008 Page 1 of 1 Valek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of Ellis, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:47 PM To: 'Kathysmith004@aol.com' Cc: Darling, Paul; Valek, Denise Subject: RE: Lake Ida Restrictions Dear Ms. Smith, Thank you for your email. I and the City Commission appreciate all points of view and welcome your input. This item will be on the ,lone 3rd agenda. Thank you again for sharing your views. Sincerely, The office of Mayor Rita Ellis From: Kathysmith004@aal.com [mailto:KathysmithOQ4@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 23, 20fl$ 7:57 PM To: Ellis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetzer, Fred; Eliopouios, Gary Cc: lakeidaoar@gmaiLcom SubjecE: Lake Tda Restrictions Commissioners: did sign the petition AND I am against any restrictions on my property in Lake Ida. Kathy Smith 501 Eldorado Lane Delray 33444 Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Faad. 5/27/2008 Page 1 of 1 Valek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of Ellis, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:57 PM Ta: Valek, Denise Subject: FW: Please stop restrictions From: Ke~roart@aol.com [mailto:Ke~roart@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:54 PM To: Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetzer, Fred; Eliopauios, Gary; Ellis, Rita Subject: Please stop restrictions Good day, A fast note to verify that we signed the petition against the Lake Ida Neighborhood Building Restrictions. A[I the best, Kevin & Deb 1002 Lake Shore Drive Delray Beach, FI 33444 Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AQL Food. (httpalfood.aol.comltyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002) 5/27/2008 Page 1 of 1 Valek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of Ellis, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:56 PM To: Valek, Denise Subject: FW: Stop Restrictions From: Larry Buerman ~maiito:imbikadari@hotmail.cam] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:15 AM To: Eilis, Rita Subject: Stop Restrictions This email is to verify that I did sign the petition submitted to STOP ALL RESTRICTIONS. Larry & Imbi Buerman 34 NW 17th Ct s~2~~2aos Page 1 of 1 Va[ek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of 1=11is, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:55 PM To: Vaiek, Denise Subject: FW: Opposing Lake Ida Building Restrictions From: Jeff Cotten [maiito:JCohen@smclawfirm.com] Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 6:58 PM To: Ellis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetzer, Fred; Eiiopoulos, Gary Cc: lakeidaaar@gmail.com Subject: Opposing Lake Ida Building Restrictions Dear Commissioners, This a mail is to verify that 1 did sign the petition submitted against the proposed restrictions in Lake Ida. 1 am opposed to the proposed building restrictions. Thank you. Jeffrey Cohen 425 N.W. 12th Street Delray Beach, FL 33444 5/27/2008 Page 1 of 1 Valek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of EIGs, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:54 PM 70: Valek, Denise Subject: FW: Lake Ida Restrictions From: Degnan [maiito:wdegnan@bellsouth.netj Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:23 AM To: EI[is, Rita Subject: Lake Ida Restrictiar~s This email is to verify that I did si n the etition submitted to STOP ALL RESTRICTIONS. William Degnan Catherine Degnan 1009 NW 4th Ave Delray Beach, FL 33444 5/27/2008 Valek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of Ellis, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:52 PM To: Valel<, Denise Subject: FW: STOP LAKE IDA RESTRICTIONS -----Original Message----- From: mike wheeler [mailto:mkwcowboy@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 'f 0:39 AM To: Ellis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetzer, Fred; Eliopoulos, Gary Subject: STOP LAKE IDA RESTRICTIONS This email is to verify that [did sign the petition submitted to STOP ALL RESTRICTIONS in Lake Ida. Michael K Wheeler 2DD1 NW 4 Aye Delray Beach, FL 33444 Page 1 of 1 Valek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of Ellis, Rita Seat: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 X2:52 PM To: Valek, Denise Subject: FW: stop lake ida building restrictions From: Ellen i3. Rosenthal [mailtoaeascon@bellsouth.net] Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 9:13 AM To; Ellis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetzer, Fred; Eliopoulos, Gary Subject: stop lake ida building restrictions This email is to verify that 1 did sign the petition submitted to STOP ALL RESTRICTIONS. Stephen Rosenthal 1700 Lake Drive Delray Beach 278-1957 5/27/200$ Fage 1 0~ 1 Vatek, Denise From: Range[, Delores on behalf of Ellis, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:49 PM To: Va[ek, Denise Subject: FW: Lake Ida Building Restrictions From: John Cahorshak [maifto:jahncCa~sccfl.com] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 9:01 PM To: Ellis, Rita Cc: Montague, Brenda; Fetzer, Fred; McDuffie, Woodier Eliopouios, Gary; 'lakeidaoar@gmail.com'; 'Jane Consiglio' Subject: Lake Ida Building Restrictions My name is John Cahorshak and I awn a home at 616 North West 13th Street. This email is to verify that Idid -sign the petition to (STOP ALL BUILDING RESTRICTIONS}. ,fahn Cahorshak Shakman Hospitality, LLC General Contractors 2595 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 100 Boca Ratan, Florida 3341 [561)750-82$8 [561) 750-8511 fax This message contains confidential andlor privileged information and is intended only for the individual entity named herein, If you are not the named addressee you may not dissemina#e, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immedia#ely by email or telephone (561) 750-828$, if you have received this email in error and completely deleted it from your system, Email transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive fate or incomplete or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors ar omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email transmission. If verification is required, please request a hardcopy version. Shakman Hospitality, LLC 2595 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 100, Boca Raton, Florida 33431. IF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL IS WRITTEN FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES, PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, FEDERAL AND FLORIDA RULES OF EVIDENCE, STATUTORY AND COMMON LAW, IT SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT. 5/27/2048 Page 1 of 2 Pape, Scott From: Valek, Denise Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:36 PM To: Pape, Scott Subject: FW: Lake Ida See a-mail below De~iee rg 2/a.Ee! Executive Assistant Planning & Zoning Department City of Delray Beach it)t7 NW 9stAvenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Phone: 569-243-7049 Fax: 569-243-7221 valek@ cr. delra y-b e a ch. fl. us From: Ruby, Susan Seat: Thursday, May 2Z, 2008 12:23 PM To: Darling, Paul; Valek, Denise Cc: 'lakeidaaar@grr~ail.com' Subject: FW: Lake Ida Please place all materials submitted to P&Z in the materials that will be reviewed by the City Commission when .they further review and address the Lake Ida ordinance modifications. Thanks Susan .~L. Ru6y City Attorney 200 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 telephone: 561-243-7091 facsixra i le: 561-27 S -4755 email: ruby@ci.delray-beach.fl.us From: Ruby, Susan Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:21 PM To: Cc: bbmontague@aol.com; Fred Fetrer (FBFetzer@bellsouth.net}; Gary Eliopoplis (GPE@aol.com); rita@clirr~tatecontrolservices.com; woadiemcdufFie@bellsouth.net Subject: RE: Lake Ida Dear Mr. Mackie, Thank you for your email. I am requesting, by copy of this email to Paul Dorling, that your email and the materials submitted to the P&Z board be included in the materials submitted to the City Commission when they consider the ordinance on the matter. The petitions were reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. The City Commission and the Planning and Zoning Board. care about the desires of all the 5~22i2oos Page 2 of 2 citizens of Delray Beach, however ,the City Commission and.the Planning and Zoning board cannot be legally make their decisions based solely on the number of persons opposing or proposing an action and must by law make their decisions based on whether or not there is a rational basis to believe the measure is in the public interest. The meetings where the matter will be further reviewed will be advertised and there will be two additional public hearings before the City Commission. You are welcome and encouraged to attend. Again thanks for your interest and concern. Susan .~1. Ru6y City Attorney 200 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 telephone: 561-243-7091 facsimile: 561-278-4755 email: ruby@ci.delray-beach.fl.us From: McDuffie, Woodie Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:58 AM To: Ruby, Susan Subject: FW: Lake Ida Susan, Here is the a-mail we just discussed. am providing you this a-mail for information purposes only. I am not soliciting nor may 1 accept, under the Sunshine Law, any replies. Warmest Regards, Woodie McDuffie, Deputy Vice-Mayor City of Delray Beach 100 iV.W. 1 st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 wmcdu~eCa7.m ydelraybeach. com From: don mackie [maiito: Sent: Thu 5/22/2008 10:24 AM To: McDuffie, Woodie Subject: Lake Ida Mr. McDuffie, A petition was submitted at the P&Z meeting with 83 signatures opposing the restrictions. It was ignored by the board! Only 24 people stood insupport 'of the restrictions. What has to be done for the commission to accept these signatures. There are.actually more signatures but 83 addresses are represented. This is 11 % of all area homes. Only 6% voted in the last city election. I consider this a huge response against restrictions. Is it really necessary that everyone personally-come to this meeting? Philip Colnon 5/22/2008 05/04/08 Susan Ruby, City Attorney City of Delray Beach 100 NW 1" Ave Delray Beach, ~'L 33444 Re; Lake Ida Overlay District Ms. Ruby, Sam 5hannou bas submitted #o the Planning and Zoning Ilepartotent far an "overlay" for our area. In his submittal it references a survey in support of this action and references multiple "design guideline meetings". It is the job of the city employee to protect the interest of ALL residents, not just ilia vocal. 1 attended three of these meet}ngs. 'The meeting were mat to discuss the need for restriction, but to write them. Sincz 1 was against restrictions I wag considered to be disruptive and asked by one of the board members of the LIPOA not to attend. Anyone against restridians obviously would not attend. This would make it appear that everyone was for tfte restrictions. How caa the city Initiate action an the word of a handful of resident "tASk~farce memlxr~"(21) and results of survey reapottse of 4I residents, lucludigg the Ktask force"? After speaking vrith Lula Butler, ~I was informed that residetrts at the north end are tt7lin$ to form there own home owner association and di sedate with the LIPOA_ i also have been active to forma }aka froont lmoperty owners association and to date have 17 ofthe 31 properties signature. l lmow it is difficult to get all ,area tr;s~ideuts to respond to anything. A group of us have been going door to door for lp days with a survey to see if this overlay is t~uty supported. t~ survey count to date is 234 residenfis. Several iztterestirlg.factshove emerged. The majority of Qwr-eis were totally unaware of ANY action( 62°/a) pending, which include LIl'QA ruembers. At the north end of the area $7°f« da not want the garage included when calcedating total SR 'T'his is a major item in the guidelines submitted. Marty ofthe homes at the north end ire on small laic and this inciusicm would possibly keep owners from expanding there horttes as their families grnw- This item also should have been filed under the IAR, not thnr the City Comprehensive Plan. "This would have required significant fund raising, which would show support. 'T'ire city should demand a copies of the survey referenced in the submittal and verify that the overlay is supported before fuather action is taken. The e~tal names arrd addresses of the survey respondents, leas withheld. This is took keep Sum showing that mare titan 5l1°/. were on the ~tatsti force". '17te Beach Area and Marina District overlays took mare that 18 months from submittal to becoming an amendrnertt. If this action takes the-path laid ottt ley the Planning Department it wr`ll be else week from subntit~l to acceptance. Is this being forced because David Harden and Gary Eliopolis are in favor and live in the area? /~ Philip Colnon, 24 year area. resident and tttentber of LIPOA 6$oNw 1}m St Delray Beach, F'f. 33444 Sti1-929-8680 pea loan 1 Qbellsouthsret ~~EGE~V~D MAY 0 9 ~p4g LlTY AT~'Q~N~Y ~.s o~ ,.~~~b~ ~i ~~,~~ ARE Y©U A ME21+IH$R OF TgE LIPOA ~ . ~yG'' ARE YOU A ME11+D~ER OF TOE "UESYGly TASK FOYtCE" 9 'O YES ~~~' 1V4 BEFORE LAST MONTI~, ~'"kE YOU AWAY ~'rfAT T~~ V~'AS A "D~.Q GN TASK FORCE" ~ DO YOU FEEL YOU $p ,~ ~ YES Q N~ RESTItI~UNS TO M,~ A ~ ~'~RY y1~d~AT~pN t~lli THE ~/ YE5 ~ NQ DV Y~~ ~ TS~R~ SHOULD BE ~'~IC~`IONS Old SIl~T~LE STORY ADDrr~oNS g ~YSS ~7 ~'g7 NO WREN CALC[~LATII~TG THE T[)'I'AX. SQUARE FO#7I`AGE OF YI3UR SOlVIE~ DO YOU WANT THE GARAGE OR ~ARPO~tT~INCLUDEI) A5 YART OF YOUR INTERIOR SI~ACE? DYES ~ NU ARE YIW AWARE THAT DESIGN GUIDF.L3NF~" WIL1. ACTUALLY BE ~R~aQUIRED~ BUII.D~G CODE" BY THE• CITY OF 1IEL1tAY BEACH FOR AId. ADD~E7N9 Cd'~ ~4 YES N(l ~~ - ~~~,~ SIGNA'R1RE ~~9 ~~jq ~(¢~,55y ~o ~` My name is Philip Colnon. I have lived and raised my family in the Lake Ida Area for 23 years. This is my home. I do not plan on moving from the area and believe the fight against these building restrictions is in the best interest of all home owners. In the emails circulated during the past month my name has been associated with several ajatives that are not flattering. All this because I woke up the neighbors. Our country is run on a two parry system, because not everyone sees eye to eye. I have two main issues that need to be addressed byb the board tonight; the lack of documentation to show support for this action and the city initiating this amendment . The City of Delray Beach Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element Section 12.4 States," The city will provide planning and technical assistance to implement NIEGHBORHOOD-SUPPORTED initiatives. The key word in this quote is hyphenated "nieghborhood-supported. The staff report conveniently left these words out of their report to the Board. The submittal letter from the "task force" to the city had NO DOCUMENTATION, only the signature of the applicant. The support documents released 3 weeks after the submittal show a 12 question subjective answer survey with a total response of 49, of which 21 wexe on the task force and obviously for restrictions. The task force claims there are 62 responses but if you count the answers for any one question you will see that there are only 49 at most. The survey never asked the most important question "are you in favor of building restrictions? The other suppor t documents acre mostly copies of the LIPOA news lettex These n~.aiiings wexe only sent to members, which is less than 25% of the 740 residents. According to Sam Shannon's submittal letter only 2 items wexe mailed to all residents. The first of which was over 2 years ago. The task force had several so called nieghborhood wide meetings. The notification for these meetings was not sufficient. When the BPOA hired a proffessional design team to help adopt the beach overlay, they were instructed to hand deliver notices to all meetings 1 week in advance of each meeting. These notices went to every owner 12 times in 14 months and was documented in their submittal. This kept all owners informed. Not keeping the area residents informed of this issue is why we have a crowd tonight! ! ! My second point ;that the city took the uutiative to start this amendment. The Land Development Regulation Section 2.4.3{x) 1 (W} defines privately initiated text amendments. The BPOA submitted their overlay under this section of the LDR's. The text amendment was written by the proffessional design firm of Uxban Design Studios. None of the city initiated overlay districts pertain to any residential areas listed as STABLE in the City Comprehesive Plan. The City initiated overlays include West Atlantic Avenue Overlay District, The North Federeral Highway Overlay District, The Wallace Drive Overlay Districts The Southwest Neighborhood Overlay District, The SW l U~` Street Overlay District, The Carver Estates Overlay District, Four Corners Overlay District and the I-95/CSX Railroad Crridor Overlay District . Having the City initiate the text amendment shows lack of support. Urban Design Studios was interviewed by the LIPOA to create the text amendment. It become evident that the necessary funds could not be raised. A meeting was set to discuss a city initiated amendment, which is why we are here tonight. This amendment should be a privately initiated amendment, not city initiated in a year of budget cuts. There is a thought that I started this f ght at the eleventh hour. I tried months ago to convince task force members that the path they were taking would not be accepted by the area. After attending 3 task force meeting , I was told not to return. The Task Force meeting were not to discuss if the restrictions should be written ,but which restrictions should be included. Unless you were in favor of restrictions there was no reason to attend. I heard nothing about restrictions or the task force until a city employee notified me that the LIPOA had submitted. The task force'and officers of the LIPOA tried to keep the residents in the dark by tearing down all of my notices 3 times a day for a week. When I got word that I was not the only one interested in stopping the restrictions, I started xny own survey. The results are in our staff repoxt. The number of residents aware of the restrictions in almost identical to the # of LIPOA members. At the time as the survey I collected signatures on a petition to stop all restrictions. I collected s sand 64% signed the petition. In any election to get 64% would be a landslide. The people that live in the Lake Ida Area have spoken. INo restrictions! ! ~~~9 ~o ~,~~ „~ 9,~ya~,,k~ ,cQ ~~C~ ~/~- ~,~.~~ ¢~oa ~G,~ ~ ~~ ~ a~~~~ ~:~ I AM A-~~~`ST THE LAKE IDA TASK FORCE DESIGN.:GI~IDEL,TNES NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE a -~ ~~ ~ AM . =~~~ ~~~~ THE LAKE IDATASK FORCE DESIGN GUIDELINES NAME ADDRESS ~ SIGNATURE - WNER ~~GAINST ~- ESTRICTYGNS NAME a"°~.~ ADDRESS EMAIL PHONE .j }~^J ~y ,f E - 3 / r . 2 ti"-~ ~ Co~'c3 ~- SWruTt7E~ 'Z~~}-~q3c~ ! ~? ~~+f~t-~ `fib `-# a ~ ! ~ - ST - ~ ~ • `C~t~ ~.,~ 2$ ~ ' G 3 ~~ ~.~ti 4~~~ ©a ~~ ~ ~ ~-~.' ~ ~ di. S~c~c ~Q~ ~~~c ~~ ~ ~~~ .~5~' ~~L-!~ C7~..a~v-~ ' ~-~-o~ . ~.R~~ ~ r~ elt E ~l~~ ~ nb~ ~~ ~~ ~ sG~e d ~ .cam 7a ~3' ~ ~ , ~' iE~~ ~~~ ~ 1t~ ~.c2i;3~ G ~ ~4~~ ~ ~ k ~ ~, ~~O'r3 / G ~ t ~7 . ~a ~^ 8 ~ ~ Y-..~81 r ~~ ~ I ~! ~ i /~/f ~/~Q fffl~ ~fF 1'` "J '~' ~ FirC N ~ 1r~ ° rL~Jrl ~ ~ AJ Liz ~J(~~ t I ,e,~y~ -, THE LAKE IDATASK FORCE DESIGN GUIDELINES NAB ADDRESS SIGNATURE ~ "5 V $~r ~-f '' f R' il: 1 ' ~ fig ;~"'.`t {~ .d 5.7~~ ~ ~.' L ~ _f '~,. _ . - - i f ~ G.~ yF ~~ . J r / r.,~ j ~ ~ ~ f V i f ej ~j(~~ fjD f y" ~~c~ l l t ~ ~~ ~' (D~ T~ ~ ~ ~,, p b..., r .. v ~.= d ~~ ~ -~ ~ AM -_- `THE LAKE IDA TASK FORCE DESIGN GUIDELINES NAiViE ADDRESS SIGNATURE Ia I AM ~ ' `THE LAKE IDA TASK FORCE DESIGN GUIDELINES ~,_~~~~ _. `~ NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE ~'~ I AM ~ THE LADE IDA TASK FORCE DESIGN GUIDELINES NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE cchsz- ~' ~-~ o/ ~ ~ ~.~k I; ;1 3Nw r~~` ~~ ~~ G_S =a ~ r~D~` .~ ` Page 1 of 2 Valek, Denise From: kropmilr@bellsouth.net Sent: Sunday, May 18, 200$ 10:03 PM To: Valek, Denise Subject: i=W: Lake Ida Overlay-AGAINST RESTRICT[ONS Denise, I got a ton of emails this week about Lake Ida--do you want me to forward them all to you ar just print them out and bring them? Thanks, john -------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- Frorn: tonyshelly@aol.corn To: jpike@envdesign.com, chalberg@bellsouth.net, kropmilr@bellsouth.net, ddddowd@earthlink.net, francisco@perezarchitects.com, pzacks@sal5.state.fl.us, cglickstein@ironwoodproperties.com Subject: Lake Ida Overlay-AGAINST RESTRICTIONS Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 17:12:54+0000 Dear Commissioners, I am in receipt of the many copies of pro-Lake Ida restriction letters that you have received. I just want you to know that there is a large number of residents against these restrictions however, we do not have the means {as Lake Ida Property Owner Association does) to blanket e-mail the community in an effort to blast you with letters against these restrictions. It is obvious a letter writing campaign is under way in order to influence your opinion toward accepting t hese restrictions. Ironically, one letter writer wants to see the larger homes recently built discontinued, however, fails to mention that these homes would still comply if the restrictions are passed. Another writer states that all residents were well inforn~ed on the issue. Speaking only for myself, this is not true. And yet another speaks of the backyard fishbowls being created, however fails to mention that this is a privacy issue and can be managed with additional foliage and fencing without the adoption of restrictions and additional code changes. And I am truly offended at the cutting remarks of one letter writer who lumps anyone opposing these restrictions into a 'greedy developer & friends' category. I'm am neither. T am hoping that no decision is made until a true consensus of neighborhood support is obtained. Unless and unt it the majority of the residents of this neighborhood can be determined, I will not support it. As strongly as the beach property owners supported their desire for additional restrictions, our community should also be united to institute change. This is a very important issue involving all Lake Ida properties, let's make sure it is what the neighborhood wants before removing property rights. 5/19/2008 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Shelly Petrolia Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com: America's #1 Mapping Site. s~ls~2oas Page 1 of 1 Valk, i]enise From: John Cahorshak ~ohnc@sccfl.com) Sen#: Sunday, May 18, 2008 6:59 PM Ta: PZmail@MyDelrayt3each.com Cc: '929-86801iakeidaoar@gmail.cam ; 'Jane Consiglio' Subject: Lake ]da Restrictions To Whom It May Concern, Please register this document as a formal protest representing my most definite objection against the city of Delray Beach Building Department insti#uting any further building restrictions in the lake Ida neighborhood other than those that exist at this present time. John Cahorshak Shakman Hospitality, LLC General Contractors 2595 NW Boca Raton Bivd., Suite 100 Boca Raton, Florida 3341 (561)750-82$8 (561) 754-8511 fax This message contains confidential andlor privileged information and is intended only for the individual entity named herein. If you are not the named addressee you may not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email or telephone (561) 754-8288, if you have received this email in error and completely deleted it from your system. Email #ransmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability far any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email transmission. If verification is required, please request a hardcopy version... Shakman Hospitality, LLC 2595 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 100, Baca Raton, Florida 33431. iF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN TH]S EMAIL IS WRITTEN FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES, PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, FEDERAL AND FLORIDA RULES OF EVIDENCE, STATUTORY AND COMMON LAW, IT SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT. 5/19/2008 Page 1 of 1 Valeic, Denise From: Shannon Dawson [ShannonDawson@comcast.netj Sent: Monday, May 19, 2p08 4:p5 PM To: kropmilr@bellsouth.net; jpike@envdesign.com; Francisco@perezarchitects.com; cglickstein@ironwoodproperties.com; pzacks@sal5.state.fl.us; chalberg@bellsouth.net; PZmaii@MyDelrayBeach.com Subject: Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District Dear Planning & Zoning Board Members, As a property owner and Realtor who lives and works in this area, I am deeply concerned about the proposed "Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District". i own two properties on N. Swinton Avenue, one of which lies within the boundaries of this proposed district. I am strongly opposed to creating such an overlay district with associated "guidelines" for the following reasons: o Avery small minority (approx 3%} of property owners from the area created and voted in favor of this large overlay district that will impact over 700 properties. In NO way does this represent a majority of the neighborhood. o There is simply no need to have an overlay district for this neighborhood. Relatively few new homes have been built in the area over the Last 10 years. Even during the real estate boom, only a small handful of homes were built. Between today's elevated construction costs and a declining real estate market, there is little risk of developers lining up to build homes that will desixoy the "character" of the neighborhood. o The boundaries proposed will create an extremely large district that includes a wide variety of homes. It is more like several neighborhoods within a neighborhood. Unlike North Beach/Seagate and Ocean Neighborhoods, it is impossible to classify the "character" of the Lake Ida neighborhood because the homes are quite diverse in size, shape, architecture, etc. The only way to characterize it would be to say that it is extremely eclectic. o Once the overlay district is created, what amendments are going to be made later?? At the workshop last week, Paul Dorling mentioned the possibility of adding height restrictions and other restrictions from the recently amended historic district regulations. As property owners, we become vulnerable to losing our property rights one by one as time goes on. Revisions to the historic preservation guidelines are a prime example of how a relatively simple ordinance can morph into 35 pages of baffling restrictive regulations over time. o Overlay restrictions will have negative consequences for property values in this area. Properties in Lake Ida are currently more desirable than other nearby restricted neighborhoods such as Del Ida Park Historic District. This is not a charming Beach neighborhood nor is there an abundance of beautiful historic architecture to marvel at... People need to be free to improve their homes as they see fit and continue to beautify the neighborhood. Restrictive building regulations will have negative consequences. It will deter improvement and prospective buyers will be less likely to take on the properties that need improvement. Please don't recommend approval for the "Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District". Sincerely, Shannon Dawson 5iz2~aoos Pape, Scott From: Allen, Jasmin Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:56 AM To: Pape, Scott Subject: FW: Lake Ida overlay -----Original Message----- From: Gary Hansen [mailto:hansen0lC~bellsouth.net] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:12 PM To: PZmail@MyDelrayBeach.com; Allen, ~7asmin; Ellis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetzer, Fred; Eliopoulos, Gary Cc: lakeidaoar@gmail.com Subject: Lake Ida overlay To whom it may concern: My name is Gary Hansen, and I live in Lake Ida. I wish it to be known that I vehemently oppose any new building restrictions or guidelines being imposed on my property. I purchased in lake Ida because I appreciate the diversity we have here and the fact that there is no HOA to dictate design guidelines etc. The existing codes have enabled our neighborhood to experience excellent growth in property values. I am including below a Letter I wrote to the P&Z board members further explaining my position on this matter. Please contact me with any questions Gary Hansen Gary Hansen 1104 N.W. 4th Av. Delray Beach Fl. 33444 Email: hansen0l@bellsouth.net Cell #~: 561-441-048& To: Delray Beach Planning and Zoning board Members Regarding: Proposed Lake Ida building restrictions sirs and Madam, I will start with the good. Thank you all for deciding to move the Lake zda agenda forward at last months meeting. I, for one, thought it was very considerate of you to do this. However, T find your decision to instruct city staff to spend their time and my and tax dollars to review the proposed Lake Ida overlay VERY SHAMEFUL_ You were told the statistics in the meeting: approximately 20 people {that may be as few as 10 property owners!) proposed restrictions that would impact over 700 kzomes. BEST .CASE SENERIO THAT IS NOT EVEN 3~S OF THE EFFECTED HOME OWNERS! Your decision to mandate a city review of what this tiny group proposed was irresponsible. If I came to you with 19 or so other people and stated 3Lake Ida will be ruined unless we made certain that all new roofs be greenz you would laugh my 19 friends and I out of the room! This is no different. Lake Ida does not have a H.O.A. I signed no documents when I bought my home stating that any homeowners group would govern me. The people who propose these restrictions were neither elected nor appointed by our neighborhood to represent Lake Ida homeowners! I spent close to three years looking in Lake Ida before I was finally able to buy my home. I liked Lake Ida because .of the location, diversity and most importantly, lack of H.O.A_ restrictions. I refused to buy into a H.O.A. controlled community. z am not willing to let neighbors decide design criteria for my home, and I believe that. those around me should z not have me dictating their home design! While I may have excellent taste, they are the ones paying for their homes and taxes,`why should I have any say in what they build? The existing setbacks and codes that are already in place in Lake Ida have allowed for a great deal of diversity and significant growth in property values. As I see it, there are only two expectable answers to those who want additional building restrictions. I) You bought into an uncontrolled community. If you do not like the way it is developing, sell your home and move into a controlled community that you feel meets your design criteria. 2) Tf you want to place further restrictions on YOUR OWN property, you may do so. each individual homeowner should make this decision voluntarily. I have attempted to state my opinions as concisely as possible here, and at that, I did not express half of what I would like to have. I am disgusted that I now have to spend my time and efforts to protect rights that should never have been jeopardized in the first place. I unfortunately, due to a busy workload, will not be able to attend the meeting on the 19th. I can assure you that I will do all I can to block any actions to place additional restriction on my property! If any of you would like to discuss this with me further, please feel free to call me at the number above or contact me via email. Thank you for taking the time to read this, Gary Hansen 2 May i2, 2008 Scott Pape City of Delray Beach 100 NW 1St Ave. Delray Beach, FL 33444 Dear Scott, As a resident of Lake Ida and a homeowner of a two story residence I am opposed to the guideline package that the Task Force has recommended. Generally, I believe we have codes already in place and do not need more regulation. I have found first hand that even if you were to abide by these guidelines or ones similar, single story homeowners are not pleased with a two story home being built adjacent to them. With that being said, I would like to address the landscape requirements which are number 5 in the guidelines. This calls for new homes to adapt the landscape requirements for the Beach Districts. The Beach District guidelines are cumbersome, complicated and an example of bureaucracy at its worst. Delray Beach has a landscape code that is clear and well written. A landscape plan is already required for residential development. A landscape architect must design, sign and seal this plan and the city must review the drawing for compliance with the code. As a design professional, I feel the code is satisfactory. For additions, the guidelines call for supplemental landscaping of a 14' ht. shade tree every 10' or an 18' ht. palm every 8'. These trees and palms would be very close together and in same cases, would not allow for the tree or palm to take an its natural growth habit and form. Different trees and palms have various size canopies but this guideline does not take that into account. I believe this guideline would cause problems far the homeowner building the two story home as well as the homeowner living adjacent to this landscape buffer. With homes next to FPL easements, large trees and palms cannot be planted adjacent to these easements. FPL has the "right tree, right place" requirement. The only trees and palms that can be planted near these easements are trees and palms, which in theiur maturity, stay below the utility lines and would not reach a second story. Shade trees such as Live Oaks have to be planted 30' away from overhead lines. Palms such as Royals need to be planted 17' away from the overhead lines. In some cases, the landscape guideline may not be attainable and become too restrictive. Sincerely, ~~ Carol Borough Perez, L dscape Architect 330 N.W. 16th Street, Delray Beach, FL Page 1 of 3 Pape, Scott From: Valek, Denise Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:48 AM To: Pape, Scott Subject: FW: an Architect and task team members response...please send this to everyone Scott, FYI DecriQe ~ `IlaQel~ Executive Assistant Planning & Zoning Department City of Delray Beach 900 NW 9stAvenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Phone: 569-243-7049 l=ax: 569-243-7227 valek@ ci.delray-beach.8. us From: JoAnn Peart [mailto:joannpeart@comcast.net] Sent; Friday, May 09, 2008 9:56 PM To: PZmail@MyDelrayi3each.com Subject: Fw: an Architect and task team members response...please send this to everyone ----- Original Message ----- From: JoAnn Peart To: Fetzer, Fred ; McDuffie, Woodie ;mayor _ mydelraybeach.com ; kropmilr@bellsouth.net ; jpike@envdesign.com ; gpe a~aol.com ;Francisco Perez-Azua ;Ellis, Rita ; ddddowd[ci)earthlink.net ; CityManager@mydelraybeach.com ; chalberg~bellsouth.net ;Cary Glickstein Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:53 PM Subject: Fw: an Architect and task team members response...please send this to everyone ----- Original Message ----- From: JoAnn Peart To: Paula Honker ;tom honker Sen#: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:43 PM Subject: an Architect and task team members response...please send this to everyone ----- Original Message ----- From: Roy M. Simon Architect To: JaAnn Peart Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 2:39 PM Subject: Re: LAKE IDA OVERLAY DISTRICT Yes, you may send it out. More people need to know the process, instead of all the double talc that is going on. For instance, the fact that garages are included in "building area" is not new; it has always been the case, although not defined. Furthermore, we have suggested that porches, covered patios and balconies not be included in the "building area", which is new to the Code. 5/14/2008 Page 2 of 3 Roy Roy M. Simon, A.LA., Architect, After reading the original letter, in addition to the mailers sent to homeowners, it becomes obvious that the proposed changes to the zoning code and the process being followed are misunderstood and, in some cases, deliberately misinterpreted. If there had not been citizen input and suggestions to the elected representatives over the past 56 years, there may not be a zoning code or at least not as voluminous one. No person, that I am aware of, has considered nor wants to form an organization that is considered a "Home Owners Association" with deed restrictions, common properties etc. Nor is anyone contemplating taking over. A short list of suggestions, discussed, reviewed, and presented to all residents of the "Lake Ida" area, was presented to the City for consideration and, hopefully, approval. City staff will study the proposal and submit a report to the P & Z Board, who will look favorably on it or recommend disapproval. Somewhere along the line, it may reach the City Commission, who then makes the ultimate decision. This the typical procedure for any initiative by any citizen or group of citizens. Roy Roy M. Simon, A.1.A., Architect 140 N.B. Fourth Avenue, Suite A Delray Beach, FL 334$3 (561)278-1914, Fax (561)278-9907 FL Registration #AR2595 rmsimonarchitect(cx?bellsouth.net ----- Or Sent: Monday, May OS, 2008 9:40 AM To: pzmail(c~mydelraybeach.com; aller~~ydelraybeach.coxn; Subject: LAKE IDA OVERLAY DISTRICT Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members and friends, My experience is that the elected representatives of the City of Delray and the people they hire do an excellent job of dealing with each set of circumstances presented by citizens in the form of permits, complaints or otherwise based on the merits. of individual situations personably, efficiently, respectfully and honorably. Haying a Neighborhood Layover District and `task force' or controlling body by any other name in my opinion promotes favoritism, confusion and coercion in the form of pay-offs as proven in the following letter and controversy over the sum of $8,000. Lake Ida does not need to be a separate area or over-lay district to be controlled by a few self-appointed representatives who become asub-governing body. What is wrong with the Delray Beach City regulating the Lake lda area as it does the greater Delray Beach City area? I attended the P&Z BOARD meeting on April 21. I applaud the only member of the board {sorry I don't remember his name} who didn't already have his mind made up and 5/14/2008 Page 3 of 3 suggested to at least to listen to what people who live in the Lake Ida community have to say. I'm so sorry that I did not stand and applaud him right then and there. My immediate neighbors that I have spoken with about this matter feel as I did. And that is, if we just ignored the personal objections between particular opposing neighbors that this idea of task force opposition would all go away -but not so. [t seems there will soon be a progression to having the equivalent of a Condo or Co-op Board which in some cases attracts self-serving individuals who attempt to use these associations to control their neighbors and later.to collect small but escalating fees for reviewing and incorporating more rules and regulation-guidelines forcing everyone in their jurisdiction to become accountable to them. No thank you, I am NOT in favor of a Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District OR ASSOCIATION, TASK FORCE OR SEPARATE COMMUNITY from the Greater Community of the City of Delray Beach! Lake Ida Property owner, Following letter referred to above: Dear Mr. Degnan, This .process started 2 years ago...we had several neighborhood wide meetings with every notice going in the mail to every resident. We also sent out a survey to every resident and EVERY person who expressed an interest was invited to be on the commit#ee. The guidelines were mailed out to everyone in a recent newsletter. The commmit#ee was chaired by Sam Shannon who has an extensive background in city planning and two architects who live and work in the neighborhood..The proposed guidelines are also posted on our new web site...l will ask Tom to send out your email with our response and the new website This is a free country and Phil Calnon has a right to let his feelings be known, but he could have participated in the process instead of waiting to throw a wrench in at the 11th hour. Sam Shannon asked him to contact him and come to the next task team meeting and he did not; also months ago he met with the board and said if we would help him get relief from the city from the requirements to put in sidewalks to his building sites he would give us $8000 dollars to use for Design Guidelines. We wrote a let#er to the city also because we knew the residents on Hibiscus Lane did not want their charming little lane widened any more than it had to be but we never recieved the money, which is fine except now the attacks seem unfair. Any questions call me at 276 8968....JoAnn Peart 5/14/2008 Page L of 3 Pape, Scott From: Valek, Denise Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:48 AM To: Dorling, Paul; Pape, Scott Subject: FW: Lake Ida Design Guidelines FYI De4tiae ,4. 2/a~e~ Executive Assistant Planning & Zonrng Department City of Delray Beach 900 NW 1stAvenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Phone: 559-243-7041 Fax: 567-243-7229 valek(~ci. delrav-beach.fl.us From: sally wheeler [maiitoaallywing2001@hatmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 12:12 PM To: PZmail@MyDelrayBeach.cam Cc: Ellis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetrer, Fred; i=liopoulos, Gary; joannpeart@comcast.net; sam.shannon@comcast.net Subject: FW: Lake Ida Design Guidelines Mr. Paul Dorling Director of Planning and Zoning in Delray Beach Re: Lake Ida Design Guidelines Dear Mr. Dorling: I am a homeowner in the Lake Ida neighborhood and wanted to make sure you are aware (although you probably are by now) that there is some opposition to the proposed restrictions we have just begun to hear about. I did not realize we were having an issue with "Design Guidelines" until I received Phil Colnon's letters/flyers. I was not aware that something was afoot as far as making suggestions to the city about placing restrictions on the building or use of our own property. One of the items I read in the paper the other day had Thomas Honker saying that the entire 180-plus-member neighborhood association was far the guidelines. That can't possibly be true, and I resent it being published. I've been a member of LIPOA since its inception; I do not "support the development restrictions" as Mr. Honker was quoted as saying. Development restrictions limit the value of my property; I don't understand his saying that property values are brought down when guidelines are not in efFect. I've lived in my house since 1981 {it was built around 1963); the property value has increased quite a lot in the ensuing years, with only the current rules in place. I am not interested in the current rules being changed at all, and definitely not changed just because a small band of owners wants to determine what I or future owners of my property can do with it. If there are only 180 members in a 750-house neighborhood, that's less than a quarter of the owners. If there are only possibly 10 houses not meeting the proposed guidelines, we're talking about little more than 1%--in how many years? (and haw many spec homes are being put up in the current economy?) If the task force is made up of 22 people, they're going on a very insulated 3% of the neighborhood owners and 12% of the LIPOA. The whole process is skewed to the people who took the time to participate, which in most cases are going to be the ones who can afFord the time, especially in the early stages. As Colnan said, if we aren't interested in setting 5/14/2008 Page 2 of 3 up guidelines why would we respond to an invitation to a task force to set up guidelines? Of course, at this point, I realize why we should have done so. I know the task farce members have invested much time and effort and, perhaps, it needed to be done--if only to shake up the rest of us who are quite comfortable in our neighborhood. But I absolutely do not want this wonderfully eclectic group of homes and inhabitants to become as homogeneous as a gated community or as strictly ruled as a condo community. That's not why we moved here. The current "rules" do not need to be changed. One of the nice things about this neighborhood is its stability (with the many families who have lived here for years and years) AND its renewal (with the new families who move in). Our rights should not be curtailed in any way by these new guidelines; we don't need or want any new guidelines. We have no problem living with rules that were in place when we bought our house, but we don't want to create new ones UNLESS it's by unanimous agreement; that means ALL the owners. When Charlie Simon sold his home vn the next street over and the lot that bordered ours, we worried about what was going to happen. We'd always talked about first dibs on that lot, the citrus orchard, just to keep it undeveloped, but we don't always get what we want. And didn't that buyer flip that property at least once before the current owners bought the lot? We watched that new house be built and worried more because it seemed to be so big and seemed to be out of character for our street {but not necessarily for the neighborhood). However, the new owners were sensitive to all the neighbors, there was never a dispute, they worked out the fencing, the boundaries, the landscaping with never a cross word. Naw we have great neighbors in a house that doesn't seem out of place at all; it's helped to rejuvenate the area with kids playing {along with the family on the other side of us, too); and good neighbors are always goad to have. I'm trying to figure out why there appears to be a need for these rules anyway. And, if they're called "guidelines", do you break the law by not following them? If so, then they're not really just guidelines, are they? I can certainly perceive a problem if someone builds amulti-story home that can then look into a neighbor's up- till-then private yard, pool area, windows--I'd feel there was an intrusion into my space. As I said, my newest next-door neighbors made me nervous with the construction of their new two-story BIG home, but the big oak they planted in the front yard (along with other landscaping) saved us from that intruded-upon feeling. I would not be happy with government rules, though, that absolutely required those neighbors to put in a tree (and, in the process, told them what size and kind was acceptable); this sort of thing is best taken care of by a sense of neighborliness. It seems that the older folks who want to stay in their smaller one-story homes aren't really being affected much financially by the construction of new and bigger homes near them or the add-on construction of their neighbors, except with an increase in actual property values; they are not impacted much as far as their tax bills are concerned. It will only really come into play when they decide to sell, and the new owner will get hit with a tax bill commensurate with the bill of sale, correct? At that paint, the older owner is gone, and the new owner should be able to put up a mansion or not. The sellers want a bigger price;. the residents who stay do not want to fee( crowded or intruded upon AND they don't want the new neighbors to cause them any financial difficulty. The tax cost is not actually a problem here for the current residents because of the "save our homes" law, if I understand that correctly. If the problem isn't cost, then we likely are talking more about the feeling of intrusion, change, and taste. We can. manage the intrusion, I think, without the major square footage and setback limits--landscaping will likely be the big help. BUT on a lot such as ours, telling us we'd have to put up so many palms or sa many full-grown trees would probably not be as "necessary" as maybe telling the people down at the end of the block that they have to do so. I think it may all depend on the property itself, and bne size does not fit all. People who don't like changes in the neighborhood really do have to get over it. And we just can't legislate taste. It comes down to the people moving into the neighborhood needing to be good neighbors, and the people who stay also needing to be good neighbors. How do you make that happen? The 1_IPOA area is a very diverse neighborhood--different ages, different sizes and types of homes, different-sized lots. What is the problem here? There is no way to come up with one-size-fits-all rules. Roy Simon actually S/1 ~/2008 Page 3 of 3 mentioned this in one of his emails to the LIPOA, but. his words were "they did like the idea of maintaining the scale and proportions of the neighborhood." This is the point, Ithink--there is na specific scale and proportion IN this neighborhood. I've driven around it just recently, trying to find what the "problem houses" might be. There are, as I said, all sizes of lots and homes, all types and ages of homes and landscaping; many versions of home upkeep. This is an eclectic collection of properties and people, and there is no specific scale and proportion to maintain. JoAnn Peart mentioned in one of her emails the houses a Fort Lauderdale developer built (and which now look somewhat abandoned and unfinished) and how he changed whole neighborhoods. He cannot, however, accomplish that without owners selling and new neighbors buying; once a home has been bought, the new neighbors will more than likely fix the perceived problems (more landscaping needed, for example) but that requires a normal neighborly sense of pride. That is not something that needs to be ruled an by the city. In looking at those particular houses, though, they don't look intrusive or outsized; they just look sort of ugly and unfinished; you can't make laws of attractiveness. What I think is pretty isn't necessarily what you think is pretty; and even if we could agree, what right do we have to tell someone else they've got bad taste? It's up to us all to maintain our property to keep up our property values, at least to the best of our economic ability. The area attracts people who can more ar less afford to live here. There will always be a bad neighbor or two, and our previous next-door neighbor was one of those, replaced by a great family with small kids, thank goodness! But you just can't legislate behavior or pride in your neighborhood; I don`t want anyone telling us what we can do on our own property. And the fact that a few people in the neighborhood are willing to give up property rights just boggles the mind! Isn't there such a thing as deed restrictions? Could that be a possibility for those property owners who might want to institute these guidelines ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY? That way, those few get what they want, on property they control, without imposing their will on those who are not interested. Thanks very much for your time and consideration. Sally W. Wheeler 2001 NW 4 Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 cell 561-251-1334 cc: Delray Beach City Commission members cc: LIPOA -- JoAnn Peart, Sam Shannon With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect an the go. 51141200$ Page 1 of 2 Pape, Scotfi From: Valek, Denise Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:49 AM To: Pape, Scott Subject: FW: Lake ida NeighborhoodlDesign Guidelines Yes, Building Restrictions No FYi De~ae ~ `I/a~el~ Executive Assistant Planning & Zoning Department City of Delray Beach 100 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Rhone: 561-243-7041 Fax: 561-243-7221 vale k@ ci. d e l ra y-b e a ch. fl. us From: Kevroart@aol.cam [mailto:Kevroart@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 4:39 PM To: PZmail@MyDelrayBeach.com Subject: Lake ida Neighhorhood~Design Guidelines Yes, Building Restrictions iVo Good day, We live at 1002 Lake Shore Drive in the Lake Ida neighborhood. While we support design guidelines we do not support building restrictions. Deb & I attended the first neighborhood design meeting, participated in the written survey, and are active Lake Ida Property Association members. We understand the intent -personal property privacy i.e., not allowing mini-mansions to dwarf an existing neighbor. However, we fear the unintended consequences. Considering the new restrictions are for all new and existing homes, here's a look at our personal circumstance: The footprint of our single story home already exists {approx 3400 sq ft incl garages w/lot size approx 12k). Our dream for the future includes a second story (we'd have lake views! and a roomy art studio etc}. The 'design' committee chairperson Sam Shannon has confn7med we are allowed an 800 sq ft addition max according to the new restrictions (-I didn't see this on the web site so I inquired about specifics). Setting the dream aside far a moment, we couldn't justify a major capital investment for a minimal return. Instead, design guidelines could include tall solid fences & mature plantings for new residents and general maim for existing residents. I think it is more than reasonable to define what is or isn't generally desirable & compatible for our neighborhood. With that said, I am not able to support building restrictions. Real estate values depend mainly upon development potential, either already built or possible in the future. Increasingly restrictive regs doesn't seem sensible. While listening in the April 21 P& Z meeting I was thinking, it's not like we bought a historic home in a historic district and am now surprised there is strict criteria. The .idea of taking away future personal property options concerns me. Further, I also wander if its fiscally responsible especially during an economic slowdown (consider-construction spending, jobs & the loss of pemutting and extra tax revenue to the City). Noteworthy, there's been a lot of home building, and big additions & renovations in our' neighborhood lately. Suggestion, the neighborhood cld have an advisory Comte (like we did in Pineapple Grove) whereby all new plans have to go thru for recomndtn or rejection and then head upstream to the City boards. Or, anyone 500 ft around project is notified and can then attend meetings. We've shared our views with 7oanne Peart (who we luv, but in this case disagree). Please feel free to share our email with anyone that maybe interested. P.S As it is now, we live with little privacy. The newish development behind us (acrs the canal) chose to do little, if any, 5/14/2008 Page 2 of 2 backyard landscaping and their windows pear into our nr~ain living room.. We've been doing what we can on our side to mitigate and wish they'd do the same. Sincerely, Kev & Deb Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. {http:/lfood.aol.comldinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod0003000000000'I } 511 x/2008 Page 1 of 2 Pape, Scott From: Allen, Jasmin Seat: Monday, May 05, 2008 4:50 PM To: Pape, Scott Sub]ect: FW: LAKE IDA OVI=RLAY DISTRICT From: pcopani@mindhealingmiracies.com [mailto:pcopani@mindhealingmiracles.com] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 12:40 PM To: PZmail@MyDelrayBeach.com; Allen, Jasmin; E. MICHAEL DIXOIV; John Fitzsimmons; audiencex@aol.com Subject: LAKE IDA OVERLAY DISTRICT Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members and friends, My experience is that the elected representatives of the City of Delray and the people they hire do an excellent job of dealing with each set of circumstances presented by citizens in the form of permits, complaints or otherwise based on the merits of individual situations personably, efficiently, respectfully and honorably. Having a Neighborhood Layover District and `task force' or controlling body by any other name in my opinion promotes favoritism, confusion and coercion in the form of pay-offs as proven in the following letter and controversy over the sum of $8,000. Lake Ida does nat need to be a separate area or over-fay district to be controlled by a few self- appointed representatives wha become asub-governing body. What is wrong with the Delray Beach City regulating the Lake Ida area as it does the greater Delray Beach City area? I attended the P&Z BOARD meeting on April 21. I applaud the only member of the board (sorry I don't remember his name) who didn't already have his mind made up and suggested to at least to listen to what people who five in the Lake Ida community have to say. I'm so sorry that I did not stand and applaud him right then and there. My immediate neighbors that I have spoken with about this matter feel as I-did. And that is, ifi we just ignored the personal objections between particular opposing neighbors that this idea of task force opposition would all go away -- but not so. It seems there will soon be a progression to having the equivalent of a Condo or Co-op Board which in some cases attracts self-serving individuals who attempt to use these associations to control their neighbors and later to collect small but escalating fees for reviewing and incorporating more rules and regulation-guidelines forcing everyone in their jurisdiction to become accountable to them. No thank you, 1 am NOT in favor of a Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District OR ASSOCIATION, TASK FORCE OR SEPARATE COMMUNITY from the Greater Community of the City of Delray Beachl s~s~2aog Page 2 of 2 Lake Ida Property owner, Peter Copani - PCopaniCr~MindHeaLngMiracles.com Following letter referred to above: Dear Mr. Degnan, This process started 2 years ago...we had severs] neighborhood wide meetings with every notice going in the mail to every resident. We also sent out a survey to every resident and EVERY person who expressed an interest was invited to be on the committee. The guidelines were mailed ouk to everyone in a recent newsletter. The cammmittee was chaired by Sam Shannon who has an extensive background in city planning and two architects who live and work in the neighborhood..The proposed guidelines are also posted on our new web site...l will ask Tom to send out your email with our response and the new website This is a free country and Phil Colnon has a right to let his feelings be known, but he could have participated in the process instead of waiting to throw a wrench in at the 11th hour. Sam Shannon asked him to contact him and come to the next task team meeting and he did not; also months ago he met with the board and said if we would help him get relief from the city from the requirements to put in sidewalks to his building sites he would give us $8000 dollars to use for Design Guidelines. We wrote a letter to the city also because we knew the residents on Hibiscus Lane did not want their charming little lane widened any mare than it had to be but we never recieved the money, which is fine except now the attacks seem unfair. Any questions call meat 276 8968....JoAnn Peart ~i--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> ~l--[endif]--> 5/5/2008 Page 1 of 2 Pape, Scott From: Valek, Denise Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:58 AM To: Dorling, Paul; Pape, Scott; McDonnell, Mark Subject: FW: Restrictions in Lake Ida FYI De~iQe ~ `IlaEe~ Executive Assistant Planning & Zoning Department City of Delray Beach 9D0 NW 9stAvenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Phone: 569-243-7041 Fax: 569-243-7221 valek(~ci.detray-beach. tl, us From: Kathysmith004@aal.com [mailto:Kathysmith004@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:05 PM To: sam.shannon@camcast.net; joannpeart@comcast.net; Eliopoulos, Gary; LakeIdaOAR@gmail.com; PZmail@MyDelrayBeach.com Cc: CatyManager@MyDelrayBeach.com Subject: Restrictions in Lake Ida Sam Shannon, Chair Design Guidelines Task Force JoAnn Peart, LIPO Board Member Paul Dorling, Director Planning & Zoning Gary Eliopoulos, Commissioner & Lake Ida property owner Phil Colnon, Lake Ida property owner David Harden, City Manager & Lake ]da property owner Lake Ida property owners are in a civil war over these Guideline Restrictions. True facts are skewed, there is widespread hearsay and gossip depending which side you are on. I personally believe that unless these restrictions will affec# your home, the lot next door, the lot behind you or the lot you own, most people in this neighborhood have no concept of what these restrictions mean_ I have heard comments: "I will not be able to build a second floor..." "We need regulate the size of the houses because we should be good stewards ofahe environment." "I don't want any more cookie-cutter houses, like Boca here:°' From what l understand these restrictions make all these statements hearsay. Correct? Is it reasonable that that this resolution to change the overlay district and design guidelines should be reviewed by the City when only 43 people in Lake Ida neighborhood voted to recommend? From what I understand from BPOA guideline process they needed 60%W65% backing from the homeowners. I also understand that a no response from a BPOA homeowner was a vote against restrictions. 5/1/2008 Page 2 of 2 Did the original survey that was mailed April 2006 to LIPO residents have 60°/o-f5% positive feed back? Did you receive 420 positive responses? Because your report suggests that the restriction guidelines came from LIPO vote where 45 people showed up and not from the LIPO survey, the ratio of voters at your meeting does not qualify as a majority vote when we have approx. 700. homes. Correct? If someone was not interested in having restrictions, any restrictions, why would they go to a Restriction Design Workshop? To be heckled by their neighbors? Some of my neighbors just don't have an opinion and they are certainly not going to an angry mob meeting at City Hall. Maybe now that we have an uproar about restrictions and we have some very strong opinions. Now that everyone knows that these restrictions will became law, the homeowners will be most interested to understand what the restriction will actually mean to them. Gary, Sam & Paul please create a piece of literature that is specific enough for a[I residents to understand what these restrictions will mean. Put it on the Lake Ida website so all residents can be on the same page and informed enough to have the correct understanding of these guidelines. This will stop the sign posting, a-mail wars, hearsay and crazy ideas of the uninformed. The listing of the restrictions on the website 'as it now stands is very vague to average person and the details only understandable to those in the know. The details need to be defined so the lay person can understand. Why would LIPO Design Committee or the City want a room full of uninformed and angry people at a Planning and Zoning Meeting? Lets consider a calmer way to resolve this than fighting at the May P&Z meeting_ This scene will make for good headlines in the morning newspaper. This is not good for the neighborhood, it is pitting next door neighbor against next door neighbor. Kathy Smith, 20 year LIPO resident. Need a new ride? Check out the largest site fior U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. S/ll2008 Page 1 of ~ Pape, Sco#f From: philip colnon [pcolnon1 @bellsouth.net] Sent; Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:43 AM To: Pape, Scott Subject: LAKE IDA Scott, lam against any restrictions for the area. How does a single story house of any size adversely affect anyone. !have lived in the area far 22 years. Change is not always a bad thing. Out of over 750 homes these people seem to be upset about less than a dozen. There does not seem to be a majority in favor. Any drafts completed or requests for information to the task force I would like to get a copy. The beach area and Marina District does not include the water front homes. There are 31 lake front homes in this area. I have spoken to 15 so far and ALL are in agreement that we should exclude ourselfs from any restrictions. What is the first step? Phil Colnon 561-929-8680 4~24~Zaos Page 1 of 2 Pape, Scott From: Allen, Jasmin Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 4:27 PM To: Pape, Scott Subject: FW: Land Development Regulation in Lake Ida Neighborhood Please see a-mail below Jasmin From: DealerAutoF~cchng [mailto:dealerautaexchng@aol.comj Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 4:15 PM To: PZmaii@MyDelrayBeach.com; Allen, Jasmin; Ellis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetrer, Fred; E[iopoulos, Gary Cc: mamelung@bellsouth.net; chester.kwasniewski@bostonbeer.com; chester@bostonbeer.com; Jeff@dayjet.com; nomad567@ustruss.com; dozerBa; LisaBugGirl; mitchlampert@hotmail.com; erik_ring@msn.cam; lakeidaoar@gmail.com Subject: Land Development Regulation in Lake Ida Neighborhood am writing this email to express my opposition to the building restrictions being proposed in the Lake Ida neighborhood. I am unable to attend the next few meetings on this subject as f will be out of town. I hope that this letter will serve as my voice instead. I, as mast in the neighborhood, are amazed that this topic has made it's way to being considered by the city. This is a topic that a small number of individuals in our neighborhood have dreamed up on their own and have moved forward with in a secretive way to avoid the opposition that the majority of the neighborhood would express. You state that these amendments are based on "recommendations of the Lake !da Property Owner's Association". This 'Association' is not a legal entity that represents the people of our neighborhood. And it certainly does not represent my wishes or thoughts on anything to da with our neighborhood. I have no desire to have a Condo style association in the Lake Ida Neighborhood. Those that do, should move into a condo or gated community that already has such a thing. This 'association' was originated by a group of people who lived in our neighborhood that organized monthly "get to know your neighbor" parties. How has this developed into a group that calls itself a "property owner's association" and is making recommendations to the city far building restrictions. This is ridiculous) The people involved in this movement claim that they sent out a 700 count mailer on the topic. By their emails, they have 23 people involved. How can they insinuate that they represent the neighborhood when they have received a 3% response? I certainly hope tha# there is a proper mailing to inform the people of this neighborhood what a small number of people are trying to get' passed that will affect every one of us. The building restrictions you are considering will do nothing but limit our neighborhood. How can a neighborhood with a majority of the pauses being built in the 50's with square footages less than 1500 ever continue to support prices in the $500,000 range without the ability to expand them? If you limit the expansion ability of the houses in our neighborhood, then you limit the values and the number of people willing to buy. You can not compare this neighborhood to the beach area like the supporters are. The beach area already has houses much larger than the ones throughout the Lake Ida area. I`d love to know what the average square footage of the houses in the beach area is compared to our neighborhood. Our neighborhood is filled with 2 bedroom - 2 bathroom houses with square footages in the 1300 -1500 range. I don't think I'm out of line in saying that houses like these are good for single people, an older couple or a new family with one child. Now, find me a large enough group of single people, older couples or new families that can afford a house in the $400,000 - $500,000 range to support the real estate sales in our area. And if there are same willing to pay the price to get into the neighborhood, why would you force them to sell and move somewhere else to a larger house if their family grows. That's crazy) Let's keep them in our neighborhood and allow them to expand their house as needed to suit their family. 5/7/2048 Page 2 of 2 I've lived in Delray Beach since 1988 and have watched it go from a seedy, small town with the flashing yellow lights on Atlantic Avenue so vehicles didn't have to stop in the drug ridden area at night; to a beautiful seaside town that has become a des#ination for the surrounding residents and the winner of the All American City award twice. This did not happen by placing restrictions on the development of the city. It happened by taking a chance and supporting the development of our city. And this is why these proposed building restrictions need to be abolished. We should support those people that wish to support our local tradesmen and construction industry by building additions to enable their growing families to stay in our wondertul town, not limit them and force them to move. Sincerely, Jim "A 20 year Delray Beach resident" Jim Arnott 15 NW 17th Court Delray Beach, 1=lorida Plan your next roadtrip with MapQu,eSt.com: America's #1 Mapping Site. S/7/2008 Page 1 of 2 Pape, Sco#t -From: Valek, Denise Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:00 AM To: Pape, Scott Cc: Dorling, Paul; McDonnell, Mark Subject: i=w: Proposed overlay restrictions to Lake ]da properties FYI 27e~tiae ~ `r<laPe~ Executive Assistant Planning & Zoning Department Cify of Delray Beach i00 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Phone: 569-243-7041 Fax: 569-243-7221 valek@ ci. defray-beach. fl. us From: Tor~yshelly@aol.com [mailto:Tonyshelly@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:40 PM To: PZmail@MyDelrayBeach.com Cc: Ellis, Rita; Montague, Brenda; McDuffie, Woodier Fetzer, Fred; Eliopoulos, Gary Subject: Proposed overlay restrictions to Lake Ida properties Shelly Petrolia 2002 NW 4~' Ave Delray Beach, FL 33444 {561) 703-3191 Apri122, 2008 Mr. Paul Dorling Director of Planning and Zoning in Delray Beach RE: Lake Ida Homeowner Proposed Restrictions Dear Mr. Dorling, I am a homeowner in-Lake Ida and wanted to voice my apposition to the proposed Lake-Ida overlay restrictions. I, like many other residents in the neighborhood, was never notified of the ongoing meetings regarding this issue as was mentioned in last nights hearing before the P&Z board. It appears that there is a formalized group of residents representing a few homeowners who desire additional building restrictions who have been meeting while others who might oppose these very restrictions are conspicuously absent or left out of these meetings. The stealth nature of these meetings is suspicious at best and makes me wonder if these residents fear a consensus against restrictions. I would hope that you would consider hearing from the residents as a whole. prior to any additional 4/23/2008 Page 2 of 2 research and/or funding of these changes in order to get a better understanding of what, we the residents want. While I am aware that it is a huge undertaking to try to educate the general population on what effect F.A.R restrictions can have on a property, owners need to understand that certain rights they now possess can be lost forever by adding the additional restrictions as proposed. Furthermore, last night, following the hearing, it was pointed out by one of the commissioners present that there are only a handful of properties that would not currently meet the proposed F.A.R. restrictions. If this is in fact the case, do we really have a building size issue here? Or rather, is the real issue being addressed? My guess is na. While I understand that there is a lot of opposition to `certain' larger homes that have recently been built looking more like `cookie cutter homes' in tract housing developments, it should be pointed out that these homes WOULD comply with the future restrictions proposed. Unfortunately, we cannot regulate `bad taste' which I believe is more the issue at hand here than F.A.R and building size. Sincerely, Shelly Petrolia Cc: City Commissioners Need a new ride? Chec€c out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. 4/23/2008 Page 1 of 1 Pape, Scott From: don mackie (lakeidaoar@gmaiLcomJ Sent: Wednesday, Aprif 23, 2008 2:31 PM To: Alvarez, Amy; candi Jefferson; Smith, Danee i_.; Valek, Denise; Breto, Estelio; Jasin alien; madeleine tilker; McDonnell, Mark; Vinci, Michael; Dorling, Paul; rebecca truxel[; Haggard, Ron; Pape, Scott; Zubek, Scott Subject: lake ida building restrictions... IT APPALLS ME TO THINK A SMALL(20) PERSON "TASK" GROUP COULD NIT PICK OUR NEIGHBORHOOD,OF 700 PLUS HOMES, FINDING THINGS THEY DON'T HAPPEN TO LIKE, AND TRY TO ROOT THEM OUT! WHO ARE THEY TO SAY WHAT IS IN GOOD TASTE, OR, WHAT IS OFFENSIVE. I MOVED INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD 23 YEARS AGO, BECAUSE IT WASN'T GATED. I'VE BEEN A LIPOA CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AND KNOW THERE ARE ALREADY RULES HOMEOWNERS MUST FOLLOW FOR APPEARANCE, AND, THAT THERE ARE CITY BUILDING CODES. THESE ARE GOOD THINGS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT, WHY WOULD A GARAGE OR CARPORT BE CONSIDERED THE SAME AS AIR CONDITIONED LIVING SPACE?? THIS WILL GREATLY EFFECT THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE SMALLER LOTS. IF TASK MEMBERS WANT THE PRNACY ISSUE ADDRESSED, THEY SHOULD CONSIDER DIFFERENT PLANTINGS. THE PROPOSED LIKE LIVE OAK WOULD OUTGROW PROPERTY AREA AND HAVE TO BE TRIMMED OFTEN, AS TO NOT TOUCH FPL LINES ETC. I KNOW THESE RESTRICTIONS WERE NOT PROFESSIONALLY DRAFTED. NOW THE CITY MUST SPEND TIME AND OUR MONEY TO MAKE THEM WORK...WHY ARE THEY NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME TYPE OF GROUP AS THE BEACH HOMEOWNERS, WHO PAID TO HAVE, WELL THOUGHT OUT, RESTRICTIONS DRAWN UP? ANOTHER REAL PROBLEM, I AM HEARING FROM MY NEIGHBORS IS, THE SURVEY, IF THEY EVEN RECEIVED ONE, ASKED FLUFF QUESTIONS, AND NOTHING INDICATING HOW IT WOULD EFFECT ADDITIONS AND THE LIMITS OF SQ.FOOTAGE. THEN, WE WERE NEVER TOLD WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THE ,SURVEY WAS. THE NEXT TIME PEOPLE HEARD ABOUT IT,THE BUILDING RESTRICTIONS WERE ON THE AGENDA.......THIS IS NOT THE WAY I WANT MYDELRAYBEACH TO BE RUN. IF IT TRULY IS A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSENSUS THEN LET'S SEE ACTUAL ANSWERS AND NTJMBERS. REMEMBER, EVERYONE PAYS TAXES, AND EVERYONE SHOULD BE REPRESENTED. NOT JUST A FEW WHO CAN'T LIVE WITH THE CODES THAT ARE ALREADY IN FORCE. THANK YOUFOR YOUR TIME. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING MAY 19TH. WENDY SMITH COLNON 4/23/2008 Page 1 of 2 Pape, Sco## From: Allen, Jasmin Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 8:55 AM To: Pape, Scott Subject: FW: Lake Ida NeighborhoodlDesign Guidelines Yes, Building Restrictions Na From: Kevroart@aol.com ~mailto:Kevroart@aol.comj Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:13 PM To: Allen, Jasmin Subject: Lake rda Neighborhood/Design Guidelines Yes, Building Restrictions No Goad day Jasmin, We live at 1002 Lake Shore Drive in the Lake Ida neighborhood. While we support design guidelines we do not support building restrictions. Deb & I attended the first neighborhood design meeting, participated in the written survey, and are active Lake [da Property Association members. We understand the intent -personal property privacy i.e., not allowing mini- mansions to dwarf an existing neighbor. However, we fear the unintended consequences. Considering the new restrictions are for all new and existing homes, here's a look at our personal circumstance: The foofprinf of our single story home already exists (approx 3400 sq ft incl garages wllot size approx 12k}. Our dream for the future includes a second story (we'd have lake views! and a roomy art studio etc}. The 'design' committee chairperson Sam Shannon has confirmed we are allowed an 800 sq ffi addition max according to the new restrictions {-I didn't see this on the web sifie so I inquired about specifics}. Setting the dream aside for a moment, we couldn't justify a major capital investment for a minimal return. Instead, design guidelines could include tall solid fences & mature plantings for new residents and general maint for existing residents. I think it is more than reasonable to define what is or isn't generally desirable & compatible for our neighborhood. With that said, I am not able to support building restrictions. Real estate values depend mainly upon development potential, either already built or possible in the future. Increasingly restrictive regs doesn't seem sensible. While listening in the April 29 P& Z meeting I was thinking, it's not like we bought a historic home in a historic district and am now surprised there is strict criteria. The idea of taking away future personal property options concerns me. Further, l also wonder if its fiscally responsible especially during an economic slowdown (consider construction spending, jobs & the loss of permitting and extra tax revenue to the City}. Noteworthy, there's been a lot of home building, and big additions & renovations in our neighborhood lately. Suggestion, the neighborhood cld have an advisory Comte (like we did in Pineapple Grove} whereby all new plans have to go thru for recomndtn or rejection and then head upstream to the City boards. Or, anyone 500 ft around project is notified and can then attend meetings. . We've shared our views with Joanne Peart (who we luv, but in this case disagree). Please feel free to share our email with anyone that may be interested. P.S As it is now, we live with little privacy. The newish development behind us {acrs the canal) chose to do little, if any, backyard landscaping and their windows pear into our main living room. We've been doing what we can on our side to mitigate and wish they'd do the same. Sincerely, Kev & Deb 5/9/2408 May 3, 2008 William & Catherine Degnan 1.009 NW 4~` Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Paul Dorling l00 NW 1 S# Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Re: Lake Ida Guideline Task Force Recommendatians Dear Mr. Dorling, {, °t Please-include this letter in'the`Lalce Ida Property Owners Association file-with respect to' the proposed "Design Guidelines" as an ohjectaon to the Guideline Task Force recommendations. We have lived in this neighborhood for 18 years. One reason we chose to live in this neighborhood is because it is nat a "controlled" community. As average citizens, we have no great knowledge of building codes or neighborhood guidelines. What we do have is concern regarding "opinion" versus "facts". The name calling and personal attacks that have gone on via email over the guideline issues is truly, to say the least, un-neighborly. This is a free country and we are all entitled to our opinion. opinion is the reason we object to these guidelines. How can an un-proportionate number of property owners "opinions" about the building of two story houses and other issues concerning the "character" of this neighborhood become a city agenda items "LDR tent amendment ~o create the Lake Ida Neighborhood Overlay District and associated design guidelines", as stated in the Courtesy Notice mailed May 1, 2008? With respect to the Lake Ida Board, yes, the invitation to join this Task Force as well as other committees' was offered to Lake Ida property owners. However, there are still some questions asked of the board that have NOT, to my knowledge, been answered by the Board/Task Force.. . 1. Why was this group formed in the first place? 2. Was there overwhelming interest/concern from such a large majority of property owner's that the Board was compelled to form such a Task Force? 3. Or, was the decision to form a Guideline Task Force decided upon because some of the board members don't like what they see? I suspect like most property owners, life is just too busy and full of daily commitments to be overly concerned about two story houses and the like. But, when "opinions" can be "enforced" by a relatively small number of property owners, then it must become an issue for us. Should building guidelines/restrictions be needed {we don't agree that they are needed) they should be the responsibility of the City of Delray Beach period. Some of the questions we have for the city are..... 1. If property value is of concern, the city should have been proactive about "guidelines" well before a small group of homeowner's pursued their "opinion" agenda. 2. Have guideline issues in Lake Ida been formally addressed by the city in the past due to grave concern from owners, or the city's concern far property value, "neighborhood character", privacy or any other guideline issues? 3. How/why did building permits get issued for the new/recent constructionladditions in this neighborhood if "design guidelines" are such an issue? We believe the City of Delray Beach has an obligation to the "vocal" and "silent" property owners of Lake Tda to ensure that if guidelines are necessary in our neighborhood, those guidelines will be the result of city conducted and city funded research. Finally, if a design guideline is determined to be in the best interest of ALL Lake Tda property owners, by the City of Delray Beach, and nvt recommended by a small number of Lake Tda property owners, that the "Design Guideline" must be VQTED on by the property owners of this neighborhood. Isn't this why we pay our taxes........to ensure that our city employees do what's best for all property owners, regardless of their "opinion". Sincerely t_ ~ ~~ J ~,~'~. William & Catherine Degnan asros~as City of Delray Beach Planning & zoning Commissioners la0 N'W 1~` Ave. Delray Beach, FL 33444 Re; Lake Ida Building Restrictions Dear Commissioners, Attached is a blank copy of the survey sent out by the "task. farce" over 18 months ago. The survey contains a total of 12 questions. Of the 12 questions only six actually refer to any portion of the design guidelines. Ail of the question require a narrative answer, that would be open to interpretation. These survey results, which have not been made public as of today's date{and have been requested in writing 4 times in the last month), were then tallied by the group requesting restrictions. Excluding "task force members" we don't even know the total number of responses(attached is a copy of a letter written to the LIPOA President). The "neighborhood meetings" referred to in Mr. Shannon's letter were net to discuss the need ar desire far restrictions, bu# to discuss which restriction should be included. I attended three of these meegngs. Since 1 was not in favor of restrictions, I was considered to be disruptive anal asked by an officer of LIPQA 'and "task force" member, Elaine Lewis, "net to attend any further meetings". Residents of the area, were kept in the dark from October a6 until November a7 about any advancement of building restrictions, for a reason, "ignorance is bliss". It is inconsequentialhnw long ar hard anyone worked to get this amendment to this point. The task force obviously last sight of the ball Yoa need approval and understanding by the people yon plan to affect. Before submitting to the city there should have been a mailing to all residents. 'This mailing should have included a copy of the restrictions and a single question "ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF RESTRICTIONS". Yt is difficult forme to believe that the members of the "task force", feel they Dave the right to speak far ALL. Unless the Beard feels there is overwhelming support of the 740 homes in the area, it should table the request for restrictions until the "task force" can produce written proof that owners are in favor. r Philip Colno 24 year resident and member of LIPQA Q ~~~ ~~ ~~AY 0 ~ 2008 ~ ~ ~ i~ F~L.~~~1;~1N~ & .~~i~ll~~ 4122108 Joann Peart 107 NW 9~' Street Delray Beach, FI 33444 Re; Building Restrictions Joann, You are aware there are more than just a few individuals upset with the work of the so called "task force". In your submittal to the city you reference a survey ,of which I received a blank copy. I have requested several times to review EACH of the responses. The questions posed, all required a written response, and were open to interpretation. The survey never asked directly "ARE YOU IN FAVOR". I believe these surveys should be available to anyone in the area. Only half of the questions even reference items related to restrictions. Obviously the surveys were reviewed by a biased group. No one even knows how many responses you received. If you can not show us the survey, your letter to the city ,should be corrected to eliminate any reference to it. Most people either do not remember this survey or did not receive rt and will state it at the next P&Z. Less than 10% of the area was even aware that the restrictions had been submitted until I posted the notices(which were promptly removed by members of the "task force"). As to the guidelines themselves: how does a single story home of AN Y SIZE interfere with any neighbor. How do you plan to plant a shade tree when the total distance between two residences in the Rl-AA zoning is most likely 20' total? That tree will be touching both homes within three years(look at the trees in Gary`s front yard). When the ne~rt hurricane arrives the trees will beat against both homes causing major damage: The setback reference refers to Rl-AA what about Rl-AAA and Rl-AAAB, which both exist in the area. Your group should withdraw the current proposal. Now that the issue has gotten notice, lets draw up a survey that is not one sided and-see if there truly is support for your actioa~s. This process should be able to be completed. withip 6 weeks and I will pay for i~ With the real estate market in its ........ ........ current condition, there is no rush to get this completed. The plans I have drawn for the first house on Hibiscus fit well within these restriction, because the lot in almost 20,OOOSF . I feel that part of your group thinks this will hurt me personally(they called the building department on the day of the P&Z to check if plans had been submitted). Do these people really feel the cul-de-sac at Lake and NW 11 is in bad taste? That is mot a reason to punish the other 700 residents. I have raised my children here the same as the many of you and it is my home too! ~~~~/'~ Philip Colnon 929-$b80 LAKE IDA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION DESIGN GUIDELINES SURVEY f 1. What are some of the things you Iike about your neighborhood? 2. If you could, what things would you change about your neighborhood? 3. How long have you lived and/or owned property within the Lake ida neighborhood? 4. Are you concerned about teardownslMansionizationhappenings next to you`? 5, What would you like to see the new Design Guidelines accomplish? &. If you need more space in your current house, would you be inclined to build an addition, add a second story, teardown and rebuild, or move? 7. What overall neighborhood characteristic{s} would you like to see preserved as a priority? / 8. Which architectural elements are mast important to you (i.e., building form, roofs, shutters, windows, color, entrances, garages)? ~ 9. Which architectural elements need to be addressed the mast because of inconsistency ar awl~ward use? Page l of 2 ~ 10. What types of restrictions would you like to see placed on building farm {i.e., numbers of floors, building shapes allowed, types of materials used, etc.}? ~ 11. What is your preferred vision for landscape/streetscape designs including use ofhedges, walls, fences, driveways and gates? 12. Would you like sidewalks along our streets or prefer it left as is? MAKE YOUR CHECK PAYABLE TO: - LAKE IDA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 1191 N. FEDERAL HIGHWAY, #117 DELRAY BEACH FL 33483-5800 YOUR SUPPORT IS CRITICAL THANK YOU! The Lake Ida Property Owners Association is. a nori-profit organization cornmitted to the preservation and 'enhancement of our Lake Ida area neighbor~aad. Name Address City/State/Zip Telephone SUPPORT LEVELS ^ $500 ^ $250 ^ $100 ^ $SO ^ $25 ^ OTHER $ Your donation of any amount is appreciatedE Page 2 of 2 siz~o~ Paul Darling, Planning & Zoning Director City of Delray Beach I OU NW l ~ Ave. Delray Beach, FL 33444 RE; Lake Ida Restrictions Mr. Darling, I am opposed to the building restrictions in the form submitted. This is strictly for building size and addresses none of the architectural changes that might have a passitive affect an the housing values in the area. Many of the lots in this area are 60x1 I U or 75 x 1 OU. With the formula submitted many of these homes could not be expanded enough for todays living style. The owners would have to make a choice not to have a garage. This would allow for a larger family home. This notion of restrictions is only supported by a small group. The meetings held were not to discuss if restrictions were wanted, but to draft the restrictions. The lack of communication between this group and the area is una,ccegtable. One of my neighbors has sent out mailings to fight restrictions. The cost of a mailing is roughly $400.UU for all 740 residents. The group said it raised over $b,U0U.00 and only sent out a total of FOUR MAILING OVER TWO YEARS. They could have afforded to keep everyone informed bimonthly. Don Mackie 619 Wiggin Rd ~£.~ }PF ~ " D~~~~ ~ l~i~,i' ~ ~ ~D~iS ~~' t1(~Vf!ll:a !3 ~~FV~P~~ The Snyder Family 906 NW 2nd Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 April 1$, 2008 Paul Dorling Director Planning and Zoning Department 1 O 1 NW 1st Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Dear Mr. Dorling, T am writing tv voice my opposition to any new overlays and building restrictions for the Lake Ida neighborhood here in the city of Delray Beach. I understand that a proposal has been submitted by a small group of residents, around twenty of the hundreds of homes in the area, that would greatly restrict the building of new homes and home additions. As a property owner in the Lake Ida neighborhood, I would hate to see any new rules passed that would restrict my rights beyond what the city currently has in place. Growth is essential in raising future property values and increasing our tax base as well as making our area mare family friendly. By restricting home size beyond what the city of Delray Beach currently has in place, we are saying `na' to larger family sized houses and to new neighborhood children for the wonderful schools in our area. For families who might ordinarily add on or rebuild as their faxnily grows, new restrictions could force them tv move from the area because the rules would negatively impact their property rights on homes they've owned for years. Please do not establish a new overlay district for the Lake Ida neighborhood. Sincerely yours, ~~`_'r Barron Snyder ~~ ~..._. ,~~ APR 2 ~ 2008 6~~.h.!`~'i~4P\G c~ 2011 ~~ CITY OF DELRAY BEACH PAUL DORLING 100 NW 1~ AVE DELRAY BEACH FL 33444 LAKE IDA DESIGN GUIDELINES DEAR SIR, THESE ARE NOT DESIGN GUIDELINES! SHOW ME ONE ITEM THAT REFERS TO ANY DESIGN. I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF STRICTLY SIZE RESTICTION. THIS DOES NOTHING FOR THE VALUES OF ANY OF THE PROPERTIES. JUST BECAUSE A GROUP IS VOCAL DOES NOT MEAN TIIEY SPEAK FOR THE GROUP. TIM RICE 1080 LAKE DRIVE DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 PS I NEVER GOT A SURVEY ~~~~_.~~ Di ----. ~_.~ , I ~~AY 0 ~ 200$ ~ ~~ ~ ~ }~ ---~--e_~~. PLY~I~1~VlN.ra & ZO[ti`ly~ Page 1 of 1 Valek, Denise From: Rangel, Delores on behalf of Ellis, Rita Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:56 PM To: Valek, Denise Subject: FW: Lake Ida Restrictions From: Michael Madnick [mailto:mmadnick@fdn.com] Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 8:OI PM To: Ellis, Rita; Fetzer, Fred; Montague, Brenda; Eliopoulos, Gary; McDuffie, Woodier CityManager@MyDelrayBeach.com Subject: Lake Ida Restrictions Dear Members of the City Commission: Asa 32 year resident of Delray Beach I am writing to you to request that you approve the recent design guidelines regarding the Lake Ida area. The City P and Z as well as an overwhelming majority of Lake Ida residents (as witnessed at the last PIZ meeting) are in favor of khese guidelines. The guidelines cannot represent everyone but I do believe that they are as fair a compromise as can be expected. The opposition is headed by a developer and you must consider the fact that as a developer, that his primary interest in this matter must be a profit incentive. Lake ida is a truly unique neighborhood in keeping with the uniqueness of Delray. Please do not allow it to be spoiled. Sincerely, Michael Madnick 729 Lakeshore Drive 5/27/2008 Page 1 of 2 Vaiek, Denise From: Lakeida [lakeida@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 200$ 8:43 PM `ro: Cary Glickstein; chalberg@bellsouth.net; pzacks@sal5.state.fl.us; kropmilr@bellsouth.net; jpike@envdesign.com; francisco perez; ddddowd@earthfink.net Cc: Valek, Denise Subject: Fw: Delrays building regulakions..extreme example but can happen and is in tropic isle Attachments: #3.jpg; #1.jpg; #2.jpg ----- Original Message ----- From: JoAnn Peart To: JoAnn Pearl Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:07 AM Subject: Delrays building regulations..extreme example but can happen and is in tropic isle Dear neighbors, Some people have said Delrays building LDRs are just fine.Well ,actually this house can be built anywhere in Delray except the Beach area. that adopted their own set of guidelines a few years ago. This house is an approx 10,000 sq ft house on an approx. 10,000 sq ft lot......3 stories high on a finger canal....not even the intracoastal waterway... next to and across from one story houses. The photos are not that great but you can see it for yourself. Go south on fed hwy past Linton... take a left just past Duncan Donuts and it is half way to the intracoastal on the right side. It is the main entrance to tropic isle...Tropic Blvd, I think. In 1996 the city tried to set design guidelines citywide and a very vocal group of Tropic Isle residents came out in force against it along with a mega mansion developer on the beach. That is when the commissioners said this should be done neighborhood by neighborhood. I know there are folks in Tropic Isle who are upset ,not just about this house but all the drastic changes that have taken place there. It may be too late for them but not for Lake Ida if we pass guidelines that will not STOP change but will help to make the old and the new fit reasonably well together. If you support guidelines it is important to come out to the meeting at city hall,monday may 19 at 6pm and fet the PLanning and Zoning board know you do. If you can not be there please send a e mail to" Dear PLanning and Zoning Board members".....addresses below. I also have same great letter samples at your request ike envdesi n.com chalberg~a.bellsouth.net kropmilr@bellso_uth.net ddddowd@earthlink.net francisco@perezarchitects.com tacks sa15.state.fl.us cglickstein@ironwoodproperties.com thank you JoAnn Kern Peart for Lake Ida Assoc 5115/2008 Page 1 of 1 Valek, Denise From: kroprriilr@bellsouth.net Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 5:25 PM To: Vaiek, Denise Subject: FW: Lake Ida Overlay District .._..__.._-.._____ Forwarded Message: From: mebjr@bellsouth.net To: pzacks@sa 15 .state. fl.us,chalberg@bellsouth.netjpike@envdesign.com,kropmilr@bellsouth.net,dddow Cc: RitaEllis@MyDelrayBeach. com,Montague@MyDelrayBeach.com,wmcduffie@MyDelrayBeach.com,: Subject: Lake Ida Overlay District Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 20:19:4$ +0000 It is important to see the big picture while analyzing and arguing over details in the application of the Design Guidelines. The original intentions of the LIl'OA proposal are concerned primarily with the scale of the building in relation to lot size. This initiative began a couple years ago after considerable development in our neighborhood of two-story "big box" residences that occupied most of their lot area. All were constructed with little regard to the character of the neighborhood. I believe the majority of these homes are still unoccupied. The proposed area ratios are reasonable and will allow the construction of large residences on lots of reasonable dimensions, and the examples in the P&Z Staff Report reflect the generosity in maximum area permitted with regard to lot coverage. The quality and charm of Delray's residential neighborhoods have been a factor in the growth and success of the downtown area and the city in general, and families will continue to move into neighborhoods like ours provided we preserve that quality. I urge you io support the "Overlay "effort so that our neighborhood continues to be a great example of Florida living. Martin E. Buerk 728 Lakeshore Drive 5/19/2008 Page 1 of 1 Valek, Denise If"rorn: kropmilr@bellsouth.net Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 5:24 PM To: Valek, Denise Subject: FW: Lake Ida Guidelines ______________ Forwarded Message: -------------- From: ~quara52@aoLcom To: kropmilr@bellsouth.net Subject: Lake Ida Guidelines Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 21:58:31 x-0000 ]f guidelines can be set for one neighborhood it is discriminatory to not allow guidelines for other neighborhoods. When being relocated to Delray Beach we chose the Lake Ida neighborhood for the eery reason that the scale of the houses was in keeping with the neighborhood. There are so many reasons for the guidelines. The scale of the neighborhood must be kept. Please please support the guidelines! Sarah Robertson Delray Beach 561.272.035fi Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. s~1~~2o0s Page 1 of 3 Pape, Sco## From: McDonnell, Mark Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:18 AM To: Pape, Scott Cc: McDonnell, Mark Subject: FW: Timeline for Lake Ida Property Owners work on Design Guidelines SP-I am forwarding this to you {see message from JoAnn below) Mark McDonnell, AICP, Assistant Director City of Delray Beach Department of Planning and Zoning 100 N.W. 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 ph-561-243-7046 fx-561-243-7221 rncdonnel]@ci.delray-beach.fl.us From; JoAnn Pearl [mailto:joannpeart@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:15 PM To: McDonnell, Mark Cc: Marden, David Subject; Fw: Timeline for Lake Ida Property Owners work on Design Guidelines please forward to scott pape....it was rejected for same reason......also will may 19 be a public hearing or work shop? ----- Original Message ----- From: JoAnn Peart To: (pike@envdesign.com ; chalberg(a~bellsouth.net ; pzacks _sal5state.fl.us ; dowdd ~palmbeach.k12.fl.us ; fpa@perezarchitects.com ;Cary Glickstein ; kro milr bellsouth.net ;Ellis, Rita ;Fetzer. Fred ; Montague@MyDelrayBeach.com ; Eliopoulos, Garx ; McDuffie, Woodie Cc: sam.shannon@adel,phia.net Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:35 PM Subject: Timeline for Lake Ida Property Owners work on Design Guidelines To Whom It May Concern: Every effort was made by the Lake Ida Association and the Task Team to make the creation of the proposed Design Guidelines the most inclusive and open process possible. Enclosed is a timeline that details two years worth of effort by Lake Ida residents. A ri117 2006 A letter went out to all Lake Ida residents. This letter discussed the idea of exploring the possibility of creating Design Guidelines for the Lake Ida neighborhood similar to the Beach Property Owners model. The mailing went out to 700+ residents. Signs were also posted in the neighborhood. A May 10, 2006 meeting at City Hall was planned. May 10, 2006 The first neighborhood-wide meeting was at the Commiuxity Center. The guest speakers were Cary Glickstein from the Beach Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Committee and John 4/24/2008 Page 2 of 3 Carleen from Urban Design Studios in West Palm Beach. 55-60 people attended. Jane 14, 2006 The second neighborhood-wide meeting about Design Guidelines was at the Community Center. This meeting was covered by Channel 12 news. Again, all residents were notified by mail and signage. Approximately 60 people attended. August 200G A letter and survey about the proposed plans for a Design Guidelines Committee from the acting Chairman, Gary Eliopoulos, went out to 700+ residents. This letter also requested financial support and announced the August 17 meeting. August 17, 2006 The third neighborhood-wide meeting was at the City Commission Chambers. This meeting was led by Gary Eliopoulos. John Carleen and Brian Archer from Urban Design Studios gave presentations of the use of Design Guidelines in the beach area and neighboring towns. October 21, 200b Dr. Joseph and Marjorie Ferrer hosted a fundraiser at their N. Swinton Avenue home. Between 85-90 people attended and we raised $1,600 for the Design Guidelines study. November 2006 -October 2007 11 Task Force Meetings were held at City Hall. Every meeting seemed to have different groups of people. By no means was it the same people attending each meeting. For example, some people sent checks that never came to meetings. I think we had overall a good and positive response from a real cross section of the residents. The feedback from the meetings and the surveys reflect the maj ority of people are in favor of the Design Guidelines. Out of every 50, between 2 and 4 dissented or had concerns. At the very last meeting, approximately 45 people attended. When asked how many were in favor of the Design Guidelines, 43 raised their hand, and 2 voted against it. The Task Farce had the same cross section of participants. Some of them were members of the Association and others were not members. This is not a Lake Ida Association effort, it is a Lake Ida neighborhood effort. Sam Shannon, the chairman, has an extensive background in city planning. Two Lake Ida resident architects who also work in Delray serve on the Task Force. The Association was mainly a vehicle that was used to disseminate the information. Approximately $4,700 in small checks was collected by more than 80 residents. This money was used for printing and mailings as well as supplies for the Task Force. At each meeting, in every mailing and newsletter, every interested resident was encouraged to join the Task Force. Shortly after this, the Task Force was formed. I believe they had 11 meetings. Sam Shannon was the Chairman and has alI those specific details. Two mare neighborhood-wide meetings were held at the City Commission Chambers to review the proposed Guidelines. These meetings were November 15, 2007 and February 21, 2008. November 15.2007 A neighborhood-wide meeting was held at the City Commission Chambers to review Design Guidelines before presenting to the Commission. I believe they had one more meeting address some items that were brought up at the November 15, 2007 4/24/2008 Page 3 of 3 meeting. Febraaxy 21, 2008 A neighborhood-wide meeting was held at the City Commission Chamber to review the proposed Guidelines before they go to the Commission. These last two meetings were noticed the same as all the others with a mailing to 700- residents and signs on Swinton Avenue. I hope this timeline will help answer any questions about when and how the residents were notified continuously as Design Guidelines progressed. We plan to make a packet with more information for the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Commission. Sincerely, JoAnn Peart President Lake Tda Property Owners Association 4/24/2008 Lake Ida Property Owners Association 1191 N. Federal Highway, # 117 Delray Beach, FL 33483 http:lllakeida.net Apri128, 2008 Dear Commissioners and P & Z Board Members: On behalf of the Lake Ida Homeowners Association, we put together this packet, which details the communication efforts to all Lake Ida residents informing them of a committee created to propose Design Guidelines for our neighborhood. There are flyers for the first two meetings. One was enclosed in a newsletter and one was walked door to door by our Membership Committee. Signs were also posted on Swinton Avenue to announce meetings. Every effort was made to include every resident so that we would came up with a proposal that truly reflects the neighborhood. This is now posted on our new Web site, htt~l/lakeida.net. Please contact Sam Shannon, the chairman, Roy Simon, architect, or me with any questions. Sincerely, 3oAnn Peart President 107 N.W. 9~' Street Delray Beach, FL 33444 551-276-8958 'oann eart comcast.net GC: Lake Ida Board of Directors: JoAnn Peart David Elliott Sue Heglin Elaine Lewis Karyn Premock Charlatte Lees Tom Honker Todd Wilson Kathy Alderman Lake Ida Property Owners Association 11.91 N. Federal Hwy #117 Delray Beach, FL 33483 April 17, 2006 Dear Lake Ida Neighbors, ~ sr ~n ~''~`~ o.R.Q /ws ~ ~~s Recently a comnnitted group of neighbors got together with the idea of `dump starting" the Lake Ida Property Owners Association. Many have volunteered for board positions and committee chairs. Your help and support is welcomed. In discussing .several areas in which to take action, the most important and pressing concern seemed_to_be. exploring-the possibility of ad.opting-the-Beach Pmperty~Owners "Design Guidelines". As I'm sure everyone is aware, we have a developer from Bmward County who bought ten houses in our area-and is in the process of tearing them down and building very Iazge houses, same of which are not in scale ~ with those in the neighborhood. A few years ago this started happening east of the Intracoastal Waterway. The Beach Property Owners Association collected money from a great many residents and hired "Urban Design Stadia" to advise them. They did a study and worked with the residents to formulate a design guidelines manual to help preserve the unique residential character of the beach neighborhoods. It still allows the building of Iazge houses and additions, but with guidelines to help them fit in with the neighborhood. This passed with overwhelming support of beach residents and the City Commission. Both the Beach Property Owners Association and the Commission are hoping that other neighborhoods will adopt this on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. We feel it is time for Lake Ida to explore this possibility. The guidelines can be seen _ at the city website www.mydelraybeach.corrt under the Planning and Zoning Department, "Beach Property Owners Design Manual". We have a meeting planned for Wednesday May 10°h at Delray Community Center, i 50 N.W. 1~ Avenue at 7 p.m. We plan to have members of the Beach Task Force there to tell us what they've accomplished and answer any questions. A second meeting is planned for Wednesday June 14~`. It will be at the same time .and same place. We welcome your help and support. Those who have already committed to work on the board, or design. guidelines and other committees are: JoAnn Pearl, David Elliot, Sue Heglin, Sue Easton,- Ed Buerk, Gary Eliopoulos, Kathy Alderman, Tom and Paula Honker, Janet Page, Andrea Harden, Karyn Premock, Mike Cruz, Chazlotte Lees, Mark Denkler, David Henninger, Elaine Lewis, Doug Root and Chris Brawn. We hope that you all will join the association and sup us in any wa ou an. Please call me if you have any questions: 276-8968_ J Ann Kern Peart {~ S ~ 1~ ~' 0{! C +~~ ~ ~- ~ ~~- A`r~r'i~~~rioi~ Ho~i~o~ Rs~ r Lake Ida ]Home Owners Association is holding CoM Y MEETINGS to discuss Design Guidelines for home construction in our community. MAY 10~ AT 'T:OO PM AT DELRAY BEACH CO CENTER(150 N. W.1ST AVE) ISSUES AND CUNCERNS INCLUDE: ~tecagni~ing that change will occur, but managing it in a n~.anner that will protect the rights of all property owners while preserving the charm of our Lake Ida Area Neighborhood; - ® Enhancing property values by maintaining the character and uniqueness of Lake Ida.; ® Adopting policies to ensure that new and expanded homes are consistent with the overall Neighborhood Character; ® Adopting design criteria for achieving greater consistency between old and new homes; ® ~o~NING THE ASSO~IATION(~zo~ Please Plan to Attend.... we Need o - Involvement) ~ ti~ ~~4 ~~ Lake Ida Home Owners Association is holding ~~ CO MEETING to DISCUSS Design Guidelines far home cons~ructian ire our community. JUNE 14~ AT ?:~ Pl~i A'~` DELRA~ BEACH CO ~T~Y CENTER(15~ N. w.1ST AvE) ISSUES AND CUNCE1tNS INCLUDING: * Recogni2ing that change will occur, but managing it in a na.anner that will protect-the rights of all properly owners while preserving the charm of our Lake Ida Area. Neighborhood; • Enhancing property values by maintaining the character and uniqueness of Lake Ida; . * Adapting policies to ensure that new and expanded homes are consistent with the overall Neighborhood Character; • Adopting design criteria for achieving greater consistency between old and new homes; JC)Il~IN~ THE ASSOCIATION($2~) Please flan to Attend.... we Need YOUR Invaivementr r ~. Lake Ida Property Owners Association 1191 N. Federal Highway, #117 Dekay Beach FL 33483-5800 August, 2006 Dear Neighbor: Our Lake Ida area neighborhood is undergoing changes and we're askin ou to do our art: We need our financial su ort as well as our active artici ation to help preserve the unique character of our community! On Thursday, August 17`x, the Lake Ida Property Owners Association is meeting at 7PM at the Delray Beach Commission Chamber at City Hall to get your input about the issues and concerns that affect our area such as: ^ Recognizing that change will occur but managing it in a manner that will protect the rights of all property owners while preserving the charm of our Lake Ida area neighborhood. ^ Enhancing property values by maintaining the character and uniqueness of Lake Ida. ^ Adopting policies that ensure new and expanded houses are consistent with the overall neigh- borhoodcharacter. ^ Adopting design criteria for achieving greater consistency between existing and new houses. These important issues affect all property-owners - to move forward LIPOA needs to get a task farce put together to commit to meeting six times over the next few months. The goal of these meetings will be to review the existing Beach Property Owners Association design guidelines and determine what guide- lines should be implemented for LIPOA to ensure that we will protect the uniqueness of our Lake Ida community. We need amour support. The implementation of design guidelines, whether for large scale renovations, additions ar new construction, will establish a preferred neighborhood vision and well-rounded representation is vital -we're askin for 15 to 20 eo le with varied back rounds to volunteer to serve on the task force. If ou are a Realtor contractor develo er land use attorne architec landsca e architect, civil engineer, urban planner, etc., please give this serious consideration. Ifyou're interested, please email gpe(a~aol.com or call 561-276-6011 as soon as possible. We would like the first meeting to take - - --place in~nid September. - --- ._._~ __ ~_ _ __ ... _. _ Enclosed are a donation form with a self addressed envelope, and a survey. Please send your finan- cial contribution in now Then, complete the enclosed survey. and bring it withyouu to the Augus_t__17`-'' meeting We need to know what you like and don't like. We'll see you at the Delray Beach Commission Chamber at 7PM on August 17~'. The only way to make sure your voice is heard is to be therel Thank you. Gary P. Eliopoulos Design Guidelines Chair LAKE IDA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION DESIGN GUIDELINES SURVEY What are some of the things you like about your neighborhood? 2. If you could, what things would you change about your neighborhood? 3. How long have you lived andlor awned property within the Lake Ida neighborhood? ~. Are you concerned about teardownslMansionizationhappenings next to yau? 5. What would you like to see the new Design Guidelines accomplish? 6. If you. need more space in your current house, would you be inclined to build an addition, add a second story, teardown and rebuild, or move? 7. What overall neighborhood characteristic(s) would you like to see preserved as a priority? Which architectural elements are most important to you (i.e., building form, roofs, shutters, windows, color, entrances, garages)? 9. Which architectural elements need to be addressed fine most because of inconsistency or awkward use? Page 1 of 2 10. What types of restrictions would you like to see placed on building form (i.e., numbers of floors, building shapes allowed, types of matexials used, etc.}? 11. What is your preferred vision for landscapelstreetscape designs including use ofhedges, walls, fences, driveways and gates? 12. Would you like sidewalks along our streets or prefer it left as is? MAKE YOUR CHECK PAYABLE TO: LAKE IDA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION 1191 N. FEDERAL HIGHWAY, #117 DELRAY BEACH FL 33483-5800 YOUR SUPPORT IS CRITICAL THANK YOU! The Lake Ida Property Owners Association is a non profit organization committed to the preservation and enhancement of our Lake Ida area neighborhood. Name Address - CitylStatelZip r . - ~ ~ Telephone SUPPORT LEVELS ^ $500 ^ $250 ^ $100 ^ $50 ^ $25 ^ OTHER $ Your donation of any amount is appreciated! Page 2 of 2 Please Join Us! fake tda Homeowners Neighborhood Get T©gether 120 North Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33~~4 Home of D~: Joseph and Marjorie Ferrer Saturday, ®ctober 21, 200fi 4:3U=*--7:30pm feet free to bring a side dish for hamburgers and hotdogs! ~t~1i~s Vil~1~i Contributions to fund designguidelines task team, suggested minimum - .~25per adult Please RSVP by Oct.l8th to Jo Ann Peart 27~-8968 __ake Ada Property owners' Association Newsletter Neighbors Living, Caring, and Learning Together 1 ~ 9 ]. N. Federal Hwy, #117, Delray Beach, FL 33453 Winter 2007 Design Guidelines Task Force This is the list oaF'neighbars who signedup forthe Design Guidelines Task Force. Everyone who signed up was invited to participate. ~~'we missed anyone, let us know Kathy Alderman Mort Christensen Mike Cruz Christina Cuccia Gary Eliopoulos Todd Garner Pamela Gold Sue Heglin Jean Hutchison Rob Iodice April Leach Del Leach Lainie Lewis Jeff Nurge Janet Page Darrel Rippeteau Sharon Rosen Alix Selinsky Sam Shannon Andrea Sherman Roy Simon Todd Wilson "Carefully thought out design guidelines for our Lake lda community will preserve our unique neighborhooa character and protect our property values. At the same time, they will allow people to be creative with (heir preferred style of architecture, reflecting their awn personal taste. " -- Gary Eliopoulos, acting chair, ^esi~n Guidelines committee Summer 2007 Lake I Volume 1, Issue 2 ~a cC,c Currey t Inside: ~:• Sarn Shannon- pesign Guidelines :• Fabulous Fourth s+ Lake Ida Crime President's Message r,. Announcements City-Sponsored 4t~ of July Events: ~ .Ir, .: ~; ~~ s. Sam -Noon Shannon, continued from page 1 Shannon has since retired sa he can pursue his passion: golf. But he has offered up his other skills to make sure new homes in Lake Ida stay in line with the character of existing homes. "Homes seem to begetting larger. Because they are larger homes, their relationship to the street and to the neighbors becomes more of a concern. Tt feels like they're crowding us out," Shannon said. Does this mean you will have a hard time adding onto-your home or building a second story? Shannon says there are members of the committee whose goal is to make these guidelines as feast restrictive as possible. Lake Tda. "T've always had 2-story homes. Tn fact, T live in a 2-story home, but my home is set back from the property line," said Shannon, who has lived in Lake Ida for 12 years. The committee has taken a bus trip through the neighborhood and has been studying the design guidelines developed by the neighborhoods along the bench, but they have yet to came up with their own. They want your input_ Anyone is welcome to participate. To find out about committee meetings or to get involved, you can contact Sam at X61-243-8167 or sam.shannonC~adelphia:net. "Homes seem to be getting larger. Because they are larger homes, their relationship to the street and to neighbors becomes mare of a concern." -Sam Shannon Get to Know Your Design Guidelines Ch©irman There are a few things you should know about Sam Shannon: he knows city planning, he lives in a two-story home in Lake Ida, and he loves to play golf. The first two are important to this story. Sam Shannon has been named the new chairman of the .Lake Tda Design Guidelines Committee. The Lake Ida Property Owners Association formed that committee to develop guidelines for new construction in our neighborhood. Architect Gary 8y Suzanne Boyd Eliopoulos was supposed to chair the committee until he was elected as our Delray Beach City Commissioner, but Shannon is gust as qualified. He was the first Planning Director for the City of Sanibel, the first Director of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Palm Beach County's Assistant County Administrator and the Community Development Director. for the Town of Jupiter. Continued "Shannon" Page 3 - - -, Dear Neighbors, Over a year ago, we started the process of looking at Design Guidelines for our _ neighborhood. At that time, a developer tare down several houses, divided lots and started 10 new houses very quickly. A great number of residents were concerned and suggested it was time to begin to explore appropriate guidelines far the Lake Ida neighborhood. The goal was to establish Design Guidelines that would not stifle development or creativity but would promote future homebuilding that would be compatible with the current neighborhood character and also sensitive to the privacy of -- _ _ -- ---~- - -tie-ad3ae~rz#-~e~zber~: --_.~_ . _ ----- _ _. ~ ~~_ - - At that time, the entire neighborhood was invited to meetings to give their suggestions. All Lake Ida residents were invited to become part of the Task Force led by architect Gary Eliopoulos and then Sam Shannon. Sam as you may remember from the newsletter is very qualified with vast experience in county and city government. Local architect and resident Ray Simon assisted them. The Task Force spent 10 months on meetings and researching this issue. They started out looking at the beach property owners much more complex manual which included styles of architecture and paint colors, etc. Through the many meetings, the message came loud'and clear from the majority of Lake lda residents and many on the task team that, "we are concerned with scale and mass, but don't tell us what kind of house to build and what color to paint it." The Task Force's recommendations reflect the sentiments expressed by the neighbors. On November 15 at 7pm at the City Commission Chambers the Task Force will present their proposal to all the neighbors hoping to get your input, suggestions, and hopefully approval. This will be done prior to asking the City to endorse special _ _ _ . guidelines for this nei barhood. Please come to give your_input, suggestions and _ _ _ ___~ concerns or just as important to show your support and approval. Thank you to everyone who gave their time and expertise to the Design Guidelines Task Force. Looking forward to seeing you all November I5. zn ere r~.-~.. J Ann Kern Peart Lake Ida Property Owners Association resident '! 1 ~ 1 N. Federal Hwy. # ~ T 7 107 N.w. 9th st. Delray Beach, FL 33483 Delray Beach, FL 33444 joannpeart@camcast.net ~ ' ~P~ ~o~ ,~~ Design Guidelines Task Fosce Recommendations Thursday, November 'l 5, - 7 p.m. 1a~17~irJErafa~la~~iJi1~~J PERT JOHN F 1~7 NW NTH S DELRAY BE~iCH } LAI{E IDA PROPERTY OWNERS 1191 N. Federal Hwy., #117 Delray Beach, FL 33483 ~ feet n9 Presortedt First Class Mail -._ P A ! a West Palm Beach, F~ Permit No. 2961 ' ~u~sti®ns and e~n~~rs :.~ -.:, with . _ ,. '°r i Lake Ida Property Owners Association 1191 N. Federal Hwy. # 1 17 Delray Beach, FL.33483 Design Guide-ines Survey Enclosed Preso~ U.5 F West Pa Perm `\ I (~. ~_ _~ Winter 2008 Lake Ida ~~ ~'urre~f Volume 1, Issue 2 ~ .1st Annual: Holiday Party by suzanne Boyd inside: +Santa .Came to Lake Ida •President's Message +Design Guidelines +Crime Prevention +Golf Carts On Delray's Roads • Anno+~ncements When Maggie Dickenson and some o€. her neighbors- planned the first-ever Lnke Idn Holiday Party at Lake View Park, they thought of everything., Well, almost ev- erything. weather: We: had .. no backup,", Dickenson says. Turns out there was nothing to worry about. More than 100 people, including dozens of children, had a blast on satur-- day, December 15th. Kristin's husband, David Elliott dressed as santa and arrived on a boat provided by J.D. Dickers- son. Leyenberger, who owns Pretend Party Productions, . provided the costumes and dressed up as a snowmnn her- - self. There was story time with the children, snow cones, cookie decorating, a sidewalk circus where children learned juggling and. hoop throwing.. There was also face painting, tattoo art- ists and, of course, holiday music. Dickenson, Kristin Elliott, Car- olynn Dietrichs, and sa11y Leyen- berger hnd the ideci for a holiday party and -the Lake Idn Property Owners Association agreed to sponsor the event. The women also wanted the party to have a charitable ele- ment. They asked parents to bring books for the Pnim Bench County Literacy Coalition. They collected more than 50 books for the agency that day. MEETING Thursday, February Z 1 at b : 30pm City Commission Chambers Two Important Topics Review Design Guidelines Task Force Recommendations before they go to Commission Questions and Answers with Delray, Beach Police Department pretend ~°qe:5"-~'-"°' rar. see-zu-t~s9 ~~rt~ nrodUCtions 5[OltJb°°k Chn raclers Come Anne ,Fbr Blrf7ufa~s !f Sperrul EYxr:ts' PretendPaztyProdnctions.com Salty teyenbergcr ~tnging Guidren slorylc4irr a. sows roge[hrr- >ir f~o~se ~ 1 redesign .e.[r~..e syitF rufe~u.. in>n,nr Rnksigre Xrrirrs rninvr~r rxistiny~rrnrishinys nndnn¢ssnriy, -Regina P'Lrary Nfr ran An irina dny! r^s"i^rr ~r-rviuy Fr~uuurlk SGI.7SGA368 film lir rr6Yorrnrin uww_Aarrvlhurnwrdxrgrrinnr President's Message Dear Neighbors, lake Ida Association is now known far our wonderful children's events. Thanks to Mike and Karen Cruz and others before them, not to mention our holiday-committee that worked so hard in December. A question we hear so. often is, "when are we going to have a party for grown ups?" So, save the date, Friday March 14; on the playhouse island; children's theatre. We will use the indoors and outdoors. There will be dinner and dancing to n live band, Point 4, from West Palm Beach. All.-Lake Ida residents.are en- couraged to came. It wi!! be a great way to get to know your neighbors, see ald friends and make.new ones. The cost will be shared by the Association to provide far just a small entrance fee for the residents: If you would like to serve on the Party Committee, cnl! JoAnne 276-8968 or joannpeart@comcast.net. I'm looking forward to seeing everyone there. JoAnn Ke~^n Pearfi Don`t Make Yourself An Easy Target by Suzanne Boyd Drive through the Lake Ida neighborhood on any given day and you'll see women unloading -their groceries, mothers chasing after -their children, and men on their cell. phones. But do they see you? Now, imagine you are a thief looking for an easy target. One of our neighbors became prey for some dangerous crooks who were driving through our community one afternoon .The woman, who lives on NW 2nd Avenue just south of NW 15th Street, was unloading her trunk at 4:51pm on January 3rd when two armed teens took her by surprise and robbed her. Continued on next page ,~_ i,,:,: ;' {" ti Lake Ida Neighborhood Design Guidelines Task Force Recommendations 1 Maximum Lat Coverage •40% for one story houses •30% for two story houses 2 Maximum Floor Area Ratio •.35 for a two story house The term Floor Area Ratio sha11 mean the ratio of the "total floor area" of the structure(s) to the area of the lot."Total Floor Area" shall be defined as the grass horizontal areas of all floors of all buildings measured from the exterior walls or other types of enclosures and shall include garages; carports and ports-cocheres,excluding attics.{unless used as a living space}, enclosed decks or patios, covered porches, exterior balconies (covered or uncovered} or crawl spaces. 3 The area of the second floor can not be greater that 75% of the area of the first floor. 4 Minimum setback for two story homes shall be 25 ft. for the front yard {currently 30 ft.} and 15 ft. for the rear yard (currently 10 ft.}. 5 Additional landscaping to be required for both new two story houses or two story additions to existing houses . . • New Houses -landscaping requirements would be the same as the Beach Districts. Additions -supplemental landscaping along the side of the house that the new 2nd floor was being added. * a 14 ft. shade tree every 10 ft. -or-- an 18 ft. palm tree every 8 ft. 6 The City has indicated that the current interpretation of the Zoning Code would allow- an existing house that was damaged or destroyed by fire, hurricane or other "Acts of God" to be rebuilt to the extent of an existing "Non- conformity". The Task Force recommends that the Code be amended to explicitly allow for such a rebuilding. 7 The District Boundaries for the Lake Ida Neighborhood to be set as foilows.* North - N.W. 22nd Street East -- Swinton Ave. South -Lake Ida Road West - I-95 right of way [ * The "Lakes of Delray" Subdivision would be specifically excluded from the District..] -_ i continued from page 2 Delray police chased the guys into Boynton Beach where the two robbers. and their getaway driver were all arrested. Pol-ice say the teens, from the lake. Worth area, stole a car from Broward County and may have committed similar robberies in Boynton Beach and Greenacres. "They know the affluent neighborhoods and _ they drive through there. People need to-keep their heads up. They shouldn`t have to, but. they need to," says Delray Beach police spokesperson feff Messer. Crime Cnlls On The Web by Suzanne Boyd The crime culls are actually down in our area from the peak last year, but you don't have to wait for the newslet- ter anymore for that infar- ' ~'~ motion. You can now see ev- --' erything that happens on your street with the click of a mouse. The Delray Beach Police De- partment has just started putting all incidents on the web, so you can see where and when crime is happening in your neighborhood. You can find it at www.mydelraybeach.com, then click on Public Safety an the -left hand side of the screen,. then Police Activity, then Communities. You. can scroll dawn to the lake Ida Association and see all the calls from this month. The Golf Cnrt Catch by. Suzanne Bayd Many of you. have been asking about the Taws per- taining to golf carts on Delray Beach roads. Florida Statute allows: golf carts #o be operated by anyone 14 or older. But- there is a catch. Traditional golf carts are only allowed an streets des- ;, ~ ignated for golf cart use. ~: Currently; the only golf carts that nre allowed an streets in the city are those considered law-speed vehicles or LSV's. Law-speed vehicles are de- fined os any four-wheeled electric vehicle with a tap speed greater than 20 miles per hour, but not greater than 25 miles per hour. continued on page 4 ~r ~ ~~ CUSTOM C~iRE MASSAGE ~ETTE HEGARTY, L.M.T. "Licensed Message Themp~s! " REfI.fS & SPORTS ~ll~lSSllGE 10 Yrs. h Ciu~kiess FL Lie iM/40020700 (,gp 5b7{.~,IbEQA aaiuruays uL srasun Sam - t pm '150 East Atlantic Avenue ZTS-75~ ~ ec~~ L~IPOA Officers President. . JoAnn Peart ...........:........276-8968 Vice President- David ~Iliott ....::.....:........:276-4818 Secre#ary Sue Heglin.--•• ..............'.....243-0252 Treasurer Elaine Irewis ...........:.........278-9799 Board Kathy Alderman.............278-7757 Tom Honker .....................265-2915 Jane# Page ...................... .274-9379 Todd Wilson' .................... 436-4467 Karyn Premock ............... .265-4819 Charlotte l.ees ...:........... ..276-2371 Continued from page 3 A golf cart is considered an LSV when it has the following: 1) headlights b) rear view mirror 2) brake lights 7) reflectors 3) turn signals 8) seat belts 4) windshield ~ 9) VIN number 5) parking brake IO) registration and insurance LSV's can only be driven where the posted speed limit is 35 miles mph or less. And more importantly, any person operating an L.SV must have a valid driver's license. "No unlicensed kids cnn operate these things, na matter what street they are an," said police spokesperson Jeff Messer. Remember, driving a vehicle without a license could land you in court. SAVE TI-~IE DATE "GROWN-UP PARTY" Friday March 14, on the playhouse island children's theatre. Lake Ida Property Owners Association 1191 N. Federal Highway, #117 Delray Beach, FL 33483 Apri120, 2008 To Whom It May Concern: Every effort was made by the Lake Ida Association and the Task Team to make the creation of the proposed Design Guidelines the most inclusive and open process possible. Enclosed is a timeline that details two years worth of effort by Lake Ida residents. April 17, 2006 A letter went out to all Lake Ida residents. This letter discussed the idea of exploring the possibility of creating Design Guidelines for the Lake Ida neighborhood similar to the Beach Property Owners model. The mailing went out to 700+ residents. Signs were also posted in the neighborhood. A May 10, 2006 meeting at City Hall was planned. May 10, 2006 The f rst neighborhood-wide meeting was at the Community Center. The guest speakers were Cary Glickstein from the Beach Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Committee and John Carleen from Urban Design Studios in West Palm Beach. 55-60 people attended. June 14, 2006 The second neighborhood-wide meeting about Design Guidelines was at the Community Center. This meeting was covered by Channel 12 news. Again, all residents were notified by mail and signage. Approximately b0 people attended. August 2006 A letter and survey about the proposed plans for a Design Guidelines Committee from the acting Chairman, Gary Eliapoulos, went out to 700+ residents. This letter also requested f nancial support and announced the August 17 meeting. August 17, 2006 The third neighborhood-wide meeting was at the City Commission Chambers. This meeting was led by Gary Eliopoulos. Jahn Carleen and Brian Archer from Urban Design Studios gave presentations of the use of Design .Guidelines im the beach area and neighboring towns. October 21, 2006 Dr. Joseph and Marjorie Ferrer hosted a fundraiser at their N. Swinton Avenue home. Between 85-90 people attended and we raised $1,600 for the Design Guidelines study. November 2006 -October 2007 11 Task Farce Meetings were held at City Hall. Every meeting seemed to have different groups of people. By no means was it the same people attending each meeting. For example, some people sent checks that never came to meetings. I think we had overall a good and positive response from a real cross section of the residents. The feedback from the meetings and the surveys reflect the majority of people are in favor of the Design Guidelines. Out of every 50, between 2 and 4 dissented or had concerns. At the very last meeting, approximately 45 people attended. When asked how many were in favor of the Design Guidelines, 43 raised their hand, and 2 voted against it. The Task Farce had the same cross section of participants. Some of them were members of the Association and others were not members. This is not a Lake Ida Association effort, it is a Lake Ida neighborhood effort. Sam Shannon, the chairman, has an extensive background in city planning. Two Lake Ida resident architects who also work in Delray serve on the Task Force. The Association was mainly a vehicle that was used to disseminate the information. Approximately $4,700 in small checks was collected by more than 80 residents. This money was used for printing and mailings as well as supplies for the Task Force. At each meeting, in every mailing and newsletter, every interested resident was encouraged to join the Task Force. Shortly after this, the Task Force was formed. I believe they had 11 meetings. Sam Shannon was the Chairman and has all those specif c details. Two more neighborhood-wide meetings were held, at the City Commission Chambers to review the proposed Guidelines. These meetings were November 15, 2007 and February 21, 2008. November 15, 2007 A neighborhood-wide meeting was held at the City Commission Chambers to review Design Guidelines before presenting to the Commission. I believe they had one more meeting address some items that were brought up at the November 15, 2007 meeting. February 21, 2008 A neighborhood-wide meeting was held at the City Commission Chamber to review the proposed Guidelines before they go to the Commission. These last two meetings were noticed the same as all the others with a mailing to 700+ residents and signs on Swinton Avenue. I hope this timeline will help answer any questions about when and how the residents were notified constantly as Design Guidelines progressed. We plan to make a packet with more information for the Planaing & Zoning Board and the City Commission. Sincerely, JoAnn Peart President Lake Ida Property Owners Association Lake Ada Property Owners Association Design Guideiines Survey May 6, 2008 This survey was mailed out to all Lake lda residents August 2006. The purpose was, of course, to get feedback from as many residents as possible, but the primary reason was to make sure we gave everyone an opportunity to respond. For example, if someone was unable to attend meetings they would still give us their opinion. Please note that wherever you see a blank space like this means that the typist was not able to read the handwriting. Same goes for any words that were misinterpreted due to the handwriting. Sorry for any inconvenience. Responses: 43 f lied out surveys in Favor. 11 sent checks back with blank survey, S~4 in favor of restrictions on mass and scale. 4 no's 4 mixed responses 62 total responses Lake l~da Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Survey _Question #~ 1 What are some of the things you like about your neighborhood? Responses The variety of the housilig stock {both scale and design), The street pattern... And the nature of lot size. Location Convenient Character, charm, restoration and xenovation of existing alder homes, mature trees, large yards. Quiet, peaceful, friendly, convenient, very Iow taxes. Large yards, single family homes. The old Florida charm. I love the area, like the neighbors {friendly) The Play House close to the beach close to Briny Breezes (where my Mom lives. Leave it as it is - no condos - no high rise. Scale of homes, setbacks, unpretentious, quiet streets, space between houses, neighbors/families. For the most part, it is sedate,. older, and well located. Its homes are nicely built and many hold happy memories for me since I have lived there for a long, long time. I love the varied lot sizes, the larger and smaller homes, all unique, the quirky streets, and the real people. Seclusion -lot sizes -electric style of homes and ages. Architectural diversity, green space parks, lakes. Its quiet -friendly people -not much crime close to shops and ocean, churches and doctors. The eclectic look of a well kept, understated neighborhood. `I like it the way it is, quiet, friendly, unp~r~tentiaus. of the homes -nature trees. The variety of design in homes and the large lots. Large lots, lots of trees and foliage, different architectural styles, difference size houses. Friendly people, family atmosphere, '~Not* gated, historic homes, unique and different horses. For the most part it has remained as it was when we moved here. The diversity of the houses, all of the people "old and ,its character. Quiet, slow traffic, mostly well maintained properties, frequent and efficient trash removal. The people of course? Trees -large front lawns or set back. The character of older Florida homes. Diversity in architecture, large lots, matwe trees, family oxiented, relatively safe. Na lights, no sidewalks, limited access, variety of smaller homes usually with nice landscaping. Delayed _ of an era gone by. Rare to kids bike walk, skateboard by themselves these days. But you see it in Lake Ida. This, and proximity to beach and Atlantic Avenue is why we moved here. Multitude of different architectural elements. No "ticky-tacky" houses. No two homes should look alike. The proportion of buildings to site and to neighbor's the variety of building design and landscaping, the overall character and its history. Small streets, na direct route. Large property lines, different homes. Quiet -private -people accept differences and lend a helping hand -well maintained homes and property. No homeowners association xegulationsl Neighbors -trees- access to Delray {east) -close to Publix. Unique personality. My neighbors, the sunlight, the old Florida/IslandBeach feel of most the homes in the neighborhood. Diverse architecture, non-gated, style old Florida charm. Lake Ada Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Survey Question # 1 -Continued Various style houses. Walkable, friendly, landscaped, not a lot of cars, put friendly. Homes on large lots, kid friendly, real neighbors. The diversity of home designs. The people living here. The residents maintain their property is goad condition. Big trees, lots of green space. Lake lido Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Survey Question # 2 If you could, what tings would you change about your neighborhood? Responses Not too zrzuch........perhaps more code enforcement and side walks along major roadways. Have mare people maintain theiar property. I would not allow developers to come here to make a quick buck, by buying 1 lot and putting 3 homes on rt. Nothing. Make sure that all yards are cleaned up including vacant lots and unoccupied houses. Have the residents whom do not keep up their properties to start doing sa. Need to attend meeting for a honest answer. Nothing. Lake park facilities (on the east) increase area served by Nat'l gas. Rezone Beverly Drive to rid of the duplexes and apartments which were allows there years ago. They are completely out of place and should never have been allowed to begin with. Do not allow homes beyond a certain age to be destroyed or moved. The Totha and Rose homes are prime examples, and of course ,the Cornell house is a tragedy. Speed bumps? The are especially needed on Enfield Road where people drive like maniacs I would also like a small postal drop-off box replaced somewhere in the neighborhood since sadly, we no longer have a "real" post office. There was a very nice looking one at the intersection of NWf'~ Street and Aylesbury at one time, but it is long gone for reasons best know to others.) Only the incipient man ionization which threatens to make Delray and Baca suburb. Yards/lawns that aze weedy and unshaped, Prohibit children from riding motorized carts and golf carts in streets. I love my neighborhood -and my neighbors - but I feel moderate income families are being priced out. Nothing. Design guidelines for additions and new construction. Better code enforcement Nothing. No 2 story homes. Get rid of the run down, abandoned lacking homes. Put mare pressure on homeowners to maintain their property up to neighborhood standards. Policy of pick up poop from pups, speed limit, no overgrown lawns (up to waist} or dirt lawns with lots of weeds. Nothing; leave it alone. No dogs running loose, owners of walked dogs catxy bag and use for poop, yards with nothing but weeds (across from me) and yazds with zero landscaping (across from me}. Disregarded homes/lawns, some looking abandoned. We don't endorse a strict or typical "HOA" Lack of street landscaping Na much. Add more "stop" signs. A few mare street lights -speed limits enforced. Dogs using my lawn! apeed bumps and stop signs -traffic flow is too taa fast. Question # 2 -Continued Speed bumps SIow the traffic down, Design guidelines in place. Prevent "Trophy" homes Street cleanup, keep traffic slaw. Slow traffic. At least every 2 months or less I have solicitors at my door. More lighting at some areas. Nat let people overbuild to the point that it takes away the neighbors privacy. Lake Yda Property Owners Assaciatian Design Guidelines Survey Question #3 How long have you lived and/or owned property within the Lake Ida neighborhood? Responses 1 l years 55 years 30+ years Since 1970 - 36 years 9 years 21 years On and off since mid 60's 3 9 years Since June I5~' 2005 45 years 9 years 49 years Since 1977. In. Delray since January 21, 1952. 7 years 6 years 44 years Since 1965 Summer 1991 5 years Since 1978 14 years 28 years 4+ years 31 years 8 years 16+ years 17 years 4 years 12 years 34 years -since October 1972 28 years 13 years 37 years Since 1999 9 years 3 years my wife 7+ 7 years 10 years 7+ years 30 years 7 years Lake Ida Property Owners Association Design Guideiiues Survey Question #4 Are you concerned about teardownslMansionizationhappenings next to you? Responses Somewhat because of the lot size it could only happen to the nor of our house. To a degree -Yes Yes Yes Absolutely. If houses are tarn down, they should be replaced with approximately the same size. Not as long as the new homes fit properly within the neighboring properties. So far that is not really happening. Very much so. Concerned yes, I am manionization horrible. Yes Absolutely. Wouldn't it be nice if we could become one of the few neighborhoods in the country that will not allow such a thing to happen? That said, I would be positively gleeful if some of the homes in our neighborhood were razed. I realize there is a fine line between what can and cannot or should and should not be demolished and that is where a good committee needs to step in. I am currently concerned about the beautiful home at NW $~' Street grid Swinton which I understand is about to be at least subdivided if not destroyed entirely. That would be unforgivable. Yes Yes Yes Very much! Yes Yes Yes Yes Very much so. Yes Very are fine, but I don't want to see too many more. Yes Sure To a degree: 2 stories OK and only on single to#s; no combining lots to build singe "mansion". Absolutely. I cal them Gothic Mansions. Yes, it does detract from aforementioned appeal. Also concerned about prices and how some of our most historic homes can be rained in favor of multiple lots, Homogenization and profits to those {developers officials} who do not live here. Yes More concerned about what it will do to the character of the area. Yes Yes, these honnes don't fit -makes my home look old and outdated. . _~ello ! ? uestion # 4 -Continued Yes -already has happened. Yes Yes Very much so Yes Yes Absolutely Yes! Yes hi the area we are concerned! Yes, they go up ail around me. It devalues my property. . Lake Ida Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Survey uestion #5 What would you like to seethe new Design Guidelines accomplish? Responses Encourage existing structures to be improved -not replaced. Very minimal limits; only lot coverage ratio and set back 2n~ floor. To keep existing homes, cottages with large yards and property, and avoid extremely large homes in No zero property lines, no sidewalks, no oversized houses on small lots, no commercial business, tennis courts (private) okay. To keep our neighborhood for the residents who already Iive here -not run them out because they can no longer afford to live here. Conformity Need to attend a meeting far a honest answer. Leave it as is. Maintain the scale and feel of the neighborhood. Disallow homes aver a certain square footage. Disallow lot line to lot line building. Height limitations! In my neighborhood which for many, many years has considered of one-s#ory homes, there are currently four two-story houses being built (and this doesn't include the monstrosities going up on the Cornell property. Re-zone Check into what is traly going an in one ar two of these huge "houses". Many residents believe they aren't homes at all, but instead are businesses. I wish the guidelines would preserve the eclecticism that we sa admire and en,}oy. Standard put in place for maximum sq. ft. of living space in relation to the Iot size. Control the percentage of square footages on a lot. Control lack of privacy. Smaller homes attractive design. Increase from the side and rear of the property. Prevent the "Giant cube". Some sort of rule that makes the second story smaller than the first. Eliminate "cookie cuter" homes and maintain integrity of orchestral style. No duplication of designs and no more density - i.e. 2 large 2 stories in place of 1 ranch style as on 7~' street. Keep huge houses from being built on small lots. My concern is someone building a huge 2 story home on a zero lot line plot that looks down auto my back yard. Retain the area character. Keep the charm, the old Florida feel. To "insure new and expanded homes are consistent wit the overall neighborhood character". Reasonable guidelines far everyone -some elderly people would need help -that perhaps as an association - we could do - or offer them options. Capitalize on the diversity without being overly restrictive. Get a plan that would be followed. At a minimum, a in the process by those who live via representation in LIPOA for ex. But d not want °ndless bureaucracy. ~Ja zero lot lines. Minimum 20 feet between house and lot line. Question #S -Continued Establish a means to manage site development such as flaar area ratio, proportioning of building to site and adjacent properties. Enough properly to cover the size of a home. i.e. square footage of home should have enough property to support the home. Some standards set to meet the needs of established homeowners as well as acceptance of new ideas in renovating/rebuilding homes. Keep the Height restrictions - no zero lot lines. Encourage old Florida/Is1and/Key West style in the proposed guidelines transition from 2 story to 1 story. Stop Mansioni.zation. Establish design guidelines to keep the "old Delray" look. Allow fvr architectural range, not just repeated "vernacular" straight jacket. To keep to the style and soul of this neighborhood. Limit square footage to 3,000-4,000 under air. zero lot line and practically no yard. Greater land ratio for square footage of house with higher side setbacks. Houses that are built with consideration for their neighbors. Lake Yda Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Survey uestion #7 What overall neighborhood characteristic(s) would you like to see preserved as a priority? Responses Scale and of both house size, style and lot size. More an keeping existing space between homes. Also the charm and character of homes built in the 60's, 50's, 40's, etc. No over development One yr two story houses with enough yard space for outdoor activities (not building lot line to lot line). The individual look and charm of the old Florida style homes unique to our neighborhood. Need to attend a meeting for a honest answer. Leave it as is. Scale, space between houses, lot coverage characteristics that contribute to close neighbor Small to medium size homes only! Appropriate, approved exterior colors only? Roofs of only certain types (cement tile, cedar shake, and tin only!j. Generally, the homes be built in keeping with the neighborhood's character. (This was formerly the rule, but is no longer. Take a lank at the "barn" on the corner of Beverly and Aylesbury! Hideous.) The diversity of architecture, landscape design and evidence of personal style. Landscaping -Foliage Green space/ air space. 3eautifui homes like the Cornell's. We11 maintained homes allowed to remain. Comfortable homes an spacious yards that da not feel ar look like cookie cuter homes an a zero lot line. Character of homes & landscaping. The spaciousness. Small % of lot covered by homes, unique homes -not boxy Mansions. Unique homes, plenty of yard space, quaintness. Keep homes in the same basic character that has made Delray what it is today. Beautifiil yards, mix of houses. Homes in proportion to lots and to existing houses. Neat -taken care of property and homes. Mature trees and tranquility. Open space, large yards, ranch style. Relaxed beach/small town of 50's era, ak with building up/out ar new construction but with some guidelines, e.g.; density square foot for acreage Landscaping. Maximum 2 story homes - 30 feet height. The scale of development, the individual character of development, individually and u Uniqueness of homes. "No" duplication of homes in the same area -row. Limit square footage and regulate construction within a larger lot line between homes. So called new Key West is insidious! Greenery r.imit 2 story limit box looking structure. Jne story and construction only! Preserve old Florida charm! _Question #7 -Continued Open space -Preservation of existing character. Walkability and green space. Scale of homes to fit the lot sizes. Keep the older homes. No more mega houses. Private back yards. Lake Ida Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Survey Ql.1.e5tl.On #$ Which orchestral elements are most important to you (I.e. building form, roofs, shutters, windows, color, entrances, garage? . Responses Building bulls and fenestration (where passible parks should be encouraged). Building form. All of the above, but if I "had" to choose -building form. Everything should be up to the individual owner. That's what makes Lake Ida unique. Size of houses that are not out of character with neighborhood color. Building height (i.e. towering roofs). Anything that would stick out like a sore thumb. Ali of the above. No change. All are .important, but conservative color is vital to me. The City Fathers are spinning in the urns looking down at Swinton which is ghastly with a raw of green, lavender, yellow and pink homes. And what about the bronze "Brokeback" horse and cowboy statues on Swanton? Who approved that? Obviously the work "ordinance" has been purged from the Dictionary of Delray. Ali of these elements are important in that personal style is important but the size of the dwelling should fit comfortably on the lot. Anything that blends into the surrounding homes and landscaping. ~Il new construction should have a minimum of a 2 car garage. All of the above. Interesting, unique homes -not cookie cuter boxes. I have thought in those terms. All and how they work together. I am open to new ideas - however the yellow/orangelred and grey house on 2`~d Avenue (near 24~'} is a little too much color. Building form, windows, color and entrances. Building form. Landscaping, entrances, driveways. Color They all are. Enjoy tasteful diversity using various materials and various styles. No one element is especially important to me. Building form, entrances. Do not support HOA or POA dictating what's appropriate down to specific element, rather do support some guidelines that establish the need for characterlcharm of Lake Ida. acceptable. All All of the above, because each is important, but my should- not impose on others as we all have different opinions. '~To comment. ~f you like cookie cuter homes - go out west - I like different architectural styles. Question #8 -Continued. No enough Colorllandscape. Building farms. The more diverse the better. All are important. Building form, mass in relation to spatial contest. Everything. Alt Color Garages not facing the street. Lake Ida Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Survey Question #9 Which architectural elements need to be addressed the most because of no consistency or awkward use? Responses Home relationship to the street....to often the garage becomes the focal paint.... And the entrance becomes hidden an our after thought. This is too much detail -would limit individual rights, too much I prefer to look at the big ip cture issues only. The size of the homes - in my opinion is the issue. Keep "open" lawn space. No all concrete front yazds. Oversized houses, strange colors. Height, appearance a setback. Size of the homes ~l . No change. New construction covering too much of the lot and too close to other houses. Several answers above will serve as my reply. Some idiosyncratic awkwardness is not nearly so worrisome s a building that threatens the privacy of neighbors and inches toward the zero lot line Massioness in proportion to a lot size. Building out to zero lot line. Crowding 2 - 3 - 4 monstrosities an one house lot. Set back and height. I will fight any attempt to ar control any "orchestral elements" such as color, fences, roofs, etc. of houses on contiguous lots. Crowding 2 story houses together. No 2 story entrances? I hate the "Boca 90's look". Keep the original charm. Huge hornes an single lots. Homes that don't look like they fit in old Florida, I.e. the new, Italian "custom" look. We are not a neighborhood - no need for columns, statues, etc. Size and color. Provide sazrze sort of shade for cars that is permitted in driveways -that would be acceptable. Chain link fences look tacky as da hideous color combinations. Would like to see overgrown, neglected yards cleaned up. Giant front entryways. Would not dictating elements, but do not appreciate "O".lot lines. Chain-link fences in front yards or use on corner fats. The space and proportion of building to site and to neighbor. No comment. New designs should be approved by a community appearance board -limits should be made on designs that don't meet aesthetic guidelines. Height and size of house to pxaperty size. - Square box looking houses. 2 & 3 story housing. €3uild in "mega" homes next to old homes nut of chazacter. ~.andscape envelopes. Question #9 -Continued No more McMasions! Too large a Name an too small aproperty -Have land ratios. Lake Ida Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Survey uestion # 10 What type of restrictions would you like to see placed on building form (I.e., numbers of floors, building shapes allowed, types of materials used, etc.}? Responses Building mass and bulk.......a requirement t home engage the residential street. ???????? Possibly lot size/bldg size ratio. ~ < l (#1 would be only 2 floors) widows ~ OK. Spes that matches existing homes, materials for hurricane. Na zero property lines in building everything else should be left to the individual. Yes to number of floors, + size and color. All of the above. Floors and shapes rnosdy. No change. 2 story. I'd like to see CBS structures from now an because they holdup best under hurricane conditions and have the tailored look I like. I am not much for restriction except that of building appropriately to the size of the lot, and remembering to take the rights of neighboring folks in consideration. Limit two story homes to larger lots no "box shape" homes. .Size in proportion to a lot. No structure should maximize the setbacks. Set back from street - 2 floors. I am very apposed to the laige houses (2 stories +) that are built right up to the limit. Such a home next to me or behind me would infringe on privacy and cast shadows on my pool. Only the size of the second story. Also no exceptions to setbacks. 2na floor setback -materials appropriate far home style. Material should be CBS construction. Limit height - no 3 stories. Number of floors, building shapes. Type of materials. Number of floors. All of the above - o town homes - 40 room mansions - or homes that just don't ga with character of neighborhood. 2 floors maximum; no other restrictions. No double garage doors facing street. 2 floors only but not rising in a box from the street. Do not support dictating this, rather support level 2 floors with attic maximum. None. Number of floors. Limit to 2 floors -limit square footage - to proportion of lot. Building shapes that don't overwhelm a property lot size. Its happening too frequently. Story. ~~a higher than two stories. # o£ floors. Question #l0 -Continued new homes in old homes. We would Tike to encourage architectural exploration spatial consideration. Size, size. Height restrictions. No mare than 2 stories. 2nf floors reduced if they go to ~ so they do not over power the neighbors. Lake Ida Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Survey Question #11 What is your preferred vision for landscape/streetscape designed including use of hedges, walls, fences, driveways and gates? Responses Use of these elements to minimize the garage and have a Let the owner decide. to the home. None -just neat. Circled the words hedges and fences and driveways. I kr~aw there is a security problem as we were broken into, walls and gates suggest feaz. I have my own feeling but I am from rack east Cape Cod. I would have to study Florida all of the above a little more. Na change. No front driveway gates. Oh, would that I could afford to landscape my own home in the ways T am about to describe! I would like to see more pavers in driveways, more manicured hedges, fewer non-backyard walls, no on-street parking, no boats (where, oh where is the old Code of Ordinance book o which residents frequently referred years ago?). I would love to see our current wooden telephone and electric poles replaced with more attractive ones. I would also like to keep the City from coming along, as it did several years ago, and insisting thaT residents "must have a Swale", They removed my front ficus hedge in no tune flat and create a Swale, telling me that without one, I would have a mosquito problem. I had never had- such a problem, but it certainly have one now - very maddening? I was powerless to act in this situation (yet beach resident have complete say in whether or not to have a much-needed bicycle path? And believe me, I am not a biker. I just think what is good for the goose is good for the gander.) It would be lovely if the new construction harmonized with existing neighbors' homes, remembering to consider the all over look of the street. Lush landscaping. No concrete walls. Landscape plan in proportion to size and consideration of the property right and privacy of neighbors. Similar to surrounding homes. No gates please? To even discuss this goes against the character of the neighborhood. Ifyou want to encourage tree planting along the street, that's fine. But "no rules". Heavy landscaping - no visible chain link fences. No hedges in front or on side stxeets as views aze blocked - as on 5~ Avenue and 7`h Street - no sea grape hedges and ficus to be kept low. No opinion. Neat, clean, quaint. Like use a for front areas. Gates seem to be too much for the feel of our neighborhood. No chain link fence. Not opposed to use of hedges or gates. Walls OK with hedges to offset starkness. No fences butted right up against street -must have landscaping in front. No chair link fences unless imbedded in hedge. No hedges that impair vision an corner. Question #1 X -Continued Personal: Just want commitment to maintenance. Do nit agree that we should tell others they can't have hedges covering their house, for ex. Would like people to respect drivers -trim back from street, signs, etc. No cyclone/chain-link fences. The landscape character should be in harmony with the house and it neighbors -casual, formal, rlatllral, classical, etc. Hedges Other than height and materials what can you limit? That's what makes our neighborhood interesting - everything isnot the same Nat ~~yy Maintain a pleaser$eal . Hedge around my place big enough to block the view of the teardown. Walls are ugly! Especially pre-fib ones. Use of natural vegetation where possible. The should be compatible/enhance the architecture adjacent and work well with the whole. Keep gates to a minimum. Allow people to provide privacy for their homes. hedges off all view of homes from the No parking on streets unless there is a apron far parking. All of the above. Lake Ida Property Owners Ass©ciation Design Guidelines Survey uestian #12 Would you Tike sidewalks along our streets or prefer it Left as is? Responses Yes on mayor road ways. Yes to sidewalks. Left as is. No more sidewalks. As is except for west side of Swinton Avenue -this should have been in years ago. No sidewalks! Leave the streets as s they are, please. I like both depends where and is it suitable to the home in front, Yes to prefer it left as is. Sidewalks would be fine if and only if they were properly maintained by the city which, of course would never happen. Considering that marry sidewalks are overgrown with foliage, I hardly see what difference it makes. As is - no sidewalks No sidewalks except definitely sidewalks on Swinton west side. Either one. Leave as is. Better for allowing the rainwater to be absorbed unto the ground -also very few of our streets have enough fast traffic to sidewalks. _~0,1 will fight against sidewalks and resign fro LIPOA if the organization tries to get sidewalks. Left as is. Left as is. A5 15. Prefer as is. As is. Sidewalks where we have them on mast of the "main" arteries are fine. Left as is. Left as is. Prefer as it is. Left as is. Sidewalks are great and provide much needed safety especially with speeders down. Lake Shore Drive on way to park and playhouse. But not without understanding cost impact and land impact. Sidewalks. We like it as is, but can accept sidewalks. No. Na sidewalks please? As is. As is. Sidewalks would be nice, Noi A bike lane on AlA would be good? sidewalks on one side only. ,eft as is - No more concrete Florida is sinking in cement. Question #12 -Continued Sidewalks along specific interconnect ability routes - i.e. to downtown, park, lake not everywhere. Sidewalks on both. sides of Swinton. No sidewalks. Leave as is. Left as is. No sidewalks. Lake tda Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Survey 4 responses of def Hite "No's". Lake Tda Properly Owners Association Design Guidelines Survey 4 strong N©'s 1. What ate some ofthe things you like about your neighborhood? Lack of Homeowners Association -the ability to do my own property what I want within the law and the building code of Delray Beach. Location to beach, shops and I-95 . Large lot lines. Quiet neighborhood, parks. The individual style and different sizes. 2. If you could, what things would you change about your neighborhood? Property taxes. Tear dawn older 54's & 50's homes with flat roofs and replace wit newer architectural homes. I would change some of the older homes by renovating or giving a face lift. Keep new people who found this neighborhood attractive from telling everyone how to keep it the way they found it when they moved here. Let it 3. How Iong have you lived andlor owned property within the Lake Ida neighborhood? 1l7 years 14 years 2 years ~9 years As a child, adult, and raising family. 4. Are you concerned about teardowns/Mansionization happening next to you? No I think any development, renovations or updating to improve the neighborhood is great. No, its driving up Sales, as iang as variances re respected. I have no problem with 2 story. No, I welcome this. I feel if you pay your taxes keep a nice home and can afford it, then do it. It's you business. No 5. What would you like to see the new Design Guidelines accomplish? Nothing ! ! Leave this to the city's building department. Our neighborhood is not a condo or town home with rule and regulations. Da not aver regulate individual homeowner rights. Teardowns, either renovated or town down. Leave it alone - Do not f x what is not broken. 6. If you need more space in your current house, would you be inclined to build an addition, add a second story, teardown and rebuild, or move? Finishing an addition now that has added a second story. Build out and build up -second story. I have a large lot 17~ X 80. Teardown and rebuild. Addition or second story. 7. What overall neighborhood characteristics} would you like to see preserved as a priority? ~o homeowners association allowing others in the neighborhood to have their ideas and opinions affect what I do with ~ house. Respect current building variances and noise ordinances. Older homes that are renovated. Lot sizes. 8. Which architectural elements are most important to you (i.e., building form, roofs, shutters, windows, color, entrances, garages)? Farm and roof I am concerned with peoples outdoor speakers, outdoors kitchens and outdoor parties than the building. Building form. 9. Which architectural elements need to be addressed the most because of inconsistency or awkward use? This is a matter of personal opinion is it not?? Replace ald 1950's &.1960's flat roofs and open car ports. None dame as above "loaded" question. Subject to personal taste should not be directed by others. 10. What types of restrictions would you like to see placed on building form (i.e., numbers of floors, building shapes allowed, types of materials used, etc.}? None! ? My house is my house. I pay for it! Nobody else does. I can do what I want within the law and building codes of Delray Beach. 2 floors is fine. None No single wide mobile homes, or homes designed by committee, governmental groups far associations to many chefs makes a neighborhood look like Arvida. 11. What is your preferred vision for landscape/streetscape designs including use of hedges, walls, fences, driveways and gates? I like what we have. Manicured yards. Allow the individual to address their own style -quit counting blades of grass "Just maintenance". 12. Would you like sidewalks along our streets or prefer it left as is? Leave it as it is. The minute you put in sidewalks you open yourself to the control of the city. Left as is. Leave as is. As is.......pedestrians help slow dawn traffic. Lake Ida Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Survey 4 responses with mixed messages -pro and eon. Lake Ida Property Owners Association Design Guidelines Survey 4 responses with mired messages -pro and con. What are some of the things you like about your neighborhood? The parks: everyone's house does not look the same! E Lake, parks, location, uniqueness, the people, nature. Character Large lots, diversity of architecture, alI single family (no multi~fami.ly) residences. 2. If you could, what things would you change about your neighborhood? Put power lines under ground and make natural gas available to everyone. Eliminate non maintained properties and houses. Focus on general maintenance first - nU ~vate & public. More street lights far safety, sidewalks. 3. How long have you lived and/or owned property within the Lake Ida neighborhood? 3 years. 8 1/z years. `97 l5+ years ~. Are you concerned about teardowns/Mansionization happenings next to you? No, not really. Duplication of the same modelll~.ouse within same neighborhood is a concern. Na, because it is going to happen. No but believe forthcoming. Perhaps with scale. Traffic concern. 5. What would you like to seethe new Design Guidelines accomplish? Assure proper scale, architectural elements are used property. What it states, setting up guidelines. Were not said on idea but are supporting with contnbutian enclosed. We attended l~` guidelines meeting. More street lights. Please see #7. 6. If you need more space in your current house, would you be inclined to build an addition, add a second story, teardown and rebuild, or move. We added an addition, but if we needed more space we would be inclined to build a guest free standing cottage. Every situation is different. second story. 4 mixed messages - pro and, con -Continued. 7. What overall neighborhood characteristics} would you like to see preserved as a priority? The large lot requirements. All different styles represented. Individualist expression. We are have our own character, let our houses reflect that! We do not want everyone's homes looking the same. We do not live in a gated community. 8. Which orchestral elements are most important to you (i.e., building forms, roofs, shutters, windows, color, entrances, garages? All of the above -everything is important. Yes, all of the above. Not cookie cutter, not beige, not all ,not gated community Cando' commando feel. 9. Which architectural elements need to be addressed the mast because of inconsistency or awkward use? Second story additions; they usually look awkward. Use proper roof system consistent with architecture of home. All the new replacement roofs going on houses that cannot carry the look. Inconsistency or awkward =scale. So subjective. 10. What types of restrictions would you like to see placed on building form (i.e., numbers of floors, building shapes allowed, types of materials used, etc.}? Na more than 2 story. No asphalt shingle roofs. Fora "style" be consistent in its construction. Setback only. Green grass priority, plant appropriate hurricane trees. We would not like to see huge houses next to original ones. Lets keep the charm of our neighborhood. l 1. What is your preferred vision far landscape/streetscape designs including use of hedges, walls, fences, driveways and gates. Existing landscape requirements is sufficient for new houses. New driveway shall not be asphalt. Code enforcement to do better job of monitoring existing landscape. Require more landscaping as square footage increases. Streetscape designs - Artlrul neighborhood architectural entryway. 12. Would you like sidewalks along o~ir streets or prefer it left as is? As is unless the city wants to pay and they have them on every street and install decorative street lights. Left as is. Need to know more specifics. Yes. FIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING RESTRICTIONS PLANNING ANA Z®N1NG SGARD MEETING ~ 11~[ONDA'Y 4121 6 PM CITE BALL Privacy was the reason for developing these restrictions. The restrictions .~~ will apply to ALL homEes, not just new construction. An existing single ~ story home, planning to build a single story addition, of any size, in no way invades the privacy of it's surrounding neighbors. Why do we seed new restrictions, on single story homes? • Garages will be included as part of living space ,limiting your ability to expand • Reducing the front setback will make all new construction more noticeable • Two story sheer wall problem stil.I remains. • New planting requirements will be impossible to attain, if you have an existing FPL easement on your property These are a few of the reasons that the guidelines proposed should not be appxoved! These restrictions are on the P&Z B®A]LtID AGENDA , with a City of IDelray Staff recoulmendatian far approval, Because the restrictions have staff approval, A NO SHOW IS A VOTE FOR APPROVAL. THAN[ YGU, Uwners Against Restrictions QUESTY~NS 2'78-Q368 S ~~~ N~TI~E T~ ALL L.A.KE IDA HOMEOWNERS oP~os~a~or~ ~ro au~La~r~o ~ss4~rdc~eoN ~o~r ~« N~ anea sx~sai~G ~o~ss There is a small group of homeowners trying to impose building restrictions to ALL of our homes. '~"hese restriction will apply to all reanodeling, additions, and new construction from Swinton Ave. west to the lake and from Lake Ida Road north to NW 22~d Street. We are an area of more than 700 homes. The group trying to impose the restrictions consists of 30 people, or 4% ofthe homeowners. The restrictions have already been submitted for review to the Planning and Zoning director and have received a staff recommendation for approval. This is the first step of two, to make these restrictions part of the City of i;eiray Buiiaing Code Requirements. Building on the average lot, the proposed restrictions allow a maximum of 3150 SF, including garage, if any portion of the addition is twa story. With an average 2 car garage, your maxiffiuffi A/~ square footage would be 2650SF. The average size home sold in this area by the Multiple Lasting Service, in the last 18 months, is 2,993 SF of A/C space (see attached). Not being able to expand your home, because of these restrictions, will decrease the value of your property..Any future buyer would have to be motif€ed by your real estate agent, that the home is not expandable if you are above the 2650SF. tl~alntaining privacy from construction of a new home, or an addition by your neighbor is important to everyone. ~ This should be accon~pllshed by requiring 6' or S'solld fences and mature plantings. I built a new house two years ago, that is two story {680 NW 11 St) . The plantings, make it totally private, even from the street, This was achieved by using mature plants. Landscaping is the key to privacy, without further restrictions. There is a P~2 Board aneeting Monday,April 21 at 6PM=. ~f you do not want new restrictions it ~ very important that you attend this aneeting and speak out !rr Thanks, ~~~ ~~ Philip Colnvn 929-8b80 ,;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ '~~~3 ° v~ ~~~ J~ ~ ~ O ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d x V ~~ N N ~ ~ ~ z ~o w w FIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING RESTRICTIONS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MONDAY 4121 6 PM CITY HALL Privacy was the reason for developing these restrictions. The restrictions will apply to ALL homes, not just new construction. An existing single story home, planning to build a single story addition, of any size, iri no way invades the privacy of it's surrounding neighbors. Why do we need aew restrictions, on single story homes? • Garages will be included as part of living space ,limiting your ability to ezpand • Reducing the front setback will make all new construction more noticeable • Two story sheer wall problem still remains. • New plaatiag requirements will be impossible to attain, if you have an existing FPL easement on your property These are a few of the reasons that the guidelines proposed should not be approved These restrictions are on the P&Z BOARD AGENDA , with a Ci#y of Delray Staff recoFnmenclation for approval. Because the restrictions have staff approval, A NO SHOW IS A YDTE FOR APPROVAL. 'THANK YOU, OWners Against Restrictions QuEST~oNS ~~s-o~~s STOP LAKE IDA 8U=LD~NG R~STR=CT=ONS MEAT=NG M®11i~AAY 4J21108 G:OOFM CITY BALL The Lake Ida Area is NOT a condominium association. Most of us live here because we did not want a gated community and it's board, telling us what we could and could not do with the property we own. There are over 750 homes in this area. Currently there is a group of less than 30 trying to dictate new building restrictions for us all. The city currently has a building code for our area based on zoning and lot size. Taste is an individual thing. These restrictions will not limit bad taste, but will devalue your property and have a harsher a,~fect on additions to existing homes, than on new construction. It is important that yon attend this PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD gneeting and be heard. ~6~~ /~ ~' g. ~~ THE TERM "GUIDELINES" iS DECEPTIVE. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR "RESTR.ICTIONS". Your Property Rights -~': ,~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~_ DON' T LET DELRAY SEPARATE THE TWO ! Attend the Planning and honing Meeting May I9th at 6pm /Voice your opposition) i Owners Against Restrictions email us at: iakeidaoar@gmail.com YOU ~ ~ ~ ~ o .C ~'~v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° a' °' ~ ~~~ ~ ~ e-- e~ ~ ~' ~ n y ~ ~ t .~ ~ ' ~ ~o~~ ., 0 ~~~~ '~' ~" '~ o ~ w ~ ++ a.~~y ~~~~, o ~ q ~ ~ ~ a~ o. a~o~ •~ ~ '~ ~ ,a~H~ ~~0~ ~ ~~ ~ A ~ ~ °~ ~yH~ o ~ as 0 a ~ ~ ~ z .~. .~ ~ ~ ~ ~= o a a ~, ~ ^0 O a x a .~ A W A O A~O~ a~w~ O ~~~~ v o°a° U ~ ~ U ~00~ Fx~~ ~~~z W~O~1 zW~~ A O ~ ~ ~ U ~o~aw ~H~H H ~A~~ ~~~a ~~o~ ~A~V O~o~ Ao~ A ~ ~3 0 a +~ N a~ ~ U U ~ o .,.y • ti ~ ~ ~ .,~.i U U ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~~ o N N ~ ~ ~~ ~ °A .~ ~ ~, ~, ~~ ~~ A q a~ ~ y o U w ~.° z ~~~W o ~ ~ E ~~a~ .~ b ~~~~,~ `u .-" ~ y `~ ~~'O .~ ~Ovs 0 iU zap V ~ 10 UkE EVEN wAY 1-•..- D~ I r e v UNITY C1-lURCN ~ AND I~ £L£MfNTARY L scNOaL ~ F 1a ~ to - N,w zzNO '~ sm T PINE Pof)Cf !0 h la . ~ T. ~'~J3 3D +a '~' 3! i 3] 1+ 13 ID 1 ~ ? ~ ~ -T- ~~ s° ~ '~ ~ CHUURCH . S .. ;,i : 73 : ~ : zv .'' >a ~ .' A p ~.. ~ OFTTHE + ..n u a to ,~~ z s PArt~s 10 + 1 1 ,` z 12 3 e ' { ~ ~k~ I....r ti _~ Id 13 ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,+1 pi '. 36 a2 : 10 i a + r T ] I :~ ] T x vtx 7 y.: Nw -. 161H ~ :;br 1+ a ~ Te:l 17 :7 t - I. y _ ~ 1 7 REGIDFIAI ~ - ,~ a WA57E WA TER .- 4 of e = v i e ~ u ~~ q TREATMENT ~ '~~, - T2 '. - -- - FACIl1TY x+r '_ M u sT s le PARK ~_ e n N w 1ri ST. 3 `h T 1p a ] la p I LAhC "' / to .~ ~ ~ 1 e t rt I I #^ ~(1 p 1 ~ 7 71,11 ~q,~p N.E. 18TH S7. V E~y 1 3 /6 1 ~ ~ J w 2J C F ~ a x ~ ~ I; ~ K~ ~3 ,: .- `~ I + ~ e , ~ fo m Q 1a . ~~ ^ f T _ O S R ~ I;. ~ ~ '~ ~ ` ~ .; N 3 p 1, i] 'tl ~..~ if i 311 1 ~ a V A~ ~ 1~ ,µ~~q~~~e I~~ to I ~ r a + ! OS [~~ 3 7 12 ~. } W ~. :. F ~ ~ N. w. 1 `1• ., _ h. M: 37tH .,1 '. n nn ~^I - a as `l T 7 ': 1'13LOE7 1 /~ -_ °~-~>+ t PA - - ---1z RK iIV f; !~ 2 l I. t t2 12 f 9 r 3 1 a $7 F : 11 T1; N,E- 7 J ~~ PELRA '~'t~ ] 1 I 7 ri y QP BPFA~CY ~ - - : 1 ~ 11 N.E. ~ HOUSE ~ e a ~ '. U 7 to 13^ R O f A g OSR ,[ ~ nH ,'h. 3 `7!112.17 1~ 1 e:. I Y lar ~~ `- N n 4 13 Is lf`, f3 + 3 L ~ -~II Z1 ~ tt W q PARK ... - ,~ 1 I 1 ~ _ - JY Ni 1D ~ ]F ~ 10 1S Y ' ~ ~ ; I~ f ~_- = 11 7 113 < -] ID z p I ~ i '~~m ~_~ 2a e r, a zz 3 a 3 11 ea ar vaNT „„ + Iz w e z N. ]111 Sl. ~ J ae ~. m ~ ~ 1 + 1 1 N 11'-'11 L IRACI K dl `~ - _ y ] I 451 ~If it t iU DG a 7 f 6 I! hi V ] ' 17.' ~11 10 1 ~~ II ~. , p 3 : 1 ± a TI '3 tr. N.W. A ~' K ~ t. 'I a -]7 D Y 4y'~~I 17 r ~'~I1D f ~ ~ .E6 1w 2 ~ --,- L.' ^. 71 . t+ Ia le I 7 4 • ~ i n 13Y „ ~ ;7~ it r ~ : 27 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 13_~I~ , ii a 7 1 ~I- ?f ~ ~ 3 -t~ ~' ;„ ~ IIML'7 K t] ~- t ~ ~.. ffi ' 0 ~ 1a0 fiJ 18 r ~ l' 17 Tp 6 ~ S 7. D ,7a J t ~- h,` Y i r 7D C f T 1 I ~' F 2f H J Z7 MT 0.s W~ ~. h W(6 DPIVE I !b d~" ~ 4ti LAKE IDA ROAD ~ '~.il a w Y..~a~~l a~ ~ 8QY SCCU7 TRINITY `N,E, LAKE IOA ROAD HUT LUTHERAN 1 13 CHURCH R-1-A QQM S R ; C F ~ ,1 ;~ ~ cHxo cHRrsr cAR£ CENTER EAK E I DA R OAO + /2 N LAKE IDA OVERLAY DISTRICT ~~ OVERLAY DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT D ZONING MAP CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL -- ~1G!!AL BASE MAP SYSTEM -- MAP REF: U:\AUTCCAD\PAUL\LAKE IDA OVERLAY DI57RiCT I MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Mark McDonnell, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.C. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 ORDINANCE N0.26-08 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARINGI ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consideration of aCity-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations to add Barwick Park and Lakeview Golf Course to the list of public properties where freestanding telecommunication monopole towers are permitted. BACKGROUND The existing regulations in LDR Section 4.3.3(5), Telecommunication Towers and Antennas, include a section that lists specific public properties that are allowed to have monopole towers greater than 64 feet in height, and that are also not subject to minimum separation requirements between towers. Towers must be located to create the least potential visual impact on adjacent right-of-ways and residential areas. The current list of public properties includes: L Mi1lerPark 2. Delray BeachMunicipal Golf Course 3. Public Works Complex 4. South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility This amendment would add Barwick Park and Lakeview Golf Course as the Str' and 6~' properties to this list. REVIEW BY OTHERS The text amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 19, 2008. One member of the public spoke on the issue and did not feel that another tower was justified in such close proximity to the tower currently located adjacent to Fire Station #4. The Board unanimously recommended approval on a 7 to 0 vote, to add Lakeview Golf Course only to the public properties list, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve on first reading Ordinance No. 26-08 for aCity-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations as reflected in the attached ordinance, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. ORDINANCE NO. 26-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.3.3, "SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES", SUBSECTION (S), "TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS", SUB-SUBSECTION (2), "FREESTANDING TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS", TO ADD BARWICK PARK AND LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE PROPERTIES TO ALLOW MONOPOLES; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on ,and voted to to recommend that the changes be approved; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach adopts the findings in the Planning and Zoning Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach finds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. Section 2. That Section 4.3.3, "Special Requirements for Specific Uses", Subsection (S), "Telecommunication Towers and Antennas", Sub-Subsection (2), "Freestanding Telecommunication Towers", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Freestanding Telecommunication Towers: Freestanding telecommunication towers are penrntted as follows: (a) Monopole towers having a maximum height of 64 feet are a permitted use in the following zoning districts: 1. Planned Commercial (PC) 2. Planned Commerce Center (I'CC) 3. NTixed Industrial and Commercial District (1Vi<C) 4. Light Industrial (LI) 5. Industrial (I) 6. Open Space and Recreation (OSR) 7. Community Facilities (CF) (b) Monopole towers having a maximum height greater than 64 feet maybe permitted as a conditional use in the following zoning districts: 1. Planned Commerce Center (I'CC) 2. NTixed Industrial and Commercial District (1Vi<C) 3. Light Industrial (LI) 4. Industrial (I) 5. Open Space and Recreation (OSR) (on sites greater than 10 acres in size) 6. Community Facilities (CF) (on sites greater than 10 acres in size) (c) Notwithstanding the above listed requirements, monopole towers greater than 64 feet in height are a permitted use when located on the public properties listed below Towers that are to be located on these properties are not subject to the minimum separation requirement between towers. Towers shall be located so as to create the least potential visual impact on adjacent rights-of-ways and residential areas. L NTiller Park,1905 S.W. 4th Avenue 2. Delray Beach Municipal Golf Course, 2200 Highland Avenue 3. Public Works Complex, 434 South Swinton Avenue 4. South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, 1801 North Congress Avenue 5. Lakeview G olf Course 6. Barwick Park (d) Lattice and guyed towers maybe permitted as a conditional use in the following zoning districts: 1. Community Facilities (CF) (on sites greater than 10 acres in size) 2 ORD. NO. 26-08 2. Industrial (I) (e) Development Standards and Criteria: 1. Height: a Tower height shall not exceed 125 feet unless a waiver is granted pursuant to Subsection 4.3.3(S)(~ b. Tower height is to be measured from the crown of the road of the nearest public right of way. The measurement of the tower height shall include any apparatus that extends above the tower structure, with the following exceptions: (1) Lightning rods, safety lighting, and any other apparatus required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ensure the safe operation of the facility. (2) Whip antennas not exceeding 6 inches in diameter may extend 10 feet above the height of the tower structure. 2. Setbacks: (a) Towers shall be located a minimum of fifty (50) feet from any existing or proposed public street right-of-way line. (b) The minimum distance between a monopole tower and the nearest property line of a residential zoning district shall be equal to 200% of the height of the tower. Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or ward be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid Section 4. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. ORD. NO. 26-08 PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of 2008. ATTEST MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Reading ORD. NO. 26-08 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 19, 2008 AGENDA NO: IV.E. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF ACITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR), AMENDING SECTION 4.3.3(S), "TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS," TO ADD BARWICK PARK AND LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE TO THE LIST OF PUBLIC PROPERTIES WHERE FREESTANDING TELECOMMUNICATION MONOPOLE TOWERS ARE PERMITTED. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding acity- initiated amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to add the public properties of Barwick Park and Lakeview Golf Course to the list of public properties that would be allowed freestanding telecommunication towers. Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations may not be made until a recommendation is obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The existing regulations in LDR Section 4.3.3(S), Telecommunication Towers and Antennas, include a section that lists specific public properties that are allowed to have monopole towers greater than 64 feet in height, and that are also not subject to minimum separation requirements between towers. Towers must be located to create the least potential visual impact on adjacent right-of-ways and residential areas. The current list of public properties includes: 1. Miller Park 2. Delray Beach Municipal Golf Course 3. Public Works Complex 4. South Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility This amendment would add Barwick Park and Lakeview Golf Course as the 5th and 6th properties to this list. A private carrier has approached the City about locating a monopole within Barwick Park near Fire Station #4. While no facilities are currently contemplated at the Lakeview Golf Course, it is reasonable to include this property since it is similar to other properties currently included in the list. There have been no reported complaints or issues regarding towers already in place on the properties listed above. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, May 19, 2008 LDR Amendment -Public Properties Allowed to have Monopoles REQUIRED FINDINGS Comprehensive Plan Conformance LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings) requires that the City Commission make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. While no specific goal or objective directly addresses telecommunication facilities that would support this amendment, the amendment would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. REVIEW BY OTHERS Courtesy notices were sent to the following neighborhood and/or civic associations: Neighborhood Advisory Council Chatelaine Lakeview Civic Association Lake Forest South Shadywoods Country Manor Sherwood Park Civic Association Letters of objection and support, if any, will be provided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, Section 4.3.3(S), "Telecommunications Towers and Antennas," to add Barwick Park and Lakeview Golf Course to the list of public properties where freestanding telecommunication monopole towers are permitted, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, Section 4.3.3(S), "Telecommunications Towers and Antennas," to add Barwick Park and Lakeview Golf Course to the list of public properties where freestanding telecommunication monopole towers are permitted, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) (motion to be made in the affirmative). RECOMMENDED ACTION ~ Recommend approval of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, Section 4.3.3(S), "Telecommunications Towers and Antennas," to add Barwick Park and Lakeview Golf Course to the list of public properties where freestanding telecommunication monopole towers are permitted by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). attachment: LDR with suggested language 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Mark McDonnell, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.D. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 ORDINANCE N0.25-08 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARINGI ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consideration of aCity-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations to expand the circumstances in which affordable units may be transferred without restriction. BACKGROUND The proposed LDR text amendment expands the circumstances under which transfer of title to affordable units is allowed under LDR Article 4.7, Family/Workforce Housing. The amendment simplifies language allowing transfer when the owner of a unit dies and removes references to spouses, offspring, or divorce. REVIEW BY OTHERS The text amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 19, 2008. The Board unanimously recommended approval on a 7 to 0 vote, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve on first reading Ordinance No. 25-08 for aCity-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations as reflected in the attached ordinance, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. ORDINANCE NO. 25-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.7.8, "RESALE AND SUBSEQUENT RENTALS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS" TO EXPAND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH TITLE MAY BE TRANSFERRED WITHOUT RESTRICTION; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on May 19, 2008 and voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the changes be approved; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach adopts the findings in the Planning and Zoning Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach finds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the recitations set forth above are incorporated herein. Section 2. That Section 4.7.8, "Resale and Subsequent Rentals of Affordable Units", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.7.8, "Resale and Subsequent Rentals of Affordable Units". To maintain the availability of workforce housing units which may be constructed pursuant to the requirements of this program, the following resale conditions shall be imposed on the workforce housing units and included in the deed or restrictive covenant and recorded in the Public Records of Palm Beach County: a. All workforce housing units shall remain affordable for a period of not less than forty (40) years commencing from the date of initial occupancy of the unit. b. All workforce housing units must be rented or sold to eligible households. There shall be no provisions for releases from the sale or rental of workforce units to eligible households. Workforce housing units may be resold to non-eligible households only when the restriction expires. c. Deed restrictions or restrictive covenants and/or bylaws designed to ensure continued affordability shall be embodied in legally binding agreements which shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recording. d. Workforce housing unit resales shall be limited to households of the same category relative to income. e. The sales price of workforce housing units may not exceed the upper limit of affordability for the income category to which the unit was originally assigned. f. Transfers of title under the following circumstances shall be allowed, and are not subject to the restrictions included in this program: Transfers ' upon death of owner~_ n~ g. No resales of workforce housing units shall be completed until the requirements of this chapter are met. Section 3. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, 2 ORD. N0.25-08 any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 4. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 200 ATTEST MAYOR City Clerk First Readi Second Reading 3 ORD. N0.25-08 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Mark McDonnell, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Dorling, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.E. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 ORDINANCE N0.27-08 (FIRST READING/FIRST PUBLIC HEARINGI ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Consideration of aCity-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations to clarify that all commercial and industrial uses shall conduct business inside, regardless of the zoning district within which they are located. BACKGROUND Current regulations require commercial and industrial uses to conduct business within a completely enclosed building, but specifically reference only commercial, industrial, and mixed use zoning districts. This ordinance amends the LDRs to clarify that all commercial and industrial uses must conduct business within a completely enclosed building regardless of zoning district. The ordinance also amends the LDRs to allow commercial and industrial uses to be conducted outside on a temporary basis for special events pursuant to Section 2.4.6(F). This section includes examples of such special events as follows: ^ Circuses or Carnivals ^ Seasonal Farmer's Market ^ Construction Trailers and Compounds ^ Horse Drawn Carriage Rides, Ice Skating Rinks and Carousels REVIEW BY OTHERS The text amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 19, 2008. The Board unanimously recommended approval on a 7 to 0 vote, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. RECOMMENDATION By motion, approve on first reading Ordinance No. 27-08 for aCity-initiated amendment to the Land Development Regulations as reflected in the attached ordinance, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.5(M) of the Land Development Regulations. ORDINANCE N0.27-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY CONMSSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 4.6.6, "COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES TO OPERATE WITHIN A BUILDING", SUBSECTION "A", "INTENT", IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THAT ALL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES SHALL CONDUCT BUSINESS INSIDE REGARDLESS OF ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to LDR Section 1.1.6, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment at a public hearing held on May 19, 2008 and voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the changes be approved; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3174(4)(c), the Planning and Zoning Board, siding as the Local Planning Agency, has determined that the change is consistent with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plary and WHEREAS, the City Comrission of the City of Delray Beach adopts the findings in the Planning and Zoning Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach finds the ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to clarify that all commercial uses shall be conducted inside no matter which zoning district in which they are located NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY CONMSSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 4.6.6, "Commercial and Industrial Uses to Operate Within a Buildingr', Subsection (A) "Intent", of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall be amended to read as follow: Section 4.6.6 Commercial and Industrial Uses to Operate Within a Building: (A) Intent: 1 xr~r "cc~c-vr-c~cvriQrici" "ti~C~S,~n"~' azcaz''6T~cmti~C~S~ ca ~ coed All commercial and industrial uses shall conduct business within a completely enclosed building rather than outside regardless of the zoning district. However, certain aspects of a use maybe conducted outside and such aspects are identified in (S) below: (2) Certain conditional uses that are allowed within commercial, industrial, and mixed use districts can be characterized as outside uses. Such operations maybe conducted outside when it is specifically determined through the conditional use process that the outside aspects of the use are appropriate. Conditions maybe applied to mitigate visual and other impacts. (3) Commercial and industrial uses maybe allowed outside on a temporary basis for special events pursuant to Section 2.4.6(F). Section 2. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or Ord be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of 2008. ATTEST MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Reading 2 ORD. N0.27-08 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE AGENDA NO: MAY 19, 2008 IV.F. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF ACITY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR), AMENDING SECTION 4.6.6, "COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES TO OPERATE WITHIN A BUILDING," TO CLARIFY THAT ALL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES SHALL CONDUCT BUSINESS INSIDE REGARDLESS OF ZONING DISTRICT. ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD The item before the Board is to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding acity- initiated amendment to Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that clarifies that all commercial and industrial uses shall conduct business inside, regardless of the zoning district within which they are located. Pursuant to Section 1.1.6, an amendment to the text of the Land Development Regulations may not be made until a recommendation is obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Current regulations require commercial and industrial uses to conduct business within a completely enclosed building, but specifically reference only commercial, industrial, and mixed use zoning districts. This ordinance amends the LDRs to clarify that all commercial and industrial uses must conduct business within a completely enclosed building regardless of zoning district. The ordinance also amends the LDRs to allow commercial and industrial uses to be conducted outside on a temporary basis for special events pursuant to Section 2.4.6(F). This section includes examples of such special events as follows: ^ Circuses or carnivals ^ Seasonal Farmer's market ^ Construction trailers and compounds ^ Horse Drawn Carriage Rides, Ice Skating Rinks and Carousels REQUIRED FINDINGS Comprehensive Plan Conformance LDR Section 2.4.5(M)(5) (Findings) requires that the City Commission make a finding that the text amendment is consistent with and furthers the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. While no specific goal or objective directly addresses the specifics of where businesses should be conducted, the amendment would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, May 19, 2008 LDR Amendment -Commercial and Industrial Uses to be conducted inside REVIEW BY OTHERS The following advisory boards reviewed the proposed amendment and made the following recommendations to the City Commission: The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) on May 8, 2008 voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) on May 12, 2008 voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. The West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) on May 14, 2008 voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. Courtesy Notices Courtesy notices were provided to the following homeowner and civic associations: ^ Neighborhood Advisory Council Letters of objection and support, if any, will be provided at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Continue with direction. B. Move a recommendation of approval to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, Section 4.6.6, "Commercial and Industrial Uses to Operate Within a Building," by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). C. Move a recommendation of denial to the City Commission of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, Section 4.6.6, "Commercial and Industrial Uses to Operate Within a Building," by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M) (motion to be made in the affirmative). RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend approval of the amendment to Land Development Regulations, Section 4.6.6, "Commercial and Industrial Uses to Operate Within a Building," by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M). attachment: ^ proposed ordinance 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.F. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 ORDINANCE N0.08-08 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before Commission for an ordinance repealing, in its entirety, Chapter 57, "Right-of-Way Application Process For Communications Facilities", of the Code of Ordinances and enacting a new Chapter 57, "Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way", to provide the terms and conditions for the erecting, constructing, and maintaining of a communications facility in the City's public right- of-way for the provision of communications service. BACKGROUND At the first reading on May 6, 2008, the Commission passed Ordinance No. 08-08. At the May 20, 2008 meeting, the Commission voted to postpone the second reading to June 3, 2008 due to the need for further advertisement. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 08-08 on second and final reading. ORDINANCE NO. 8-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, REPEALING, IN ITS ENTIRETY, CHAPTER 57, "RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION PROCESS FOR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 57, "COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY"; TO PROVIDE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE ERECTING, CONSTRUCTING, AND MAINTAINING OF A COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY IN THE CITY'S PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR THE PROVISION OF COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, has made the following determination: WHEREAS, Section 337.401, Florida Statutes provides that because of the unique circumstances applicable to providers of Communications services and the fact that federal and state law require the nondiscriminatory treatment of providers of Communications services, and because of the desire to promote competition among providers of Communications services, it is the intent of the Legislature that municipalities and counties treat providers of Communications services in a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral manner when imposing rules or regulations governing the placement and maintenance of Communications facilities in the public roads or rights-of--way. Rules and regulations imposed by a municipality or City relating to the placement or maintenance of Communications facilities in its roads or rights-of--way must be generally applicable to all providers of Communications services, and, notwithstanding any other law, may not require a provider of Communications services, to apply for or enter into an individual license, franchise or other similar agreement with the municipality or City as a condition of placing or maintaining Communications facilities in its roads or rights-of--way; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of The City of Delray Beach, Florida ("Commission") has determined it is in the public interest of the City to permit the placement of one (1) or more Communications systems or facilities in the public rights-of--way of the City ;and WHEREAS, the public rights-of--way subject to the jurisdiction and control of the City (1) are critical to the travel of persons and the transport of goods and other tangibles in the business and social life of the community by all citizens; (2) are a unique and physically limited resource and proper management by the City is necessary to maximize efficiency, minimize the costs to the taxpayers of the foregoing uses, and to minimize the inconvenience to and negative effects upon the public from such facilities' construction, placement, relocation, and maintenance in the public rights-of--way, (3) are intended for public uses and must be managed and controlled consistently with that intent; and WHEREAS, Sections 337.401 and 364.0361, Florida Statutes, require that a local government treat Communications companies in a nondiscriminatory manner when exercising the authority to manage the public rights-of--way; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Commission to encourage competition by providing access to the public rights-of--way of the City on a nondiscriminatory basis; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Commission to recognize the interests of Communications service providers to install their facilities in public rights-of--way as a means of promoting the use of such technology for the good of the people of the City; and WHEREAS, the enactment of the Communications Act of 1996, amendments to applicable statutes of the State of Florida and developments in Communications technology and services have resulted in an increase in the number of persons certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to provide Communications Services; and WHEREAS, various Communications service providers have requested or may request the right to occupy the public rights-of--way of the City for the purpose of installing, maintaining and operating Communications systems or facilities; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Commission to exercise the City's authority over the Communications service providers' occupancy of the public rights-of--way in compliance with applicable federal and state law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 57, "Right-of--Way Application Process for Communications Facilities", of the Code of Ordinances is hereby repealed in its entirety and a new Chapter 57, "Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way", is enacted to read as follows: 2 ORD NO. 08-08 CHAPTER 57 COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY Sec. 57.01. Intent and Purpose. The City of Delray Beach the "City ") hereby declares as a legislative finding that the public rights-of--way within the City are a unique and physically limited resource that are critical to the travel and transport of persons and property in the City; that the public rights-of--way must be managed and controlled in a manner that enhances the health, safety and general welfare of the City and its citizens; and that the use and occupancy of the public rights-of--way by providers of Communications services must be subject to re~,ulation which can ensure minimal inconvenience to the public, coordinate users, maximize available space, reduce maintenance and costs to the public, and facilitate entry of an optimal number of providers of Communications services, including but not limited to telephony and cable, is in the public interest. It is the intent of the City to promote the public health, safety and general welfare b~ providing for the placement or maintenance of Communications facilities in the public ri ht~ s-of- way within the City limits; adopting and administering reasonable rules, regulations and e~ neral conditions not inconsistent with state and federal law, including Section 337.401, Florida Statutes 2007), as it may be amended from time to time, and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Communications Act of 1996 and other federal and state law; establish reasonable rules, regulations and general conditions necessary to mana e~ the placement and maintenance of Communications facilities in the public rights-of--way by all Communications service providers; minimize disruption to the public rights-of--way; and require the restoration of the public ri~hts- of-way to original condition. This Chapter shall apply to any entity who seeks to construct, place, install, maintain or operate a Communications system or facilities, as such terms are defined herein, in the public rights-of--way, unless otherwise exempt by operation of applicable state or federal law. This Chapter shall be interpreted to be consistent with the Consumer Choice Act of 2007 of the state of Florida and to the extent not otherwise prohibited by the Act shall be applicable to the provision of cable service after July 1, 2007. This Chapter is not applicable to towers and antennas installed for the provision of wireless communication services. Sec. 57.02. Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different ORD NO. 08-08 meaning. Words not otherwise defined in this section or in any permit that mi h~ t be r~ anted under this article shall be liven the meaning set forth in the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq., as amended (collectively, the "Communications Act"), and, if not defined therein, as defined by state statute; and, if not defined therein, be construed to mean the common and ordinary meaning. ~A) "Abandonment" means the permanent cessation of all uses of a Communications facility; provided that this term shall not include cessation of all use of a facility within a physical structure where the physical structure continues to be used. By way of example, and not limitation, cessation of all use of a cable within a conduit, where the conduit continues to be used, shall not be Abandonment of a facility in the public rights-of-wad ~B) "Affiliate" means each person, directly or indirectly, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with a Communications Services Provider that is registered with the CitX; provided that affiliate shall in no event mean any limited partner, member, or shareholder holding an interest of less than fifteen bercent (15%1 in such Communications Services Provider. ~C) "As-builts" mean the final and complete drawings and the final and complete electronic overview map~in autocad, microstation, mapinfo or ESRI format presented in the available computer input medium such as cd-rom, dvd or zip. Upon request of the City, as- builts, in both the drawings and the electronic overview map, must show the present state of a Communications Services Provider's facilities in the public rights-of--way, including, but not limited to, the horizontal and vertical location of facilities located at least every one hundred (100) feet and at any alignment change. Horizontal locations on all points of facilities shall be from street centerline, or section or quarter section lines or corners. Vertical locations on all points of facilities shall consist of elevations in either City datum or United States Geological Survey datum. ~D) "City" means The City of Delray Beach, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, in its present form or in any later reorganized, consolidated, or enlarged form. "Co-locate" or "Co-location" means the shared use of facilities. such as ducts or conduit, including but not limited to the placement of conduit owned by more than one user of the public rights-of--way in the same trench or boring and the placement of equipment owned by more than one user in the same conduit. Co-location does not include interconnection of facilities or the sale or purchase of capacity ORD NO. 08-08 ~F) "Communications Company" or "Telecommunications Company" has the meaning set forth in Section 364.02(12), Florida Statutes, and includes any company providing communications services as defined in Section 202.11(2) and Section 337.401(6). ~G) "Communications facility, facility or facilities" means any facility that may be used to provide Communications Services, including but not limited to, equipment or propertX, including, but not limited to, cables, conduits, converters, splice boxes, cabinets, manholes, vaults, equipment, drains, surface location markers, appurtenances, located, to be located, used, or intended to be used, in the Public Rights-of--Way of the City to transmit, convey, route, receive, distribute, provide or offer Communications Services. ~H) "Communications Pass-Through Provider" means any person who places or maintains a Communications Facility in the roads or right of way of the City and who does not remit taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 202 Florida Statutes. "Communications Services" shall include. without limitation. the transmissi conveyance or routing of voice, data, audio, video, or any other information or signals to a point, or between or among points, by and through electronic, radio, satellite, cable optical, microwave, or other medium or method now in existence or hereafter devised, regardless of the protocol used for such transmission or conveyance. ~J) "Communications Services Provider" shall refer to any Person making available or providing Communications Services, as defined in Ch. 202.11(2) FL. Stat (2007), through the blacement or use of a Communications Facility in the Public Rights of Wav. ~K) "Communications System or Systems" means any permanent or temporary plant, equipment and propertyplaced or maintained in the public rights-of--way that is occupied or used, or is capable of being occupied or used, by a Communications services provider for the purpose of producing, conveying, routing, transmitting, receiving, amplifying, distributingproviding or offering Communications services including, but not limited to cables, wires, lines, conduits, fiber optics, antennae, radios and any associated poles, converters, splice boxes, cabinets, hand holes, manholes, vaults, drains, surface location markers, and other plant, equipment and pathway ~L) "Excavation" or other similar formulation of that term means the cutting, trenching or other disturbance to the public rights-of--way intended to chan e~ the grade or level of land or that causes any cavity, gap, depression, penetration or hole in the surface of the public rights-of-wad ORD NO. 08-08 ~M) "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission. ~N) "Government" means the United States of America, the State of Florida or the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and any of their respective agencies, departments or bureaus. ~O) "In the public rights-of--way" means in, along, on, over, under, across or through the public rights-of-wad ~P) "Law" means any local, state or federal legislative, judicial or administrative order, certificate, decision, statute, constitution, Chapter, resolution, regulation, rule, tariff, guideline or other requirements, as amended, now in effect or subsequently enacted or issued including, but not limited to, the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., as amended by the Communications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.A § 151 et seq~1996), and all orders, rules, tariffs, guidelines and regulations issued by the Federal Communications Commission or the governing State authoritypursuant thereto. ~Q) "Person" means any individual, firm, joint venture, partnership, estate, trust, business trust, syndicate, fiduciary, association, corporation, company, organization or legal entity of any kind, including any affiliate, successor, assignee, transferee or personal representative thereof, and all other ,groups or combinations, and shall include the City to the extent that the City acts as a Communications services provider. ~R) "Placement or maintenance" or other similar formulation of that term means the named actions interpreted broadly to encompass, among other things, erection, construction, reconstruction, installation, inspection, maintenance, placement, replacement, extension, expansion, repair, removal, operation, occupation, location, relocation, rg ading under~roundin~, trenching or excavation. Any Communications services provider that owns, leases or otherwise controls the use of a Communications system or facility in the public rights-of--way, including the physical control to maintain and repair, is "placing or maintaining" a Communications system or facility. A person providing service only through buying wholesale and then resellin ig snot "placing or maintaining" the Communications facilities through which services is provided. The transmission and receipt of radio frequency signals through the airspace of the public ri htg s-of- way does not constitute "placing or maintaining" facilities in the public rights-of-wad ~S) "PSC" means the Florida Public Service Commission. ~T) "Public Rights-of--Way" means a road, street, highway, bridge, tunnel or alley that is owned by the City, publicly held by the City or dedicated to the City for public use and over which the City has jurisdiction and control and may lawfullygrant access pursuant to applicable ORD NO. 08-08 law, and includes the space above, at or below the surface of such right-of-wav excluding onlX those public easements over which the City lacks jurisdiction under Florida Law. ~U) "Registrant or facility owner" shall mean a Communications company or other person which seeks to use the public rights-of--way that has registered with the City in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. ~V) "Registration and register" shall mean the process described in Section 57.03, whereby a Communications service provider provides certain information to the Cites Sec. 57.03. Registration. ~A) Each Communications service provider that desires to place, erect, construct, install, locate, maintain, repair, extend, expand, remove, or relocate any Communications facilities in, under, over or across any public rights-of--wav in the City shall be considered to be using the public rights-of--way and shall be required to register with the City in accordance with the terms of this Chapter. ~B) Any Communications service provider desiring to use the public rights-of-waX shall file a registration with the City Manager or his/her designee, which shall include the following information: 1. Identity of the applicant and name, address and telephone number of applicant's primary contact person in connection with the registration; 2. A statement of whether the applicant presently provides retail services to any Communications services customers within the jurisdictional limits of the City at the time of registration or whether the applicant simply intends to lease its facilities to other Communication Service Providers who will be providing direct service to retail customers within the jurisdictional limits of the City. This information will allow the City to follow up with the registrant at the time the registrant begins to make physical use of the public rights-of--way, and to determine whether a linear mile charge is a~licable in accordance with Section 57.04 of this Chapter. 3. Evidence of the insurance coverage required under this Chapter and acknowledgment that registrant has received and reviewed a co~y of this Chapter; 4. A co~y of federal and/or state certification authorizin tg he a~licant to provide Communications services; and ORD NO. 08-08 5. A security fund in accordance with this Chapter. 6. Acknowledgment that Registrant has received and reviewed a co~y of this Chapter. ~C) The City will review the information submitted by the a~licant. Such review will be by the City Manager or designee. If the a~licant submits information in accordance with Section 57.03 above, the registration shall be effective and the City shall notify the a~licant of the effectiveness of registration in writing. If the City determines that the information has not been submitted in accordance with Section 57.03 above, the City shall notify the a~licant of the non-effectiveness of registration, and reasons for the non-effectiveness, in writing. The CitX shall so reply to an a~licant within thirty (30) days after receipt of registration information from the a~licant. Upon notification of the non-effectiveness of the registration, nothing herein shall preclude the a~licant from filing a subsequent a~lication addressing the basis for the non- effectiveness. If the registrant disputes the determination of non-effectiveness for the particular application submitted, the only avenue of redress shall be an meal under Section 57.07(P). Failure to comply with the meals section for the particular a~lication found to be non-effective shall be sufficient grounds for the City to reject that particular a~lication in the future. A registrant may cancel a registration upon written notice to the City Manager or his/her designee stating that it will no longer maintain facilities in the public rights-of--way and will no longer need to pull permits to perform work in public rights-of--way. Within thirty~30) days of anX change in the information required to be submitted pursuant to Section 57.03, registrant shall provide updated information to the Cites ~D) A registration shall not convey title, equitable or legal, in the public rights-of-wad Registrants may only occu~y public rights-of--way for Communications facilities. Registration does not excuse a Communications Service Provider from obtaining a~ropriate access or pole attachment consents before locating its facilities on another person's facilities. Registration does not excuse a Communications Service Provider from complying with all a~licable CitX ordinances, including this ordinance. El Registration with the Citv shall be non-exclusive. Registration does not establish any priority for the use of the public rights-of--way by a registrant or any other registrants. Registrations are expressly subject to any future amendment to or replacement of this Chapter and further subi ect to any additional Citv ordinances. as well as any state or federal laws that may be enacted during the term of the registration Sec. 57.04. Fees and Payments. ORD NO. 08-08 ~A) In consideration for the ri h~ ts, privileges and permission granted hereunder, a Registrant hereunder shall pay an annual Communications Service Tax as set forth in Chapter 202 Florida Statues. Said tax shall be in addition to any permit fees imposed by the CitX pursuant to an election made by the Citespursuant to Chapter 307.401 Florida Statutes. ~B) A Registrant who places or maintains a Communications Facility in the roads or rights of way of the City who does not remit taxes imposed pursuant to Chapter 202 Florida Statutes, also defined as a Pass Through Provider, shall pay to the City annually Five Hundred Dollars $SOO.OO~per linear mile or portion thereof in addition to any permit fees the City is authorized to collect. The linear mile charge authorized by this Section shall be based on the linear miles of roads or Rights of Way where a Communications Facility is placed, not based on a summation of the lengths of individual cables, conduits, strands or fiber. ~C) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the City hereby reserves the ri h~ t to reauire the maximum compensation allowed by law. ~D) Pursuant to Chapter 337.401(3)(f), nothing herein shall prohibit or impair anX voluntary agreement between a Registrant and the City which provides for or allows for the provision of in-kind compensation by the Registrant to the City in addition to the fees and payments set forth in Sections 57.04(A) and 57.04(B) above. Sec. 57.05. Reports and Records. ~A) A registrant shall provide the following documents to the City as received or filed: (1) Any pleadings, petitions, notices and documents re a~ rdin~ any legal proceeding involving any provisions of this Chapter or any permit or Agreement rg anted pursuant to this Chapter. (2) Any request for protection under bankruptcy laws, or any judgment related to a declaration of bankruptcy ~B) In addition, the City may, at its option and upon reasonable notice to the registrant, inspect the facilities in the public rights-of--way and to require applicable reports and records including but not limited to FCC compliance and performance tests to ensure the safetX of its residents. ORD NO. 08-08 ~C) Unless prohibited by applicable law, such other books, records, accounts and materials reasonably required by the City to determine compliance with this Chapter. ~D) The City shall keep any documentation, books and records of the re is~ trant confidential to the extent permitted under Florida Statutes. Sec. 57.06. Underground Installation; Relocation. ~A) A registrant shall install its facilities underground, unless such under rounding is not technically feasible. This provision shall apply only prospectively for all new facilities, and only to the extent that this obligation is not expressly prohibited by federal law, state law or applicable PSC rules and regulations. ~B) Every registrant that places or constructs Communications facilities under r~ ound shall maintain appropriate participation in the regional notification center for subsurface installations. ~C) Any Communications facilities heretofore or hereafter placed upon, under, over, or along any public rights-of-way that is found by the City to be unreasonably interferin i~ n anX way with the convenient, safe or continuous use, or the maintenance; improvement, extension or expansion of such public rights-of--way shall, upon written notice to the registrant or its a end t, be removed or relocated by such registrant at its own expense, within thirty (30) days of such notice, consistent with Section 337.403, Florida Statutes. The City Manager or his/her designee maX extend the time within which a registrant shall remove or relocate a Communications facility for good cause shown. ~D) The Registrant shall not in any way displace, damage, or destroy any facilities, including, but not limited to, gas, sewer, water main, pipe, cable, conduit, fiber optic, or other pathway or any other facilities belonging to the City. Except to the extent damage is caused bX the City's dross ne~li~ence or the City's failure to comply with applicable law, subject to the applicable law, the registrant shall be liable to the City for the costs of any repairs made necessary by any such displacement, damage or destruction, of facilities belonging to the CitX, and the registrant shall pay such costs upon demand. In the case of an emergency, the City maX commence repairs without any prior notice to the registrant. The term emergency shall mean a condition that may affect the public's health, safety or welfare. In the event of an emergency, the City may cause the repairs to be made at the facility owner's expense, utilizing City employees, agents or contractors, charge any and all costs, and require reimbursement within thirty (30) days after the submission of the bill by the City to the registrant. After thirty~30) days, the City maX obtain reimbursement from the security fund. In all other non-emergency circumstances, the 10 ORD NO. 08-08 registrant shall be~ven prior written notice. If such repairs are not performed in a reasonable and satisfactory manner within the thirty~30) calendar days after receiving notice, the City maX cause the repairs to be made at the facility owner's expense, utilizing City employees, a end is or contractors, charge any and all costs, and require reimbursement within thirty~30) days after the submission of the bill by the City to the registrant. Alain, after thirty~30) days, the City maX obtain reimbursement from the security fund. Subiect to Section 337.403_ Florida Statutes. whenever an order of the Ci requires such removal or change in the location of any Communications facility from the public rights-of--way, and the facility owner fails to remove or change the same at its own expense to conform to the directive within the time stated in the notice, the City may proceed to cause the Communications facility to be removed. The expense thereby incurred, except as provided in Section 337.403(1)(a)-(c), Florida Statutes, shall be paid out of any money available therefore, and such expense shall be charged against the owner of the Communications facility and levied, collected and paid to the Cites ~F) Subject to Section 337.404, Florida Statutes, whenever it shall be necessary for the City to remove or relocate any Communications facility, the owner of the Communications facility, or the owner's chief went, shall be liven written notice of such removal or relocation and requiring the payment of the costs thereof, and shall be given reasonable time, which shall not be less than twenty~20) nor more than thirty~30) days, to file an meal with the CitX Commission to contest the reasonableness of the order. Upon receipt of a written meal, the City Commission shall place the matter on its agenda for consideration within forty-five 45~ working days. Should the owner or the owner's representative not wear, the determination of the cost to the owner shall be final, in accordance with Section 337.404, Florida Statutes. ~G) A final order of the City, imposed pursuant to Florida Statutes and applicable provisions of this Chapter and the City code, if any, shall constitute a lien on andproperty of the owner and maybe enforced as provided therein. ~H) The City retains the right and privilege to cut or remove any facilities located within the public rights-of--way as the City Manager or his/her designee in reasonable discretion may determine to be necessary, appropriate or useful in response to any public health or safetX emergency. If circumstances permit, the City shall attempt to notify the owner of the facility, if known,~rior to cutting or removing a facility and shall notify the owner of the facility, if known, after cutting or removing a facility ~p Upon abandonment of a facility within the public rights-of--way of the City, the owner of the facility shall notify the City within ninety~90) days. Following receipt of such 11 ORD NO. 08-08 notice, the City may direct the facility owner to remove all or any portion of the facility if the City determines that such removal will be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare. In the event that the City does not direct the removal of the abandoned facility by the owner of the facility and the facility owner chooses not to remove its facilities, then such owner, b_y its notice of abandonment to the City, shall be deemed to consent to the alteration or removal of all or andportion of the facility by another utility or person. ~J) A registrant shall, on the request of any person holding a permit issued by the City, temporarily raise or lower its Communications facilities to permit the work authorized bX the permit. The expense of such temporary raising or lowering of facilities shall be paid by the person requesting the same, and the registrant shall have the authority to require such payment in advance. The registrant shall be liven not less than thirty (30) days advance notice to arrange for such temporary relocation. Sec. 57.07. Use of Rights-of--Way. ~A) A facility owner agrees at all times to comply with and abide by all applicable provisions of the state statutes and local laws including, but not limited to, applicable zoning re~,ulations not inconsistent with state and federal laws. ~B) Except in the case of an emergency, no Communications Service Provider shall construct any facility over, under or within any public rights-of--way which disrupts the public rights-of--way without first filing an a~lication with and obtaining a permit from the CitX therefore, pursuant to applicable permitting requirements of the City and other a~licable CitX Code requirements, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. The term "emergency" shall mean a condition that affects the public's health, safety or welfare, which includes an unplanned out of service condition of apre-existing service. Registrant shall still be required to provide prior notice to the City in the event of an emergency. For the purposes of the notice requirements herein, the City shall provide the registrant with a City contract. When work is performed on an emergency basis, the registrant must still apply for a permit by the following business day in accordance with the City's permitting guidelines. In all instances, the registrant shall restore all dammed property and indemnify the City from any and all damages caused by the registrant's emergency work. Unless otherwise required by this Chapter, the City may waive the permit requirement in cases where there will be no disruption of the public rights-of-wad ~C) As part of any permit application with respect to new or existing facilities in the public rights-of--way, where applicable, the registrant shall provide a proposal for construction of the Communications facility that sets forth at least the following: 12 ORD NO. 08-08 (1) An en ink eerin~plan identifyin~ the location of the proposed facility, including a description of the facilities to be installed, where it is to be located, and the approximate size of facilities and equipment that will be located in, on, over, or above the public rights-of--way. The plan shall include a current survey of all existing improvements. (2) Maps showing the routing of new construction that involves an alteration to the surface or subsurface of the public rights-of--way. A registrant may not begin construction until the plans and drawings have been approved in writing by the Cites (3) A description of the manner in which the facility will be installed (i.e., anticipated construction methods and/or techniques). (4) The time required to place the facility (5) A maintenance of traffic plan for any disruption of the public ri htg s-of- way. (6) Information on the ability of the public rights-of--way to accommodate the proposed facility, if available (such information shall be provided without certification as to correctness, to the extent obtained from other users of the public rights-of--way) (7) If appropriate, liven the facility proposed, an estimate of the cost of restoration of the public rights-of-wad (8) And, such plan shall include the timetable for construction for each phase of the project and the areas of the City that will be affected. (9) Any such additional information as the City Manager or his/her designee finds reasonably necessary to review an application for a permit to perform work in the public rights-of-wad Dl If there is insufficient sbace to accommodate all of the reauests to occubv or use the rights-of--way, to the extent not otherwise prohibited by state or federal law, the City shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional facilities within the public rights-of--way for the protection of existing facilities in the public rights-of--way, or for Citesplans for public improvements, which have been determined by the City to be in the public interest. (1) In case of conflict or interference between the facilities of different registrants, the registrant whose facilities were first permitted shall have priority over a 13 ORD NO. 08-08 competing registrant's use of the public rights-of-way. The resolution of any conflict or interference shall be made in a manner that is consistent with the non-discrimination provisions of the Federal Communications Act of 1996. (2) There may be from time to time within the City various easements and streets, which the City does not have the unqualified right to authorize registrant to use; therefore, the City does not warrant or represent as to any particular easement, rights-of--way, or portion of aright-of--way or easement, that it has the right to authorize the registrant to install or maintain portions of its facilities therein, and in each case the burden and responsibility for making such determination in advance of the installation shall be upon the registrant. The CitX shall not be required to assume any responsibility for the securing of any rights-of-waX, easements or other rights that may be required by the registrant for the installations of its facilities, nor shall the City be responsible for securing any permits or agreements with other persons or utilities. (3) Nothing in this Chapter shall affect the City's authority to add, vacate, or abandon public rights-of--way, and the City makes no warranties or representations re a~ rdin~ the availability of any added, vacated or abandoned public rights-of--way for Communications facilities. (4) Upon request of the City, a registrant may be required to coordinate the placement or maintenance of facilities under a permit with any other work, construction, installation or repairs that maybe occurring or scheduled to occur within a reasonable time frame in the subject public rights-of--way, and registrant may be required to reasonably alter its placement or maintenance schedule as necessary so as to minimize disruptions and disturbances in the public rights-of-wad All facilities shall be installed. located and maintained so as not to unreasonab interfere with the use of the public rights-of--way by the public and so as not to cause unreasonable interference with the rights and convenience of property owners who adjoin any of the public rights-of--way. The registrant shall be liable for costs and expenses for the displacement, damage or destruction of any irri ate ion system or landscaping within the public rights-of--way, to the extent not covered by the construction bond. In the event the registrant fails to make the appropriate repairs to restore such property to as good a condition as existed prior to the commencement of the work, the affected property owner may file a complaint with the CitX Manager or his/her designee. In this instance, the registrant shall be~ven prior written notice of the necessary repairs by the City Manager or his/her designee. If such repairs are not performed in a reasonable and satisfactory manner within thirty (30) calendar days after receiving notice, the City may cause the repairs to be made at the facility owner's expense, utilizing City employees, 14 ORD NO. 08-08 agents or contractors, charge any and all costs, and require reimbursement within thirty (30) days after the submission of the bill by the City to the registrant. After thirty~30) days, the City maX obtain reimbursement from the security fund. The prior written notice described in this subsection shall be considered a final written decision for purposes of the appellate rights outlined in subsection (P) of this Section. ~F) The use of trenchless technolo~y (i.e., directional bore method) for the installation of facilities in the public rights-of--way, as well as joint trenching and/or the co-location of facilities in existing conduit, is strongly encouraged and should be employed wherever possible. ~G) The City Manager or his/her designee may issue such additional rules and re~,ulations concerning the placement and maintenance of a Communications facility in the public rights-of--way as may be consistent with applicable law and not inconsistent with this Chapter. ~H) All safety practices required by applicable law, or accepted industry practices and standards, shall be used during construction, maintenance and repair of the Communications facilities. Registrant's work, while in progress, shall be properly protected at all times with suitable barricades, flags, lights, flares or other devices, as are required by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FDOT) and/or any requirements of the City to protect all members of the public having occasion to use the portion of the streets involved or adjacent property ~p If, at any time during the term of the rights granted herein, the City shall lawfullX elect to alter, or chan eg the grade of, any public rights-of-way, upon reasonable notice by the City, the registrant shall make any necessary removals, relayin~ and relocations of its Communications facilities at its own expense, in accordance with applicable law. The CitX reserves the ri hg t to place and maintain, and permit to be placed or maintained, sewer, gas, water, electric, storm drainage, Communications or other types of facilities, cables or conduits, and to do, and to permit to be done, any underground and overhead installation or improvement that may be deemed necessary or proper by the City in the public rights-of--way occupied by the re ~ std rant. ~J) A facility owner shall obtain any and all required permits and pay any and all required fees before commencing any construction on or otherwise disturbing any public rights_ of-way as a result of its construction. (1) The registrant shall, at its own expense, restore such property to as og od a condition as existed prior to commencement of work. A registrant shall guarantee its restoration 15 ORD NO. 08-08 for a period of twelve (12) months after the completion of such restoration. If such restoration is not performed in a reasonable and satisfactory manner within thirty~30) calendar days after the completion of construction, the City may, after prior written notice to registrant, cause the repairs to be made at the facility's owner expense, utilizing City employees, agents or contractors, charge any and all costs, and require reimbursement within thirty~30) days after the submission of the bill by the City to the re ' std rant. A hermit from the Citv constitutes authorization to undertake only certain activities on public rights-of--way in accordance with this Chapter, and does not create a propertX right or grant authority to impinge upon the rights of others who may have an interest in the public rights-of-wad ~K) All ongoing installation, construction and maintenance of a Communications facility located in the public rights-of--way shall be subject to the City's periodic inspection for compliance with this Chapter, or any applicable provisions of this Chapter and City Codes. ~L) A facility owner shall not place its facilities so as to interfere unreasonably with any other person lawfully using the public rights-of--way of the Cites ~M) The registrant shall, upon request of the City Engineer or his/her designee, and at no cost to the City, produce and provide to the City Engineer or his/her designee a complete set of as-built plans including but not limited to, horizontal and typical vertical profiles, within sixtX (60) days after construction of any portion of the system. A registrant shall cooperate with the City by providin tg imely and complete information under this subsection. Upon completion of any installation or construction of new facilities in public rights-of--way, the registrant shall provide, at no cost to the City, such information as may be requested showing the exact location of its facilities and structures, including but not limited to, maps, geographical information systems, plats, construction documents, drawings and any other information the City may find reasonably necessary. If available, such plans shall be provided in digitized format showing the two-dimensional location of the facilities based upon the City's geographical database datums, or other format acceptable to the City Manager. All information required by this Section shall be maintained in accordance with the bublic records laws of the State of Florida. ~N) Suspension or denial of Permits. Subject to subsection (P) below, the CitX Manager or a designee may suspend an existing permit or deny an a~lication for a permit for work in the public rights-of--way for one or more of the following reasons: 16 ORD NO. 08-08 (1) Violation of permit conditions, including conditions set forth in this Chapter or other applicable provisions of City Codes or regulations ~overnin~ use of public rights-of--way; or (2) Misrepresentation or fraud by registrant in a registration or permit application to the City; or Failure to relocate or remove facilities as may be lawfully reauired by the City; or (4) Failure of registrant, its employees, agents or subcontractors, in connection with the subj ect permit, to (a) Place barricades or suns around the work area, bl Take reasonable safety brecautions to alert the bublic of work at the work site, or (c) Repair, replace and restore any sidewalk, street, alley, pavement, water. sewer or other utility line or abburtenance_ soil. landscabin~_ dirt or other imbrovement_ roperty or structure of any nature In the event of such failure, the City may perform the work utilizing CitX employees, agents or contractors, charge any and all costs, and registrant shall be required to reimburse the City within thirty~30) calendar days after the submission of the bill by the City to registrant. In the event the City incurred costs as described herein, the registrant shall be required to reimburse the City for any and all such costs before the suspension or denial can be lifted. The City Manager or his/her designee shall have the discretion to waive this requirement. Ol Immediately after the suspension or denial of a hermit bursuant to this Section. the City shall provide written notice of the violation, which notice shall contain a description of the violation. A final written decision of the City Mana e~ r suspending a permit or denying an application for a registration is subject to meal. Upon correction of any violation that gave rise to a suspension or denial of permit, the suspension or denial shall be lifted. Pl All final written decisions may be abbealed by filing a written notice of abbeal with the City Clerk and providing copies to the City Manager and City Attorney. An meal must be filed with the City within thirty~30) days of the date of the final, written decision to be appealed. Any meal not timely filed as set forth herein shall be waived. The notice of meal shall state the decision that is being a~ealed, the grounds for meal, a brief summary of the 17 ORD NO. 08-08 relief sought, and shall be accompanied by anon-refundable fee of $100.00. The CitX Commission may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the City Manager. The City Manager or his/her designee shall notify any party who has filed a written request for such notification of the date when the matter will be presented to the City Commission. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the City Commission from seeking additional information prior to rendering a final decision. The decision of the City Commission shall be by written order and a co~y of the decision shall be forwarded to the City Manager and the a~pealing_party. Within the time prescribed by the appropriate Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, a party aggrieved by a decision of the City Commission may meal an adverse decision to the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, or applicable federal or district court in Palm Beach County. The party makin tg he meal shall be required to pay to the City Clerk a fee as established by the Clerk. ~Q) In the event registrant desires to use its existing facilities or to construct new facilities for the purpose of providing other utility or non-utility services to existing or potential consumers or resellers by providing cable services, or any other services other than the provision of Communications service, or for providing any other use to existing or potential consumers, a registrant shall seek such additional and separate authorization from City for such activities as maybe required by applicable law. ~R) To the extent that andperson or registrant leases or otherwise uses the facilities of an entity that is duly registered or otherwise authorized to place and maintain facilities in the public rights-of--way of the City, the person or registrant shall make no claim, nor assert any right which will impede the lawful exercise of the City's rights, including requiring the removal of such facilities from the public rights-of--way of the City, regardless of the effect on the person's ability to provide service, or on the registrant's ability to maintain its own Communications facilities in the public rights-of--way of the Cites Sec. 57.08. Involuntary Termination of Registration ~A) The involuntary termination of a registration may only be accomplished by an action of the City Commission. The City may declare the registration terminated and revoke and cancel all privileges granted under that registration if: (1) A federal or state authority suspends, denies, or revokes a registrant's certification to brovide Communications service. 18 ORD NO. 08-08 (2) The registrant is adjudicated bankrupt by a United States District Court or through any legal proceeding of anv kind, or that a receiver is anointed to take possession of the assets of the registrant, or (3) Fails to provide proof of required insurance. (4) The registrant abandons all of its facilities. ~B) Prior to such termination of the City resulting from a violation of anv of the provisions of this Section, the registrant shall be notified by the City Manager or his/her designee with a written notice setting forth all matters pertinent to such violation and describing the action of the City with respect thereto. The registrant shall have sixty~60) days after receipt of such notice within which to cure the violation, or within which to present a plan, satisfactory to the City Commission to accomplish the same. In the event of an emergency, the City may take appropriate action in accordance with Section 57.06 of this Chapter. In the event of a vote by the City Commission to terminate, the registrant shall, within a reasonable time following such termination, remove or abandon the facilities and take such steps as are necessary to render safe every portion of the facilities remaining with the public rights-of--way of the City. If the registrant has either abandoned its facilities or chooses to abandon its facilities, the City maX either: (1) Require the registrant's bonding company to remove some or all of the facilities from the public rights-of--way and restore the public rights-of--way to its proper condition, or (2) The City may require that some or all of the facilities be removed and the public rights-of--way restored to its proper condition at the registrant's expense, utilizing CitX employees, agents or contractors, and charge anv and all costs, and require reimbursement. ~C) The obligations of the registrant and the bonding company hereunder shall survive for a period of twenty-four 24) months from the termination of the registration. In the event of a termination of registration, this provision does not permit the City to cause the removal of anX facilities that are used to provide another service for which the registrant holds a valid certification with the governing federal and state communications agencies and is properlX registered with the City for such certificated service, under this Chapter. Sec. 57.09. Compliance with Other Laws; Police Power. 19 ORD NO. 08-08 A facility owner shall at all times be subject to and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws. A facility owner shall at all times be subject to all lawful exercises of the police power of the City, to the extent not inconsistent with applicable laws. Sec. 57.10. Transfer of Control; Sale or Assignment. ~A) If the registrant transfers or assigns its registration incident to a sale or other transfer of the registrant's assets, the transferee or assignee shall be obligated to comply with the terms of this Chapter. Written notice of any transfer, sale or assignment shall be provided to the City within twenty~20) days following the effective date of the transfer, sale or assignment. In order for the transfer of registration to be effective, the transferee or assignee must comply with the registration requirements under Section 57.03 of this Chapter. ~B) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, pledges in trust or mortgages or other hypothecations of the assets of the registrant to secure the construction, operation or repair of its Communications facilities may be made to any person with notice to the City. Any mortgage, pledge, lease or other encumbrance of the Communications facilities shall be subject and subordinate to the rights of the City by virtue of this Chapter or other applicable law. Sec. 57.11. Insurance; Surety; Indemnification. ~A) A facility owner shall at all times maintain the following liability insurance coverage insuring the registrant and naming the City, its officers, boards, Commission, Commission members, agents and employees as additional insureds; worker's compensation and employer liability insurance to meet all requirements of Florida law and commercial e~ neral liability insurance with respect to the construction, operation and maintenance of the Communications facilities, and the conduct of registrant's business in the City, in the minimum amounts of: (1) $500,000 for property dama e~ in any one accident; (2) $1,000,000 for personal bodily injury to any one person; and (3) $2,000,000 for personal bodily injury in any one accident. The policy shall also provide that the City will be given a thirty (30) day written notice of cancellation or non-renewal. 20 ORD NO. 08-08 ~B) All insurance policies shall be with sureties qualified to do business in the State of Florida; shall be with sureties with a minimum rating of A-1 in Best's Key Rating Guide, Property/Casualty Edition, except as provided in Subsection 57.11(D) below The City maX require coverage and amounts in excess of the above minimums where necessary to reflect changing liability exposure and limits or where required by law. A registrant may provide a portion of the insurance coverage required by this Section through excess or umbrella policies of insurance and where such policies are in a form acceptable to the City's Risk Manager. ~C) A registrant shall keep on file with the City certificates of insurance which certificates shall indicate that the City, its officers, boards, Commission, Commission members, agents and employees are listed as additional insureds. In the event of a potential claim such that the City claims insurance coverage, the facility owner shall immediately respond to all reasonable requests by the City for information with respect to the scope of the insurance coverage. ~D) The certificates of insurance shall further provide that any cancellation or reduction in coverage shall not be effective unless thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof has been liven to the City. A registrant shall not cancel any required insurance policy without submission of proof that the registrant has obtained alternative insurance satisfaction to the CitX that complies with this Chapter. A registrant that elects to self-insure all or a portion of the insurance coverage and limit requirements required by this Section is not required, to the extent of such self-insurance, to comply with the requirement for the naming of additional insureds under this Section. A registrant that elects to self-insure shall provide to the City evidence sufficient to demonstrate its financial ability to self-insure the insurance coverage and limit requirements required under this Section, such as evidence that the registrant is a "private self- insurer" under the Workers Compensation Act. For purposes of this Section, "self-insure" shall also include a registrant that insures through a "captive insurer," as defined in Section 628.901, Florida Statutes. ~E) Registrant shall, at its sole cost and expense, release, indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City, its officials, boards, members, agents, and employees, against any and all claims, suits, causes of action, proceedings=judgments for damages or equitable relief, and costs and expenses sustained by the City in connection with each such claim, suit, cause of action or proceeding including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, arising out of the construction, maintenance or operation of its Communications system or facilities in the public rights-of-waX, regardless of whether the act or omission complained of is authorized, allowed or prohibited bX this Chapter; provided, however, that a facility owner's obligation hereunder shall not extend to any claims caused by the sole negligence of the City. This indemnity shall survive and continue in full force and effect as to the registrant's responsibility to indemnify. City agrees to notify the registrant, in writing, within a reasonable time of the City receiving notice, of any issue it 21 ORD NO. 08-08 determines may require indemnification. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any liti ate ion by its own counsel and at its own cost if in the City's reasonable belief there exists or may exist a conflict, potential conflict, or appearance of a conflict. Nothing contained in this provision shall be construed or interpreted 1) as denying to either party any remedy or defense available to such party under the laws of the State of Florida, and 2) as a waiver of sovereign immunity beyond the waiver provided in Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. Sec. 57.12. Construction Bond. ~A) Except in the case of an emergency, as described in Section 57.07(B) of this Chapter, prior to performing substantial work in the public rights-of--way, as determined by the City Engineer, a registrant may be required to establish in the City's favor a construction bond in an amount specified in an en ing eerin~permit or other authorization as necessary to ensure the registrant's faithful performance of the construction in the public rights-of--way, in accordance with applicable sections of this Chapter or the City code. The amount of the construction bond shall be as set forth in the en ing eerin~permit, and may be modified in the City Manager or his designee's reasonable discretion, based upon the cost of the restoration to take place in the public rights-of--way, and any previous history of the registrant concerning restoration within the public rights-of--way of the City. The City Manager, in his or her discretion, or designee, may request a certified estimate of the cost of restoration by a Florida registered professional civil engineer, or certified by a person who is exempt from such requirements as provided in Section 471.003, Florida Statutes. ~B) In the event a registrant subject to such a construction bond fails to complete the work in a safe, timely and competent manner in accordance with the provisions of the permit, there shall be recoverable,,jointly and severally from the principal and surety of the bond, anX damages or loss suffered by the City as a result, including the full amount of any compensation, indemnification or cost of removal or abandonment of any property of the registrant, or the cost of completing the work, plus a reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees, up to the full amount of the bond. ~C) Twelve (12) months after completion of the construction and satisfaction of all obligations in accordance with the bond, the City shall eliminate the bond. Notwithstanding, the City may require a new bond for any subsequent work performed in the public rights-of-wad ~D) The construction bond shall be issued by a surety having a minimum rating of A-1 in Best's Key Rating Guide, Property/Casualty Edition, shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney, and shall provide that: 22 ORD NO. 08-08 This bond may not be canceled, or allowed to lapse, until sixty (60) days after receipt by the CitX, by certified mail, return receipt requested, of a written notice from the issuer of the bond of intent to cancel or not to renew. ~E) The rights reserved by the City with respect to any construction bond established pursuant to this Section are in addition to all other rights and remedies the City may have under this Chapter, or at law or equity ~F) The rights reserved to the City under this Section are in addition to all other rights of the City, whether reserved in this Chapter, or authorized by other law, and no action, proceeding or exercise of a right with respect to the construction bond will affect any other right the City may have. Sec. 57.13. Security Fund. ~A) At the time of registration, the registrant shall file with the City Mana eg r or his/her designee, for his/her approval, a cash security, a bond, or irrevocable letter of credit in the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), in a form acceptable to the City Mana eg r or a designee, which shall serve, and be referred to, as the "security fund." For purposes of the bond and irrevocable letter of credit, the registrant must have as a surety a company qualified to do business in the State of Florida. The cash security, bond, or irrevocable letter of credit, shall be to secure the full and faithful performance by the registrant of all requirements, duties and obligations imposed upon registrant by the provisions of this Chapter, and to pay any taxes, fees or liens. The bond or irrevocable letter of credit shall be furnished annually, or as frequently as necessary, and shall provide a continuing guarantee of the registrant's full and faithful performance at all times. Should the City draw upon the cash security, bond, or irrevocable letter of credit, the City shall promptly notify the registrant, and the registrant shall within thirty~30~ calendar days restore the cash security, annual bond or irrevocable letter of credit, to the full required amount. In the event a registrant fails to perform its duties and obligations imposed upon the registrant by the provisions of this Chapter, there shall be recoverable, jointly and severally from the principal and surety of the bond, any damages or loss suffered by the City as a result, including the full amount of any compensation or indemnification, plus a reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees, up to the full amount of the bond. The cash security, bond or letter of credit may be waived by the City Manager where the City Manager determines that the security fund is not necessary to secure the required performance under this Chapter. The CitX may from time to time increase the amount of the security fund to reflect the increased risks to the City and to the public. 23 ORD NO. 08-08 ~B) Additionally, the City, upon thirty~30) days advance written notice clearly stating the amount and the reason for, and its intention to exercise withdrawal rights under this subsection, may withdraw an amount from the security fund, provided that the registrant has not reimbursed the City for such amount within the thirty~30) day notice period. Withdrawals maX be made if the re ist~ rant: (1) Fails to make any payment required to be made under any part of this Chapter. Nothing in this Section, however, shall create a limitation or prevent the City from immediately making a withdrawal for non-payment, from the security fund on the thirty-first (31st) calendar day after the submission of a bill to the Re 'std rant. (2) Fails to pay any liens relating to the facilities that are due and unpaid. (3) Fails to reimburse the City for any damages, claims, costs or expenses that the City has been compelled to pay or incur by reason of any action or non-performance by the registrant arising out of the construction, maintenance or operation of its Communications system or facilities; or (4) Fails to comply with any provision of this Chapter, which failure the CitX determines can be remedied by an exbenditure of an amount from the security fund. ~C) Within thirty~30) days after receipt of written notice from the City that anX amount has been withdrawn from the security fund, the registrant shall restore the security fund to the amount specified in this Chapter. ~D) The rights reserved to the City with respect to the security fund are in addition to all other rights of the City, whether reserved by this Chapter or authorized by other law, and no action,~roceedin~ or exercise of a right with respect to such security fund will affect any other right the City may have. Sec. 57.14. Enforcement Remedies ~A) In addition to any other remedies available at law or equity, or provided in this Chapter, the City may apply any one or a combination of the following remedies in the event a registrant violates this Chapter, or applicable local law, or order related to use of the public rights-of-wad (1) Registrant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Chapter, or law applicable to users and/or occupants of the public rights-of--way, may result in imposition of 24 ORD NO. 08-08 penalties to be paid by the registrant to the City in an amount of not less than One Hundred Dollars $100.00~per dav, or part thereof that the violation continues. (2) A registrant's failure to obtain a permit before commencing work, except in cases of an emer~ency, may result in imposition of penalties to be paid to the City in an amount of not less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per dav, or part thereof that the violation continues. (3) In addition to or instead of any other remedy, the City may seek le a~ 1 or equitable relief from any court of competent jurisdiction. ~B) Before imposing a fine pursuant to this Section, the City Manager or a designee shall give written notice of the violation and its intention to assess such penalties, which notice shall contain a description of the alleged violation. Following receipt of such notice, the registrant shall have thirty (30) days to either: (1) Cure the violation and the City Manager or a designee shall make food faith reasonable efforts to assist in resolving the violation, or File an abbeal in accordance with Section 57.07 If the violation is not cured within that thirty~30) dav period, and no meal is filed, the City may collect all fines owed, be i~ nnin~ with the first dav of the violation, either bX removing such amount from the security fund or through any other means allowed by law. ~C) In determining which remedy or remedies are appropriate, the City shall take into consideration the nature of the violation, the person or persons bearing the impact of the violation, the nature of the remedy required in order to prevent further violations and such other matters as the City determines are appropriate to the public interest. ~D) Failure of the City to enforce any requirements of this Chapter shall not constitute a waiver of the City's right to enforce that violation or subsequent violations of the same type or to seek appropriate enforcement remedies. ~E) In any proceeding before the City Commission wherein there exists an issue with respect to a registrant's performance of its obli ate ions pursuant to this Chapter, the re 's~ trant shall be given the opportunity to provide such information as it may have concerning its compliance with the terms of the Chapter. The City Commission may find a registrant that does 25 ORD NO. 08-08 not demonstrate compliance with the terms and conditions of this Chapter in default and apply any one or combination of the remedies otherwise authorized by this Chapter. ~F) The City Manager or his/her designee shall be responsible for administration and enforcement of this Chapter, and is authorized to i~ ve anv notice required by law. ~G) Nothing in this Chapter shall affect the remedies the registrant has available under applicable law. Sec. 57.15. Force Maieure In the event a registrant's performance of or compliance with anv of the provisions of this Chapter is prevented by a cause or event not within the facility owner's control, such inability to perform or comply shall be deemed excused and no penalties or sanctions shall be imposed as a result thereof, provided, however, that such owner uses all practicable means to expeditiouslX cure or correct any such inability to perform or comply. For purposes of this Chapter, causes or events not within a facility owners control shall include, without limitations, acts of God, floods, earthquakes, landslides, hurricanes, fires and other natural disasters, acts of public enemies, riots or civil disturbances, sabotage, strikes and restraints imposed by order of a governmental a~encX or court. Causes or events within registrant's control, and thus not falling within this Section, shall include, without limitation, registrant's financial inability to perform or comply, economic hardship, and misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance by any of registrant's directors, officers, employees, contractors or agents. Sec. 57.16. Reservation of Rights ~A) The City reserves the right to amend this Chapter as it shall find necessary in the lawful exercise of its police powers. ~B) The provisions of this Chapter shall be applicable to all Communications facilities permitted to be placed in the public rights-of--way, on or after the effective date of Ordinance 8- 08, and shall apply to all existing Communications facilities in the public rights-of--way prior to the effective date of Ordinance 8-08, to the full extent permitted by state and federal law. Providers with existing lines and cables have one hundred twenty day~120) from the effective date of Ordinance 8-08 to comply with the terms of this Chapter, or be in violation thereof. ~C) The City reserves to itself the right to intervene in any suit, action or proceeding involving andprovision of this Chapter. Registrant agrees to advise City of anv such suits. 26 ORD NO. 08-08 Section 2. That should any section or provision of this Ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 3. That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed. Section 4. That this Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of , 2008. ATTEST: City Clerk MAYOR 27 ORD NO. 08-08 MEMORANDUM T0: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 13, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.A. -Regular Commission Meeting OF May 20, 2008 Ordinance No. 08-08 Item Before Commission This ordinance repeals, in it entirety, Chapter 57, ~~Right-of-Way Application Process For Communications Facilities", of the Code of Ordinances and enacts a new Chapter 57, ~~Communications Facilities in Public Rights-of-Way", to provide the terms and conditions for the erecting, constructing, and maintaining of a communications facility in the City's public right-of-way for the provision of communications service. Background At the first reading on May 6, 2008, the Commission passed Ordinance No. 08-08. However, an advertisement was not published for the second reading of Ordinance 08-08 on May 20, 2008; therefore, postponement of second reading to the June 3, 2008 meeting is requested. Recommendation Recommend postponement of second reading for Ordinance No. 08-08 to the June 3, 2008 regular meeting. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden City Manager DATE: May 27, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10.G. -REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF .TUNE 3, 2008 ORDINANCE N0.21-08 ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION This item is before Commission for an ordinance amending Chapter 36, "Finance; City Property Transactions", Section 36.01, "Compliance With Standard Practice Instructions", by providing that bidding for Community Development Block Grant projects shall be included as an exception from the Standard Practice Instruction. BACKGROUND At the first reading on May 6, 2008, the Commission passed Ordinance No. 21-08. At the May 20, 2008 meeting, the Commission voted to postpone the second reading to June 3, 2008 due to the need for further advertisement. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 21-08 on second and final reading. ORDINANCE N0.21-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COM1Vi<SSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 36, "FINANCE; CITY PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS", SECTION 36.01, "COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD PRACTICE INSTRUCTIONS", SY PROVIDING THAT BIDDING FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECTS SHALL SE INCLUDED AS AN EXCEPTION FROM THE STANDARD PRACTICE INSTRUCTION; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, desires to update its Code of Ordinances to reflect current Community Development Block Grant (CDSG) requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, SE IT ORDAINED SY THE CITY COM1Vi<SSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 36, "Finance; City Property Transactions", Section 36.01, "Compliance with Standard Practice Instructions", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, shall be amended to read as follow: Sec. 36.01. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD PRACTICE INSTRUCTIONS. (A) The details of all City purchasing shall be performed in accordance with the latest current revision of a standard practice instruction as issued by the City Manager, and as this reflects the requirements of the City QZarter and the current revision of the Cites Code, except as set forth in subsection (i) a~~ (ii) and iii below (i) ~Persov~l Seruc~s Contracts.] Personal services contracts are contracts that involve a particular skill or ability, such as, but not limited to, contracts for artistic work, that are dependent upon specialized expertise, skill and experience. Personal services contracts are not subject to the competitive bid requirements of this Chapter, unless required by State law (ii) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects. Purchasing and securing contracts for CDSG proiects shall be in accordance with the CDSG Manual adopted by the Commission. {i}}~ mutations to Nerotiate. An invitation to negotiate is a process that maybe used by the City when it is seeking a response which involves a novel approach or technological solution regarding the purchase of services and/or products. Invitations to negotiate are not subject to the competitive bid requirements of this Chapter, unless required by State Law (S) The City Manager or his designee shall have the authority to execute on behalf of the City, all purchase orders, contracts, change orders, service authorizations or modifications thereto when a public hearing, or approval, review, selection or award by the Commission is not required by this Chapter. Section 2. That should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence, or Ord be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid Section 3. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed Section 4. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage on second and final reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final reading on this the day of 2008. ATTEST MAYOR City Clerk First Reading Second Reading 2 ORD. N0.21-08 MEMORANDUM T0: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: May 13, 2008 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 10. B. -Regular Commission Meeting OF May 20, 2008 Ordinance No. 21-08 Item Before Commission This ordinance amends Chapter 36, ~~Finance; City Property Transactions", Section 36.01, ~~Compliance With Standard Practice Instructions", by providing that bidding for Community Development Block Grant projects shall be included as an exception from the Standard Practice Instruction. Background At the first reading on May 6, 2008, the Commission passed Ordinance No. 21-08. However, an advertisement was not published for the second reading of Ordinance 21-08 on May 20, 2008; therefore, postponement of second reading to the June 3, 2008 meeting is requested. Recommendation Recommend postponement of second reading for Ordinance No. 21-08 to the June 3, 2008 regular meeting.